DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The claims filed 11/15/2024 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-24 are pending.
Claims 1-24 have been examined.
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 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 1-24 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 1-6 are directed to a method, claims 7-12 are directed to a system comprising a first and second computing device, each comprising one or more processor and memory, claims 13-18 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and claims 19-22 are directed to a computing device having one or more processors and memory. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite requesting access to content, receiving a license or rights for accessing the content, and preventing use of the content when the conditions of the license or rights are not satisfied, which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “send[ing] a request for a content asset,” “receiv[ing] digital rights management (DRM) data associated with the content asset, wherein the DRM data indicates a maximum quantity of authorized [users] that are authorized for outputting the content asset,” “prevent[ing], based on the request and the maximum quantity of authorized [users], output, by a [second/third] [user], of the content asset,” and “send the DRM data associated with the content asset,” 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 (MPEP 2106.04 & 2106.04(a)) because these steps describe a process for requesting access to a content item, receiving a license including conditions for accessing the content item, and enforcing the terms of the license by preventing use of the content item when the conditions are not met, which is a commercial or legal interaction. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 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 the use of a first computing device, authorized computing devices, a second computing device, a system comprising a first computing device and a second computing device, wherein the first computing device comprises one or more first processors and memory storing instructions, and the second computing device comprises one or more second processors and memory storing instructions, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, and a computing device comprising one or more processors and memory storing instructions, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of “send[ing] a request for a content asset,” “receiv[ing] digital rights management (DRM) data associated with the content asset, wherein the DRM data indicates a maximum quantity of authorized [users] that are authorized for outputting the content asset,” “prevent[ing], based on the request and the maximum quantity of authorized [users], output, by a [second/third] [user], of the content asset,” and “send the DRM data associated with the content asset.” Viewed as a whole, the use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), 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 2106.05), the additional elements of using a first computing device, authorized computing devices, a second computing device, a system comprising a first computing device and a second computing device, wherein the first computing device comprises one or more first processors and memory storing instructions, and the second computing device comprises one or more second processors and memory storing instructions, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, and a computing device comprising one or more processors and memory storing instructions to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of requesting access to content, receiving a license or rights for accessing the content, and preventing use of the content when the conditions of the license or rights are not satisfied. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of “send[ing] a request for a content asset,” “receiv[ing] digital rights management (DRM) data associated with the content asset, wherein the DRM data indicates a maximum quantity of authorized [users] that are authorized for outputting the content asset,” “prevent[ing], based on the request and the maximum quantity of authorized [users], output, by a [second/third] [user], of the content asset,” and “send the DRM data associated with the content asset.” 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 requesting access to content, receiving a license or rights for accessing the content, and preventing use of the content when the conditions of the license or rights are not satisfied. 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 a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, 14-18, and 20-24 further describe the abstract idea of requesting access to content, receiving a license or rights for accessing the content, and preventing use of the content when the conditions of the license or rights are not satisfied. Specifically, claims 2, 8, 14, and 20 describe permitting use of the content when the license conditions are met, claims 3, 9, 15, and 21 describe restricting use of the content based on a condition, claims 4, 10, 16, and 22 describe preventing additional requests for content when the license conditions are not met, and claims 6, 12, 18, and 24 describe preventing use of one version of the content while permitting use of another version of the content based on whether certain license conditions are not met. These claims further describe enforcing the license or rights, and are directed to the abstract idea. The use of various computing devices and the type of connection between the computing devices does not provide a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it only involves using a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. Claims 5, 11, 17, and 23 further describes the manner of preventing use of the content by preventing use of a decryption key. This further describes the abstract idea as it further describes the manner of enforcing the license or rights. Additionally, encryption or decryption using a key only involves performing mathematical calculations on data, which is also abstract. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that 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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 13-14, 16, 19-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee, et al. (US 2005/0065891) (“Lee”).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 13, and 19, Lee discloses a method, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, and a system comprising:
a first computing device (Lee Figure 5A; ¶¶ 20, 48);
a second computing device (Lee Figure 5A; ¶¶ 20, 48);
wherein the first computing device comprises: one or more processors; and memory storing first instructions that, when executed by the one or more first processors of the first computing device, configure the first computing device to perform the method comprising:
sending a request for a content asset (Lee ¶¶ 41, 49-50);
receiving digital rights management (DRM) data associated with the content asset, wherein the DRM data indicates a maximum quantity of authorized computing devices that are authorized for outputting the content asset (Lee Figures 6A-B; ¶¶ 20, 23, 42, 49, 53-54); and
preventing, based on the request and the maximum quantity of authorized computing devices, output, by a third computing device, of the content asset (Lee Figures 6A-B; ¶¶ 23, 53-54); and
wherein the second computing device comprises: one or more second processors; and memory storing second instructions that, when executed by the one or more second processors of the second computing device, configure the second computing device to:
send the DRM data associated with the content asset (Lee ¶¶ 20, 49-50, 54).
Regarding claims 2, 8, 14, and 20, Lee discloses determining, by the first computing device, that a current quantity of authorized computing devices that are authorized for outputting the content asset is less than the maximum quantity; and permitting, based on the determination, output, by a third [or fourth] computing device, of the content asset (Lee Figures 6A-B; ¶¶ 23, 53-54).
Regarding claims 4, 10, 16, and 22, Lee discloses preventing, based on the maximum quantity of authorized computing devices, sending a second request for the content asset (Lee Figures 6A-B; ¶¶ 22-23, 46, 49, 54).
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 3, 9, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Robinson (US 2014/0130083).
Regarding claims 3, 9, 15, and 21, Lee does not specifically disclose restricting output of the content asset to one or more versions of a plurality of versions of the content asset based on whether a connection between the first computing device and one of the authorized computing devices is configured to use a High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) protection scheme.
Robinson discloses restricting output of the content asset to one or more versions of a plurality of versions of the content asset based on whether a connection between the first computing device and one of the authorized computing devices is configured to use a High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) protection scheme (Robinson ¶¶ 17-18, 28-29, 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Lee to include restricting output of the content asset to one or more versions of a plurality of versions of the content asset based on whether a connection between the first computing device and one of the authorized computing devices is configured to use a High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) protection scheme, as disclosed in Robinson, in order to provide high-definition content in a reduced resolution format to prevent unauthorized use and protect premium services (Robinson ¶ 2).
Claims 5-6, 11-12, 17-18, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Brueck, et al. (US 2011/0058675) (“Brueck”).
Regarding claims 5, 11, 17, and 23, Lee discloses that the DRM data comprises a decryption key that is configured to decrypt the content asset (Lee ¶ 12).
Lee does not specifically disclose that preventing output of the content asset comprises preventing processing the decryption key.
Brueck discloses preventing output of the content asset comprises preventing processing the decryption key (Brueck ¶¶ 19, 33, 42, 50, 54, 61, 63, 65, 71).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Lee to include preventing output of the content asset comprises preventing processing the decryption key, as disclosed in Robinson, in order to provide greater flexibility in the distribution of multiple versions of the same content while still allowing a content owner to maintain control over their content by preventing circumvention of access control (Brueck ¶¶ 4-5, 50-51).
Regarding claims 6, 12, 18, and 24, Lee discloses that preventing output of the content asset comprises preventing output of a first version of the content asset, and the method further comprising:
permitting, based on the maximum quantity of authorized computing devices, output, by the second [or third] computing device, of the version of the content asset (Lee Figures 6A-B; ¶¶ 23, 53-54).
Lee does not specifically disclose that the first version of the content asset is formatted in a first resolution, receiving a second version of the content asset, and permitting output of the second version of the content asset based on whether a condition is satisfied, wherein the second version of the content asset is formatted in a second resolution that is lower than the first resolution.
Brueck discloses that a first version of the content asset is formatted in a first resolution, receiving a second version of the content asset, and permitting output of the second version of the content asset based on whether a condition is satisfied, wherein the second version of the content asset is formatted in a second resolution that is lower than the first resolution (Brueck ¶¶ 19, 31, 33, 42, 50, 54, 61, 63, 65, 71).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Lee to include a first version of the content asset formatted in a first resolution, receiving a second version of the content asset, and permitting output of the second version of the content asset based on whether a condition is satisfied, wherein the second version of the content asset is formatted in a second resolution that is lower than the first resolution, as disclosed in Robinson, in order to provide greater flexibility in the distribution of multiple versions of the same content while still allowing a content owner to maintain control over their content by preventing circumvention of access control (Brueck ¶¶ 4-5, 50-51).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad A. Nilforoush whose telephone number is (571)270-5298. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12pm-7pm.
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.
/Mohammad A. Nilforoush/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697