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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1- 4, 8-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCartney, publication number: US 2017/0032413 in view of Carpenter, publication number: US 2010/0312653.
As per claims 1, 11 and 13, McCartney teaches a method comprising:
encountering, by a media player of a media presentation system, a trigger to transmit an advertisement request to a computing device associated with a media provider (generating ad request based on loading content, [0063]);
responsive to encountering the trigger to transmit the advertisement request and before a transmission of the advertisement request to the computing device, generating, by the media player, an attestation watermark indicative of an authenticity of the media player using a cryptographic key, wherein the cryptographic key is stored by the media player, and wherein generating the attestation watermark comprises generating a data object specifying a claim related to the media player (signature generation using ad request and key, [0069], request including user information, [0023]);
attaching, by the media player, the attestation watermark to the advertisement request (adding signature to ad request, [0071]); and
based on encountering the trigger, transmitting, by the media player, the advertisement request having the attached attestation watermark to the computing device, wherein the authenticity of the media player is verifiable by the computing device using the attestation watermark (verifying request, [0091]).
McCartney does not teach wherein the specified claim comprises a device identifier of the media player.
In an analogous art, Carpenter teaches wherein the specified claim comprises a device identifier of the media player (advertisement request including device specific information, [0026][0032][0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCartney’s ad provision system to include device specific data as described in Carpenter’s advertisement presentation for advantages of preventing replay attacks.
As per claims 2, 12 and 14, the combination teaches wherein the specified claim comprises a timestamp indicative of a creation time of the attestation watermark or an expiration time of the attestation watermark (McCartney: timestamp, [0025][0067][0083]).
As per claim 3, the combination teaches wherein the specified claim comprises a timestamp indicative of a creation time of the attestation watermark (McCartney: timestamp, [0025][0067][0083]).
As per claim 4, the combination teaches wherein the specified claim comprises a timestamp indicative of an expiration time of the attestation watermark (McCartney: timestamp, [0025][0067][0083]).
As per claims 8 and 18, the combination teaches wherein the computing device associated with the media provider is a media server (McCartney: server [0040]).
As per claims 9 and 19, the combination teaches wherein the computing device associated with the media provider is a computing device of an advertisement publisher (McCartney: server [0040]).
As per claims 10 and 20, the combination teaches wherein generating the attestation watermark comprises:
sending, by the media player, an attestation request to a server that stores the cryptographic key; and
receiving, by the media player from the server, the attestation watermark (McCartney: key, [0060-0062]).
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCartney, publication number: US 2017/0032413 in view of Carpenter, publication number: US 2010/0312653 in further view of Maxwell, publication number: US 2018/0375664.
As per claims 5 and 15, McCartney and Carpenter teach verifying ad requests.
The combination does not teach wherein generating the attestation watermark comprises generating a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Web Token (JWT) including the specified claim using the cryptographic key.
In an analogous art, Maxwell teaches verifying ad requests.
McCartney does not teach wherein generating the attestation watermark comprises generating a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Web Token (JWT) including the specified claim using the cryptographic key (verification using JWT, [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify McCartney and Carpenter’s verification system to include JWT as described in Maxwell’s verification system for the advantage of having an extra layer of security.
As per claims 6 and 16, the combination teaches wherein the signature of the JWT is verifiable by the computing device using a public key(Maxwell: JWT, [0031], McCartney: public key [0098])
As per claims 7 and 17, the combination teaches wherein: the public key is hosted on a server and the JWT identifies the public key (Maxwell, JWT, [0031]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUGBENGA O IDOWU whose telephone number is (571)270-1450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am - 5pm.
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, Jung Kim can be reached at 5712723804. 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.
/OLUGBENGA O IDOWU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights