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 .
1. This action is in response to the communication filed on March 13, 2024. Claims 1-10 were originally received for consideration. No preliminary amendments for the claims have been received.
2. Claims 1-10 are currently pending consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. An initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS (form 1449), received on March 13, 2024, is attached to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
5. The grammar in the claims needs to be corrected and the list below is not exhaustive.
6. Claim 1 states in the preamble: A streaming service method with customized information safety level, the method contains.” The “customized information safety level needs clarification and is also improper grammatically.
7. Claim 1 discloses steps as “E10, E20, etc.” This is confusing and should be changed to a more conventional numbering system if possible.
8. Step E10 needs editing to make it more comprehensible. The sentence runs together and is difficult to comprehend.
9. E30 states “and compare the level of information safety.” This should be “compares the level of information safety.”
10. E40 states “performs an encryption operation on those packets, and store a decryption key to a key API server.” This should be corrected to “performs an encryption operation on the packets, and stores a decryption key to a key API server.”
11. E50 state “if the level of information safety is advanced level.” This should be corrected to “an advanced level.”
12. D70 states “If the verification is successful.” The “if” should not be capitalized.
13. Claim 2 should be read “administrative rights” instead of “administrative right.”
14. Claim 6 states “The method defined in claims 3 4.” This should be corrected to depend off one of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
15. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
16. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
17. Claim 1 discloses in the first limitation “a streaming processor of a streaming service end receives an application server of an application service end uploads a video document or/and a live stream video through the Internet.” This limitation is indefinite. It is unclear how a streaming service end receives an “application server.” Further clarification is required.
18. Step E30 discloses that the streaming processing extracts a “level of information safety.” This term needs further clarification. It is unclear what is meant by “level of information safety.” Whether it is a level of requirement security or a level of present security is unclear.
19. Claim 7 discloses “and to transmit an access token to the application service end.” It is unclear which element is doing the transmitting of the token.
20. Claim 7 discloses “the streaming processor for annotation to those packets.” It is unclear what “those packets” refers to though it is interpreted as the previous “plurality of packets.” Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by the term “annotation to those packets.” Further clarification is required.
21. Claim 9 discloses different levels of information safety but it is unclear what is meant by each level of advanced, ordinary or intermediate. Further clarification is required.
22. Claim 10 discloses that the decryption key is requested, but it is unclear who is doing the requesting of the key API server and the key relay server. Further clarification is required.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2011/0231660
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanungo (U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2011/0231660).
Regarding claim 1, Kanungo discloses:
A streaming service method with customized information safety level, the method contains:
E10. a streaming processor of a streaming service end receives an application server of an application service end uploads a video document or/and a live stream video through the Internet (paragraph 0018: securely streaming video content from a server device to a media player device);
E20. the streaming processor cuts the video document and/or the live stream video into a plurality of packets (paragraphs 0018: video content is broken into segments);
E30. the streaming processor extracts a level of information safety from a streaming database and compare the level of information safety of the application service end (paragraphs 0017, 0029, 0043: multiple security levels may be provided according to license agreements);
E40. the streaming processor performs an encryption operation on those packets, and store a decryption key to a key API server belonging to the application service end (paragraphs 0017-0018, 0027: encrypting the media segments);
E50. if the level of information safety is advanced level, the streaming processor transmits an access token to the application service end, the application service end obtains the decryption key from the key API server using the access token (paragraph 0038: if the credential is approved, the authorization server returns a token that can be presented to the media server), and store the decryption key to a key relay server belonging to the application service end according to a key relay URL (URLA), after encryption, those packets are further annotated with the key relay URL (URLA) of the decryption key (paragraphs 0018-0019: key files may be referenced URL);
E60. those packets annotated with the key relay URL (URLA) are stored in the streaming database with respect to the application service end using a streaming database URL (paragraph 0018: the key files may be referenced by URLs which are stored at a centralized account server);
D70. on a plurality of terminal devices, a plurality of members of the application service end access the streaming database to obtain those packets through the streaming database URL issued on the application service end (paragraph 0018: the key files may be referenced by URLs which are stored at a centralized account server);
D80. those terminal devices access the key relay server through the key relay URL (URLA), and the application service end verify the members identity of those terminal devices by itself, If the verification is successful, the key relay server of the application service end provide the decryption key to those terminal devices (paragraphs 0033-0035: the segments may be decrypted by the retrieved keys);
D90. on those terminal devices, a player application program is executed to use the decryption key to unpack those packets and play the video document and/or the live stream video (paragraphs 0033-0035: after decryption, the various segments may be rendered for playback).
Claim 2 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 1. Furthermore, Kanungo discloses:
The method defined in claim 1, wherein the key relay server with the information safety level being advanced level is governed by the application service end and has the administrative right (paragraphs 0017, 0029, 0043: multiple security levels may be provided according to license agreements).
Claim 3 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 1. Furthermore, Kanungo discloses:
The method defined in claim 1, wherein the level of information safety of the application service end is ordinary level, Step D30 continues with the following steps:
D200. store those packets corresponding to the application service end to the streaming database according to the streaming database URL (paragraphs 0040-0041: the various segments may be decrypted and processed based upon the URLs contained in the playlist);
D210. on those terminal devices, those members of the application service end access the streaming database to obtain those packets through the streaming database URL issued on the application service end (paragraphs 0040-0041: the various segments may be decrypted and processed based upon the URLs contained in the playlist);
D220. on those terminal devices, the player application program is executed to unpack those packets and play the video document and/or the live stream video (paragraphs 0040-0041: the various segments may be decrypted and processed based upon the URLs contained in the playlist).
Claim 4 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 1. Furthermore, Kanungo discloses:
The method defined in claim 1, wherein the level of information safety of the application service end is intermediate level, Step D40 continues with the following steps:
D300. after the streaming processor has encrypted those packets, a key API URL (URLS) of the decryption key is further annotated (paragraph 0018: the key files may be referenced by URLs which are stored at a centralized account server);
D310. those packets annotated with the key API URL (URLS) are stored in the streaming database with respect to the application service end based on the streaming database URL (paragraph 0018: the key files may be referenced by URLs which are stored at a centralized account server);
D320. on those terminal devices, those members of the application service end access the streaming database to obtain those packets through the streaming database URL issued on the application service end;
D330. those terminal devices will access the key API server via the key API URL (URLS), and the streaming service end will conduct a verification based on the membership data provided by the application service end, if the verification is successful, the key API server of the streaming service end provides the decryption key to those terminal devices (paragraphs 0040-0041: the various segments may be decrypted and processed based upon the URLs contained in the playlist);
D340. on those terminal devices, the player application program is executed to use the decryption key to unpack those packets and play the video document and/or the live stream video (paragraphs 0033-0035: after decryption, the various segments may be rendered for playback).
Claim 5 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 4. Furthermore, Kanungo discloses:
The method defined in claim 4, wherein the streaming service end receives the member login information, it submits the login information to the application service end for authentication (paragraph 0039: authenticate with a login module).
Claim 6 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 3. Furthermore, Kanungo discloses:
The method defined in claim 3, wherein the streaming service end analyzes the member login information and provides a statistical report to the application service end (paragraph 0039: authenticate with a login module).
Regarding claim 7, Kanungo discloses:
A streaming service system with customized information safety level, the system comprising:
a streaming service end, to provide streaming service, including an administration processor, for an application service end to create an application service end data, the application service end data including a level of information safety, the administration processor being able to check the level of information safety of the application service end (paragraphs 0017, 0029, 0043: multiple security levels may be provided according to license agreements);
a streaming processor, to access the administration processor, cut a video document and/or a live stream video into a plurality of packets, and conduct an encrypting operation (paragraphs 0018: video content is broken into segments); and
to transmit an access token to the application service end (paragraph 0038: if the credential is approved, the authorization server returns a token that can be presented to the media server);
a key API server to store a decryption key, and to provide a key API URL (URLS) to the streaming processor for annotation to those packets;
the application service end can upload the video document and/or the live stream video to the streaming processor belonging to the streaming service end, the application service end including a key relay server, to obtain the decryption key from the key API server of the streaming service end based on the access token, and to provide a relay key URL (URLA) to the streaming processor for annotation to those packets (paragraphs 0033-0035: after decryption, the various segments may be rendered for playback); and
a plurality of terminal devices to access the application service end, installed with a player application program to unpack those packets and play the video document and/or the live stream video using the decryption key (paragraphs 0033-0035: after decryption, the various segments may be rendered for playback).
Claim 8 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 7. Furthermore, Kanungo discloses:
The system defined in claim 7, wherein the relay key API server is set up in its own system for the application server end (paragraphs 0033-0035: after decryption, the various segments may be rendered for playback).
Claim 9 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 7. Furthermore, Kanungo discloses:
The system defined in claim 7, wherein the streaming processor has encrypted those packets, according to the level of information safety, if it is advanced level, add the relay key URL (URLA), if it is intermediate level, add the key API URL (URLS), and if it is ordinary level, do not add the URL (paragraphs 0017, 0029, 0043: multiple security levels may be provided according to license agreements).
Claim 10 is rejected as applied above in rejecting claim 7. Furthermore, Kanungo discloses:
The system defined in claim 7, wherein the player application program is executed on the terminal devices, the key relay server is requested to provide the decryption key according to the key relay URL (URLA), and the decryption key is requested to the key API server according to the key API URL (URLS) (paragraphs 0033-0035: after decryption, the various segments may be rendered for playback).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEH ABRISHAMKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-3786. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jung Kim can be reached at 571-272-3804. 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.
/KAVEH ABRISHAMKAR/
10/27/2025Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494