DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 5/14/2026 has been entered.
The double patenting rejections are withdrawal in view of terminal disclaimer filed and approved on 05/08/2026 and 03/23/2026.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 is maintained, see below for detail.
Claims 1, 10 and 17 are amended.
Claim 22 is cancelled.
Claims 25-26 are new.
Claims 1-21 and 23-26 are pending of which claims 1, 10 and 17 are independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 5/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding to applicant’s argument of rejection under 35 USC § 101, applicant argues that “the human mind is not equipped to encrypt new content and send encrypted new content”. Examiner respectively disagree because the MPEP states that “[t]he courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea.” The process of encrypting content and sending the encrypted content are used many years ago by human (for example, telegram). Further, the process of assigning an identifier to a new received content and sending and receiving another different identifier for the content are exactly the mental process as defined in MPEP which can be performed by a human using a pen and paper. Except “a content management server, a delivery server and an authentication server” language which are generic computers as claimed, the context of the claim encompasses the user thinking. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding to applicant’s argument of rejection under 35 USC § 103, applicant’s argument is persuasive and therefor, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 is withdrawal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 and 15-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding to Claim 1:
First, Claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claimed invention falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Second, claim 1 is analyzed for its underlying inventive concept:
Step 2A Prong One:
The limitation of “receiving, …, an indication that new content is available;
assigning, …, a first identifier;
encrypting … the new content;
sending, …, the new content;
receiving, …, a second identifier, of the new content, that is different from the first identifier; and
sending, …, a message indicating that the new content is available for access by one or more user devices”.
Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “sending, receiving assigning and encrypting” in the context of this claim encompasses a user thinking process using a pen and paper. The claim as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with a pen and paper. For example, a human can think of assigning an identifier for a content and then draw a diagram on the paper for sending/receiving identifiers and indicators.
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements “a content management server“, “a delivery server”, “an authentication server” and “one or more user devices”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Third, Step 2B: claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 10 and 17 are also rejected for the reasons discussed above.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, 18-21 and 23-24, when analyzed individually or as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception, and thereby non-statutory.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Whittaker US 2022/0067125 A11- SEPARATING THE AUTHORIZATION OF CONTENT ACCESS AND CONTENT DELIVERY USING MULTIPLE CRYPTOGRAPHIC DIGITAL SIGNATURES
Shiragaki et al. US 2010/0023974 A1 - METHOD AND DEVICE FOR RECEIVING CONTENT IN A CONTENT DELIVERY SYSTEM
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MENG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-8729. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Lagor can be reached on (571) 270-5143. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MENG LI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights