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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 have been considered but, are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fazzone et al. (US 2020/0084020) in view of Li (US 2019/0342422) and further in view of Liang et al. (CN 112988667).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Fazzone teaches: A method, a system, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium [(abstract, Fig. 1)] comprising:
receiving, from a first verification device, a first verification message that indicates a target device is authorized to access requested multimedia content, wherein the first verification message is stored [receiving a consensus message indicating a validator’s result of the validation of an access request for a TV transmission from an access device and adding a validation to it for re-distributing (par. 28, 62, and 68, Fig. 1C and 4C)]
receiving, from a second verification device, a second verification message that indicates the target device is authorized to access the requested multimedia content, wherein the second verification message is stored [receiving a consensus message indicating a second validator’s result of the validation of an access request for a TV transmission from an access device and adding a validation to it for re-distributing (par. 28, 62, and 68, Fig. 1C and 4C)]
comparing a total number of received verification messages to a consensus threshold; in response to the total number of received verification messages being equal to or exceeding the consensus threshold, validating access of the target device to the requested multimedia content [a predefined majority of the validators (for example, ⅔ of their total number as indicated in the verification request) have provided the same result of the validation (positive or negative) (par. 62-63 and 68, Fig. 4B and 4C)] and
storing the validation of the access of the target device to the requested multimedia content on the blockchain [if the access request is validated, a transaction for the access request is added as a new block to the blockchain (par. 27, 29, 65, 70-71, Fig. 4C)].
While Fazzone teaches declining to validate the access of the target device to the requested multimedia content Fazzone (par. 29, 62, and 67-68), Fazzone does not explicitly disclose: the first verification message and the second verification message are stored on the blockchain; and the declining to validate the access of the target device to the requested multimedia content is in response to determining a duration of time after the first verification message is received meeting a time threshold.
Li teaches: first verification message and the second verification message are stored on the blockchain [performing verification to determine a local consensus check and storing the check result in the blockchain and can also receive check results about the preprocessing block that are sent by other blockchain nodes in the consensus network, and store all the received check results in the service memory included in the second blockchain node (par. 95-97 and 103-105)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fazzone and Li before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Li such that the first verification message and the second verification message are stored on the blockchain. The motivation for doing so would have been to determine a consensus based on the verification check results stored in the blockchain (Li – par. 106) which improves security. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Fazzone and Li in obtaining the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Li does not explicitly disclose: declining to validate the access of the target device to the requested multimedia content is in response to determining a duration of time after the first verification message is received meeting a time threshold.
Liang teaches: declining to validate the access of the target device to the requested multimedia content is in response to determining a duration of time after the first verification message is received meeting a time threshold [Receiving a storage proof of the multimedia data. For a preset time period, determining whether a consensus check meets a threshold, if not the consensus check fails, until the preset time is over (page 17-18)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fazzone, Li, and Liang for declining to validate the access of the target device to the requested multimedia content is in response to determining a duration of time after the first verification message is received meeting a time threshold. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the security of the multimedia data (Liang – page 18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Fazzone and Li with Liang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Fazzone, Li, and Liang teach the method of claim 1; Fazzone further teaches: in response to the total number of received verification messages not being equal to or exceeding the consensus threshold, declining to validate the access of the target device to the requested multimedia content [if a consensus has not yet been reached or the number of positive verifications has not reached the predefined majority, the access request is not added to the blockchain and access is not provided (par. 29, 62, and 67-68)].
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Fazzone, Li, and Liang teach the method of claim 1; Fazzone and Li further teach: receiving, from a third verification device, a report message that indicates that the target device does not have permission to access the requested multimedia content, wherein the report message is stored on the blockchain [Fazzone - A plurality of validator devices, which may be any number of devices. Each validator distributes a consensus message indicating its result of the validation, which may be that the access request is not compliant and is negative (par. 62, 68, 79). Li - performing verification to determine a local consensus check and storing the check result in the blockchain (par. 95-97 and 103-105)].
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Fazzone, Li, and Liang teach the method of claim 3; Fazzone further teaches: in response to receiving the report message, comparing the requested multimedia content to a multimedia content value in an allocation table stored on the blockchain, wherein the multimedia content value is associated with the target device [A validator receives a consensus message indicating a result of the validation, which may be that the access request is not compliant and is negative, and then performs its own validation. Each validator also verifies whether the access request is compliant with the up-to-date version (in the most recent blocks of the blockchain in the corresponding repository) of the entitlement of the subscriber corresponding to the identifier of the decoder and the identifier of the smartcard (par. 62, 68, 79)].
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Fazzone, Li, and Liang teach the method of claim 1; Fazzone further teaches: in response to validating the access of the target device to the requested multimedia content, transmitting at least one reward to the first verification device or the second verification device [When there is an access request, in response to the transaction being validated by a consensus, a new block is added by the node solving a mathematical puzzle. The nodes that add new blocks to the blockchain (referred to as miners) are remunerated for their work in solving the corresponding mathematical puzzle (par. 26 and 68-69)].
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fazzone et al. (US 2020/0084020) in view of Li (US 2019/0342422), further in view of Liang et al. (CN 112988667), and further in view of Yehuda et al. (US 2018/0330355).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Fazzone, Li, and Liang teach the method of claim 3; Fazzone further teaches: in response to the target device not having permission to access the requested multimedia content, reporting a first value associated with the target device to at least one media content provider [if a consensus of verificators agree the access device is not verified, the agreed upon result of the verification is notified to the provider system (par. 62, Fig. 4B)].
While Liang discloses the use of a hash operation (page 3), Fazzone, Li, and Liang do not explicitly disclose the first value is a hash value.
Yehuda teaches: reporting a hash value to at least one service provider [the service provider computer may receive a value associated with the verification data at 614. For example, an access device that obtains the verification data may generate a hash value based on attributes of the verification data. The hash value may be generated using a predetermined hash function. In some cases, the verification data itself may be received (par. 62 and 77-78)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fazzone, Li, Liang, and Yehuda before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Yehuda such that the first value is a hash value. The motivation for doing so would have been to determine the authenticity of the reported data (Yehuda – par. 78-79). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Fazzone, Li, and Liang with Yehuda to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fazzone et al. (US 2020/0084020) in view of Li (US 2019/0342422), further in view of Liang et al. (CN 112988667), and further in view of Lerner (US 2021/0160235).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, Fazzone, Li, and Liang teach the method of claim 6; Fazzone, Li, and Liang do not explicitly disclose: the at least one reward comprises at least one of: a cryptocurrency, a share of stock, a coupon, a discount, an account credit, a statement credit, access to exclusive content, and an upgraded service package.
Lerner teaches: the at least one reward comprises at least one of: a cryptocurrency, a share of stock, a coupon, a discount, an account credit, a statement credit, access to exclusive content, and an upgraded service package [In a blockchain network, when a transaction is validated, the first miner to solve the problems and validate the block receives a reward in the form of cryptocurrency, such as Bitcoins (par. 24-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fazzone, Li, Liang, and Lerner before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lerner such that the reward is cryptocurrency. The motivation for doing so would have been to compensate the validating device for the computing power necessary to solve the complex coded problem (Lerner – par. 25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Fazzone, Li, and Liang with Lerner to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Boyd whose telephone number is (571)270-0676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm PST.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/ALEXANDER BOYD/Examiner, Art Unit 2424
/BENJAMIN R BRUCKART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2424