Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
This action is in response to the correspondence filed 03/21/2025.
Claims 2-19 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the second “obtaining” element states “based up on”. The Examiner believes it was intended to read “based upon”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,184,943 in view of claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,102,553.
As to claims 2 and 19, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,184,943 teaches each of the claim limitations of claim 2 of the present application except “receiving at least a portion of a container file, wherein the at least a portion of the container file comprises: a video chunk containing at least a partially-encrypted encoded frame of video; and a digital rights management portion that precedes the video chunk within the at least a portion of the container file” which is covered by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,102,553. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of U.S. Patent No. 12,184,943 to include the method of receiving the container file as taught by U.S. Patent No. 11,102,553 in order to increase the various video or multimedia content which is to be prepared and transmitted in a secure manner.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20120063595 A1 to Massoudi et al. teaches a layered audiovisual packet data stream, such as one obtained by a JPEG2000 encoder, is received together with information (metadata) about the contribution of each packet to the reduction of image distortion. The distortion-to-rate ratio for each packet is calculated and the packets are ordered in descending ratio. The non-encrypted packet having the highest ratio is encrypted until the target distortion is obtained. Also provided is an apparatus. In a variant, the data in the packets are substituted by dummy data instead of encrypted.
US 20040081333 A1 to Grab et al. (Applicant’s IDS) teaches a method for producing and for subsequently decrypting a protected stream of compressed video content is described herein. The method includes receiving an input stream of compressed video content containing a sequence of frames. A set of encrypted frames are created by encrypting selected frames of the sequence of frames in accordance with a frame encryption function. The method further includes generating frame decryption information necessary to decrypt the set of encrypted frames. In a particular implementation the protected stream is assembled using the set of encrypted frames, unencrypted frames from the input stream, and the frame decryption information. The decryption process is initiated by receiving the protected stream of compressed video content and the corresponding frame decryption information. In this regard the frame decryption information includes data distinguishing the encrypted frames from the unencrypted frames of the compressed video content within the protected stream. The encrypted frames are then decrypted in accordance with the frame decryption information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claim 2, and its dependent claims, are allowable over the prior art of record, including Massoudi, Grab and the remaining references cited by the Examiner and the Applicant’s IDS, since the prior art, taken individually or in combination, fails to particularly disclose, fairly suggest or render obvious the combination of combining, using at least one processor configured to perform the demultiplexer process, the cryptographic information and the video data; providing, using at least one processor configured to perform the demultiplexer process, the combined cryptographic information and video data to at least one processor configured to perform the video decoder and DRM process via an unsecured communication; obtaining from the combined cryptographic information and video data, using at least one processor configured to perform the video decoder and DRM process, the partially-encrypted encoded frame of video, the reference to the specific portion of the partially-encrypted encoded frame of video that is encrypted, and the cryptographic material for the partially-encrypted encoded frame of video; and decrypting, using at least one processor configured to perform the video decoder and DRM process, the partially-encrypted encoded frame of video using the cryptographic material, and the reference to the specific portion of the partially-encrypted encoded frame of video that is encrypted, in view of the other limitations of the claim, as specified in claim 2;
Independent claim 19 is allowable over the prior art of record, including Massoudi, Grab and the remaining references cited by the Examiner and the Applicant’s IDS, since the prior art, taken individually or in combination, fails to particularly disclose, fairly suggest or render obvious the combination of combining, using at least one processor configured to perform the demultiplexer process, the cryptographic information and the video data; providing, using at least one processor configured to perform the demultiplexer process, the combined cryptographic information and video data to at least one processor configured to perform the video decoder and DRM process via an unsecured communication; obtaining from the combined cryptographic information and video data, using at least one processor configured to perform the video decoder and DRM process, the partially-encrypted encoded frame of video, the offset and the length for the encrypted portion of the partially-encrypted encoded frame of video, and the cryptographic material for the partially-encrypted encoded frame of video; and decrypting, using at least one processor configured to perform the video decoder and DRM process, the partially-encrypted encoded frame of video using the cryptographic material, and the offset and the length for the encrypted portion of the partially-encrypted encoded frame of video, in view of the other limitations of the claim, as specified in claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALCOLM CRIBBS whose telephone number is (571)270-1566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 930a-330p; 430p-630p.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached at (571)272-3867. 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.
MALCOLM . CRIBBS
Examiner
Art Unit 2497
/MALCOLM CRIBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights