DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Argument filed on 5/26/2026.
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made Final.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 5/26/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent 12,164,604 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues:
A. Claims 1, 6, and 16
i. The cited references, alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest "a first digital rights management (DRM) request comprising an identifier specifying selection of a first DRM scheme of a plurality of DRM schemes"
[...] The Office acknowledges that Hussain fails to explicitly disclose these recitations. Office Action, pp. 8, 16, 22. To cure the deficiencies of Hussain, the Office relies on Lockhart for teaching scheme-agnostic and scheme- specific application program interfaces, and relies on Morlang for teaching "an identifier specifying selection of a first [encryption] scheme of a plurality of [encryption] schemes." Office Action, pp. 8-9, 16-18, 22-24. Applicant respectfully submits the cited references, whether considered alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest these recitations.
The Office maps Morlang's encryption algorithm identifier to the claimed "identifier specifying selection of a first DRM scheme," substituting "[encryption]" for "DRM" throughout the rejection. Office Action, pp. 8-9, 17-18, 23-24. However, Applicant respectfully submits that this substitution is improper. An encryption algorithm identifier used to negotiate an encrypted Telnet session is not an "identifier specifying selection of a first DRM scheme of a plurality of DRM schemes," as recited in independent claim 1. Claim 1 recites "a first digital rights management (DRM) request comprising an identifier specifying selection of a first DRM scheme of a plurality of DRM schemes." This recitation encompasses multiple distinct elements: a DRM request that comprises an identifier, where the identifier specifies selection of a DRM scheme, and where the DRM scheme is selected from a plurality of DRM schemes. Morlang's encryption algorithm identifier is not included in "a first digital rights management (DRM) request," it does not "specify[] selection of a DRM scheme," and it does not operate in the context of "a plurality of DRM schemes," as recited in independent claim 1. Rather, it identifies an encryption algorithm for use in an encrypted Telnet session between two nodes on a network connection.
Examiner’s Response: In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
The examiner respectfully notes that it is the combination of Hussain in view of Lockart and Morlang that teach the limitation of “a first digital rights management (DRM) request comprising an identifier specifying selection of a first DRM scheme of a plurality of DRM schemes.”
The examiner respectfully notes that Hussain was shown to disclose “a first digital rights management (DRM) request comprising [a] selection of a first DRM scheme of a plurality of DRM schemes,” see [0025] and [0075]. Specifically in [0025], Hussain states “The method might also comprise, based on a determination that the user is authorized to access the requested DRM-protected media content, identifying, with the entitlement gateway and from among a plurality of DRM types, a DRM type that is used to protect the requested DRM-protected media content, the entitlement gateway being agnostic to DRM types, based on the identified DRM type, determining, with the entitlement gateway and from among a plurality of DRM servers each associated with a particular DRM type.” Thus, Hussain contemplates identifying from among a plurality of DRM types, a DRM type that is used to protected the requested DRM-protected media content...; this identifying is predicated on receiving an agnostic query from a client device for access to media content that is protected by DRM technology. As reasonably construed this reads on “a first digital rights management (DRM) request comprising [a] selection of a first DRM scheme of a plurality of DRM schemes.” The examiner notes while Hussain does not comprise “an identifier specifying selection” it does identify a DRM type from among a plurality of DRM types.
The examiner sought to combine Morlang to teach “an identifier specifying selection of a first [encryption] scheme of a plurality of [encryption] schemes” ([0003] - A number of encryption algorithms exist for securely protecting such communication and [0007] - An identifier is sent from a first node to a second node via a first connection. Either an encryption algorithm or an identifier of the encryption algorithm is also sent to the second node). The examiner respectfully notes that Morlang was found to be analogous as there is “an identifier specifying selection,” see [0003] and [0007]. While Morang is related to an encryption algorithm, such use of an encryption algorithm is analogous to the concept of DRM type that protects DRM media content as taught by Hussain, see Hussain, [0025]. Thus, the examiner reasonably asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Morlang to the DRM scheme of Hussain [and Lockhart] to include the steps of an identifier specifying selection of a first ... scheme of a plurality of ... schemes. One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Morlang to Hussain [and Lockhart] to do so as it provides / allows agree on an encryption algorithm to be used via a connection even if a communication protocol used on that connection does not support that encryption algorithm (Morlang, [0024]). Such a substation is proper as there is teaching, suggestion, and motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Moreover, Hussain does not cure the deficiencies of Morlang. In Hussain, the entitlement gateway, not the client's request, identifies the DRM type. As the Office acknowledges, Hussain teaches "identifying, with the entitlement gateway and from among a plurality of DRM types, a DRM type that is used to protect the requested DRM-protected media content, the entitlement gateway being agnostic to DRM types." Office Action, p. 7 (citing Hussain, 1 0025). In Hussain, the client device sends "a query from a client device for a user to access media content that is protected by digital rights management ('DRM') technology." Hussain, 1 0025. This query does not comprise an identifier specifying selection of a DRM scheme. Rather, the entitlement gateway itself performs the identification of the DRM type based on the content being accessed. This is fundamentally different from the approach recited in the present claims, in which the the "first digital rights management (DRM) request" comprises "an identifier specifying selection of a first DRM scheme of a plurality of DRM schemes," as recited in independent claim 1.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner disagrees.
As noted above, the examiner respectfully notes that Hussain was shown to disclose “a first digital rights management (DRM) request comprising [a] selection of a first DRM scheme of a plurality of DRM schemes,” see [0025] and [0075].
Specifically in [0025], Hussain states “In an aspect, a method might comprise receiving, with an entitlement gateway, a query from a client device for a user to access media content that is protected by digital rights management (“DRM”) technology; determining, with the entitlement gateway, whether the user is authorized to access the DRM-protected media content that is requested by the user; and based on a determination that the user is not authorized to access the requested DRM-protected media content, sending, with the entitlement gateway, a deny signal to the client device that prevents the user from accessing the requested DRM-protected media content. The method might also comprise, based on a determination that the user is authorized to access the requested DRM-protected media content, identifying, with the entitlement gateway and from among a plurality of DRM types, a DRM type that is used to protect the requested DRM-protected media content, the entitlement gateway being agnostic to DRM types; and based on the identified DRM type, determining, with the entitlement gateway and from among a plurality of DRM servers each associated with a particular DRM type, a DRM server associated with the identified DRM type that is used to protect the requested DRM-protected media content, and sending, with the entitlement gateway, a request for a license for accessing the requested DRM-protected media content from the identified DRM server. The method might further comprise, in response to receiving the license for accessing the requested DRM-protected media content from the identified DRM server associated with the identified DRM type, sending, with the entitlement gateway, the license to the client device, the license enabling the user to access the requested DRM-protected media content.”
Again, as noted above, Hussain contemplates identifying from among a plurality of DRM types, a DRM type that is used to protected the requested DRM-protected media content. The examiner notes this identifying is predicated on receiving an agnostic query from a client device for access to media content that is protected by DRM technology. The entitlement gateway is agnostic. Thus, the query received by the entitlement gateway represents an agnostic query for access media content. Thus, the query itself from the client device represents a selection of a first DRM type of a plurality of DRM types as its agnostic. The entitlement gateway confirms this interpretation as it then identifies the specific DRM Type from that query for further sending/receiving responses before the client ultimately receives the license. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Lockhart similarly does not cure these deficiencies. The Office Action relies on Lockhart for teaching a scheme-agnostic application program interface and a scheme-specific application program interface. Office Action, pp. 8, 16-17, 22-23. However, Lockhart does not disclose or suggest "a first digital rights management (DRM) request comprising an identifier specifying selection of a first DRM scheme of a plurality of DRM schemes," as recited in independent claim 1. In Lockhart, a consumer interacts with a clearing house to request a permit, and the clearing house routes the request to a DRM-architecture-specific server. Lockhart, col. 16, lines 4-26. At no point does the consumer's request comprise "an identifier specifying selection of a" "DRM scheme," as recited in independent claim 1.
Therefore, Hussain, Lockhart, and Morlang, individually or in combination, do not disclose or suggest each and every element of amended independent claim 1. As such, Applicant respectfully submits claim 1 is not obvious in view of Hussain, Lockhart, and Morlang. Further, it therefore follows that dependent claims depending from claim 1 are also not rendered obvious by Hussain, Lockhart, and Morlang. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests the rejection of claim 1 be withdrawn and such claims be allowed. Further, as claims 6 and 16 recite similar elements, Applicant requests the rejection of claims 6 and 16, as well as their dependent claims, be withdrawn and those claims allowed as well.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully notes Lockhart was not shown to teach the features as argued by Applicant. The examiner respectfully notes Hussain and Morlang are shown to teach these features as noted above. Therefore, the examiner finds these arguments not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: ii. The motivation to combine the references is not supported
[...]
With respect to claim 1, the Office provides two motivations to combine. First, the Office asserts one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Lockhart with Hussain "as it provides / allows users with a means for providing a data rights management for controlling access to data on the internet." Office Action, p. 9 (citing Lockhart, col. 1, lines 15-19). Second, the Office Action asserts one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Morlang with Hussain and Lockhart "as it provides / allows agree on an encryption algorithm to be used via connection even if a communication protocol used on that connection does not support that encryption algorithm." Office Action, p. 9 (citing Morlang, 0024). Substantially similar motivations are provided for the rejections of claims 6 and 16. Office Action, pp. 18, 24.
These motivations are not sufficient. The motivation offered for combining Morlang with Hussain and Lockhart is particularly deficient. Morlang is directed to establishing encrypted Telnet sessions between network nodes, as discussed above. The stated motivation, that Morlang allows nodes to "agree on an encryption algorithm to be used via a connection even if a communication protocol used on that connection does not support that encryption algorithm," relates entirely to encryption negotiation in the context of network connections. It bears no rational connection to the claimed digital rights management request architecture. The Office does not articulate any reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art working in the field of digital rights management would look to Morlang's Telnet encryption negotiation methods and be prompted to modify the DRM request architecture of Hussain to include an identifier specifying selection of a DRM scheme. The mere fact that Morlang teaches an identifier of an encryption algorithm does not provide a rational basis for concluding that a person of ordinary skill would modify a DRM request to include a DRM scheme identifier. "[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Here, the Office Action has not put forth a reason why a person of skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Morlang with Hussain and Lockhart to arrive at the present claims. Further, MPEP § 2143 states "[i]f any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art." Here, the Office has failed to provide a sufficient motivation. Further, as discussed above, the Office has not presented a combination of elements from the references which arrive at the present claims. Accordingly, the rationale set forth by the Office Action cannot support a primafacie case of obviousness.
Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant submits the rationale set forth by the Office Action to combine the cited references cannot support a primafacie case of obviousness. Therefore, because the Office Action fails to establish aprimafacie case of obviousness based on the combination of references, Applicant requests that the rejection of the present claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be withdrawn.
Examiner’s Response: In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, the examiner respectfully notes one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Lockhart with Hussain’s sending/receiving "as it provides / allows users with a means for providing a data rights management for controlling access to data on the internet." see Lockhart, col. 1, lines 15-19. Further, the examiner respectfully notes one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Morlang with Hussain and Lockhart’s DRM scheme "as it provides / allows agree on an encryption algorithm to be used via connection even if a communication protocol used on that connection does not support that encryption algorithm." see Morlang, [0024]. The examiner notes the motivation of Morlang is sufficient as Hussain contemplates media content that is protected by digital rights management (“DRM”) technology. Thus, Morlang is analogous as it allows agreement between entities to support a given “encryption” (i.e., protection). Therefore, the examiner finds these arguments not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: III. Rejection of Dependent Claims Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
As discussed above, independent claims 1, 6, and 16 are patentable over the cited art. As the Federal Circuit noted in In re Fine, "dependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious." 5 U.S.P.Q.2d 1596, 1600 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Thus, it is submitted that the present dependent claims are non-obvious over the cited art. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the rejection of the subject claims be withdrawn and such claims be allowed.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that dependent claims are dependent under rejected claims 1, 6, and 16. Arguments towards claim 1, 6, and 16 were found not persuasive. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hussain et al. (US 2018/0309762 A1) in view of Lockhart et al. (US 6,944,776 B1) and Morlang (US 2003/0182576 A1).
Regarding Claim 1;
Hussain discloses a method comprising:
sending, via a scheme-agnostic application program [...], a first digital rights management (DRM) request comprising [a] selection of a first DRM scheme of a plurality of DRM schemes ([0025] - In an aspect, a method might comprise receiving, with an entitlement gateway, with an entitlement gateway, a query from a client device for a user to access media content that is protected by digital rights management (“DRM”) technology... The method might also comprise, based on a determination that the user is authorized to access the requested DRM-protected media content, identifying, with the entitlement gateway and from among a plurality of DRM types, a DRM type that is used to protect the requested DRM-protected media content, the entitlement gateway being agnostic to DRM types, based on the identified DRM type, determining, with the entitlement gateway and from among a plurality of DRM servers each associated with a particular DRM type and [0075]); and
receiving, based on a response to a first scheme-specific request sent via a first scheme- specific [application program] based on [a] selection of the first DRM scheme, via the scheme-agnostic API, a response to the first DRM request ([0025] - sending, with the entitlement gateway, a request for a license for accessing the requested DRM-protected media content from the identified DRM server. The method might further comprise, in response to receiving the license for accessing the requested DRM-protected media content from the identified DRM server associated with the identified DRM type, sending, with the entitlement gateway, the license to the client device, the license enabling the user to access the requested DRM-protected media content and [0075]).
Hussain fails to explicitly disclose
sending, via a scheme-agnostic application program interface (API), a first digital rights management (DRM) request comprising an identifier specifying selection of a first DRM scheme of a plurality of DRM schemes; and
receiving, based on a response to a first scheme-specific request sent via a first scheme- specific API based on the identifier specifying selection of the first DRM scheme, via the scheme-agnostic API, a response to the first DRM request. (emphasis added).
However, in an analogous art, Lockhart teaches sending, via a scheme-agnostic application program interface (API) (Lockhart, FIG. 4 and col. 16, lines 4-26 - Consumer 100 interacts with the clearing house to satisfy the permit acquisition terms, thereby requesting a permit. DRM server 412 generates permit 410 in response to a request for a permit from clearing house 120. DRM server 412 is specific to a DRM architecture and col. 25, lines 27-35 various... application programming interfaces and col. 16, lines 45-50 and col. 25, lines 48-67 and col. 27, lines 18-30 – DRM Agnostic Packaging), ... and receiving, ...via a first scheme-specific API..., ....via the scheme-agnostic API (Lockhart, FIG. 4 and col. 16, lines 4-26 - Consumer 100 interacts with the clearing house to satisfy the permit acquisition terms, thereby requesting a permit. DRM server 412 generates permit 410 in response to a request for a permit from clearing house 120. DRM server 412 is specific to a DRM architecture and col. 16, lines 45-50 and col. 25, lines 27-35 - various... application programming interfaces and col. 25, lines 48-67 and col. 27, lines 18-30 – DRM Agnostic Packaging).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lockhart to the sending/receiving of Hussain to include the steps of sending, via a scheme-agnostic application program interface (API); ... and receiving, ...via a first scheme-specific API..., ....via the scheme-agnostic API.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lockhart to Hussain to do so as it provides / allows users with a means for providing a data rights management for controlling access to data on the internet (Lockhart, col. 1, lines 15-19).
However, in an analogous art, Morlang teaches
an identifier specifying selection of a first [encryption] scheme of a plurality of [encryption] schemes ([0003] - A number of encryption algorithms exist for securely protecting such communication and [0007] - An identifier is sent from a first node to a second node via a first connection. Either an encryption algorithm or an identifier of the encryption algorithm is also sent to the second node); and...based on the identifier specifying selection of the first [encryption] scheme ([0003] - A number of encryption algorithms exist for securely protecting such communication and [0007] - An identifier is sent from a first node to a second node via a first connection. Either an encryption algorithm or an identifier of the encryption algorithm is also sent to the second node... the encrypted session is established, using the encryption algorithm);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Morlang to the DRM scheme of Hussain and Lockhart to include the steps of an identifier specifying selection of a first ... scheme of a plurality of ... schemes; and ...based on the identifier specifying selection of the first ... scheme
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Morlang to Hussain and Lockhart to do so as it provides / allows agree on an encryption algorithm to be used via a connection even if a communication protocol used on that connection does not support that encryption algorithm (Morlang, [0024]).
Regarding Claim 2;
Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang disclose the method to claim 1.
Hussain further discloses comprising: sending, via the scheme-agnostic [application program], a second DRM request comprising [a] selection of a second DRM scheme of the plurality of DRM schemes ([0025] - In an aspect, a method might comprise receiving, with an entitlement gateway, with an entitlement gateway, a query from a client device for a user to access media content that is protected by digital rights management (“DRM”) technology... The method might also comprise, based on a determination that the user is authorized to access the requested DRM-protected media content, identifying, with the entitlement gateway and from among a plurality of DRM types, a DRM type that is used to protect the requested DRM-protected media content, the entitlement gateway being agnostic to DRM types, based on the identified DRM type, determining, with the entitlement gateway and from among a plurality of DRM servers each associated with a particular DRM type and [0075]); and receiving, based on a response to a second scheme-specific request sent via a second scheme-specific [application program] based on the ... selection of the second DRM scheme, via the scheme-agnostic [application program], a response to the second DRM request ([0025] - sending, with the entitlement gateway, a request for a license for accessing the requested DRM-protected media content from the identified DRM server. The method might further comprise, in response to receiving the license for accessing the requested DRM-protected media content from the identified DRM server associated with the identified DRM type, sending, with the entitlement gateway, the license to the client device, the license enabling the user to access the requested DRM-protected media content and [0075]).
Lockhart further teaches sending, via a scheme-agnostic application program interface (API) (Lockhart, FIG. 4 and col. 16, lines 4-26 - Consumer 100 interacts with the clearing house to satisfy the permit acquisition terms, thereby requesting a permit. DRM server 412 generates permit 410 in response to a request for a permit from clearing house 120. DRM server 412 is specific to a DRM architecture and col. 25, lines 27-35 various... application programming interfaces and col. 16, lines 45-50 and col. 25, lines 48-67 and col. 27, lines 18-30 – DRM Agnostic Packaging), ... and receiving, ...via a first scheme-specific API..., ....via the scheme-agnostic API (Lockhart, FIG. 4 and col. 16, lines 4-26 - Consumer 100 interacts with the clearing house to satisfy the permit acquisition terms, thereby requesting a permit. DRM server 412 generates permit 410 in response to a request for a permit from clearing house 120. DRM server 412 is specific to a DRM architecture and col. 16, lines 45-50 and col. 25, lines 27-35 - various... application programming interfaces and col. 25, lines 48-67 and col. 27, lines 18-30 – DRM Agnostic Packaging)
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Lockhart to Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang, as per claim 1, above.
Morlang further teaches an identifier specifying selection of a second [encryption] scheme of a plurality of [encryption] schemes ([0003] - A number of encryption algorithms exist for securely protecting such communication and [0007] - An identifier is sent from a first node to a second node via a first connection. Either an encryption algorithm or an identifier of the encryption algorithm is also sent to the second node); and ...based on the identifier specifying selection of the second [encryption] scheme ([0003] - A number of encryption algorithms exist for securely protecting such communication and [0007] - An identifier is sent from a first node to a second node via a first connection. Either an encryption algorithm or an identifier of the encryption algorithm is also sent to the second node... the encrypted session is established, using the encryption algorithm);
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Morlang to Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 3;
Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang disclose the method to claim 1.
Hussain further discloses wherein receiving, via the scheme-agnostic [application program], the response to the first DRM request is based on a response to a request sent via the first scheme-specific [application program] associated with the first DRM scheme ([0025] - sending, with the entitlement gateway, a request for a license for accessing the requested DRM-protected media content from the identified DRM server. The method might further comprise, in response to receiving the license for accessing the requested DRM-protected media content from the identified DRM server associated with the identified DRM type, sending, with the entitlement gateway, the license to the client device, the license enabling the user to access the requested DRM-protected media content).
Lockhart further teaches receiving, via a scheme-agnostic application program interface (API) ....the via the first scheme-specific application program interface (Lockhart, FIG. 4 and col. 16, lines 4-26 - Consumer 100 interacts with the clearing house to satisfy the permit acquisition terms, thereby requesting a permit. DRM server 412 generates permit 410 in response to a request for a permit from clearing house 120. DRM server 412 is specific to a DRM architecture and col. 25, lines 27-35 various... application programming interfaces and col. 16, lines 45-50 and col. 25, lines 48-67 and col. 27, lines 18-30 – DRM Agnostic Packaging), ... and receiving, ...via a first scheme-specific API..., ....via the scheme-agnostic API (Lockhart, FIG. 4 and col. 16, lines 4-26 - Consumer 100 interacts with the clearing house to satisfy the permit acquisition terms, thereby requesting a permit. DRM server 412 generates permit 410 in response to a request for a permit from clearing house 120. DRM server 412 is specific to a DRM architecture and col. 16, lines 45-50 and col. 25, lines 27-35 - various... application programming interfaces and col. 25, lines 48-67 and col. 27, lines 18-30 – DRM Agnostic Packaging).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Lockhart to Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 4;
Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang disclose the method to claim 1.
Hussain further discloses wherein the response to the first DRM request comprises one or more of a license decision or a key (FIG. 3C – License).
Regarding Claim 5;
Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang disclose the method to claim 1.
Hussain further wherein the first DRM request comprises a network address of a vendor of the first DRM scheme ([0025] - ...with the entitlement gateway, a request for a license for accessing the requested DRM-protected media content from the identified DRM server. The method might further comprise, in response to receiving the license for accessing the requested DRM-protected media content from the identified DRM server associated with the identified DRM type... and [0084] - Merely by way of example, the network(s) 610 (similar to network(s) 145 and 245 of FIGS. 1 and 2, or the like) can each include a local area network (“LAN”), including, without limitation, a fiber network, an Ethernet network, a Token-Ring™ network and/or the like; a wide-area network (“WAN”); a wireless wide area network (“WWAN”); a virtual network, such as a virtual private network (“VPN”); the Internet; an intranet; an extranet... In a particular embodiment, the network might include an access network of the service provider (e.g., an Internet service provider (“ISP”)). In another embodiment, the network might include a core network of the service provider, and/or the Internet). As noted use of an ISP/Internet requires the use of a network address re: request/response.
Regarding Claim 6;
Hussain discloses a method comprising:
receiving, via a scheme-agnostic application program ... a first digital rights management (DRM) request comprising [a] selection of a first DRM scheme of a plurality of DRM schemes ([0025] - In an aspect, a method might comprise receiving, with an entitlement gateway, with an entitlement gateway, a query from a client device for a user to access media content that is protected by digital rights management (“DRM”) technology... The method might also comprise, based on a determination that the user is authorized to access the requested DRM-protected media content, identifying, with the entitlement gateway and from among a plurality of DRM types, a DRM type that is used to protect the requested DRM-protected media content, the entitlement gateway being agnostic to DRM types, based on the identified DRM type, determining, with the entitlement gateway and from among a plurality of DRM servers each associated with a particular DRM type and [0075]);
sending, based on a first response to a first scheme-specific request sent based on the ... selection of the first DRM scheme in the first DRM request, via the scheme-agnostic [application program], a first response to the first DRM request ([0025] - sending, with the entitlement gateway, a request for a license for accessing the requested DRM-protected media content from the identified DRM server. The method might further comprise, in response to receiving the license for accessing the requested DRM-protected media content from the identified DRM server associated with the identified DRM type, sending, with the entitlement gateway, the license to the client device, the license enabling the user to access the requested DRM-protected media content and [0075]).
receiving, via the scheme-agnostic [application program], a second DRM request comprising ... a second DRM scheme and different from the first DRM scheme ([0025] - In an aspect, a method might comprise receiving, with an entitlement gateway, with an entitlement gateway, a query from a client device for a user to access media content that is protected by digital rights management (“DRM”) technology... The method might also comprise, based on a determination that the user is authorized to access the requested DRM-protected media content, identifying, with the entitlement gateway and from among a plurality of DRM types, a DRM type that is used to protect the requested DRM-protected media content, the entitlement gateway being agnostic to DRM types, based on the identified DRM type, determining, with the entitlement gateway and from among a plurality of DRM servers each associated with a particular DRM type and [0075]); and
sending, based on a second response to a second scheme-specific request sent based on the ... selection of the second DRM scheme in the second DRM request, via the scheme-agnostic [application], a second response to the second DRM request ([0025] - sending, with the entitlement gateway, a request for a license for accessing the requested DRM-protected media content from the identified DRM server. The method might further comprise, in response to receiving the license for accessing the requested DRM-protected media content from the identified DRM server associated with the identified DRM type, sending, with the entitlement gateway, the license to the client device, the license enabling the user to access the requested DRM-protected media content and [0075]).
Hussain fails to explicitly disclose
sending, via a scheme-agnostic application program interface (API), a first digital rights management (DRM) request comprising an identifier specifying selection of a first DRM scheme of a plurality of DRM schemes; and
receiving, based on a response to a first scheme-specific request sent via a first scheme- specific API based on the identifier specifying selection of the first DRM scheme, via the scheme-agnostic API, a response to the first DRM request. (emphasis added).
Hussain fails to explicitly disclose receiving, via a scheme-agnostic application program interface (API), a first digital rights management (DRM) request comprising an identifier specifying selection of a first DRM scheme of a plurality of DRM schemes;
sending, based on a first response to a first scheme-specific request sent based on the identifier specifying selection of the first DRM scheme in the first DRM request, via the scheme-agnostic API, a first response to the first DRM request;
receiving, via the scheme-agnostic API, a second DRM request comprising an identifier of a second DRM scheme and different from the first DRM scheme; and
sending, based on a second response to a second scheme-specific request sent based on the identifier specifying selection of the second DRM scheme in the second DRM request, via the scheme-agnostic API, a second response to the second DRM request. (emphasis added).
However, in an analogous art, Lockhart teaches receiving, via a scheme-agnostic application program interface (API) and sending via the scheme agnostic interface (Lockhart, FIG. 4 and col. 16, lines 4-26 - Consumer 100 interacts with the clearing house to satisfy the permit acquisition terms, thereby requesting a permit. DRM server 412 generates permit 410 in response to a request for a permit from clearing house 120. DRM server 412 is specific to a DRM architecture and col. 25, lines 27-35 various... application programming interfaces and col. 16, lines 45-50 and col. 25, lines 48-67 and col. 27, lines 18-30 – DRM Agnostic Packaging).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lockhart to both the receiving/sending re: the first/second DRM request steps of Hussain to include the steps of receiving, via a scheme-agnostic application program interface (API)... and sending via the scheme agnostic interface
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lockhart to Hussain o do so as it provides / allows users with a means for providing a data rights management for controlling access to data on the internet (Lockhart, col. 1, lines 15-19).
However, in an analogous art, Morlang teaches
an identifier specifying selection of a first [encryption] scheme of a plurality of [encryption] schemes/based on the identifier specifying selection of the first [encryption] scheme ([0003] - A number of encryption algorithms exist for securely protecting such communication and [0007] - An identifier is sent from a first node to a second node via a first connection. Either an encryption algorithm or an identifier of the encryption algorithm is also sent to the second node); and an identifier of a second [encryption] scheme and different from the first [encryption] scheme / based on the identifier specifying selection of the second [encryption] scheme ([0003] - A number of encryption algorithms exist for securely protecting such communication and [0007] - An identifier is sent from a first node to a second node via a first connection. Either an encryption algorithm or an identifier of the encryption algorithm is also sent to the second node... the encrypted session is established, using the encryption algorithm);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Morlang to the first and second DRM schemes of Hussain and Lockhart to include an identifier specifying selection of a first ... scheme of a plurality of ... schemes/based on the identifier specifying selection of the first ... scheme; and an identifier of a second ... scheme and different from the first ...scheme/based on the identifier specifying selection of the second ... scheme
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Morlang to Hussain and Lockhart to do so as it provides / allows agree on an encryption algorithm to be used via a connection even if a communication protocol used on that connection does not support that encryption algorithm (Morlang, [0024]).
Regarding Claim 7;
Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang disclose the method to claim 6.
Hussain further discloses comprising determining, based on the first DRM request, the first DRM scheme ([0025]).
Regarding Claim 8;
Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang disclose the method to claim 6.
Hussain further discloses comprising determining, based on the second DRM request, the second DRM scheme ([0025]).
Regarding Claim 9;
Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang disclose the method to claim 7.
Hussain further discloses wherein determining the first DRM scheme comprises determining, based on the ... in the first DRM request, the first DRM scheme ([0025]).
Morlang further teaches determining... based on the identifier in the first [encryption] request, the first [encryption] scheme.
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Morlang to Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 10;
Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang disclose the method to claim 6.
Hussain further discloses wherein the first response to the first scheme-specific request comprises one or more of a license decision or a key (FIG. 3C – License).
Regarding Claim 11;
Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang disclose the method to claim 6.
Lockhart further teaches wherein the first DRM request is associated with a first protocol corresponding to the scheme-agnostic API (col. 16, lines 45-50 – driven from an HTML and col. 17, lines 33-45), and the method further comprises generating the first scheme-specific request according to a second protocol corresponding to the first DRM scheme (col. 27, lines 18-30 – XML).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Lockhart to Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang, as per claim 6, above.
Regarding Claim 12;
Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang disclose the method to Claim 11.
Lockhart further teaches further comprising generating the second scheme-specific request according to a third protocol corresponding to the second DRM scheme (col. 16, lines 45-50 – driven from an HTML and col. 17, lines 33-45 and col. 27, lines 18-30 – XML).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Lockhart to Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang, as per claim 6, above.
Regarding Claim 13;
Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang disclose the method to Claim 11.
Lockhart further teaches wherein the response to the first-scheme specific request is associated with the second protocol (col. 27, lines 18-30 – XML), the method further comprises generating the response to the first DRM request according to the first protocol (col. 16, lines 45-50 – driven from an HTML and col. 17, lines 33-45 – install permit URL).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Lockhart to Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang, as per claim 6, above.
Regarding Claim 14
Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang disclose the method to Claim 6.
Hussain further discloses wherein the first DRM request comprises one or more business attributes ([0057] – client identifying information).
Regarding Claim 15;
Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang disclose the method to Claim 6.
Hussain further discloses wherein the one or more business attributes are excluded from the first-scheme specific request ([0058] – request for license).
Regarding Claim 16;
Hussain discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at a first computing device, via a first scheme-specific application program ... corresponding to a first digital rights management (DRM) scheme of a plurality of DRM schemes, based on a first DRM request received via a scheme-agnostic [application] from a second computing device, a first scheme-specific request, wherein the first DRM request comprises a first DRM ... selection of the first DRM scheme of the plurality of DRM schemes ([0025] - In an aspect, a method might comprise receiving, with an entitlement gateway, with an entitlement gateway, a query from a client device for a user to access media content that is protected by digital rights management (“DRM”) technology... The method might also comprise, based on a determination that the user is authorized to access the requested DRM-protected media content, identifying, with the entitlement gateway and from among a plurality of DRM types, a DRM type that is used to protect the requested DRM-protected media content, the entitlement gateway being agnostic to DRM types, based on the identified DRM type, determining, with the entitlement gateway and from among); and sending, via the first scheme-specific [application program], a response to the first scheme-specific request sending, wherein, based on the response to the first scheme-specific request, a response to the first DRM request is sent to a second computing device ([0025] - sending, with the entitlement gateway, a request for a license for accessing the requested DRM-protected media content from the identified DRM server. The method might further comprise, in response to receiving the license for accessing the requested DRM-protected media content from the identified DRM server associated with the identified DRM type, sending, with the entitlement gateway, the license to the client device, the license enabling the user to access the requested DRM-protected media content and [0075]).
Hussain fails to explicitly disclose
receiving, at a first computing device, via a first scheme-specific application program interface (API) corresponding to a first digital rights management (DRM) scheme of a plurality of DRM schemes, based on a first DRM request received via a scheme-agnostic API from a second computing device, a first scheme-specific request, wherein the first DRM request comprises a first DRM identifier specifying selection of the first DRM scheme of the plurality of DRM schemes; and sending, via the first scheme-specific API, a response to the first scheme-specific request sending, wherein, based on the response to the first scheme-specific request, a response to the first DRM request is sent to a second computing device (emphasis added).
However, in an analogous art, Lockhart teaches receiving, ... via a first scheme-specific application program interface (API)... received via a scheme-agnostic API (Lockhart, FIG. 4 and col. 16, lines 4-26 - Consumer 100 interacts with the clearing house to satisfy the permit acquisition terms, thereby requesting a permit. DRM server 412 generates permit 410 in response to a request for a permit from clearing house 120. DRM server 412 is specific to a DRM architecture and col. 25, lines 27-35 various... application programming interfaces and col. 16, lines 45-50 and col. 25, lines 48-67 and col. 27, lines 18-30 – DRM Agnostic Packaging) and sending, via the first scheme-specific API (Lockhart, FIG. 4 and col. 16, lines 4-26 - Consumer 100 interacts with the clearing house to satisfy the permit acquisition terms, thereby requesting a permit. DRM server 412 generates permit 410 in response to a request for a permit from clearing house 120. DRM server 412 is specific to a DRM architecture and col. 25, lines 27-35 various... application programming interfaces and col. 16, lines 45-50 and col. 25, lines 48-67 and col. 27, lines 18-30 – DRM Agnostic Packaging),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lockhart to receiving/sending steps of Hussain to include the steps of receiving, ... via a first scheme-specific application program interface (API)... received via a scheme-agnostic API and sending, via the first scheme-specific API.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lockhart to Hussain o do so as it provides / allows users with a means for providing a data rights management for controlling access to data on the internet (Lockhart, col. 1, lines 15-19).
However, in an analogous art, Morlang teaches
a first [encryption] identifier specifying selection of the first [encryption] scheme of the plurality of [encryption] schemes ([0003] - A number of encryption algorithms exist for securely protecting such communication and [0007] - An identifier is sent from a first node to a second node via a first connection. Either an encryption algorithm or an identifier of the encryption algorithm is also sent to the second node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Morlang to the schemes of Hussain and Lockhart to include an a first ... identifier specifying selection of the first ... scheme of the plurality of ... schemes
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Morlang to Hussain and Lockhart to do so as it provides / allows agree on an encryption algorithm to be used via a connection even if a communication protocol used on that connection does not support that encryption algorithm (Morlang, [0024]).
Regarding Claim 17;
Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang disclose the method to Claim 16.
Morlang further teaches further comprising encrypting data associated with the first scheme-specific request ([0007] - ...the encrypted session is established...).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Morlang to Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang, as per claim 16, above.
Regarding Claim 18;
Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang disclose the method to Claim 16.
Lockhart further teaches further comprising applying metadata to data associated with the first scheme-specific request (col. 26, lines 62-col. 27, lines 13 - The operation of DRM agnostic packaging process 2300 is now described. In a step 2302, content packager 140 receives permit class and content meta data to generate a request for a permit class to package content).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Lockhart to Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang, as per claim 16, above.
Regarding Claim 19;
Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang disclose the method to Claim 16.
Hussain further discloses wherein the response to the first DRM request comprises one or more of a license decision or a key (FIG. 3C – License).
Regarding Claim 20;
Hussain in view of Lockhart and Morlang disclose the method to Claim 17.
Hussain further discloses wherein the first DRM request or the second DRM request comprises business attributes comprising one or more of: account information, a content identifier, a device identifier, or a session identifier ([0057] – client identifying information).
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 KARI L SCHMIDT whose telephone number is (571)270-1385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm (MDT).
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.
/KARI L SCHMIDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights