DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office action is in response to Amendment filed on March 24, 2026 for application 18855078.
Acknowledgements
Claims 8-9 and 17 have been canceled.
Claims 1-7, 10-16 and 18-19 are pending.
Claims 1-7, 10-16 and 18-19 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
In response to the Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that that the claims do not "recite" an ineligible judicial exception, the claims recite a
combination of elements that integrate any recited principles into practical applications
that impose meaningful limits; and the claims are directed to inventive concepts. Applicant argues that that the claimed method involving the use of a "digital rights management service," a "client device," a "trusted ledger service" managing a "trusted ledger comprising a plurality of cryptographically linked ledger entries," structured "trusted ledger record check message[s]," and "record response[s]" that include an indication of "content playback parameters" recorded in the "trusted ledger," and a "digital rights management license" comprising a "content decryption key" is very dissimilar to the listed enumerated sub-groupings of "methods of organizing human activity" delineated in M.P.E.P. 2106.04(a)(2)(II), which generally are directed to concepts relating to broad financial, legal, and social transactions and interactions between humans.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as the amended claims are still reciting controlling the distribution of content which fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, classified under “commercial or legal interactions” because the claims involve a series of steps for enforcing certain rules, conditions, and/or parameters associated in connection with the generation and/or issuance of DRM licenses to requesting clients required for playback and/or use of associated content. Also, the judicial exception is still not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of the claims such as a system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a client device, trusted ledger and a decryption key, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and merely involves using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim elements do not reflect any improvements to the technology.
Applicant’s arguments are moot under new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7, 10-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-7, 10-16 and 18-19 are directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims are directed to controlling the distribution of content which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “receiving a license request comprising a content item identifier and client device information; generating a trusted ledger record check message comprising the content item identifier; sending the trusted ledger record check message…; receiving a trusted ledger record response comprising an indication of a plurality of content parameters associated with the content item identifier recorded…; determining, based on the client device information and the plurality of content parameters, that plurality of content parameters are satisfied by the client; and generating, based on the determination, a digital rights management license, the digital rights management license… associated with the content item identifier; and sending the generated digital rights management license to the client.” which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, classified under “commercial or legal interactions” in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)) because the claims involve a series of steps for enforcing certain rules, conditions, and/or parameters associated in connection with the generation and/or issuance of DRM licenses to requesting clients required for playback and/or use of associated content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claims such as a system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a client device, trusted ledger and a decryption key, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and merely involves using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The use of a a system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a client device, trusted ledger and a decryption key to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment] does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Specifically, a system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a client device, trusted ledger and a decryption key perform the steps or functions of the “receiving a license request comprising a content item identifier and client device information; generating a trusted ledger record check message comprising the content item identifier; sending the trusted ledger record check message…; receiving a trusted ledger record response comprising an indication of a plurality of content parameters associated with the content item identifier recorded…; determining, based on the client device information and the plurality of content parameters, that plurality of content parameters are satisfied by the client; and generating, based on the determination, a digital rights management license, the digital rights management license… associated with the content item identifier; and sending the generated digital rights management license to the client”. The additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.05), the additional elements of the system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a client device, trusted ledger and a decryption key, to perform the steps amounts to no more than using the system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a client device, trusted ledger and a decryption key to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of controlling the distribution of content. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately the distributed network system comprising a processing device and non-transitory storage device perform the steps of Claim 1. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of controlling the distribution of content. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of the system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a client device, trusted ledger and a decryption key to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims further describe details of the client device information and how the different content parameters are satisfied by the client device. The dependent claims recite additional elements such as “content file, trusted immutable distributed assertion ledger and a blockchain ledger”, however, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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 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 of this title, 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 and 6-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elbert et al. (US 2023/0142278 A1) in view of Maher (US 2019/0273617 A1) in further view of Le-Chau et al. (US 9,467,726 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Elbert discloses a method for managing content by a digital rights management license service executing on system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform the method, the method comprising (Fig. 2 (210); ¶0025):
receiving, from a client device (“client device 150”), a license request, the license request comprising a content item identifier and client device information (¶0028, ¶0035 “the client device 150 requests a license from the tDRM unit 216 for content decryption by sending the content identifier and the client identifier such as the device ID to the tDRM 216”)
generating a trusted ledger record check message, the trusted ledger record check message comprising the content item identifier (¶0035)
determining, based on the client device information and [the plurality of content parameters], that [plurality of content parameters] are satisfied by the client device; and (¶0035)
generating, based on the determination, a digital rights management license, the digital rights management license comprising a content decryption key associated with the content item identifier; and (¶0028, ¶0035)
sending the generated digital rights management license to the client device (¶0028, ¶0035)
Elbert does not disclose: sending the trusted ledger record check message to a trusted ledger service managing a trusted ledger comprising a plurality of cryptographically linked ledger entries and receiving, from the trusted ledger service, a trusted ledger record response, the trusted ledger record response comprising an indication of a plurality of content playback parameters associated with the content item identifier recorded in the trusted ledger, at least one content playback parameter of the plurality of content playback parameters comprising one or more of a hardware playback environment parameter and a software environment playback parameter.
Maher however discloses:
sending the trusted ledger record check message to a trusted ledger service managing a trusted ledger comprising a plurality of cryptographically linked ledger entries (¶0046 “allow for the immutable recordation of assertions in a database and/or ledger such as a TIDAL”, ¶0061 “TIDAL is used to collect assertions”, ¶0065-¶0067, ¶0125 “TIDALs may comprise distributed databases, tables, and/or ledgers with immutable and/or relatively immutable entries”, ¶0285 “a user uses ID registered with a service to purchase a token to rent a video and various assertions could be entered in one or more TIDALs that may bind the token to the user and to the device”)
receiving, from the trusted ledger service, a trusted ledger record response, the trusted ledger record response comprising an indication of a plurality of content playback parameters associated with the content item identifier recorded in the trusted ledger…(¶0283, ¶0285)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Elbert to include “sending the trusted ledger record check message to a trusted ledger service managing a trusted ledger comprising a plurality of cryptographically linked ledger entries”, as disclosed in Maher, in order to provide a system for facilitating the secure recording and use of assertions made by entities (see Maher abstract).
The combination of Elbert and Maher does not specifically disclose: at least one content playback parameter of the plurality of content playback parameters comprising one or more of a hardware playback environment parameter and a software environment playback parameter and determining…based on [plurality of content parameters].
Le-Chau however discloses:
at least one content playback parameter of the plurality of content playback parameters comprising one or more of a hardware playback environment parameter and a software environment playback parameter (Col. 20 line 62- Col. 21 line 54)
determining…based on [plurality of content parameters] (Col. 4 lines 30-33, Col. 17 lines 12-64, Col. 18 lines 2-54, Col. 20 lines 26-65, Col. 20 line 66- Col. 21 line 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Elbert to include “determining…based on [plurality of content parameters]”, as disclosed in Le-Chau, in order to provide a system for enabling provisioning of complex rules with regard to entitlement to support providing services to fill consumer requests for content (see Le-Chau Col. 1 lines 7-11).
Regarding Claim 2, Elbert discloses wherein the client device information comprises information relating to a user of the client device (¶0028, ¶0035).
Regarding Claim 3, Elbert discloses wherein the client device information comprises information relating to a hardware environment of the client device (¶0035).
Regarding Claim 4, Elbert discloses wherein the client device information comprises information relating to a software environment of the client device (¶0035).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Elbert, MAHER and Le-Chau disclose the invention as above.
Le-Chau further discloses wherein the plurality of content parameters comprise at least one temporal parameter relating to the playback of a content file associated with the content item identifier (Col. 20 lines 26-65, Col. 20 line 66- Col. 21 line 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Elbert to include “wherein the plurality of content parameters comprise at least one temporal parameter relating to the playback of a content file associated with the content item identifier”, as disclosed in Le-Chau, in order to provide a system for enabling provisioning of complex rules with regard to entitlement to support providing services to fill consumer requests for content (see Le-Chau Col. 1 lines 7-11).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Elbert, MAHER and Le-Chau disclose the invention as above.
Le-Chau further discloses: wherein the plurality of content parameters comprise at least one geographic parameter relating to the playback of a content file associated with the content item identifier (Col. 20 lines 26-65, Col. 20 line 66- Col. 21 line 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Elbert to include “wherein the plurality of content parameters comprise at least one geographic parameter relating to the playback of a content file associated with the content item identifier”, as disclosed in Le-Chau, in order to provide a system for enabling provisioning of complex rules with regard to entitlement to support providing services to fill consumer requests for content (see Le-Chau Col. 1 lines 7-11).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Elbert, MAHER and Le-Chau disclose the invention as above.
Le-Chau further discloses: wherein the plurality of content parameters comprise at least one parameter relating to an account associated with the client device (Col. 19 lines 47-65, Col. 20 line 66- Col. 21 line 24, Col. 24 lines 8-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Elbert to include “wherein the plurality of content parameters comprise at least one parameter relating to an account associated with the client device.”, as disclosed in Le-Chau, in order to provide a system for enabling provisioning of complex rules with regard to entitlement to support providing services to fill consumer requests for content (see Le-Chau Col. 1 lines 7-11).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Elbert, MAHER and Le-Chau disclose the invention as above.
MAHER further discloses: wherein the trusted ledger record response comprises information parsed from a record entry in the trusted ledger, the record entry comprising at least one of the content item identifier and the indication of the plurality of content parameter (¶0065-¶0067)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Elbert to include “wherein the trusted ledger record response comprises information parsed from a record entry in the trusted ledger, the record entry comprising at least one of the content item identifier and the indication of the plurality of content parameter”, as disclosed in Maher, in order to provide a system for facilitating the secure recording and use of assertions made by entities (see Maher abstract).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Elbert, MAHER and Le-Chau disclose the invention as above.
Le-Chau further discloses: wherein the indication of the plurality of content parameters comprises the plurality of content parameters (Col. 20 lines 26-65, Col. 20 line 66- Col. 21 line 24, Col. 33 lines 56-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Elbert to include “wherein the indication of the plurality of content parameters comprises the plurality of content parameters.”, as disclosed in Le-Chau, in order to provide a system for enabling provisioning of complex rules with regard to entitlement to support providing services to fill consumer requests for content (see Le-Chau Col. 1 lines 7-11).
Regarding Claim 13, Elbert discloses wherein the indication of the plurality of content parameters comprises a hash value associated with the plurality of content parameters (¶0030).
Regarding Claim 14, Elbert discloses wherein the record entry further comprises a cryptographic signature associated with a content producer associated with a content item associated with the content item identifier, wherein the trusted ledger record response further comprises the cryptographic signature, and wherein the method further comprises validating the cryptographic signature (¶0029).
Regarding Claim 15, Elbert discloses wherein the method further comprises receiving the content decryption key from a content encryption service (¶0028, ¶0035).
Regarding Claim 16, Elbert discloses wherein the content decryption key is configured to decrypt an encrypted content file associated with the content item identifier, the content file comprising at least one of audio content, video content, and text content (¶0028, ¶0035).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Elbert, MAHER and Le-Chau disclose the invention as above.
MAHER further discloses: wherein the trusted ledger comprises a trusted immutable distributed assertion ledger (¶0046 “allow for the immutable recordation of assertions in a database and/or ledger such as a TIDAL”, ¶0061 “TIDAL is used to collect assertions”, ¶0065-¶0067, ¶0125 “TIDALs may comprise distributed databases, tables, and/or ledgers with immutable and/or relatively immutable entries”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Elbert to include “wherein the trusted ledger comprises a trusted immutable distributed assertion ledger”, as disclosed in Maher, in order to provide a system for facilitating the secure recording and use of assertions made by entities (see Maher abstract).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Elbert, MAHER and Le-Chau disclose the invention as above.
MAHER further discloses: wherein the trusted immutable distributed assertion ledger comprises a blockchain ledger (¶0046 “allow for the immutable recordation of assertions in a database and/or ledger such as a TIDAL”, ¶0061 “TIDAL is used to collect assertions”, ¶0065-¶0067, ¶0125 “TIDALs may comprise distributed databases, tables, and/or ledgers with immutable and/or relatively immutable entries”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Elbert to include “wherein the trusted immutable distributed assertion ledger comprises a blockchain ledger”, as disclosed in Maher, in order to provide a system for facilitating the secure recording and use of assertions made by entities (see Maher abstract).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elbert in view of MAHER in view of Le-Chau et al. (US 9,467,726 B1) and in further view of Benting et al. (US 9,693,098 B2).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Elbert, MAHER and Le-Chau does not disclose: wherein determining that the plurality of content parameters are satisfied by the client device comprises comparing the client device information with one or more content parameters of the plurality of content parameters to determine whether the one or more content parameters are satisfied.
Benting however discloses: wherein determining that the plurality of content parameters are satisfied by the client device comprises comparing the client device information with one or more content parameters of the plurality of content parameters to determine whether the one or more content parameters are satisfied (Col. 11 lines 49-61, Claim 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Elbert to include “wherein determining that the plurality of content parameters are satisfied by the client device comprises comparing the client device information with one or more content parameters of the plurality of content parameters to determine whether the one or more content parameters are satisfied”, as disclosed in Benting, in order to provide a system for transmission and reception of targeted content (see Benting abstract).
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 ZEHRA RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-8128. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6:30PM.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/ZEHRA RAZA/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights