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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the communication filed on 12/12/2025.
Claims Status
2. Claims 1, 4, 8, and 15-16 have currently been amended.
Response to Arguments
3. The applicant’s arguments filed on 12/12/2025 have been taken into consideration, but is moot of new grounds of rejection.
A. In response to the applicant’s argument (disclosed in pg. 2 of the remarks segment) that Takabayashi et al fails to teach or suggest transmitting the licensing message to the intermediary device via a second network different than the first network:
Fig. 10-10B, & par [0162], lines 7-12 of Takabayashi et al disclose that license data is provided by a client device for use by an externally located device. Although the passages of Takabayashi et al do not explicitly state that the externally located device is an intermediate device, the examiner maintains that a client device (located on a home network, as disclosed in par [0019] of Takabayashi et al) providing licensing data to an externally located network device (as disclosed in par [0077] and par [0145] of Takabayashi et al) is obvious in light of transmitting the licensing message to the intermediary device via a second network different than the first network because (using the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitation) the license data (‘522) being available to the externally located device would be viewed as an external intermediate/proxy device being provided with the licensing data transmitted via the licensing data located in the content data being moved between the client and server devices.
B. In response to the applicant’s argument (disclosed in pg. 3 of the remarks segment) that Brooks et al fails to teach or suggest that the licensing body is part of the licensing message generated by the client computer:
The Takabayashi reference was cited in light of the limitation of disclosing instructions to cause the client computer to generate a licensing message associated with verification of licensing permission and the Brooks reference was introduced from the perspective of terms included in licensing notification (e.g., licensing body being part of a licensing message) and not that the licensing notification being explicitly generated by a client device. The examiner maintains that it would be obvious to incorporate the license-related notification (disclosed by Brooks et al) within the license information (provided in fig. 14A of Takabayashi et al), even though the licensing-related notification disclosed by Brooks et al is provided to the client subscriber and not generated by the client device because the license-related notification disclosed by Brooks et al would still be utilized by Takabayashi to transmit the licensing data between the mobile/subscriber device in a fashion that fulfills the applicant’s claimed limitation of providing licensing message between an external device and a secondary device located in a separate network.
C. In response to the applicant’s argument (disclosed in pg. 3-4 of the remarks segment) that Takabayashi et al fails to teach or suggest a source address associated with the client computer and a destination address associated with the mobile device:
The examiner maintains that the broadly claimed limitations of a source and destination address associated with a client computer and mobile device, respectfully, are obvious in light of the source MAC address extracted from a request submitted by a client device (disclosed in par [0097], lines 1-5 of Takabayashi et al) and the destination MAC address associated with one or more external network host devices (as disclosed in par [0075] of Takabayashi et al) because the source and destination MAC address disclosed by Takabayashi et al are implemented pertaining to a mobile device located in the specified home network and one or more of the host devices disclosed on the external network.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically discloses as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Takabayashi et al (US 2005/0197965) in view of Brooks et al (US 2008/0192820).
Regarding claim 1, Takabayashi et al teaches a client computer (fig. 1, ‘121) comprising:
at least one processor (fig. 1, ‘121);
memory coupled to the at least one processor (fig. 2, ‘201), the memory storing computer-executable instructions (fig. 2); and
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions (fig. 1-2 & par [0042]) to cause the client computer to:
generate a licensing message associated with verification of licensing permissions related to restricted functionality provided by the client computer (fig. 8, ‘s204, par [0097], lines 1-3, and par [0120], which disclose transmitting packets corresponding to license locality verification and a license verification message), wherein the licensing message includes:
a packet header including a source address associated with the client computer (par [0097], lines 1-3, which discloses the request packet containing a source MAC address), and a destination address associated with an intermediary device (fig. 8-9 & 11-13 and par [0075], 6-9, which disclose the packet header containing a destination MAC address); and
transmit the licensing message to the intermediary device via a second network different than the first network (par [0162], lines 7-12, “license data…externally located device”).
Takabayashi et al et al does not explicitly teach a licensing body including license authentication information used by an authentication server, wherein the licensing body further includes an endpoint address specifying an address of the authentication server on a first network.
However, Brooks et al further teaches a licensing body including license authentication information used by an authentication server (fig. 1a, ‘105 & par [0170], which discloses an ACK notification corresponding to content provided by a VOD or other content delivery server), wherein the licensing body further includes an endpoint address specifying an address of the authentication server on a first network (par [0161], lines 14-16, which discloses providing an IP address corresponding to the VOD or other content delivery server).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective day of the invention, that one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Brooks et al within the concept illustrated by Takabayashi et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving timely delivery of secure content when providing content requesting users with cogent and timely information relating to the availability of requested content (as disclosed in par [0025-0026] of Brooks et al) because limiting the amount of time in which content may be delivered to requested users prevents latency and bandwidth caused by lingering transmission times caused by transmission delays.
Regarding claim 2, Takabayashi et al and Brooks et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Takabayashi et al further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to:
cause the client computer to restrict transmission of the licensing message to periods of time during which the intermediary device is within a given proximity of the client computer (par [0082] and par [0083], lines 1-3, which disclose license verification corresponding to an expiration time and device locality).
Regarding claim 3, Takabayashi et al and Brooks et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Takabayashi et al further teaches a requestor module configured to transmit an internal message including a request for license authentication approval in conjunction with performance of the restricted functionality (par [0164], “client then generates discrete content and license data internally”).
Regarding claim 4, Takabayashi et al and Brooks et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Takabayashi et al further teaches a licensing approval module (fig. 8, “license management unit”) configured to:
receive the internal message from the requestor module, wherein the internal message includes a request for the licensing approval module to obtain the license authentication approval from the authentication server (par [0033], lines 1-10, which discloses a content management server granting license-based access rights to a requesting entity); and
transmit the licensing message to the intermediary device in response to receiving the internal message (fig. 8, which discloses intermediary units used to transmit the license-based packets).
Regarding claim 5, Takabayashi et al and Brooks et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Takabayashi et al further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the client computer to: encrypt communications between the requestor module and the licensing approval module (par [0157], lines 7-14, which discloses the transmitted content may be in encrypted form).
Regarding claim 6, Takabayashi et al do not explicitly teach wherein: the client computer includes an encrypted memory; and the licensing approval module is further configured to store, in the encrypted memory, undelivered licensing messages that were unable to be transmitted to the intermediary device.
However, Brooks et al further teaches wherein:
the client computer includes an encrypted memory (par [0078], lines 10-12); and
the licensing approval module is further configured to store, in the encrypted memory, undelivered licensing messages that were unable to be transmitted to the intermediary device (par [0180], lines 5-6, “undelivered content”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective day of the invention, that one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Brooks et al within the concept illustrated by Takabayashi et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving timely delivery of secure content when providing content requesting users with cogent and timely information relating to the availability of requested content (as disclosed in par [0025-0026] of Brooks et al) because limiting the amount of time in which content may be delivered to requested users prevents latency and bandwidth caused by lingering transmission times caused by transmission delays.
Regarding claim 7, Takabayashi et al do not explicitly teach wherein the licensing approval module is further configured to: delete the undelivered licensing messages that were unable to be transmitted to the intermediary device within a threshold amount of time.
However, Brooks et al further teaches wherein the licensing approval module is further configured to: delete the undelivered licensing messages that were unable to be transmitted to the intermediary device within a threshold amount of time (par [0180], lines 5-6, “any undelivered content is deleted”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective day of the invention, that one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Brooks et al within the concept illustrated by Takabayashi et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, Takabayashi et al teaches a client computer (fig. 1, ‘121) comprising:
at least one processor (fig. 1, ‘121);
memory coupled to the at least one processor (fig. 2, ‘201), the memory storing computer-executable instructions (fig. 2); and
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions (fig. 1-2 & par [0042]) to cause the client computer to:
generate a licensing message associated with verification of licensing permissions related to restricted functionality provided by the client computer (fig. 8, ‘s204, par [0097], lines 1-3, and par [0120], which disclose transmitting packets corresponding to license locality verification and a license verification message), wherein the licensing message includes:
a source address associated with the client computer (par [0097], lines 1-3, which discloses the request packet containing a source MAC address), and a destination address associated with the mobile device (fig. 8-9 & 11-13 and par [0075], 6-9, which disclose the packet header containing a destination MAC address); and
transmit the licensing message to the mobile device via a second network different than the first network (par [0162], lines 7-12, “license data…externally located device”).
Takabayashi et al et al does not explicitly teach the licensing message including license authentication information used by an authentication server, wherein the licensing message includes an endpoint address specifying an address of the authentication server on a first network.
However, Brooks et al further teaches the licensing message including license authentication information used by an authentication server (fig. 1a, ‘105 & par [0170], which discloses an ACK notification corresponding to content provided by a VOD or other content delivery server), wherein the licensing message further includes an endpoint address specifying an address of the authentication server on a first network (par [0161], lines 14-16, which discloses providing an IP address corresponding to the VOD or other content delivery server).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective day of the invention, that one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Brooks et al within the concept illustrated by Takabayashi et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving timely delivery of secure content when providing content requesting users with cogent and timely information relating to the availability of requested content (as disclosed in par [0025-0026] of Brooks et al) because limiting the amount of time in which content may be delivered to requested users prevents latency and bandwidth caused by lingering transmission times caused by transmission delays.
Regarding claim 9, Takabayashi et al and Brooks et al teach the limitations of claim 8.
Takabayashi et al further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the client computer to restrict transmission of the licensing message to periods of time during which the mobile device is within a given proximity of the client computer (par [0082] and par [0083], lines 1-3, which disclose license verification corresponding to an expiration time and device locality).
Regarding claim 10, Takabayashi et al and Brooks et al teach the limitations of claim 8.
Takabayashi et al further teaches a requestor module configured to transmit an internal message including a request for license authentication approval in conjunction with performance of the restricted functionality (par [0164], “client then generates discrete content and license data internally”).
Regarding claim 11, Takabayashi et al and Brooks et al teach the limitations of claim 8.
Takabayashi et al further teaches a licensing approval module (fig. 8, “license management unit”) configured to:
receive the internal message from the requestor module, wherein the internal message includes a request for the licensing approval module to obtain the license authentication approval from the authentication server (par [0033], lines 1-10, which discloses a content management server granting license-based access rights to a requesting entity); and
transmit the licensing message to the mobile device during a licensing messaging window (fig. 8, which discloses intermediary units used to transmit the license-based packets).
Regarding claim 12, Takabayashi et al and Brooks et al teach the limitations of claim 8.
Takabayashi et al further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the client computer to encrypt communications between the requestor module and the licensing approval module (par [0157], lines 7-14, which discloses the transmitted content may be in encrypted form).
Regarding claim 13, Takabayashi et al do not explicitly teach wherein: the client computer includes an encrypted memory; and the licensing approval module is further configured to store, in the encrypted memory, undelivered licensing messages that were unable to be transmitted to the intermediary device.
However, Brooks et al further teaches wherein:
the client computer includes an encrypted memory (par [0078], lines 10-12); and
the licensing approval module is further configured to store licensing messages in the encrypted memory until the licensing message window opens (par [0170] & par [0180], which discloses storing the copyrighted content for a predetermined period of time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective day of the invention, that one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Brooks et al within the concept illustrated by Takabayashi et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving timely delivery of secure content when providing content requesting users with cogent and timely information relating to the availability of requested content (as disclosed in par [0025-0026] of Brooks et al) because limiting the amount of time in which content may be delivered to requested users prevents latency and bandwidth caused by lingering transmission times caused by transmission delays.
Regarding claim 14, Takabayashi et al and Brooks et al teach the limitations of claim 8.
Takabayashi et al further teaches wherein the licensing approval module is further configured to: store responses to the licensing message in the encrypted memory (par [0157], lines 7-14).
Regarding claim 15, Takabayashi et al teaches a method comprising:
generating, at a computing device including a processor (fig. 1, ‘121) and memory (fig. 2, ‘201), a licensing message associated with verification of licensing permissions related to restricted functionality provided by the computing device (fig. 8, ‘s204, par [0097], lines 1-3, and par [0120], which disclose transmitting packets corresponding to license locality verification and a license verification message), wherein the licensing message includes:
a packet header including a source address associated with the computing device (par [0097], lines 1-3, which discloses the request packet containing a source MAC address), and a destination address associated with an intermediary device (fig. 8-9 & 11-13 and par [0075], 6-9, which disclose the packet header containing a destination MAC address); and
transmitting the licensing message from the computing device to the intermediary device via a second network different than the first network (par [0162], lines 7-12, “license data…externally located device”).
Takabayashi et al et al does not explicitly teach a licensing body including license authentication information used by an authentication server, wherein the licensing body further includes an endpoint address specifying an address of the authentication server on a first network.
However, Brooks et al further teaches a licensing body including license authentication information used by an authentication server (fig. 1a, ‘105 & par [0170], which discloses an ACK notification corresponding to content provided by a VOD or other content delivery server), wherein the licensing body further includes an endpoint address specifying an address of the authentication server on a first network (par [0161], lines 14-16, which discloses providing an IP address corresponding to the VOD or other content delivery server).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective day of the invention, that one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Brooks et al within the concept illustrated by Takabayashi et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving timely delivery of secure content when providing content requesting users with cogent and timely information relating to the availability of requested content (as disclosed in par [0025-0026] of Brooks et al) because limiting the amount of time in which content may be delivered to requested users prevents latency and bandwidth caused by lingering transmission times caused by transmission delays.
Regarding claim 16, Takabayashi et al and Brooks et al teach the limitations of claim 15.
Takabayashi et al further teaches restricting transmission of the licensing message to periods of time during which the intermediary device is within a given proximity of the client computing device (par [0082] and par [0083], lines 1-3, which disclose license verification corresponding to an expiration time and device locality).
Regarding claim 17, Takabayashi et al and Brooks et al teach the limitations of claim 15.
Takabayashi et al further teaches transmitting, by a requestor module included in the computing device, an internal message including a request for license authentication approval in conjunction with performance of the restricted functionality (par [0164], “client then generates discrete content and license data internally”).
Regarding claim 18, Takabayashi et al and Brooks et al teach the limitations of claim 15.
Takabayashi et al further teaches receiving the internal message at a license approval module included in the computing device (fig. 8, “license management unit”), wherein the internal message includes a request for the licensing approval module to obtain the license authentication approval from the authentication server (par [0033], lines 1-10, which discloses a content management server granting license-based access rights to a requesting entity); and
transmitting the licensing message from the licensing approval module to the intermediary device in response to receiving the internal message (fig. 8, which discloses intermediary units used to transmit the license-based packets).
Regarding claim 19, Takabayashi et al and Brooks et al teach the limitations of claim 15.
Takabayashi et al further teaches encrypting communications between the requestor module and the licensing approval module (par [0157], lines 7-14, which discloses the transmitted content may be in encrypted form).
Regarding claim 20, Takabayashi et al and Brooks et al teach the limitations of claim 15.
Takabayashi et al further teaches storing licensing messages in an encrypted memory (par [0157], lines 7-14).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy A. Scott whose telephone number is (571) 272-3797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, second Fridays 7:30 am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Luu Pham can be reached on (571) 270-5002. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RANDY A SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439 20260112