DETAILED ACTION
713.09 Interviews Between Final Rejection and Notice of Appeal [R-08.2017]
Normally, one interview after final rejection is permitted in order to place the application in condition for allowance or to resolve issues prior to appeal. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Such an interview may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search should be denied. See MPEP § 714.13.
Interviews may be held after the expiration of the shortened statutory period and prior to the maximum permitted statutory period of 6 months without an extension of time. See MPEP § 706.07(f).
A second or further interview after a final rejection may be held if the examiner is convinced that it will expedite the issues for appeal or disposal of the application.
For interviews after notice of appeal, see MPEP § 1204.03.
Interview time will be revised to a limit of 1 hour per new application or RCE (utility)/CPA (design), when during prosecution, the examiner conducts an interview. When more than one interview is needed in an application supervisors will have the flexibility to approve additional time and ensure that the interviews are being used to advance prosecution.
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In response to the claims amendment in view of the Remarks filed 05/25/2026, the claim objection have been withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/27/2026 is being considered by the examiner except where lined through because those references are already being cited by the Examiner (See “List of references cited by examiner” 03/04/2026).
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 3 - 4 and 14 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 3 and 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4 is a dependent claim and thus also rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 2, 5 – 13 and 15 – 20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1;
the prior art of record, JOHNSON discloses a method for generating protected accessible HyperText Markup Language (“HTML”), the method comprising: receiving, via an application server, a request to load media content associated with a first HTML element, the first HTML element including a content element; upon receiving the request to load the content element, generating video data associated with the content element, via the application server;
causing, via the application server, the
The prior art of record, Lee discloses generating one or more digital rights management (“DRM”)-protected files based on video data associated with a content element, wherein at least one of the one or more DRM-protected files includes the video data associated with the content element.
JOHNSON and Lee doe not disclose “generating, via the application server, one or more digital rights management (“DRM”)-protected files based on the video data associated with the content element, wherein at least one of the one or more DRM-protected files includes the video data associated with the content element; generating, via the application server, a second HTML element based on the one or more DRM-protected files, wherein the second HTML element includes DRM-protected video data associated with the content element; and causing, via the application server, the DRM-protected video data of the second HTML element to be output via a graphical user interface (“GUI”).
These claimed limitations are not present in the prior arts of record and would not have been obvious. They in combination with other elements cited present subject matter that is novel and nonobvious. Thus, claim 1 is allowed.
Regarding claim 13;
the prior art of record, JOHNSON discloses a system, the system comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor operatively connected to the memory, and configured to execute the instructions to perform operations for generating protected accessible HyperText Markup Language (“HTML”), the operations including: receiving, via an application server, a request to load media content associated with a first HTML element, the first HTML element including a content element; upon receiving the request to load the content element, generating video data associated with the content element, via the application server;
causing, via the application server, the
The prior art of record, Lee discloses generating one or more digital rights management (“DRM”)-protected files based on video data associated with a content element, wherein at least one of the one or more DRM-protected files includes the video data associated with the content element.
JOHNSON and Lee do not disclose “generating, via the application server, one or more digital rights management (“DRM”)-protected files based on the video data associated with the content element, wherein at least one of the one or more DRM-protected files includes the video data associated with the content element; generating, via the application server, a second HTML element based on the one or more DRM-protected files, wherein the second HTML element includes DRM-protected video data associated with the content element; and causing, via the application server, the DRM-protected video data of the second HTML element to be output via a graphical user interface (“GUI”).
These claimed limitations are not present in the prior arts of record and would not have been obvious. They in combination with other elements cited present subject matter that is novel and nonobvious. Thus, claim 13 is allowed.
Regarding claim 20;
the prior art of record, JOHNSON discloses a method for generating protected accessible HyperText Markup Language (“HTML”), the method comprising:
receiving, via an application server, a request to load media content associated with a first HTML element, the first HTML element including a content element; upon receiving the request to load the content element, generating at least one of video data, text data, or audio data associated with the content element, via the application server;
The prior art of record, Lee discloses generating one or more digital rights management (“DRM”)-protected files based on video data associated with a content element, wherein at least one of the one or more DRM-protected files includes the video data associated with the content element; and generating second, third and fourth HTML element based on the one or more DRM-protected files.
JOHNSON and Lee do not disclose “generating, via the application server, one or more digital rights management (“DRM”) protected files based on the at least one of the video data, the text data, or the audio data associated with the content element, wherein at least one of the one of the one or more DRM-protected files includes the at least one of the video data, the text data or the audio data associated with the content element; generating, via the application server, one or more of: where the one or more DRM-protected files include the video data, a second HTML element to include DRM-protected video data; where the one or more DRM-protected files include the text data, a third HTML element to include; or where the one or more DRM-protected files include the audio data, a fourth HTML element to include DRM-protected audio data; generating, via the application server, a nested HTML element based on the first HTML element and one or more of the second HTML element, the third HTML element, or the fourth HTML element; and causing, via the application server, the DRM-protected data of the nested HTML element to be output via a graphical user interface or an auditory interface system’.
These claimed limitations are not present in the prior arts of record and would not have been obvious. They in combination with other elements cited present subject matter that is novel and nonobvious. Thus, claim 20 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/27/2026, with respect to pending claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections of the pending claims has been withdrawn.
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 SYED A RONI whose telephone number is (571)270-7806. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 pm (EST).
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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/SYED A RONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights