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 .
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “manifest generator,” “digital rights management service” in claim 10. The support for the limitations can be found in para. [0025]-[0029] of the Specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10 and 18 recite “an encrypted request timestamp indicating a time that the request was received,” and “determine the DRM request is received within a predetermined time period, the predetermined time period beginning at the decrypted request timestamp.” However, according to the Specification ([0038] and [0041]), the timestamp associated with streaming video request indicates a time that the streaming video request was generated. Furthermore, it’s unclear with respect to which entity the indication of a time that the request was received (i.e. received by who/what?), and the use of the timestamp for validation process is not recited in the claim consistent with the Specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-5, 7-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson et al. U.S. 2014/0052873 (hereinafter Watson) in view of Ricker U.S. 2018/0137208 (hereinafter Ricker) and further in view of Bose U.S. 11,063,930 (hereinafter Bose).
As per claim 1, 10 and 18, Watson discloses a method/system/medium, comprising:
a concurrency service comprising one or more access policies associated with the one or more data segments (Watson: [0024]: control server determines access policies associated with authorized user);
a digital rights management (DRM) service configured to generate keys to decrypt one or more of the one or more data segments (Watson: [0027]: DRM server generates key and distribute license to user devices);
one or more processors ; and
a non-transitory computer readable memory comprising instructions that , when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations to:
receive, by the manifest generator, a request for streaming video data from a user device, the request comprising an identifier associated with the user device (Watson: [0024]: control server check to see if user and device are authorized);
validate, by at least one of the manifest generator or the concurrency service, the request utilizing the identifier associated with the user device (Watson: [0024]: control server validate user is authorized to access);
in response to validating the user device:
transmit, by the manifest generator, a playlist to the user device, the playlist identifying the one or more data segments of the streaming video data (Watson: [0025]-[0026]: transmit metadata containing location of files and DRM header for obtaining DRM license from DRM server);
receive, by the DRM service, a DRM request, the DRM request comprising the identifier associated with the user device and an identifier corresponding to a first data segment of the one or more data segments of the playlist (Watson: [0027]: DRM server receives request subsequent to user obtaining metadata);
validate, by at least one of the DRM service or the concurrency service, the DRM request based at least in part on the identifier associated with the user device, the request for streaming video data, the identifier corresponding to the first data segment, or any combination thereof (Watson: [0027]: DRM server verifies the request and validates user prior to transmitting license to user); and
in response to validating the DRM request:
provide a key to the user device such that the user device may decrypt the first data segment (Watson: [0027]: provide DRM license that contains content key to user device).
Watson does not explicitly disclose a manifest generator configured to generate a playlist of one or more data segments, the playlist of data segments comprising a respective URL for each of the one or more data segments, wherein each of the one or more data segments comprise a portion of streaming video data; and store, by the concurrency service, the identifier associated with the user device, a property associated with the request for the streaming video data, or any combination thereof. However, Ricker discloses manifest server for generating manifest file that corresponds to streaming video segments based on user device requests, wherein user requests containing user identifier or property of requested streaming data is stored at manifest server to generate or update manifest (Ricker: Fig. 8; [0095]-[0100]: process of generating manifest for video stream segment is based on user account, record associated with user request is generated to keep track of manifest usage). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to generate record associated with user and requested content during manifest/metadata generation because Ricker and Watson are analogous art involving DRM system that controls access to streaming video content based on metadata and manifest files. The motivation to combine would be to allow keep track of user’s request and access associated with particular content subsequent to initial request.
Watson as modified does not explicitly disclose an encrypted request timestamp indicating a time that the request was generated; validating comprises: decrypting the encrypted request timestamp; and determining that the DRM request is received within a predetermined time period, the predetermined time period beginning at the decrypted request timestamp. However, Bose discloses a client device encrypts timestamp in access request and a server determine whether the request is generated before expiration by decrypting the timestamp (Bose: col. 4 lines 35-55: client device encrypts timestamp to request access ticket; col. 13 lines 16-36: decrypt the timestamp and determine if the request was made within predetermined period of time). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include encrypted timestamp within DRM request because Watson and Bose are analogous art involving validating access by server based on client request data. The motivation to combine would be to validate authenticity and session validity associated with the request.
As per claim 2 and 12, Watson as modified discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10 respectively. Watson as modified further discloses wherein the identifier corresponding to the first data segment comprises a uniform resource locator (URL), the URL configured to be a one-time use URL (Ricker: [0023]: reference to content segment may be a relative reference, such as by timestamp or sequence number). Same rationale applies here as above in rejecting claim 10.
As per claim 3, Watson as modified discloses the method of claim 1. wherein the identifier corresponding to the respective portion of the data comprises a uniform resource locator (URL), wherein the URL comprises a timestamp indicating a time a request the first data segment was transmitted (Ricker: [0176]: timestamp). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include timestamp in metadata/manifest as part of DRM request because they are analogous art. The motivation to combine would be to reference content segments for DRM.
As per claim 4, Watson as modified discloses the method of claim 1. Watson as modified further discloses wherein the property associated with the streaming video data comprises an access policy associated with the data based on at least one of geographical data, an account level, or a concurrent device limit (Watson: [0024]).
As per claim 5, Watson as modified discloses the method of claim 4. Watson as modified further discloses wherein the property associated with the request for the streaming video data comprises a timestamp indicating a time the request was transmitted (Watson: [0176]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include timestamp in metadata/manifest as part of DRM request because they are analogous art. The motivation to combine would be to reference content segments for DRM.
As per claim 7, Watson as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1. Watson as modified further discloses the steps of claim 7 since it recites steps of claim 1 to process another DRM request.
As per claim 8 and 16, Watson as modified discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10 respectively. Watson as modified further discloses wherein the DRM request comprises a URL and the identifier associated with the user device is comprised in a header of the DRM request (Watson: [0025]: metadata contains URL of file location and DRM header, which includes information for obtaining DRM license from DRM server).
As per claim 9, Watson as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1. Watson as modified teaches or at least suggests a second request for the streaming video data, the second request comprising the identifier associated with the user device; determining, by the computing system, that the second request is invalid based at least in part on the identifier associated with the user device, the property associated with the request for the streaming video data, the property associated with the streaming video data, or any combination thereof; and transmitting, by the computing system, a failure message to a sender of the second request for the streaming video data (Watson: [0006]: restrict playback unless authorized;[0024]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide notification that request cannot be completed due to lack of authorization because it is common practice well known in the art.
As per claim 11, Watson as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10. Watson as modified further discloses wherein the DRM service is associated with at least one of a media provider, a content provider, or a third-party (Watson: [0039]: media servers within CDN controls access to media via DRM server and control server to determine authorized usage).
As per claim 13, Watson as modified discloses the system of claim 12. Watson as modified further discloses wherein the URL comprises an count such that the URL is unique (Watson: [0023]: sequence). Watson does not explicitly disclose encrypted count. However, encrypting count to generate session related data is well known in the art.
As per claim 14 and 19, Watson as modified discloses the limitations of claims 10 and 19 respectively. Watson as modified further discloses wherein the key is associated with the first data segment (Watson: [0027]: each key is generated on-the-fly for each session that correspond to packaged streaming content).
As per claim 15 and 20, Watson as modified discloses the limitations of claims 10 and 18 respectively. Watson as modified further discloses wherein the key is associated with a plurality of data segments, the plurality of data segments comprising the first data segment (Watson: [0027]: each key is generated on-the-fly for each session that correspond to packaged streaming content; [0041]-[0042]: various portions/segments nay be encrypted as package).
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson in view of Ricker and further in view of Bose and further in view of Park et al. U.S. 2025/0200209 (hereinafter Park).
As per claim 6 and 17, Watson as modified discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10 respectively. Watson as modified discloses validating user device is authorized to access video stream (Watson: [0024]). Watson as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the identifier associated with the user device (Watson: include at least one of an IP address or a MAC address. However, Park discloses DRM policy identifying which playback devices may record or playback the content item based on MAC address (Park: [0037]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to validate user device as being authorized based on MAC address of the device because the references are analogous art involving generating stream content manifest in a DRM system. The motivation to combine would be that use of device identifier such as MAC address for authentication is well known in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Osborn et al. U.S. 2025/0247388 discloses time-based one-time password on authentication token.
Jeon et al. U.S. 2017/0344407 discloses electronic device for authenticating application by verifying timestamp information in the decrypted hash data.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHIN HON (ERIC) CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9am- 7pm.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. 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.
/SHIN-HON (ERIC) CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431