DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the claims filed 12/27/2024.
Claim 20 is non-elected.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 1-19 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Restriction/Election Acknowledgement
The Applicant’s election on claims 1-19 without traverse in the reply on 06/08/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group(s).
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (101 Analysis: Step 1). Even if the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (101 Analysis: Step 2a(Prong 1), and if so, Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. (101 Analysis: Step 2a (Prong 2). If additional elements does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception, claim still requires an evaluation of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. If the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (there is an inventive concept in the claim), the claim is eligible. If the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more (there is no inventive concept in the claim), the claim is ineligible. (101 Analysis: Step 2b).
The 2019 PEG explains that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter: a) Mathematical concepts b) Certain methods of organizing human activity and c) Mental processes
Analysis
In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a method, and claim 10 is directed to an article of manufacture.
Step 2a.1– Identifying an Abstract Idea
The claims recite the steps of “receiving a request for content … transmitting a request to authenticate … encrypting cryptographic data… and transmitting the requested content ….” The recited limitations fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas, specifically, a mitigating risk in a commercial interaction of a user requesting content, they are verified and the content is secured and sent. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
See MPEP 2106.
Step 2a.2 – Identifying a Practical Application
The claim does not currently recite any additional elements or combination of additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Encrypting data is a mathematical formulation and therefore abstract and not an additional element.
Accordingly, even in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment do not amount to practical applications. The claim in directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2b
The claim limitations recite “receiving a request for content … transmitting a request to authenticate … encrypting cryptographic data… and transmitting the requested content ….” are not additional elements and they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. This is also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible.
Viewed as a whole, instructions/method claims recite the concept of commercial interaction as performed by a generic computer. The claims do not currently recite any additional elements or combination of additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The elements used to perform the claimed judicial exception amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a network, and/or merely uses a network as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8, 11-15 and 17 provide descriptive language surrounding the abstract idea. As such, these elements do not provide the significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable.
Dependent claims 7, 9, 16, 18 and 19 recite insignificant extra solution activity. As such, these elements do not provide the significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable.
The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Therefore, based on case law precedent, the claims are claiming subject matter similar to concepts already identified by the courts as dealing with abstract ideas. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561, U.S. 593, 611 (2010)).
The claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. 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(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claim does not affect an improvement to another technology or technical filed; the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency of independent claims and accordingly stand rejected under 35 USC 101 based on the same rationale.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19 are also rejected.
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 1-19 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.
Claims 1 and 10 recite “discloses receiving a request for content from a playback device, wherein the request comprises a product identifier associated with the playback device and data associated with a user account;” According to the disclosure ( Abstract; ¶ 6, 23, 37, 58, 102, 103)” wherein the processor is configured by a client application to request content from a server, communicate the product identifier to a server,… a method of identifying a playback device including a product identifier includes communicating a product identifier to a server, ” The disclosure provides for a client with a client application requesting the content, the disclosure does not provide written description for a playback device requesting the content from the server. There are multiple instances of the client requesting the content but not a single instance of using a playback device to do so. There is no support for the recited limitation. Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19 are also rejected.
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, 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grab (US 20060020825) (“Grab”), and further in view of Naressi et al. (US 20090315670) (“Naressi”).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Grab discloses upon successful authentication of the data associated with the user account, transmitting a request to authenticate the playback device to a DRM server, wherein the request to authenticate the playback device includes the product identifier and cryptographic information associated with the user account (¶ 48-57);
Grab – At step S702, a determination is made, by server 101, whether registration information 401 has been received. If it has been received, processing continues at step S704, to decode and unscramble the registration information 401. The guard value and model number information are retrieved from registration information 401 at step S706. At step S708, a determination is made whether or not media player 105 is one of a set of media players authorized for use with the system based on the received model number….If the model number retrieved from registration information 401 is determined to be valid, processing continues at step S712 to store the guard in the server's 101 memory….At step S714, an identifier and key for the requester are obtained and, at step S716, they are encrypted using the master key identified by the registration information. At step S718, the encrypted identifier and key are output as configuration information 402 by server 101. (¶ 52, 53)
upon successful authentication of the playback device by the DRM server, encrypting cryptographic data associated with the requested content using a product key associated with the product identifier; and (¶ 48-59);
Claim Interpretation- According to the disclosure(¶ 98), “a device receives cryptographic data that it uses to decrypt content and the cryptographic data is encrypted with a product key.” No disclosure support for this being based on authentication- New Matter.
Grab – media player 105 initializes registration information 401 with the generated guard value, a model number associated with the player and an identifier of a master key that is to be used by server 101 to encrypt configuration information 402. …At step S714, an identifier and key for the requester are obtained and, at step S716, they are encrypted using the master key identified by the registration information. At step S718, the encrypted identifier and key are output as configuration information 402 by server 101. (¶ 50, 53)
transmitting the requested content and the cryptographic data associated with the requested content to the playback device, (¶ 63-67);
Grab – Using the requester's key, all, or at least some portion, of the media content is encrypted at step S910. The control information is encrypted at step S912 using a master key. At step S914, the encrypted MCCI 403 is output by server 101….FIG. 10 illustrates a flow diagram of process steps to receive requested media content by the media player according to one or more embodiments of the present invention. At step S1002, if media player 105 determines that it has received MCCI 403, processing continues at step S1004. The control information from MCCI 403 is decrypted using a master key at step S1004. (¶ 64- 66)
wherein the cryptographic data associated with the requested content is decrypted using a product key stored on the playback device, and wherein the content is decrypted using the decrypted cryptographic data associated with the requested content(¶ 53-57, 64-70);
Grab –At step S714, an identifier and key for the requester are obtained and, at step S716, they are encrypted using the master key identified by the registration information… At step S1002, if media player 105 determines that it has received MCCI 403, processing continues at step S1004. The control information from MCCI 403 is decrypted using a master key at step S1004. At step S1006, a determination is made whether the identifier retrieved from the decrypted control information of MCCI 403 matches the requester's identifier stored in media player 105 during configuration. …Whether or not the number of plays is limited for the media content, the requester's key is retrieved at step S1012, and processing continues at step S1014 to decrypt the encrypted media content portion of MCCI 403 using the requester's key. (¶ 53, 66, 70)
Grab does not disclose receiving a request for content from a playback device, wherein the request comprises a product identifier associated with the playback device and data associated with a user account
Naressi teaches receiving a request for content from a playback device, wherein the request comprises a product identifier associated with the playback device and data associated with a user account (¶ 65-67, 79-87);
Claim Interpretation –NOTE: The disclosure does not provide support for the playback device sending a request for content. Claims recite new matter.
Naressi – media player 105 outputs registration information which is displayed by television 106. The requester then inputs the displayed registration information into computer 103 (e.g, in an input field of a web page from server 101) for transfer to server 101. If media player 105 is connected to a network, the registration information can be transferred directly from player 105 to computer 103 or server 101….media player 105 initializes registration information 401 with the generated guard value, a model number associated with the player and an identifier of a master key that is to be used by server 101 to encrypt configuration information 402…the requester input the registration information, media player 105 may output the registration information directly to computer 103 or server 101 via a data connection (e.g., wired or wireless network connection, serial connection, etc.)… At step S814, the retrieved identifier and key are stored in memory 202 of media player 105…At step S902, a determination is made that a request for media content was received by server 101. At step S904, processing continues and obtains an identifier and key associated with the requester of media content...FIG. 10 illustrates a flow diagram of process steps to receive requested media content by the media player The digital rights management service provider 36 as described in more detail below, performs an authentication operation which may include for example, comparing the sent media player identification information (player ID) to known valid player ID's to confirm that the media player requesting the media content is a trusted player and hence requesting media on behalf of a trusted RFID enabled digital media container. … The media playing device then connects to the DRM service provider 36 via a secure web service to request the corresponding media and digital rights that are identified by the content ID. (¶ 66, 86)
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 Grab and Naressi in order to provide further protection for media transfers and downloads (Naressi; ¶ 2-4).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Grab discloses wherein the cryptographic data is associated with the user account (¶ 33, 44, 50, 53, 57, 65).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Grab discloses wherein the product identifier identifies devices of at least one of a corresponding product model or a corresponding product line to the playback device (¶ 50-53, 58-63, 71).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Grab discloses wherein the product key associated with the product identifier is stored on the DRM server (¶ 48-67).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Grab discloses wherein the cryptographic data is further encrypted with a device key (¶ 50-65).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Grab discloses where in the device key is stored in a memory on the playback device (¶ 50-66).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Grab discloses playing back the decrypted content using the playback device(Figure 10; ¶ 65-72) .
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Grab discloses wherein the product identifier is associated with one or more sets or product tag data, wherein a set of product tag data comprises product ID version, brand, ODM/manufacturer, device type, model number, base model number, silicon platform ID, certified playback profile, country, and digital secure adaptive streaming software version in the product tag data (¶ 50-53).
Regarding claim 9, Grab discloses generating a product credential reference identifier from the product identifier, wherein the product credential reference identifier is associated with cryptographic information; sending a request for registration from the playback device to a registration server, where the request for registration includes the product credential reference identifier; and receiving user account data from the registration server in response to the product credential reference identifier matching a copy of the product credential reference identifier on the registration server, wherein the copy of the product credential reference identifier on the registration server also corresponds to the product identifier (¶ 33-36, 48-60, 63-71).
Regarding claim 18, Grab discloses wherein the playback device further generates a product credential reference identifier from the product identifier, wherein the product credential reference identifier is associated with cryptographic information (¶ 33-36, 48-60, 63-71).
Regarding claim 19, Grab discloses a registration server configured to: receive a request for registration from the playback device, where the request for registration includes the product credential reference identifier; and transmit data associated with the user account in response to the product credential reference identifier matching a copy of the product credential reference identifier on the registration server, wherein the copy of the product credential reference identifier on the registration server also corresponds to the product identifier (¶ 33-36, 48-60, 63-71).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Futa et al., (US 20080127279) teaches media player/ playback device request, same concept of encrypted media.
Kageyama (US 20030236714) teaches media player/ playback device request, same concept of encrypted media.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ILSE I IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 5:00pm.
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, NEHA PATEL can be reached on 571-270-1492. 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.
/ILSE I IMMANUEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights