DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the application # 18/732,033 filed on June 03, 2024. By preliminary amendment October 21, 2024 Claims 1-27 are pending and are directed toward MANAGING ENCRYPTION KEYS FOR CONTENT.
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 . 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim 1 does fall into one of the four statutory categories of method claims. Nevertheless, the claims still is/are considered as abstract idea for the following prongs and reasons.
Step 2A: Prong 1: The limitation of claim 1 conveys a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind and /or with pen and paper without a generic computer. Except for words ‘cache control data” there is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in human mind and/or with pen and paper. The claimed concept is akin to, for example, checking email logs’ validity and obtaining various information, in any office or campus can also be perceived to be done manually by human in an orderly fashion. In the context of these claims a plurality of content items is just a book with different stories.
Dependent claims 2 – 9, which in turn convey determining and generating, etc. is/are mere structural addendums and are other steps that could be performed by human manually with/without need for a computer. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas and can be done manually. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional element to perform beyond routine steps as recited in claims 1-9. The steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic terms performing generic computer functions such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, as recited in claims 1-9 amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer terms. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over DASH Industry Forum (DASH-IF Implementation Guidelines: Content Protection Information Exchange Format (CPIX), Version 2.0, September 6th, 2016, 38 pages) as DASH, hereinafter referred to as DASH.
As per claim 1, DASH teaches A method comprising:
associating, based on a plurality of characteristics of content (This document defines a container allowing the exchange between entities of content protection information typically made of keys used for encrypting content and any associated DRM specific information. There may be one or several keys and these keys may be protected by one or several DRMs, hence there may be one or several DRM specific information. DASH, page 5), a plurality of content items with a plurality of partitions (If more than one of a particular type of filter (e.g. KeyPeriodFilter) is present within a ContentKeyUsageRule, then they are first aggregated with a logical OR operator. After that, different types of filters are aggregated with a logical AND operator. For example, a rule that defines a label filter for “stream-1”, a label filter for “steam-2” and a video filter would be matched as (“stream-1” OR “stream-2”) AND video. DASH, page 29), wherein each partition is associated with a characteristic of content of the plurality of characteristics of content (Content: One or more audio-visual elementary streams and the associated MPD if in DASH format. DASH, page 5);
for the plurality of partitions, determining a corresponding plurality of encryption key rotation times (2.4.4.2 Key Period Filter, DASH, page 12); and
generating, for a content item and based on a corresponding partition of the plurality of partitions, a manifest comprising cache control data indicating an encryption key rotation time (4.2 Key Rotation Support (informative), DASH, page 36).
As per claim 2, DASH teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of characteristics of content comprises a plurality of genres of content (3.3.6 ContentKeyUsageRuleList and ContentKeyUsageRule, DASH, pages 27-28).
As per claim 3, DASH teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of characteristics of content comprises a plurality of classes of content (The DRMSystem element contains all information on a DRM system that can be used for retrieving licenses for getting access to content. This specification defines elements for DRM system signaling in DASH, ISOBMFF and/or HLS formats. DASH, page 25).
As per claim 4, DASH teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of characteristics of content comprises a plurality of durations of content (Metadata is regularly imported with new or updated information. Metadata can include different type of information on the EPG events such as the duration of the event, the list of actors, the output controls usage rules, a purchase window…, DASH, page 9).
As per claim 5, DASH teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, for the manifest, based on the cache control data, that the encryption key rotation time has occurred; and generating digital rights management (DRM) metadata associated with the encryption key rotation time (2.3.3 Live Content, DASH, page 9).
As per claim 6, DASH teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the content item comprises a version of the content item encrypted according to a corresponding encryption key and comprising the cache control data associated with a corresponding encryption key rotation time (Taking this into account, the CPIX document contains lists of elements:
[Times New Roman font/0xB7] DeliveryDataList: This list contains instances of DeliveryData, each of which describes an entity entitled to decrypt Content Keys contained in the CPIX document.
[Times New Roman font/0xB7] ContentKeyList: This list contains instances of ContentKey, each of which contains a Content Key used for encrypting media.
[Times New Roman font/0xB7] DRMSystemList: This list contains instances of DRMSystem, each of which contains the signaling data to associate one DRM system with one Content Key.
[Times New Roman font/0xB7] ContentKeyPeriodList: This list contains instances of ContentKeyPeriod, each of which defines a time period that may be referenced by the key period filters included in Content Key usage rules.
[Times New Roman font/0xB7] ContentKeyUsageRuleList: This list contains instances of ContentKeyUsageRule, which maps a Content Key to one or more Content Key Contexts.
[Times New Roman font/0xB7] UpdateHistoryItemList: This list contains instances of UpdateHistoryItem, each of which contains an update version number and an identifier of the entity which produced the update. Other elements in the document are linked to a specific update by update version number (@updateVersionNumber).
[Times New Roman font/0xB7] Signature: Each instance of this element contains a digital. DASH, page 18).
As per claim 7, DASH teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising: determining that the corresponding encryption key rotation time has occurred based on the cache control data; and generating a version of the content item encrypted according to a respective second encryption key and comprising second cache control data based on a next corresponding encryption key rotation time (3.3.5 ContentKeyPeriodList and ContentKeyPeriod, DASH, pages 26-27).
As per claim 8, DASH teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising storing, for a predetermined amount of time, the version of the content item encrypted according to the corresponding encryption key concurrent to storing the version of the content item encrypted according to the second encryption key (3.3.6 ContentKeyUsageRuleList and ContentKeyUsageRule, DASH, pages 27-28).
As per claim 9, DASH teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the predetermined amount of time is based on a length of the content item (Metadata can include different type of information on the EPG events such as the duration of the event, DASH, page 9).
Claims 10-27 have limitations similar to those treated in the above rejection, and are met by the references as discussed above, and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of US patent No. 12,034,835. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 1-27 of the instant application correspond to elements of claims 1-27 of US patent No. 12,034,835. The above claims of the present application would have been obvious over claims 1-27 of US patent No. 12,034,835 because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims 1-27 of US patent No. 12,034,835 and as such are unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting (In re Goodman (CAFC) 29 USPQ2D 2010 (12/3/1993)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG KORSAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1938. The examiner can normally be reached on 5:00 AM- 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rupal Dharia can be reached on (571) 272-3880. 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.
/OLEG KORSAK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492