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 . This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 02/02/2026 and RCE filed 2/23/2026. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 14-16, & 18-22 are currently pending in the filing of 02/02/2026, claims 1-9 and 14-22 were pending in the previous filing of 11/13/2025, where claims 10-13 were previously cancelled. Claims 4 & 17 are presently cancelled in the amendment filed on 02/02/2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Applicant’s Amendments / Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 102/ 103
The applicant’s remarks, on pages 6-9 of the response / amendment, the applicant argues the features which allegedly distinguish over the previously cited references cited in the 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejections.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 14-16, 18-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Bradley, in view of US 20080172718 to Bradley (hereinafter Bradley), in view of US 20170185529 to Chhabra et al. (hereinafter Chhabra).
Regarding claim 1, Bradley teaches,
A method of operating a data publishing device to distribute data content to receiving devices in a network, the method comprising: (Abstract, teaches packager who fragments content and generates a manifest for the policies.)
encrypting the data content with a secret encryption key shared with the receiving devices; (Abstract teaches the packager, as discussed above. [0051] that the manifest indicates that the contents are encrypted where a license is required to access the content. Note: Abstract teaches where the manifest and the contents are created by the packager. [0055] teaches the key being included in the DRM license.)
distributing the encrypted data content to at least one of the receiving devices; and (Abstract, teaches uploaders get the fragments of the content, so they may provide them to users. [0028] teaches fragments being seeded to one or more uploaders.)
sending a subset of the encrypted data content to at least a second one of the receiving devices upon request by the second one of the receiving devices, whereupon the second one of the receiving devices downloads the encrypted data content from one or more other receiving devices in the network, ([0028] teaches a user device obtaining manifest from search engine, directory, web-service, ect. [0026] teaches identifiers and information used to verify the fragments of content such as hash values or identifiers. [0034] teaches an integrity policy is included in manifest, where the integrity policy may include hash validation or manifest policy validation. [0044] teaches obtaining a manifest for content, obtains data fragments, and verifies the fragments.)
wherein the subset of the encrypted data content ([0026] teaches content fragments / “selected section” has an associated identifier and information effective to verify its integrity, such as a hash and/or checkable digital signature, both of which are checked by matching. See also [0034] regarding hashes and manifest, and [0035] for a further description of identifiers.)
Bradley fails to explicitly teach a series of bits that are identical to original encrypted data,
However, Chhabra teaches,
wherein the subset of the encrypted data content comprises a series of bits that is bitwise identical to a selected section of the original encrypted data content. ([0104] & [0110] teach matching of bits of a portion of encrypted data.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bradley, which teaches a packager who fragments content and generates a manifest based on the fragmented content, and then seeds the fragments to the uploader, (Abstract and [0036]), where the uploader provides the fragments to a downloader (Abstract), and also verifies integrity of the fragments using a hash ([0026]) and uses DRM licensing ([0055]), with Chhabra, which also teaches data integrity (Title) , and additionally teaches checking data integrity of portions of data ([0019] & [0104]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Bradley with the added ability to perform comparison of bits of portions of encrypted data to determine data integrity, as taught by Chhabra, for the purpose of increasing security by performing matching to ensure data integrity and also increasing computational efficiency by eliminating the need to perform computationally intensive cryptographic procedures such as hashing.
Regarding claim 2, Bradley and Chhabra teach,
The method of claim 1, wherein the subset of the encrypted data content has a size being less than 1 ppm of the encrypted data content from which the subset of the encrypted data is derived. (See Bradley and rejection of claim 9 below, which describes how hash data (“subset ... data” ) used to verify the data fragments are very small compared to a fragment of a content. Claim 3 rejection, from which claim 9 depends, describes in detail the hash data used for verification.)
Regarding claim 3, Bradley and Chhabra teach,
A method of operating a device to receive data content in a network, the method comprising: (Abstract teaches a downloader that receives encrypted data from an uploader on the network 1018 of fig. 1. )
receiving encrypted data content from another device in the network, the data content having been encrypted with a symmetric key shared with a trusted data content publisher device; (Bradley, Abstract, teaches that the downloader / “device” receives fragments of data from an uploader / “another device”. [0051] teaches receiving fragments in an encrypted format. [0053] teaches encryption being associated with a license that is provided by a DRM licenser. [0047] teaches SSL file transfer that includes symmetric key encryption of data being passed.)
requesting, from the trusted data content publisher device, a subset of the encrypted data content received from said another device in the network, …
(Bradley, [0028] teaches obtaining manifest from search engine, directory, web-service, ect. (“publisher device”) [0026] teaches identifiers and information used to verify the fragments of content such as hash values and signature / identifiers. [0034] teaches an integrity policy is included in manifest, where the integrity policy may include hash validation. [0044] teaches obtaining a manifest for content, obtains data fragments, and verifies the fragments.)
… wherein the subset of the encrypted data ,content comprises a series of bits that is bitwise identical to a selected section of the original encrypted data content; and (Chhabra, [0104] & [0110] teaches bitwise identical comparison of encrypted data.)
verifying whether or not the subset of the encrypted data content is bitwise identical to a selected section of the encrypted data content received from said another device in the network; (Bradley, [0026] teaches content fragments / “selected section” has an associated identifier and information effective to verify its integrity, such as a hash and/or checkable digital signature. See also [0034] regarding hashes and manifest, and [0035] for a further description of identifiers.) (Chhabra, [0104] & [0110] teaches bitwise identical comparison of encrypted data.)
to thereby determine that the encrypted data content received from said another device can be trusted. (Bradley, [0026] verifies fragment integrity using hash. See also [0034].)
Regarding claim 5, Bradley and Chhabra teach,
The method of claim 3, further comprising:
upon determining that the encrypted data content received from said another device can be trusted: (Bradley, [0044] teaches verifying the fragments.) (Chhabra, [0104] & [0110] teaches bitwise identical comparison of encrypted data to check integrity of the data.)
verifying whether or not the subset of the encrypted data
decrypting and rendering the encrypted data content received from said another device, the decryption being performed using the symmetric key shared with the trusted data content publisher device. (Bradley, [0055] teaches the decryption of the content being performed by the key included in the DRM license. See also [0047] decrypt content. [0047] teaches SSL file transfer that includes symmetric key encryption of data being passed. Rejection of claim 3 teaches content being received from another device / uploader.)
Regarding claim 6, Bradley and Chhabra teach,
The method of claim 3, further comprising:
receiving a certificate from the trusted data content publisher device, wherein the trusted data content publisher device is considered trusted. (Bradley, [0032] teaches the use of certificates X509 to perform signatures. [0042] teaches the examples of identity information (certificates) being provided by parties to each other.)
Regarding claim 9, Bradley and Chhabra teach,
The method of claim 3, wherein the subset of the encrypted data content has a size being less than 1 ppm of the encrypted data content from which the subset of the encrypted data is derived. (Regarding Bradley, the Examiner takes Official notice, it is well known by those in the art that hash programs output 256 or 512 bits (e.g., hash programs like SHA-256 and SHA-512), which is less than a kilo byte. A video fragment of 30 seconds that is 8.6 megabits per second, using an SHA-256 would have a PPM in excess of 1 million. Additionally, regarding Chhabra the comparing a subset of encrypted data may include comparing a very small subset of a very large file, which is well known in the art.)
Regarding claim 14, Bradley and Chhabra teach,
A data publishing device configured to distribute data content to receiving devices in a network, the data publishing device comprising:
a processing unit; and (Bradley, [0069 and fig. 11 teach a processor and memory that are connected.)
a memory, said memory containing instructions executable by said processing unit; (Bradley, [0069 and fig. 11 teach a processor and memory that are connected.)
wherein, upon executing the instructions, the processing unit is configured to operate the data publishing device to:
encrypt the data content with a secret encryption key shared with the receiving devices;
distribute the encrypted data content to at least one of the receiving devices;
send a subset of the encrypted data content to at least a second one of the receiving devices upon request by the second one of the receiving devices, whereupon the second one of the receiving devices downloads the encrypted data content from one or more other receiving devices in the network;
wherein the subset of the encrypted data content comprises a series of bits that is bitwise identical to a selected section of the encrypted data content.
Claim 14 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15, Bradley and Chhabra teach,
The data publishing device of claim 14,
wherein the subset of the encrypted data content is configured to have a size being less than 1 ppm of the encrypted data content from which the subset of the encrypted data is derived.
Claim 15 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 16, Bradley and Chhabra teach,
A device configured to receive data content in a network, the device comprising:
a processing unit; and (Bradley, [0069 and fig. 11 teach a processor and memory that are connected.)
a memory, said memory containing instructions executable by said processing unit; (Bradley, [0069 and fig. 11 teach a processor and memory that are connected.)
wherein, upon executing the instructions, the processing unit is configured to operate the device to:
receive encrypted data content from another device in the network, the data content having been encrypted with a symmetric key shared with a trusted data content publisher device;
request, from the trusted data content publisher device, a subset of the encrypted data content received from said another device in the network, wherein the subset of the encrypted data content comprises a series of bits that is bitwise identical to a selected section of the original encrypted data content; and
verify whether or not the subset of the encrypted data content is bitwise identical to a selected section of the encrypted data content received from said another device in the network to thereby determine that the encrypted data content received from said another device can be trusted.
Claim 16 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 18, Bradley and Chhabra teach,
The device of claim 16, wherein, upon executing the instructions, the processing unit is further configured to operate the device to:
upon determining that the encrypted data content received from said another device can be trusted: decrypt and render the encrypted data content received from said another device, the decryption being performed using the symmetric key shared with the trusted data content publisher device.
Claim 18 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 19, Bradley and Chhabra teach,
The device of claim 16, wherein, upon executing the instructions, the processing unit is further configured to operate the device to: receive a certificate from the data publisher device, wherein the trusted data content publisher device is considered trusted.
Claim 19 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 22, Bradley and Chhabra teach,
The device of claim 16, wherein the subset of the encrypted data content is configured to have a size being less than 1 ppm of the encrypted data content from which the subset of the encrypted data is derived.
Claim 22 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 9 above.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Bradley, in view of Chhabra, in view of US 20020083178 to Brothers (hereinafter Brothers).
Regarding claim 7, Bradley and Chhabra teach,
The method of claim 3, further comprising:
identifying whether or not the received encrypted data content is indicated in a manifest file to be encrypted data content to be distributed by the trusted data content publisher device and; (Bradley, Abstract, teaches a manifest of the content. [0051] teaches fragments might be in encrypted form, and the downloader would determine from the manifest that a license was required, where the license includes the key. See also [0053] regarding encryption and the manifest.)
upon identifying that the received encrypted data content is indicated in the manifest file, requesting the (Bradley, [0051] and [0053] teach checking the manifest file to determine if the contents are encrypted / licensed, and then using information in the manifest to obtain the license.)
Bradley and Chhabra fail to teach a file that includes a location of the subset data (e.g., hash) being provided by another source,
However, Brother teaches,
(Brothers, [0014] and [0024] teach combining hash data, URL data, and resource access rights in a webpage, which are used to access resources. [0019] teaches a combination of hash data and identifiers used with encryption, and verifying data using the hash data.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bradley, which teaches a packager who fragments content and generates a manifest based on the fragmented content, and then seeds the fragments to the uploader, (Abstract and [0036]), where the uploader provides the fragments to a downloader (Abstract), and also verifies integrity of the fragments using a hash ([0026]) and uses DRM licensing ([0055]), with Chhabra, which also teaches data integrity (Title) , and additionally teaches checking data integrity of portions of data ([0019] & [0104]), with Brothers, which also teaches a user that may access hash data to verify data ([0014] and [0019]) in an network environment that shares resources (fig. 1a), and further teaches that the hash data / subset of the original data is provided externally, by a web site. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Bradley and Chhabra with the added ability to update the hash data on an external site at the time the information being accessed so that recent changes can be accounted and so the hashes may not be changed by an attacker, as taught by Brothers ([0019]), for the purpose of increasing security.
Regarding claim 20, Bradley, Chhabra, and Brothers teach,
The device of claim 16, wherein, upon executing the instructions, the processing unit is further configured to operate the device to:
identify whether or not the received encrypted data content is indicated in a manifest file to be encrypted data content to be distributed by the trusted data content publisher device; and
upon identifying that the received encrypted data content is indicated in the manifest file, requesting the subset of the encrypted data content from the trusted data content publisher device as indicated in the manifest file.
Claim 20 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 7 above.
Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Bradley, in view of Chhabra, in view of US 20150271541 to Gonder et al. (hereinafter Gonder).
Regarding claim 8, Bradley and Chhabra teach,
The method of claim 3, further comprising:
identifying whether or not the received encrypted data content is indicated in a manifest file to be encrypted data content to be distributed by the trusted data content publisher device and; (Bradley, Abstract, teaches a manifest of the content. [0051] teaches fragments might be in encrypted form, and the downloader would determine from the manifest that a license was required, where the license includes the key. See also [0053] regarding encryption and the manifest.)
Bradley and Chhabra fail to teach discarding information based on a manifest,
However, Gonder teaches,
upon identifying that the received encrypted data content is not indicated in the manifest file, discarding the received encrypted data content. ([0156-157] teaches that a manifest must track the content, and also teaches the manifest causing deletions.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bradley, which teaches a packager who fragments content and generates a manifest based on the fragmented content, and then seeds the fragments to the uploader, (Abstract and [0036]), where the uploader provides the fragments to a downloader (Abstract), and also verifies integrity of the fragments using a hash ([0026]) and uses DRM licensing ([0055]), with Chhabra, which also teaches data integrity (Title) , and additionally teaches checking data integrity of portions of data ([0019] & [0104]), with Gonder, which also teaches media stream delivery and the use of manifest files (Abstract) and using DRM systems ([0157]), and that a steam manifest must track the recorded content, and also teaches the manifests causing deletions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Bradley and Chhabra with the added ability to discard data when invalid data is detected, as taught by Gonder, for the purpose of increasing security by discarding / computational efficiency.
Regarding claim 21, Bradley, Chhabra, and Gonder teach,
The device of claim 16, wherein, upon executing the instructions, the processing unit is further configured to operate the device to:
identify whether or not the received encrypted data content is indicated in a manifest file to be encrypted data content to be distributed by the trusted data content publisher device; and
upon identifying that the received encrypted data content is not indicated in the manifest file, discarding the received encrypted data content.
Claim 21 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 8 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN WILLIAM AVERY whose telephone number is (571) 272-3942. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on (571) 272-3739.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/B.W.A./
/JASON K GEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights