DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed 2/10/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 2-20 are new. Independent claims 1, 11 and 18, and corresponding dependent claims are directed towards a method, system and non-transitory computer readable medium for content encryption.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12, 14-17 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,160,507. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of subject matter indicated below:
Application 18/965630
US Patent No. 12,160,507
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 2
Claim 10
Claim 3
Claim 2
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claim 5
Claim 4
Claim 6
Claim 6
Claim 7
Claim 3
Claim 8
Claim 7
Claim 9
Claim 8
Claim 10
Claim 9
Claim 11
Claim 11
Claim 12
Claim 10
Claim 13
Claim 12
Claim 14
Claim 15
Claim 15
Claim 14
Claim 16
Claim 16
Claim 17
Claim 17
Claim 18
Claim 20
Claim 19
Claim 10
Claim 20
Claim 12
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11, 13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (US 2002/0077988 A1), published Jun. 20, 2002, in view of Schnell et al. (US 2018/0018677 A1), published Jan. 18, 2018.
As to claims 1, 11 and 18, Sasaki substantially discloses a computer-implemented method (Sasaki [Abstract]), a system (Sasaki [Abstract], [0034] software modules executing on a computer having processing unit and memory) and a non-transitory computer readable medium (Sasaki [0034] software modules executing on a computer having processing unit and memory), hereinafter referred to as a method, comprising: generating a encrypted media that includes a content of a source media encrypted with a first cryptographic key (Sasaki Fig. 4 item 141 Content; [0041] encrypt content with content key); encrypting, with a second cryptographic key, the first cryptographic key and an access data specifying access entitlements for the content (Sasaki Fig. 4; [0041] content package 147 is encrypted using content key 131 and content key 131 is encrypted using distributor’s public key 143 – both content key and license restrictions require decryption using private key of distributor to access); and including, with the encrypted media, encrypted data that includes the first cryptographic key and the access data (Sasaki Fig. 4 item 141; [0041] transfer file 149 has content encrypted with content key 131). Sasaki fails to explicitly disclose a partially encrypted media that includes a second content portion and a first content portion of the source media presentable independently of and without access to the second content portion, the second content portion following the first content portion in the source media. Schnell describes a content preview method. With this in mind, Schnell discloses a partially encrypted media that includes a second content portion and a first content portion of the source media presentable independently of and without access to the second content portion (Schnell [0115] first portion segment of song accessible with preview license is decrypted and played independently of second portion of song which is not accessible by use of preview license – resulting in a partial encryption of the content (i.e. the remaining non-preview portion of the content is still encrypted); [0116]-0117] second portion requires additional license and decryption), the second content portion following the first content portion in the source media (Schnell [0115] second portion of song not accessible by use of preview portion). It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the content preview of Schnell with the content licensing of Sasaki, such that a user is able to partially preview encrypted content, as it would advantageously enable a user to better decide on a purchase of the content (Schnell [0002]).
As to claims 3, 13 and 20, Sasaki and Schnell disclose the invention as claimed as described in claims 1, 11 and 18, respectively, including further comprising: generating an authorizer specific encrypted data structure by encrypting the encrypted data with a third cryptographic key associated with an authorizer (Sasaki [0040] encrypt content key with public keys of each distributor; [0041] encrypted content package and key are transmitted to each distributor in transfer file), wherein the authorizer is distinct from an entity that publishes the source media (Sasaki Fig. 1 showing owner and commercial distributor; [0040] each of the participating content distributors).
As to claims 5 and 15, Sasaki and Schnell disclose the invention as claimed as described in claims 3 and 13, respectively, including further comprising: including a key identifier for the second cryptographic key with the partially encrypted media (Sasaki Fig. 4 Distributor ID A & B; [0041] A&B identifying same distributor and therefore associated public key), wherein the authorizer specific encrypted data structure includes a key identifier corresponding to the third cryptographic key (Sasaki Fig. 4 Distributor ID A & B; [0041] A&B identifying same distributor and therefore associated public key; [0041] encrypted content package and key are transmitted to each distributor in transfer file).
As to claims 6 and 16, Sasaki and Schnell disclose the invention as claimed as described in claims 3 and 13, respectively, including wherein the authorizer includes a search indexer, a cache service, a content delivery network (Sasaki Fig. 1 Distributor Level 16; [0040] plurality of distributors; [0034] distribution network), or a paywall service.
As to claim 7, Sasaki and Schnell disclose the invention as claimed as described in claim 3, including wherein the second cryptographic key and the third cryptographic key are public keys (Sasaki [0040] each content distributor public key).
As to claims 8 and 17, Sasaki and Schnell disclose the invention as claimed as described in claims 1 and 11, respectively, including further comprising transmitting the partially encrypted media to a host server (Sasaki [0032] commercial distributor may be web site).
Claims 2, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (US 2002/0077988 A1), published Jun. 20, 2002, in view of Schnell et al. (US 2018/0018677 A1), published Jan. 18, 2018, in view of Chase, Jr. et al. (US 2003/0187801 A1), published Oct. 2, 2003.
As to claims 2, 12 and 19, Sasaki and Schnell disclose the invention as claimed as described in claims 1, 11 and 18, respectively, including further comprising: an indicator configured to send a request to authorize access to the second content portion (Schnell [0116]-[0117] preview license indicator offers upsell license for access to additional content is acquired from server after purchase); and including the indicator with the partially encrypted media (Schnell Fig. 12 showing preview license indicator 1206 in package with encrypted content 222; [0116] preview license indicator offers upsell to user for consuming additional content). Sasaki and Schnell fail to explicitly disclose generating executable code that is included with the content. Chase describes a method for content revocation and license modification in a DRM system. With this in mind, Chase discloses generating executable code that is included with the content (Chase [0064] acquisition script for obtaining license for accompanied content). It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the license acquisition script of Chase with the content licensing of Sasaki and Schnell, such that further access upon purchase is granted through a license that is acquired by an included script, as it would advantageously improve control of rendering of content by consumers (Chase [0008]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (US 2002/0077988 A1), published Jun. 20, 2002, in view of Schnell et al. (US 2018/0018677 A1), published Jan. 18, 2018, in view of Kang et al. (US 2012/0017282 A1), published Jan. 19, 2012.
As to claim 9, Sasaki and Schnell substantially disclose the invention as claimed as described in claim 1, failing, however, to explicitly disclose wherein the access data does not include user identifying data. Kang describes a method for providing DRM service. With this in mind, Kang discloses wherein the access data does not include user identifying data (Kang [0087] license based on subscription level). It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the subscription level-based licensing with the content licensing of Sasaki and Schnell, such that the licenses conditions are specific to subscription level, as it would advantageously allow for use of multiple DRM systems (Kang [0089]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (US 2002/0077988 A1), published Jun. 20, 2002, in view of Schnell et al. (US 2018/0018677 A1), published Jan. 18, 2018, in view of Zhu et al. (US 2008/0165956 A1), published Jul. 10, 2008.
As to claim 10, Sasaki and Schnell disclose the invention as claimed as described in claim 1, including wherein the first cryptographic key is a randomly generated key that is unique to the source media. Zhu describes a content encryption schema for integrating DRM with encrypted multicast. With this in mind, Zhu discloses w wherein the first cryptographic key is a randomly generated key that is unique to the source media (Zhu [0025]-[0026] using pseudo-random prime number generator to generate random integer for input into content encryption key generator to generate content encryption key). It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the pseudo-random number content key generation of Zhu with the content key of Sasaki and Schnell, such that key used to encrypt the content is random, as it would advantageously increase prevention of discovery or speculation of a content encryption key.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten or amended to overcome the Double Patenting rejection(s), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 4 and 14, and their dependent claims, the prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest, in combination, a method or system in which a partially encrypted media/content is generated that includes a second portion encrypted with a first key and a first portion presentable independently of and without access to the second portion, the second portion following the first portion in the source media/content, the first key and access data are encrypted using a second key and included with the partially encrypted media/content, as claimed as described in claims 1 and 11, respectively, further including generating an authorizer encrypted data structure by encrypting again the encrypted data with a third key of an authorizer, the authorizer being different than a publisher of the source media/content, as claimed as described in claims 3 and 13, respectively, further including wherein the source media/content includes a document having a header that includes the encrypted data and the authorizer encrypted data structure, in the specific manner and combination as recited in claims 4 and 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dal Lago et al. (US 2009/0031426 A1) is related to protected distribution of digitized sensitive information.
Boocon-Gibod et al. (US 8,688,583 B2) is related to digital rights management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC W SHEPPERD whose telephone number is (571)270-5654. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, Alt. Friday, 7:30AM - 5:00PM, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rupal Dharia can be reached at (571)272-3880. 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.
/Eric W Shepperd/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492