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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to claims filed 02/05/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 16-20, the applicant argues that the claims are amended to explain the relationship between computing devices, processors and authorization intermediary. The applicant is arguing that when read in light of the specification, those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed. The applicant argues that claim 16 uses conventional, open-ended well known and well understood terms such as “executing on”
In response to the argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The scope of the limitation of instructions operable to cause an authorization intermediary in relation to the non-transitory computer readable storage medium, processors or computing devices is unclear. While the applicant does use conventional words, the preamble is unclear as to how the instructions are causing a program (authorization intermediary) to execute on a processor of one or more computing devices to implement functions. The language is being given a claim interpretation as the claim language is a storage device with instructions.
It is noted that the applicant indicated that the claim is understood in light of the specification but does not provide the support of the language in the specification and as the examiner reviewed the paragraphs in the specification, this language is not found to be supported.
The examiner notes that nothing in the specification states that instructions are causing authorization intermediary (a separate program) to be executed. The claim does not state that the authorization intermediary is stored on the computer readable storage medium. There appears to be a storage device (non-transitory computer readable storage medium) with instructions that are included and the separate program (authorization intermediary) is not stored on the storage device and is being executed on a processor of a computing device.
See the interpretation and the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections (with suggestions).
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot due to new rejections.
The applicant argues that the new limitations are not met by the previous prior cited art.
In response to the argument, the examiner respectfully notes that Claims 1-10 have contingent limitations and claim 16-20 have a claim interpretation. See claim interpretation paragraphs below. It is noted that the examiner indicated that the limitations overcame the previous art rejection. The examiner considered the limitations but is noting that the conditionally invoking based on previous…is contingent for method claims.
Please also note that the language of claim 16 has a claim interpretation for the language of the preamble.
While the claim limitations are not required for both of these claims 1 and 16 (and corresponding dependent claims), the examiner is providing an art rejection for the limitations as the claim limitations can be easily amended to overcome the claim interpretations.
Claim Interpretation
Note that the limitation “…wherein the authorization intermediary conditionally invokes a front-end authorization system associated with the first service provider based on one or more previous authentications or authorizations associated with the first content streaming application…” is a contingent limitation and is not required in method claims. Therefore, any limitations which refers to invoking is not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04, II. The Office notes that while any of the limitations in relation to the conditional are not required, that the claim language can be easily amended to be required and therefore, the Office is providing an art rejection for claim 1 and its corresponding dependent claims 2-10.
Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” Id. However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. Id.
Claims 16-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable including executable instructions (i.e. content of information) and the body of the claim recites steps/elements that describe what a separate program (the authorization intermediary) performs. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for the executable instructions and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the execution of the authorization intermediary and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim limitations are afforded very little patentable weight.
The claim limitations that would be required would be the non-transitory computer readable storage that includes executable instructions (paragraph 0077 as taught by Ramaswamy).
The Office notes that while any of the limitations in relation to the non-functional relationship are not required, that the claim language can be easily amended to be required and therefore, the Office is providing an art rejection for claim 16 and its corresponding dependent claims 17-20. The Office also providing a suggestion for the clarity of the limitations. Please see below.
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 16-20 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 16-20 recites “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes executable instructions operable to cause an authorization intermediary executing on one or more processors of one or more computing devices to..”
The applicant’s specification has support for a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing an authorization intermediary comprising instructions when executed on the processor device of one or more computing devices to implement the functionality.
The applicant’s do not have support for executable instructions that are separate instructions from the authorization intermediary.
The applicant’s specification recites:
[0046] It is further noted that, because the authorization intermediary 40 is a component of the computing system 13, functionality implemented by the authorization intermediary 40 may be attributed to the computing system 13. Moreover, in examples where the authorization intermediary 40 comprises software instructions that program the processor devices 16 to carry out functionality discussed herein, functionality implemented by the authorization intermediary 40 may be attributed herein to the processor devices 16.
[0074] A number of modules can be stored in the storage device 98 and in the volatile memory 94, including an operating system and one or more program modules, such as the authorization intermediary 40, which may implement the functionality described herein in whole or in part. All or a portion of the examples may be implemented as a computer program product 100 stored on a transitory or non-transitory computer-usable or computer-readable storage medium, such as the storage device 98, which includes complex programming instructions, such as complex computer-readable program code, to cause the processor device 16 to carry out the steps described herein. Thus, the computer-readable program code can comprise software instructions for implementing the functionality of the examples described herein when executed on the processor device 16. The processor device 16, in conjunction with the authorization intermediary 40 in the volatile memory 94, may serve as a controller, or control system, for the computing device 14-1 that is to implement the functionality described herein.
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.
Claims 16-20 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.
Claims 16-20 recite “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes executable instructions operable to cause an authorization intermediary executing on one or more processors of one or more computing devices to”
It is unclear if the authorization intermediary is a separate program from the executable instructions. It is unclear what the scope of authorization intermediary in relation to the instructions. It is unclear if the executable instructions are being executed. Please rewrite the language for clarity. Please note that claims 17-20 also has language of instructions are further operable to cause the authorization intermediary executing on the one or more processors…
The Office suggests for claims 16-20
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an authorization intermediary executing on
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an authorization intermediary comprising executable instructions executing on one or more processors of one or more computing devices to:
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, 11-13 , 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 Phatak (US 2018/0063564).
Please claim interpretation paragraph above for claim 1-10 and 16-20.
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 wherein the authorization intermediary conditionally invokes a front-end authorization system associated with the first service provider based on one or more previous authentications or authorizations associated with the first content streaming application; 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 the authorization intermediary conditionally invokes a front-end authorization system associated with the first service provider based on one or more previous authentications or authorizations associated with the first content streaming application (Figure 1, 112, 124a-c, Page 4, paragraph 0039, Page 5, paragraph 0044, 0047,Figure 2, Figure 4, subscription service is the authorization intermediary which stores an authentication state, that is received from the identity service provider or front end system, Page 7-8, paragraph 0059, subscription service determines if there are previous authentication or authorization); 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 (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 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 wherein the authorization intermediary conditionally invokes a front-end authorization system associated with the first service provider based on one or more previous authentications or authorizations associated with the first content streaming application; 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 the authorization intermediary conditionally invokes a front-end authorization system associated with the first service provider based on one or more previous authentications or authorizations associated with the first content streaming application (Figure 1, 112, 124a-c, Page 4, paragraph 0039, Page 5, paragraph 0044, 0047,Figure 2, Figure 4, subscription service is the authorization intermediary which stores an authentication state, that is received from the identity service provider or front end system, Page 7-8, paragraph 0059, subscription service determines if there are previous authentication or authorization); 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 Ramaswamy 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 that includes executable instructions operable to cause an authorization intermediary executing 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 wherein the authorization intermediary conditionally invokes a front-end authorization system associated with the first service provider based on one or more previous authentications or authorizations associated with the first content streaming application; 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.
Phatak discloses the authorization intermediary conditionally invokes a front-end authorization system associated with the first service provider based on one or more previous authentications or authorizations associated with the first content streaming application (Figure 1, 112, 124a-c, Page 4, paragraph 0039, Page 5, paragraph 0044, 0047,Figure 2, Figure 4, subscription service is the authorization intermediary which stores an authentication state, that is received from the identity service provider or front end system, Page 7-8, paragraph 0059, subscription service determines if there are previous authentication or authorization); 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 (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 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 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 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 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).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaswamy in view of Phatak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugarev (US 2022/0239491).
Regarding Claim 2, Ramaswamy 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, 7, 14 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaswamy in view of Phatak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (US 20190095598).
Regarding Claim 5, Ramaswamy 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 7, Ramaswamy and Phatak disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Phatak discloses determining credentials. The combination does not disclose explicitly the determining device with service provider. Kobayashi discloses determining, by the authorization intermediary, that the first content streaming device is associated with the first service provider of a plurality of service providers (Figure 8, determining if in the correct 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 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaswamy in view of Phatak and Kobayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Emmanuel et al (US 2022/0351270 and hereafter referred to as “Emmanuel”).
Regarding Claim 8, Ramaswamy, Phatak, and Kobayashi discloses all the limitations of Claim 7. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitations. 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; 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 (paragraph 0068, Figure 5, Figure 8, Figure 7). 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 Emmanuel in order to provide a user with recommendations form providers who are allowed access (paragraph 0006) as disclosed by Emmanuel.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaswamy in view of Phatak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Emmanuel.
Regarding Claim 9, Ramaswamy 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).
The combination does not explicitly disclose access at least a subset of content of a plurality of contents offered by a second service provider.
Emmanuel discloses access at least a subset of content of a plurality of contents offered by a second service provider (Figure 1A, Figure 2). 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 Emmanuel in order to provide a user with recommendations form providers who are allowed access (paragraph 0006) as disclosed by Emmanuel.
.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 10, Ramaswamy and Phatak and Emmanuel 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.
Conclusion
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
March 26, 2026