DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 17, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-26 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 6-8, 14, and 19-21 are currently amended. No claims have been canceled. No new claims are currently added.
Response to Arguments
With regard to Applicant’s remarks dated April 17, 2026:
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-26 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), Applicant’s amendment and arguments have been fully considered. Applicants argue at pages 7-8 of the Remarks, as filed, that “Applicant is not submitting the claimed "key value" is a "secret key,". However, Applicants still failed to explain what the “key value” is, such that to establish a patentable distinction from the “key number” in Vasnani. Examiner maintains that the key number of Vasnani has a value of 0-255 and, thus, reads on the broad recitation of a “key value” in the claim. In response to Applicant’s argument at page 9 that “in contrast, claim 1 explicitly requires "a first portion comprising a key value," meaning the actual key value must be present in the URL, not merely an identifier pointing to a separately stored key.”, Applicants are requested to explain what is the “actual key value” that is somehow not a “secret key”, as Applicants stated at page 7 of Remarks.
Applicants argue at pages 9-10 of the Remarks, as filed, that Vasnani's approach to generating a hash value is different from the claimed “a reference hash value”. However, the claim is silent regarding how the reference hash value is generated. Therefore, the claim is broad enough to read on any way of generating a reference hash value because it is undefined.
Applicants further argue at page 10 of the Remarks, as filed, that the "fields" of Vasnani do not operate as distinct "portions" of the URL. This argument is not persuasive because Applicants failed to define "portions" that would be patentably distinct from "fields" which are known to logically separate pieces of data.
Applicants still further argue at the same page that "the entire disclosure of Vasnani is directed to a token-based URL authentication system for accessing files or other discrete network resources, not to requesting or validating media content made up of multiple fragments". Examiner disagrees for the same reasons that were already addressed in the last (Final) Office action at pages 2-3 and are not repeated for brevity.
Applicants also at page 10 of the Remarks, as filed, that “the “request” in Vasnani is a single call for a resource such as a file, user list, or folder, and not for a content item made up of multiple fragments or segments. In fact, Vasnani expressly teaches that a single token can be used “for requesting a related set of resources, for example, a set of files that belongs to the same folder” (§ 17), confirming that the system treats each file as a discrete object and does not handle fragment-based media delivery”. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive for multiple reasons. At first, Applicant failed to explain the technical advantage of validating a request for a fragment of a file (as arguably claimed) versus validating a request for a complete file (as arguably taught by Vasnani). It appears that validation of the request bears absolutely no effect on whether the request is for a fragment of a content item or for a complete content item. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is directed to an extra-solution element that does not further limit the inventive content since it does not affect validation of the request, to which the invention is directed. At second, while Examiner agrees that Vasnani fails to expressly teach words “fragment” or “segment”, Examiner notes that it is notoriously old and well known for content to be partitioned into multiple segments, or files, for transmission over a network. Vasnani shows in Figure 2 that “content/files” are requested and transmitted, suggesting that the requested content is transmitted as multiple “files”. At last, in response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In particular, Examiner relied on Einarsson et al. to further explain that it is a common practice to transmit a content as a plurality of files or segments. Applicants failed to address the teachings of Einarsson.
Applicants also argue at page 10 of the Remarks, as filed, that "Vasnani is silent regarding "a content delivery network," as recited in independent claim 1". Examiner disagrees for the same reasons presented in the Non-Final Office action dated 07/16/2025 and are not repeated for brevity. Applicants argue at page 10 of the Remarks, as filed, that "the Office Action relies on paragraph 42 of Vasnani to teach "sending a first content fragment." That is incorrect. In fact, the combination of Vasnani and Einarsson was relied on to teach this step, where Einarsson was specifically cited to teach content that is partitioned into multiple segments, or files, each corresponding to a small interval of content, where the client fetches different segments, or files (par. [0002]). Applicants failed to present any arguments against Einarsson or a combination of Visnani in view of Einarsson, instead arguing against Vasnani alone. This argument cannot be held as persuasive.
Applicants argue at pages 11-12 of the Remarks, as filed, that “Vasnani's hashing approach differs fundamentally from the claimed limitation because Vasnani performs a double hash operation where the key value is incorporated only in the second hash operation, not in a hash of the URL portion itself. The first hash (H1) in Vasnani is computed over request parameters without the key value, and then the key value is appended to H1 to generate the final hashed token.” Examiner disagrees because the claims are lacking any hashing approach, merely reciting comparison of one hash value with another hash value. Therefore, any “hashing approach” would be read on the claim since it accomplishes validation of the request by comparing two hash values to determine whether it is a match.
Applicants argue at pages 12-14 of the Remarks, that “the references address fundamentally different technical problems. Vasnani is concerned with authentication and verification of requests for secure information exchange, while Einarsson is concerned with controlling adaptive HTTP streaming based on temporal alignment and key frame location information. There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in either reference that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Vasnani's authentication scheme with Einarsson's content segmentation approach.” Examiner disagrees. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, teachings of Einarsson were relied on to demonstrate a concept of having a requested content item partitioned into multiple segments, or files, for transmission over a network, which was well known and directly applicable to the field of endeavor in Vasnani since both Vasnani and Einarsson are directed to, at least in part, transmission of content over a network. Therefore, none of Applicant’s arguments can be held as persuasive and the reliance on Vasnani and Einarsson is maintained.
As to any arguments not specifically addressed, they are the same as those discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Vasnani et al. (US 2004/0006693 A1).
As to claim 1, Vasnani teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device of a content delivery network [network 24 in Fig. 1 through which content, such as files, is delivered] (par. [0005]), a request for a content item (FIG. 2, application server 23 receives a request for content/files from client 26), wherein the request comprises a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) (FIG. 2, client 26 sends a request in the form of a hash token URL. Par. [0034] further shows that the request is in the form of a URL) comprising a first portion comprising a key value (par. [0011]-[0016] show a secret key, k, known to the client and the server. FIG. 7, shows a key value embedded in a token-based URL) and a second portion comprising a reference hash value (par. [0011-0016] show a second hash value H(k.H(R)). FIG. 5 shows the second hash value denoted as 128-bit hashed string. FIG. 7 shows the function used to generate the second hash value); and
validating, based on a comparison of the reference hash value with a hash of the key value and the first portion of the URL, the request (par. [0014], [0060] show that a request URL is verified by performing the same hashing steps at the application server 23 in an attempt to determine whether the hashed token embedded in the request URL matches the hash generated by the application server 23).
As to claim 2, Vasnani teaches all the elements as discussed per claim 1 above. It is noted that the reference hash value being indicative of a time code and a quality level for the content item amounts to a non-functional descriptive material that is not utilized for any purpose in the claim. Therefore, it is not accorded patentable weight.
As to claim 3, Vasnani teaches all the elements as discussed per claim 1 above. It is noted that the first content fragment being associated with the time code and the quality level amounts to a non-functional descriptive material that is not utilized for any purpose in the claim. Therefore, it is not accorded patentable weight.
As to claim 4, Vasnani teaches sending, to a network node, a second request for the first content fragment, wherein the network node transmits the first content fragment to a user device associated with the request for the content item [clients 26 making multiple requests for resources] (Figs. 1 and 2).
As to claim 5, Vasnani teaches sending, by the computing device, the first content fragment to a user device associated with the request for the content item (step 316 in Fig. 3B, par. [0042]).
As to claim 7, Vasnani teaches hashing the first portion of the URL with the key value to generate the hash value (par. [0014], [0060] show that a request URL is verified by performing the same hashing steps at the application server 23 in an attempt to determine whether the hashed token embedded in the request URL matches the hash generated by the application server 23).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6 and 8-26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vasnani et al. in view of Einarsson et al. (US 2012/0317189 A1).
As to claim 6, Vasnani teaches sending the requested resource/content item (step 316 in Fig. 3B, par. [0042]).
While it was well known in the art at the time of the invention that requested content item is partitioned into multiple segments, or files, for transmission over a network, Vasnani fails to expressly teach that the content item comprises a plurality of content fragments, where a first content fragment of the plurality of content fragments is sent. Vasnani only shows sending “content/files” in Figure 2.
Einarsson is directed to streaming media content between a HTTP server and a HTTP client (abstract). In particular, Einarsson teaches in the background section of the invention that content is partitioned into multiple segments, or files, each corresponding to a small interval of content, where the client fetches different segments, or files (par. [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method and system of Vasnani by having the requested content item partitioned into multiple segments, fragments, or files, for transmission over a network in order to optimize content delivery where only a particular segment/fragment/file of the content is required (par. [0002]-[0003] in Einarsson).
As to claim 8, Vasnani teaches a method comprising:
sending, by a user device to a computing device of a content delivery network [network 24 in Fig. 1 through which content such as a file is delivered] (par. [0005]), a request for a content item (FIG. 2, application server 23 receives a request for content from client 26), wherein the request comprises a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) (FIG. 2, client 26 sends a request in the form of a hash token URL. Par. [0034] further shows that the request is in the form of a URL) comprising a first portion comprising a key value (par. [0011]-[0016] show a secret key, k, known to the client and the server. FIG. 7, shows a key value embedded in a token-based URL) and a second portion comprising a reference hash value (par. [0011-0016] show a second hash value H(k.H(R)). FIG. 5 shows the second hash value denoted as 128-bit hashed string. FIG. 7 shows the function used to generate the second hash value); and
receiving, based on the request being validated based on a comparison of the reference hash value with a hash of the key value and the first portion of the URL [based on functionality that is outside of the claimed scope since validation and comparison, which is a part thereof, are not claimed as an active step, but rather a condition that must be satisfied for receiving step to occur], the requested content (step 316 in Fig. 3B, par. [0042]).
While it was well known in the art at the time of the invention that requested content item is partitioned into multiple segments, or files, for transmission over a network, Vasnani fails to expressly teach that the content item comprises a plurality of content fragments, where a first content fragment of the plurality of content fragments is sent. Vasnani only shows sending “content/files” in Figure 2.
Einarsson is directed to streaming media content between a HTTP server and a HTTP client (abstract). In particular, Einarsson teaches in the background section of the invention that content is partitioned into multiple segments, or files, each corresponding to a small interval of content, where the client fetches different segments, or files (par. [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method and system of Vasnani by having the requested content partitioned into multiple segments, fragments, or files, for transmission over a network in order to optimize content delivery where only a particular segment/fragment/file of the content is required (par. [0002]-[0003] in Einarsson).
As to claim 9, Vasnani teaches all the elements as discussed per claim 8 above. It is noted that the reference hash value being indicative of a time code and a quality level for the content amounts to a non-functional descriptive material that is not utilized for any purpose in the claim. Therefore, it is not accorded patentable weight.
As to claim 10, Vasnani teaches all the elements as discussed per claim 8 above. It is noted that the first content fragment being associated with the time code and the quality level amounts to a non-functional descriptive material that is not utilized for any purpose in the claim. Therefore, it is not accorded patentable weight.
As to claim 11, Vasnani teaches receiving, from a network node, the first content fragment associated with the request for the content [clients 26 making multiple requests for resources] (Figs. 1 and 2).
As to claim 12, while Vasnani shows sending a client request comprising a first identifier, such as a secret key, Vasnani is silent regarding receiving, by the user device, a manifest for the content item, wherein the manifest comprises the key value.
Einarsson teaches receiving, by the user device, a manifest for the content item, wherein the manifest comprises the key value (par. [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method and system of Vasnani by receiving, by the user device, a manifest for the content item, wherein the manifest comprises the key value in order to efficiently provide information to the client device, where usage of manifest files to exchange information in the field of HTTP streaming of media content was well known in the art at the time of the invention.
As to claim 13, Vasnani teaches generating, by the user device, the request for the content item (par. [0037]).
As to claim 14, Vasnani in view of Einarsson teaches a system comprising: a computing device (Fig.2 in Vasnani) of a content delivery network [network 24 in Fig. 1 through which content such as a file is delivered] (par. [0005] in Vasnani) configured to perform the functionality as discussed per claim 1 above; and a client device configured to receive the first content fragment of the plurality of fragments (step 316 in Fig. 3B, par. [0042] in Vasnani; par. [0002]-[0003] in Einarsson).
As to claims 15-20, Vasnani teaches all the elements as discussed per corresponding method claims 2-7 above.
As to claim 21, Vasnani in view of Einarsson teaches a system comprising: a user device configured to perform the functionality as discussed above with respect claim 8; and a computing device of a content delivery network [network 24 in Fig. 1 through which content such as a file is delivered] (par. [0005] in Vasnani) configured to validate the request, as discussed per claim 1 above.
As to claims 22-26, Vasnani in view of Einarsson teaches all the elements as discussed per corresponding method claims 9-13 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG SURVILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/OLEG SURVILLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights