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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in responsive to the Application 18/844,146 filed on 09/05/2024.
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending in this application. This Action is made Non-FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7, 11 and 17-21 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the limitation “the content provider retrieves …” To properly recite active steps of a method claim, it’s suggested that the aforementioned limitation be further amended to “retrieving, by the content provider …”
Claims 3-7 contain similar informalities and require similar correction.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites the limitation “the content provider retrieves …” To properly recite embodiment and corresponding function of a system claim, it’s suggested that the aforementioned limitation be further amended to “the content provider configured to retrieve …”
Claims 17-21 contain similar informalities and require similar correction.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “HTTP-DASH protocol” and “HTTP Live-Streaming – HTS protocol.” It’s suggested that the acronym HTTP be spelling out in full at its first occurrent. It’s also suggested that for better clarity, the aforementioned limitations be further amended to “HTTP (DASH) protocol” and “HTTP Live-Streaming (HTS) protocol,” respectively.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word "means," but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “processing element configured to: request/retrieve/verify/transmit/determine/access …,” recited in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 15; claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 15 is directed to “[a] computer-readable medium.” The specification does not limit the claimed “computer-readable medium” to non-transitory medium. At most paragraphs [0002] and [0014], the specification just provides some discussions on “computer readable medium.” However, the specification does not explicitly exclude the propagate/communication medium from the claimed “computer-readable medium.” Under a recent precedential opinion, the scope of the recited “computer readable storage medium” encompasses transitory media such as signals or carrier waves, where, as here the Specification does not limit the computer readable storage medium to non-transitory forms. See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1862 (PTAB 2013) (precedential) (holding recited machine-readable storage medium ineligible under § 35 U.S.C. 101 since it encompassed transitory media). The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim be amended to either “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” or “a computer-readable storage device,” or the like to make the claim statutory under 35 USC 101; (emphasis added).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein at least one of: requesting/retrieving ….” It’s unclear as to what the term “at least one of” is referring to as at least one of the steps recited in claim 8 is already recited in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, 12, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US 2022/0247570) in view of Suu (US 2013/0061048)
Regarding claim 1,
Watanabe (US 2022/0247570) teaches a method for managing electronic access to content data, comprising:
requesting access to content data of a content provider, wherein the access is requested by transmitting an access token (Fig. 6, S67 and associated text)
wherein information on the access token is stored in and is retrievable from a blockchain, and wherein a validity of the access token to access the content data is verifiable with the stored information from the blockchain (Fig. 6, S26, teaches acquiring authentication element which is stored on the blockchain system, wherein the stored information is verifiable);
retrieving said the information on the access token (Fig. 6, S30-S31, teaches retrieving information on access token);
verifying validity of the access token using the retrieved information to determine
authorization to access the content data (Fig. 6, S32, teaches verifying aggregate signature)),
Watanabe does not explicitly teach transmitting content data access information to said the content data to a user device after verifying the authorization to access said the content data, wherein the content data is secured by a content data access key;
transmitting user access key information to the content provider,
transmitting content data access key information of the content provider, wherein the
content data access key information is arranged for accessing the secured content data, and wherein the content data access key information is dependent on the user access key information and a content data access key; determining the content data access key from the content data access key information and by using the user access key information and accessing the content data by using the content data access key and the content data access information, wherein at least the information on the access token and the accessing of the content data is stored in and is retrievable from the blockchain as entries in the blockchain.
Suu (US 2013/0061048) teaches transmitting content data access information to said the content data to a user device wherein the content data is secured by a content data access key (Suu: Paragraph [0056-0057] teaches encrypting content data, which is secured by a content key) ;
transmitting content data access key information of the content provider, wherein the
content data access key information is arranged for accessing the secured content data, and wherein the content data access key information is dependent on the user access key information and a content data access key (Suu: Paragraph [0059] teaches transmitting encrypted control data using user key identifier);
determining the content data access key from the content data access key information
and by using the user access key information (Suu: Paragraph [0060] teaches the user terminal decodes the encrypted content key using the user key and then generating the content key), and accessing the content data by using the content data access key and the content data access information (Suu: Paragraph [0062] teaches accessing the content)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Watanabe with the system of Suu and the results would be predictable (i.e. content would be encrypted by a content key and also content key and user key would be sent to a user terminal which would decrypt the content key with the user key and decrypt the content with the content key)
Suu still does not explicitly teach transmitting user access key information to the content provider and that transmitting content encrypted by content data access key after verifying the authorization to access said the content data
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to transmit user access key information to the content provider and transmitting the content after verifying authorization and the results would be predictable (i.e. the user key in Suu would be transmitted from the user device to the content provider and also all the steps would occur after verifying authorization to access data)
Regarding Claim 2,
Watanabe and Suu teaches the method of claim 1. Watanabe teaches wherein the access is requested by a user and access token is sent to the content provider (Fig. 6, S67 and associated text). Watanabe and Suu teaches the respective steps of Claim 1 are performed by the user device and content provider as described above.
Regarding Claim 8,
Watanabe and Suu teaches the method of claim 1. Watanabe teaches at least one of: requesting access to content data of a content provider (Fig. 6, S67 and associated text); retrieving the information on the access token; transmitting content data access information to the content data to the user device after verifying authorization to access the content data; transmitting user access key information associated with a user access key to the content provider; or transmitting content data access key information of the content provider is stored as entries in the blockchain.
Regarding Claim 9,
Watanabe and Suu teaches the method of claim 8. Suu teaches, wherein at least one of:
wherein verifying validity of the access token comprises decrypting the access token;
wherein determining the content data access key from the content data access information using the user device access key information comprises encrypting the content data access key using the user access key information before transmission to the user device to obtain content data access information, and decrypting the content data access information using the user access key information after transmission to the user device to obtain the content data access key; or
wherein accessing the content data by using the content data access key and the content data access information comprises decrypting the content data by using the content data access key (Paragraph [0060-62] teaches accessing the content by decrypting using the content key)
Regarding Claims 12, 15
Claims 12, 15 are similar in scope to Claim 1 and is rejected for a similar rationale.
Regarding Claims 16,
Claims 16 are similar in scope to Claim 2 and is rejected for a similar rationale.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US 2022/0247570) in view of Suu (US 2013/0061048), and further in view of Ahuja (US 2013/0283033)
Regarding claim 11, Watanabe and Suu disclose the method of claim 1.
Watanabe and Suu disclose wherein the content data access information is playlist information for used in streaming data, but do not explicitly disclose the content data access information is playlist information for used in at least one of streaming protocol, a Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP-DASH protocol, or an HTTP Live Streaming- HLS protocol.
However, Ahuja discloses the content data access information is playlist information for used in at least one of streaming protocol, a Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP-DASH protocol an HTTP Live Streaming- HLS protocol (Paragraph [0061] teaches HTTP Live Streaming)(Paragraph [0050] teaches a playlist information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Ahuja with the system/method of Wantanabe and Suu. One would have been motivated to utilize the HLS protocol for streaming playlist content data access information and the results would be predictable (i.e. the content data access would be playlist information using the HLS protocol)
The motivation is to play the medial file in a sequence (Paragraph [0002] of Ahuja)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 10, 13, 17-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRIS C WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1462. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LUU PHAM can be reached at 571-270-5002. 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.
/HARRIS C WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights