DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The claims filed 5/12/2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-25 are pending.
Claims 1-25 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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, applicant states that the claims recite more than a commercial or legal interaction because the claims recite a specific, computer-implemented technique for enforcing output restrictions for a content asset across connected computing devices using DRM data that specifies a maximum quantity of authorized computing devices for a particular connection type, and the steps define a technical solution. Applicant further states that the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than any abstract idea because the claims recite receiving DRM data that indicates, for a particular connection type, a maximum quantity of authorized computing devices that are authorized for outputting the content asset, and preventing output based on the maximum quantity of authorized computing devices and a current quantity of connections that are using the particular connection type. Applicant states that this is consistent with the technical problem described in the specification, and is significantly more than the abstract idea because the system implements a specific, computer-based technique for controlling output of content assets across connected devices based on connection-type-dependent DMR processing and device-authorization limits.
Examiner notes, however, that the claims only involve the steps of receiving the digital rights management (DRM) data associated with a content asset, receiving a request for the content asset, and preventing output of the content asset of another device when the conditions set in the DRM data are exceeded. This describes a process for enforcing the terms of the license by evaluating or deciding whether the conditions under which the content is requested to be used are allowed according to the license restrictions, and preventing use of a requested content item when the license restrictions are not met, which is a legal interaction as it only involves making a legal decision or determination. Therefore, the claims fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The fact that the DRM data indicates “indicates, for a particular connection type, a maximum quantity of authorized computing devices that are authorized for outputting the content asset” and the decision to prevent output of the content is based on “the maximum quantity of authorized computing devices and a current quantity of connections that are using the particular connection type” only describes the license restrictions and the factors that are considered in making the decision to prevent the use of the content. Although the data, such as information about a connection type, may be related to a device, the claims do not recite any specific technical functionality related to the connection or the device. Rather, the claims only broadly recite receiving the DRM data with the particular restrictions followed by a request to use the content and the ultimate result of preventing output of the content based on information related to the DRM restrictions. Therefore, the use of information relating to the quantity of authorized computing devices for a particular connection type does not provide a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Additionally, the fact that the steps are performed by a computing device in order to prevent output to another computing device also 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 the abstract idea.
Applicant’s remaining remarks have been considered, but are moot in view of the 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 1-25 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 and 25 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 receiving a license or rights for accessing the content, receiving a request for use of 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 “receiv[ing] . . . digital rights management (DRM) data associated with a content asset, wherein the DRM data indicates for a particular [distribution] type a maximum quantity of authorized [users] that are authorized for outputting the content asset,” “receiving . . . a request for the content asset,” “prevent[ing], based on the maximum quantity of authorized [users] and a current quantity of [outputs] that are using the particular [distribution] type, 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 receiving a license including conditions for accessing the content item, then upon receiving a request to access or use the content item, 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 connection type or a current quantity of connections that are using the particular connection type, 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 “receiv[ing] . . . digital rights management (DRM) data associated with a content asset, wherein the DRM data indicates for a particular [distribution] type a maximum quantity of authorized [users] that are authorized for outputting the content asset,” “receiving . . . a request for the content asset,” “prevent[ing], based on the maximum quantity of authorized [users] and a current quantity of [outputs] that are using the particular [distribution] type, 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. Additionally, the description of the conditions used to determine whether to allow the use of the content as being based on a maximum quantity of authorized computing devices for a particular connection type and a current quantity of connections that are using the particular connection type only describe conditions or factors that are considered when making a licensing decision. These particular factors do not require any particular technical functionality, and do not provide a practical application. 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 connection type or a current quantity of connections that are using the particular connection type, 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 receiving a license or rights for accessing the content, receiving a request for use of 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 “receiv[ing] . . . digital rights management (DRM) data associated with a content asset, wherein the DRM data indicates for a particular [distribution] type a maximum quantity of authorized [users] that are authorized for outputting the content asset,” “receiving . . . a request for the content asset,” “prevent[ing], based on the maximum quantity of authorized [users] and a current quantity of [outputs] that are using the particular [distribution] type, 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 receiving a license or rights for accessing the content, receiving a request for use of 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)). Additionally, the description of the conditions used to determine whether to allow the use of the content as being based on a maximum quantity of authorized computing devices for a particular connection type and a current quantity of connections that are using the particular connection type only describe conditions or factors that are considered when making a licensing decision. These particular factors do not require any particular technical functionality, and do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, 14-18, and 20-24 further describe the abstract idea of receiving a license or rights for accessing the content, receiving a request for use of 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. Claim 25 describes how one of the conditions, namely the particular connection type, is determined, but does not describe any technical functionality involved in making this determination. Therefore, this limitation further describes the abstract idea and does not provide a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the DRM data indicates, for a particular connection type, a maximum quantity of authorized computing devices that are authorized for outputting the content asset,” and “preventing, based on the maximum quantity of authorized computing devices and a current quantity of connections that are using the particular connection type, output, by a second computing device, of the content asset.” Claims 7, 13, and 19 recite similar limitations. These limitations require DRM data that restricts output of content based on a maximum quantity of authorized computing devices for a particular connection type. Although the specification discloses a content restriction based on the maximum number of devices on which content can be concurrently displayed (See Specification ¶ 45), as well as a usage restriction rule that allows for high-definition versions of a content asset to be displayed on an external monitor only if the external monitor utilizes a digital video connection and a content-protection scheme such as HDCP (See Specification ¶ 47), the specification does not disclose a rule that indicates, for a particular connection type, a maximum quantity of authorized computing devices that are authorized for outputting the content asset, and preventing output of content based on a current quantity of connections that are using the particular connection type.
Claims 2-6, 8-12, 14-18, and 20-25 are also rejected as each depends on either claim 1, 7, 13, or 19.
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 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 13-14, 16, 19-20, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, et al. (US 2005/0065891) (“Lee”) in view of Nakakita, et al. (US 7,962,154) (“Nakakita”).
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:
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);
receiving, by the first computing device, a request for the content asset (Lee ¶¶ 41, 49-50).
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).
Lee does not specifically disclose that the maximum quantity of authorized computing devices in the DRM data is for a particular connection type, or that preventing output is based on a current quantity of connections that are using the particular connection type.
Nakakita discloses that the maximum quantity of authorized computing devices in the DRM data is for a particular connection type, and that preventing output is based on a current quantity of connections that are using the particular connection type (Nakakita Figure 6-7; 4:19-5:3; 12:18-14:53; 15:45-49; 18:8-22; 27:21-29; 27:63-28:28; 28:48-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Lee to include the maximum quantity of authorized computing devices in the DRM data being for a particular connection type, and preventing output being based on a current quantity of connections that are using the particular connection type, as disclosed in Nakakita, in order to protect a content item from unauthorized distribution while guaranteeing the communication quality of a connection used to transmit the content item (Nakakita 3:31-5:3).
Regarding claims 2, 8, 14, and 20, Lee discloses determining, by the first computing device, that a current quantity of connections 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).
Lee does not specifically disclose that the determined quantity of connections is a quantity of connections that are using the particular connection type.
Nakakita discloses determining that a current quantity of connections that are using the particular connection type is less than the maximum quantity (Nakakita Figure 6-7; 4:19-5:3; 12:18-14:53; 15:45-49; 18:8-22; 27:21-29; 27:63-28:28; 28:48-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Lee to include determining that a current quantity of connections that are using the particular connection type is less than the maximum quantity, as disclosed in Nakakita, in order to protect a content item from unauthorized distribution while guaranteeing the communication quality of a connection used to transmit the content item (Nakakita 3:31-5:3).
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).
Regarding claim 25, Nakakita discloses determining the particular connection type based on a current connection between the first computing device and the second computing device (Nakakita Figure 6-7; 4:19-5:3; 12:18-14:53; 15:45-49; 18:8-22; 27:21-29; 27:63-28:28; 28:48-53).
Claims 3, 9, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Nakakita as applied to claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 above, and further in view of Robinson (US 2014/0130083).
Regarding claims 3, 9, 15, and 21, Lee in view of Nakakita 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 in view of Nakakita 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 Nakakita as applied to claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 above, and further 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 in view of Nakakita 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 in view of Nakakita 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 in view of Nakakita 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 in view of Nakakita 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights