AUTHORIZATION INTERMEDIARY TO REDUCE NETWORK TRAFFIC WITH AND PROCESSOR UTILIZATION OF A BACK-END AUTHORIZATION SYSTEM

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 . Response to Amendment This office action is in response to claims filed 07/30/2026. Claims 1-6, 9-20 are pending. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 07/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are unpersuasive. The applicant stated that during the interview the examiner stated the amendment overcame the current rejection of independent claim 1. In response to the statement, the examiner respectfully notes that this statement was not in the examiner interview summary. It is noted that while the amendment overcame the prior art rejection of claim 1, it did not overcome the prior art rejection of claim 8. The applicant argues that Ramaswamy , Phatak, Kobayashi and Emmauel do not explicitly disclose determining, by the authorization intermediary, that the first content streaming device is associated with the first service provider of the plurality of service providers comprises: determining, by the authorization intermediary, an identifier that corresponds to the first content streaming device; accessing a first list of a plurality of identifiers associated with the first service provider, the first list being one of a plurality of lists of identifiers maintained by the authorization intermediary, each list of identifiers being associated with a different service provider; and determining by the authorization intermediary, that the identifier is on the first list. The applicant argues that Emmanuel teaches a user may grant a plurality of content providers access to data but not the list or lists. In response to the argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that Emmanuel teaches storing at a server different database records as well as the different lists (Figure 1A, Figure 7). Also, Emmanuel discloses each record is provided to different providers which would be a different list per provider (paragraph 0069, Figure 1A). Emmanuel also discloses private data for specific providers P1, P2, P3, Pn (Figure 5, paragraph 0053). Therefore, Emmanuel discloses wherein determining, by the authorization intermediary, that the first content streaming device is associated with the first service provider of the plurality of service providers comprises: determining, by the authorization intermediary, an identifier that corresponds to the first content streaming device (Page 8, paragraph 0068, Figure 5, Figure 8, Figure 7); accessing a first list of a plurality of identifiers associated with the first service provider (Page 8, paragraph 0068, Figure 5, Figure 8, Figure 7, See also Page 8, paragraph 0069, content provider has database record - first list Figure1A, 116 -first list, 116, 118, 120, plurality of lists), the first list being one of a plurality of lists of identifiers maintained by the authorization intermediary, each list of identifiers being associated with a different service provider (Page 8, paragraph 0068, Figure 5, Figure 8, Figure 7, See also Page 8, paragraph 0069, content provider has database record - first list Figure1A, 116 -first list, 116, 118, 120, plurality of lists); and determining by the authorization intermediary, that the identifier is on the first list (Page 8, paragraph 0068, Figure 5, Figure 8, Figure 7, See also Page 8, paragraph 0069, content provider has database record - first list Figure1A, 116 -first list, 116, 118, 120, plurality of lists). 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9-13 , 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaswamy et al (US 2023/0171257 and hereafter referred to as “Ramaswamy”) in view of Emmanuel et al (US 2022/0351270 and hereafter referred to as “Emmanuel”) and Phatak (US 2018/0063564). Regarding Claim 1, Ramaswamy discloses a method, comprising: determining, by an authorization intermediary executing on a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, that a first content streaming application executing on a first content streaming device has been authenticated to access at least a subset of content of a plurality of contents offered by a first service provider (Page 3-4, paragraph 0032, 0035, paragraph 0047, steps 1-21 can be implemented by the service provider, Page 2, paragraph 0027, See also: Page 2, paragraph 0019, 0021), generating, by the authorization intermediary, a first token that is uniquely associated with the first content streaming application (Page 3-4, paragraph 0037, paragraph 0047, steps 1-21 can be implemented by the service provider); sending, by the authorization intermediary to the first content streaming application, the first token (Page 3-4, paragraph 0037, paragraph 0047, steps 1-21 can be implemented by the service provider); subsequently receiving, by the authorization intermediary from the first content streaming application, a first content authorization request to access a first content of the plurality of contents, the first content authorization request including the first token (Page 3-4, paragraph 0037, paragraph 0047, steps 1-21 can be implemented by the service provider); determining, by the authorization intermediary, that the first content authorization request is to be granted (Page 3-4, paragraph 0040-0044, paragraph 0047, steps 1-21 can be implemented by the service provider); and sending, by the authorization intermediary to the first content streaming application, information indicating that the first content authorization request has been approved (Page 3-4, paragraph 0046, paragraph 0047, steps 1-21 can be implemented by the service provider). Ramaswamy does not explicitly disclose determining, by the authorization intermediary, that the first content streaming device is associated with the first service provider of the plurality of service providers comprises: determining, by the authorization intermediary, an identifier that corresponds to the first content streaming device; accessing a first list of a plurality of identifiers associated with the first service provider, the first list being one of a plurality of lists of identifiers maintained by the authorization intermediary, each list of identifiers being associated with a different service provider; and determining by the authorization intermediary, that the identifier is on the first list, determining, by the authorization intermediary, that the first content authorization request is to be granted based on one of a presence of entry associated with the first content within a content authorization cache maintained by the authorization intermediary and an approval from a front-end authorization system. Emmanuel discloses wherein determining, by the authorization intermediary, that the first content streaming device is associated with the first service provider of the plurality of service providers comprises: determining, by the authorization intermediary, an identifier that corresponds to the first content streaming device (Page 8, paragraph 0068, Figure 5, Figure 8, Figure 7); accessing a first list of a plurality of identifiers associated with the first service provider (Page 8, paragraph 0068, Figure 5, Figure 8, Figure 7, See also Page 8, paragraph 0069, content provider has database record - first list Figure1A, 116 -first list, 116, 118, 120, plurality of lists), the first list being one of a plurality of lists of identifiers maintained by the authorization intermediary, each list of identifiers being associated with a different service provider (Page 8, paragraph 0068, Figure 5, Figure 8, Figure 7, See also Page 8, paragraph 0069, content provider has database record - first list Figure1A, 116 -first list, 116, 118, 120, plurality of lists); and determining by the authorization intermediary, that the identifier is on the first list (Page 8, paragraph 0068, Figure 5, Figure 8, Figure 7, See also Page 8, paragraph 0069, content provider has database record - first list Figure1A, 116 -first list, 116, 118, 120, plurality of lists). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to modify Ramaswamy to include the missing limitation as taught by Emmanuel in order to provide a user with recommendations form providers who are allowed access (paragraph 0006) as disclosed by Emmanuel. The combination does not teach determining, by the authorization intermediary, that the first content authorization request is to be granted based on one of a presence of entry associated with the first content within a content authorization cache maintained by the authorization intermediary and an approval from a front-end authorization system. Phatak discloses determine, by the authorization intermediary, that the first content authorization request is to be granted based on one of a presence of entry associated with the first content within a content authorization cache maintained by the authorization intermediary and an approval from a front-end authorization system (Page 7-8, paragraph 0059). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitation as taught by Phatak in order to provide reduce delay for viewers to access requested content (Page 1, paragraph 0004) as disclosed by Phatak. Furthermore, in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), the Court found that if all the claimed elements are known in the prior art then one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention. Regarding Claim 11, Ramaswamy discloses a computing system, comprising: one or more computing devices that comprise one or more processors, the one or more processors (Page 2, paragraph 0019, 0047, Figure 6, Page 4-5 paragraph 0061-0065, Page 6paragraph 0077) operable to: determine, by an authorization intermediary, that a first content streaming application executing on a first content streaming device has been authenticated to access at least a subset of content of a plurality of contents offered by a first service provider (Page 3-4, paragraph 0032, 0035, paragraph 0047, steps 1-21 can be implemented by the service provider, See also: Page 2, paragraph 0019, 0021); generate, by the authorization intermediary, a first token that is uniquely associated with the first content streaming application (Page 3-4, paragraph 0037, paragraph 0047, steps 1-21 can be implemented by the service provider, Page 2, paragraph 0027); send, by the authorization intermediary to the first content streaming application, the first token (Page 3-4, paragraph 0037, paragraph 0047, steps 1-21 can be implemented by the service provider); subsequently receive, by the authorization intermediary from the first content streaming application, a first content authorization request to access a first content of the plurality of contents, the first content authorization request including the first token (Page 3-4, paragraph 0037, paragraph 0047, steps 1-21 can be implemented by the service provider); determine, by the authorization intermediary, that the first content authorization request is to be granted (Page 3-4, paragraph 0040-0044, paragraph 0047, steps 1-21 can be implemented by the service provider); and send, the authorization intermediary to the first content streaming application, information indicating that the first content authorization request has been approved (Page 3-4, paragraph 0046, paragraph 0047, steps 1-21 can be implemented by the service provider). Ramaswamy does not explicitly disclose determining, by the authorization intermediary, that the first content streaming device is associated with the first service provider of the plurality of service providers comprises: determining, by the authorization intermediary, an identifier that corresponds to the first content streaming device; accessing a first list of a plurality of identifiers associated with the first service provider, the first list being one of a plurality of lists of identifiers maintained by the authorization intermediary, each list of identifiers being associated with a different service provider; and determining by the authorization intermediary, that the identifier is on the first list, determining, by the authorization intermediary, that the first content authorization request is to be granted based on one of a presence of entry associated with the first content within a content authorization cache maintained by the authorization intermediary and an approval from a front-end authorization system. Emmanuel discloses wherein determining, by the authorization intermediary, that the first content streaming device is associated with the first service provider of the plurality of service providers comprises: determining, by the authorization intermediary, an identifier that corresponds to the first content streaming device (Page 8, paragraph 0068, Figure 5, Figure 8, Figure 7); accessing a first list of a plurality of identifiers associated with the first service provider (Page 8, paragraph 0068, Figure 5, Figure 8, Figure 7, See also Page 8, paragraph 0069, content provider has database record - first list Figure1A, 116 -first list, 116, 118, 120, plurality of lists), the first list being one of a plurality of lists of identifiers maintained by the authorization intermediary, each list of identifiers being associated with a different service provider (Page 8, paragraph 0068, Figure 5, Figure 8, Figure 7, See also Page 8, paragraph 0069, content provider has database record - first list Figure1A, 116 -first list, 116, 118, 120, plurality of lists); and determining by the authorization intermediary, that the identifier is on the first list (Page 8, paragraph 0068, Figure 5, Figure 8, Figure 7, See also Page 8, paragraph 0069, content provider has database record - first list Figure1A, 116 -first list, 116, 118, 120, plurality of lists). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to modify Ramaswamy to include the missing limitation as taught by Emmanuel in order to provide a user with recommendations form providers who are allowed access (paragraph 0006) as disclosed by Emmanuel. The combination does not teach determining, by the authorization intermediary, that the first content authorization request is to be granted based on one of a presence of entry associated with the first content within a content authorization cache maintained by the authorization intermediary and an approval from a front-end authorization system. Phatak discloses determine, by the authorization intermediary, that the first content authorization request is to be granted based on one of a presence of entry associated with the first content within a content authorization cache maintained by the authorization intermediary and an approval from a front-end authorization system (Page 7-8, paragraph 0059). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitation as taught by Phatak in order to provide reduce delay for viewers to access requested content (Page 1, paragraph 0004) as disclosed by Phatak. Furthermore, in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), the Court found that if all the claimed elements are known in the prior art then one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention. Regarding Claim 16, Ramaswamy discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an authorization intermediary comprising executable instructions operable to execute on one or more processors of one or more computing devices (paragraph 0077) to: determine that a first content streaming application executing on a first content streaming device has been authenticated to access at least a subset of content of a plurality of contents offered by a first service provider (Page 3-4, paragraph 0032, 0035, paragraph 0047, steps 1-21 can be implemented by the service provider, See also: Page 2, paragraph 0019, 0021); generate a first token that is uniquely associated with the first content streaming application (Page 3-4, paragraph 0037, paragraph 0047, steps 1-21 can be implemented by the service provider, Page 2, paragraph 0027); send to the first content streaming application, the first token (Page 3-4, paragraph 0037, paragraph 0047, steps 1-21 can be implemented by the service provider); subsequently receive from the first content streaming application, a first content authorization request to access a first content of the plurality of contents, the first content authorization request including the first token (Page 3-4, paragraph 0037, paragraph 0047, steps 1-21 can be implemented by the service provider); determine that the first content authorization request is to be granted (Page 3-4, paragraph 0040-0044, paragraph 0047, steps 1-21 can be implemented by the service provider); and send to the first content streaming application, information indicating that the first content authorization request has been approved (Page 3-4, paragraph 0046, paragraph 0047, steps 1-21 can be implemented by the service provider). Ramaswamy does not explicitly disclose determining, by the authorization intermediary, that the first content streaming device is associated with the first service provider of the plurality of service providers comprises: determining, by the authorization intermediary, an identifier that corresponds to the first content streaming device; accessing a first list of a plurality of identifiers associated with the first service provider, the first list being one of a plurality of lists of identifiers maintained by the authorization intermediary, each list of identifiers being associated with a different service provider; and determining by the authorization intermediary, that the identifier is on the first list, determining, by the authorization intermediary, that the first content authorization request is to be granted based on one of a presence of entry associated with the first content within a content authorization cache maintained by the authorization intermediary and an approval from a front-end authorization system. Emmanuel discloses wherein determining, by the authorization intermediary, that the first content streaming device is associated with the first service provider of the plurality of service providers comprises: determining, by the authorization intermediary, an identifier that corresponds to the first content streaming device (Page 8, paragraph 0068, Figure 5, Figure 8, Figure 7); accessing a first list of a plurality of identifiers associated with the first service provider (Page 8, paragraph 0068, Figure 5, Figure 8, Figure 7, See also Page 8, paragraph 0069, content provider has database record - first list Figure1A, 116 -first list, 116, 118, 120, plurality of lists), the first list being one of a plurality of lists of identifiers maintained by the authorization intermediary, each list of identifiers being associated with a different service provider (Page 8, paragraph 0068, Figure 5, Figure 8, Figure 7, See also Page 8, paragraph 0069, content provider has database record - first list Figure1A, 116 -first list, 116, 118, 120, plurality of lists); and determining by the authorization intermediary, that the identifier is on the first list (Page 8, paragraph 0068, Figure 5, Figure 8, Figure 7, See also Page 8, paragraph 0069, content provider has database record - first list Figure1A, 116 -first list, 116, 118, 120, plurality of lists). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to modify Ramaswamy to include the missing limitation as taught by Emmanuel in order to provide a user with recommendations form providers who are allowed access (paragraph 0006) as disclosed by Emmanuel. The combination does not teach determining, by the authorization intermediary, that the first content authorization request is to be granted based on one of a presence of entry associated with the first content within a content authorization cache maintained by the authorization intermediary and an approval from a front-end authorization system. Phatak discloses determine, by the authorization intermediary, that the first content authorization request is to be granted based on one of a presence of entry associated with the first content within a content authorization cache maintained by the authorization intermediary and an approval from a front-end authorization system (Page 7-8, paragraph 0059). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitation as taught by Phatak in order to provide reduce delay for viewers to access requested content (Page 1, paragraph 0004) as disclosed by Phatak. Furthermore, in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), the Court found that if all the claimed elements are known in the prior art then one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention. Regarding Claim 3, 12 and 17, Ramaswamy, Emmanuel and Phatak disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, 11 and 16 respectively. Ramaswamy discloses comprising a data structure, the first token in association with a first content streaming application identifier (Page 2, paragraph 0029, Figure 3, step 7). It is necessarily included that data that is processed is buffered. Phatak discloses storing, in a data structure, content access authorization (Page 7-8, paragraph 0059). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to modify Ramaswamy's content authorization with the token is buffered with Phatak’s storing in a data structure the content authorization to meet the limitation in order to provide reduce delay for viewers to access requested content (Page 1, paragraph 0004) as disclosed by Phatak. Furthermore, in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), the Court found that if all the claimed elements are known in the prior art then one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Regarding Claim 4, 13, 18, Ramaswamy, Emmanuel and Phatak disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, 11 and 16 respectively. Phatak discloses wherein determining, by the authorization intermediary, that the first content authorization request is to be granted based on one of the content authorization cache maintained by the authorization intermediary and the approval from the front-end authorization system further comprises: accessing, by the authorization intermediary, the content authorization cache (Page 7-8, paragraph 0059, Figure 2-4, Figure 1); determining, by the authorization intermediary, that the content authorization cache lacks valid authorization information that authorizes the first content streaming application to access the first content (Page 7-8, paragraph 0059, Figure 2-4, Figure 1); in response to determining that the content authorization cache lacks the valid authorization information that authorizes the first content streaming application to access the first content, sending, by the authorization intermediary to the front-end authorization system, information identifying the first content authorization request (Page 7-8, paragraph 0059, Figure 2-4, Figure 1); and receiving, by the authorization intermediary from the front-end authorization system, the approval (Page 7-8, paragraph 0059, Figure 2-4, Figure 1). See motivation above. Regarding Claim 6, 15, and 20, Ramaswamy, Emmanuel and Phatak disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, 11, 16 respectively. Ramaswamy discloses prior to determining, by the authorization intermediary, that the first content authorization request is to be granted based on one of the presence of the entry associated with the first content within the content authorization cache maintained by the authorization intermediary and the approval from the front-end authorization system, validating, by the authorization intermediary, the first token to determine that the first token is a valid token (Figure 3, steps 1-7). Regarding Claim 9, Ramaswamy, Emmanuel and Phatak disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Ramaswamy discloses determining, by the authorization intermediary, that a second content streaming application executing on a second content streaming device has been authenticated to access at least a subset of content of a plurality of contents offered by a second service provider (paragraph 0017, UE 102 first device and UE 104 second device, another server); generating, by the authorization intermediary, a second token that is uniquely associated with the second content streaming application; sending, by the authorization intermediary to the second content streaming application, the second token (Page 3-4, paragraph 0040-0044, paragraph 0047, steps 1-21 can be implemented by the service provider, the second user device doing a request); subsequently receiving, by the authorization intermediary from the second content streaming application, a second content authorization request to access a second content of the plurality of contents offered by a server, the second content authorization request including the second token (Page 3-4, paragraph 0040-0044, paragraph 0047, steps 1-21 can be implemented by the service provider); determining, by the authorization intermediary, that the second content authorization request is to be granted (Figure 3, (Page 3-4, paragraph 0040-0044, paragraph 0047, steps 1-21 can be implemented by the service provider); and sending, by the authorization intermediary to the second content streaming application, information indicating that the second content authorization request has been approved ((Page 3-4, paragraph 0046, paragraph 0047, steps 1-21 can be implemented by the service provider). Phatak discloses determining, by the authorization intermediary, that the second content authorization request is to be granted based on one of the content authorization cache maintained by the authorization intermediary and an approval from the front-end authorization system (Page 7-8, paragraph 0059). Emmanuel discloses access at least a subset of content of a plurality of contents offered by a second service provider (Figure 1A, Figure 2). See motivation above. Regarding Claim 10, Ramaswamy, Emmanuel and Phatak disclose all the limitations of Claim 9r. Phatak discloses wherein determining, by the authorization intermediary, that the first content authorization request is to be granted based on one of the content authorization cache maintained by the authorization intermediary and the approval from the front-end authorization system further comprises: accessing, by the authorization intermediary, the content authorization cache (Page 7-8, paragraph 0059, Figure 2-4, Figure 1); determining, by the authorization intermediary, that the content authorization cache lacks valid authorization information that authorizes the first content streaming application to access the first content (Page 7-8, paragraph 0059, Figure 2-4, Figure 1); in response to determining that the content authorization cache lacks the valid authorization information that authorizes the first content streaming application to access the first content, sending, by the authorization intermediary to the front-end authorization system, information identifying the first content authorization request (Page 7-8, paragraph 0059, Figure 2-4, Figure 1); and receiving, by the authorization intermediary from the front-end authorization system, the approval (Page 7-8, paragraph 0059, Figure 2-4, Figure 1). See motivation above. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaswamy in view of Emmanuel and Phatak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugarev (US 2022/0239491). Regarding Claim 2, Ramaswamy, Emmanuel and Phatak disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Ramaswamy discloses determining that the first content streaming application has been authenticated to access the at least the subset of content of the plurality of contents offered by the first service provider further comprises: receiving, by the authorization intermediary from the first content streaming application, an authentication request (Page 3-4, paragraph 0047, steps 1-21 can be implemented by the service provider, Figure 3). Sugarev discloses wherein determining that the first content streaming application has been authenticated to access the at least the subset of content of the plurality of contents offered by the first service provider further comprises: receiving, by the authorization intermediary from the first content streaming application, an authentication request (Figure 2, Figure 4, Page 7, paragraph 0072-0075); sending, by the authorization intermediary to the front-end authorization system, the authentication request (Figure 2, Figure 4, Page 7, paragraph 0072-007); receiving, by the authorization intermediary from the front-end authorization system, an authentication approval (Figure 2, Figure 4, Page 7, paragraph 0072-0075); and sending, by the authorization intermediary to the first content streaming application, information indicating that the first content streaming application is authenticated (Figure 2, Figure 4, Page 7, paragraph 0072-0075). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitation as taught by Sugarev in order to provide a user with request if they are not verified as valid (paragraph 0073) as disclosed by Sugarev. Claim 5, 14 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaswamy in view of Emmanuel and Phatak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (US 20190095598). Regarding Claim 5, Ramaswamy, Emmanuel and Phatak discloses all the limitations of Claim 4. Phatak discloses storing, by the authorization intermediary in the content authorization cache, authorization information that authorizes the first content streaming application to access the first content; subsequently receiving, by the authorization intermediary from the first content streaming application, a second content authorization request to access the first content, the second content authorization request including the authorization (paragraph 0059). The combination does not explicitly disclose the authorization with token. Kobayashi discloses further comprising: storing, by the authorization intermediary in the content authorization cache, authorization information that authorizes the first content streaming application to access the first content; subsequently receiving, by the authorization intermediary from the first content streaming application, a second content authorization request to access the first content, the second content authorization request including the first token; accessing, by the authorization intermediary, the content authorization cache; and determining, based on the authorization information that authorizes the first content streaming application to access the first content, that the first content streaming application is authorized to access the first content (Figure 7, Page 5, paragraph 0055, Page 7, paragraph 0080 – second request is different region). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitation as taught by Kobayashi in order to provide a user with request if they are not verified as valid (paragraph 0006) as disclosed by Kobayashi. Regarding Claim 14 and 19, Ramaswamy, Emmanuel and Phatak discloses all the limitations of Claim 11 and 16 respectively. Phatak discloses storing, by the authorization intermediary in the content authorization cache, authorization information that authorizes the first content streaming application to access the first content; subsequently receiving, by the authorization intermediary from the first content streaming application, a second content authorization request to access the first content, the second content authorization request including the authorization (paragraph 0059). The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitations. Kobayashi discloses further comprising: storing, by the authorization intermediary in the content authorization cache, authorization information that authorizes the first content streaming application to access the first content; subsequently receiving, by the authorization intermediary from the first content streaming application, a second content authorization request to access the first content, the second content authorization request including the first token; accessing, by the authorization intermediary, the content authorization cache; and determining, based on the authorization information that authorizes the first content streaming application to access the first content, that the first content streaming application is authorized to access the first content (Figure 7, Page 5, paragraph 0055, Page 7, paragraph 0080 – second request is different region). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitation as taught by Kobayashi in order to provide a user with request if they are not verified as valid (paragraph 0006) as disclosed by Kobayashi. 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 FARZANA HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5943. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. 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, Christopher Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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. /FARZANA HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482 September 28, 2026