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 .
Status of Claims
This is a first office action on the merits, in response to the claims filed on March 06, 2025.
Claims 11-18 and 20-30 are pending.
Claims 1-10 and 19 have been canceled.
Claims 11-18 and 20-30 have been examined.
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 11-18 and 20-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 11-18 are directed to a method, claims 20-30 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and claims 28 are directed to a system comprising one or more data processors and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions, in light of the specification paragraph [0012]. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claims recite an abstract idea of managing usage rights. Specifically, the claims recite “receiving, […], a request to access a property, the request to access the property involving one or more necessary rights; receiving a usage rights code (URC) associated with the request to access the property, the URC being an alphanumeric code indicative of one or more usage right terms, the one or more usage rights terms represented by a combination of one or more alphanumeric category codes, one or more alphanumeric action attribute codes, and one or more alphanumeric provision attribute codes; determining that the one or more necessary rights are satisfied by the one or more usage rights terms based at least in part on the combination of the one or more alphanumeric category codes, the one or more alphanumeric action attribute codes, and the one or more alphanumeric provision attribute codes; and authorizing access to the property in response to determining that the one or more necessary rights are satisfied”, which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(a)) because it describes a process for carrying out a commercial interaction between parties that involves communicating data needed to authorize access to a property/contents. Additionally, the computing device, one or more data processors and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04). (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(a or d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as computing device, one or more data processors and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the computing device, one or more data processors and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of “receiving, by a computing device, a request to access a property, the request to access the property involving one or more necessary rights; receiving a usage rights code (URC) associated with the request to access the property, the URC being an alphanumeric code indicative of one or more usage right terms, the one or more usage rights terms represented by a combination of one or more alphanumeric category codes, one or more alphanumeric action attribute codes, and one or more alphanumeric provision attribute codes; determining that the one or more necessary rights are satisfied by the one or more usage rights terms based at least in part on the combination of the one or more alphanumeric category codes, the one or more alphanumeric action attribute codes, and the one or more alphanumeric provision attribute codes; and authorizing access to the property in response to determining that the one or more necessary rights are satisfied.” The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claims 11, 20 and 28 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), the additional element(s) of using a computing device, one or more data processors and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of managing usage rights. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the computing device, one or more data processors and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of “receiving, by a computing device, a request to access a property, the request to access the property involving one or more necessary rights; receiving a usage rights code (URC) associated with the request to access the property, the URC being an alphanumeric code indicative of one or more usage right terms, the one or more usage rights terms represented by a combination of one or more alphanumeric category codes, one or more alphanumeric action attribute codes, and one or more alphanumeric provision attribute codes; determining that the one or more necessary rights are satisfied by the one or more usage rights terms based at least in part on the combination of the one or more alphanumeric category codes, the one or more alphanumeric action attribute codes, and the one or more alphanumeric provision attribute codes; and authorizing access to the property in response to determining that the one or more necessary rights are satisfied.” These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of managing usage rights. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. 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. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding dependent claims
Claims 12 and 21 recite: wherein determining that the one or more necessary rights are satisfied by the one or more usage rights terms includes extracting one or more substring codes from the URC, wherein each of the one or more substring codes includes one of the one or more alphanumeric category codes and at least one action/provision combination associated with the given one of the one or more alphanumeric category codes, and wherein each of the at least one action/provision combinations includes i) at least one of the one or more alphanumeric action attribute codes associated with the given one of the one or more alphanumeric category codes; and ii) at least one of the one or more alphanumeric provision attribute codes associated with the given at least one of the one or more alphanumeric action attribute codes
Claims 13 and 22 recite: identifying a supplier associated with the one or more usage right terms associated with the URC; and transmitting a notification to the supplier in response to authorizing access to the property.
Claims 14 and 23 recite: accessing metadata associated with the property, wherein receiving the URC includes extracting the URC from the metadata associated with the property.
Claims 15 and 24 recite: wherein the request to access the property includes a request to present the property via a presentation …, wherein the one or more necessary rights includes a necessary right associated with presenting the property via the presentation ….
Claims 16, 25 and 29 recite: initially determining that the one or more necessary rights are not satisfied by the determined one or more usage rights terms; identifying at least one unsatisfied necessary right from the one or more necessary rights; facilitating a transaction to acquire the one or more additional usage right terms; and updating the determined one or more usage rights terms with the one or more additional usage rights terms, such that the determined one or more usage rights terms now satisfy all of the one or more necessary rights.
Claims 17, 26 and 30 recite: determining that the one or more usage right terms includes one or more superfluous usage right terms unnecessary to satisfy the one or more necessary rights; facilitating a transaction to remove the one or more superfluous usage right terms; and updating the URC to remove the one or more superfluous usage rights terms.
Claims 18 and 27 recite: identifying a set of usage right terms associated with the request to access the property; generating the URC based at least in part on the identified set of usage right terms; and automatically procuring the set of usage right terms based at least in part on the generated URC.
Dependent claims 12-18 and 21-30 further describe the abstract idea of managing usage rights. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11-16, 18, 20-25 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilliam et al. (US 20040039704 A1, “Gilliam”), alternatively, in view of Maughan et al. (US 20190325114 A1, “Maughan”).
Regarding claims 11, 20 and 28: Gilliam discloses: A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a request to access a property, the request to access the property involving one or more necessary rights (Gilliam [0055]: In an exemplary embodiment, a user can browse a Web site running on Web server 150a of a vendor 150, using a browser installed in the client environment 120, and request an item corresponding to the item ticket 134; [0167]: the repository 800 processes the item 812 or the repository 800 receives a request 814 for the item 812);
receiving a usage rights code (URC) associated with the request to access the property, the URC being an alphanumeric code indicative of one or more usage right terms, the one or more usage rights terms represented by a combination of one or more alphanumeric category codes, one or more alphanumeric action attribute codes, and one or more alphanumeric provision attribute codes (Gilliam [0264]: at step 902 a potential recipient of an item specifies a rights expression indicating a first manner of use of the item proposed by the recipient and a provider of the item specifies a second rights expression indicating a second manner of use of the item proposed by the provider; [0154]: the central control repository 706 or one or more of the other repositories 710-720 can be configured to examine and analyze other attributes about the item 704, such as meta data, the type of file, the size of the file, the presence or absence of an appropriate digital ticket, watermark or security indicator, the absence of tampering or any other suitable characteristics. One or more of such characteristics can be used as part of the process to determine which of the repositories 706 and 710-720 can process the item 704. For example, if a determined characteristic of the item 704, such as a music file, movie file, and the like, is that the item 704 is over one megabyte in size, the determination may be to not e-mail the item 704, notwithstanding that e-mailing was requested by a user. [0051]: Thus, advantageously, usage rights and conditions can be associated with any suitable item including, objects, classes, categories, and services, for which use, access, distribution or execution is to be controlled, restricted, recorded, metered, charged or monitored in some fashion. The item ticket 134 and the license 142 thus can be used to define a property right), (see paragraphs [0051]-[0053], [0154], [0040], [0146], );
determining that the one or more necessary rights are satisfied by the one or more usage rights terms based at least in part on the combination of the one or more alphanumeric category codes, the one or more alphanumeric action attribute codes, and the one or more alphanumeric provision attribute codes (Gilliam [0264]: at step 908, a rule is applied to the determined correspondence to determine if the recipient should be granted use of the item; [0154]: the central control repository 706 or one or more of the other repositories 710-720 can be configured to examine and analyze other attributes about the item 704, such as meta data, the type of file, the size of the file, the presence or absence of an appropriate digital ticket, watermark or security indicator, the absence of tampering or any other suitable characteristics. One or more of such characteristics can be used as part of the process to determine which of the repositories 706 and 710-720 can process the item 704. For example, if a determined characteristic of the item 704, such as a music file, movie file, and the like, is that the item 704 is over one megabyte in size, the determination may be to not e-mail the item 704, notwithstanding that e-mailing was requested by a user); and
authorizing access to the property in response to determining that the one or more necessary rights are satisfied (Gilliam [0264]: If use of the item can be granted, as verified at step 910, then, at step 912, the recipient can be granted use of the item)
As indicated above, Gilliam discloses, determining that the one or more necessary rights are satisfied by the one or more usage rights terms based at least in part on the combination of the one or more alphanumeric category codes, the one or more alphanumeric action attribute codes, and the one or more alphanumeric provision attribute codes. However, for Compact Prosecution and clarity purpose, the Examiner cites Maughan to specifically disclose, determining DRM attributes.
Alternatively, Maughan discloses: determining that the one or more necessary rights are satisfied by the one or more usage rights terms based at least in part on the combination of the […], the one or more alphanumeric action attribute codes, and the one or more alphanumeric provision attribute codes (Maughan [0006]: The media guidance application determines DRM attributes that correspond with restrictions associated with the user for the media asset when accessed from the media source. For example, the media guidance application determines that a show has a digital rights management attribute that indicates whether connectivity is required to access the show. In other words, the media guidance application may access an attribute of a show that indicates that a user device must be connected to the Internet, online, in order to access the show. In some examples, the show may have several different attributes, e.g., required connectivity, geographic limits, virtual private networking allowed, allowed access devices, allowed access platforms, required subscription, paid access, free access, downloadable, and/or streamable. For each of the DRM attributes, the media guidance application obtains an attribute score corresponding to content of the DRM attribute), (see paragraphs [0015] and [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gilliam with Maughan to include well-known functions of Digital Rights Management (DRM), such as adding categories/types to license format to enhance managing licensing/rights system.
Regarding claims 12 and 21: Gilliam and Maughan, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Gilliam further discloses: The method of claim 11, wherein determining that the one or more necessary rights are satisfied by the one or more usage rights terms includes extracting one or more substring codes from the URC, wherein each of the one or more substring codes includes one of the one or more alphanumeric category codes and at least one action/provision combination associated with the given one of the one or more alphanumeric category codes, and wherein each of the at least one action/provision combinations includes i) at least one of the one or more alphanumeric action attribute codes associated with the given one of the one or more alphanumeric category codes; and ii) at least one of the one or more alphanumeric provision attribute codes associated with the given at least one of the one or more alphanumeric action attribute codes (Gilliam [0154]: the central control repository 706 or one or more of the other repositories 710-720 can be configured to examine and analyze other attributes about the item 704, such as meta data, the type of file, the size of the file, the presence or absence of an appropriate digital ticket, watermark or security indicator, the absence of tampering or any other suitable characteristics. One or more of such characteristics can be used as part of the process to determine which of the repositories 706 and 710-720 can process the item 704. For example, if a determined characteristic of the item 704, such as a music file, movie file, and the like, is that the item 704 is over one megabyte in size, the determination may be to not e-mail the item 704, notwithstanding that e-mailing was requested by a user)), (see paragraphs [XXXX] and Fig. #).
Examiner’s Note: claim 12 recites “wherein each of the one or more substring codes includes one of the one or more alphanumeric category codes and at least one action/provision combination associated with the given one of the one or more alphanumeric category codes, and wherein each of the at least one action/provision combinations includes i) at least one of the one or more alphanumeric action attribute codes associated with the given one of the one or more alphanumeric category codes; and ii) at least one of the one or more alphanumeric provision attribute codes associated with the given at least one of the one or more alphanumeric action attribute codes”. This is nonfunctional descriptive material as it only describes data values, while the data values are not used to perform any of the recited method steps. Therefore, it has been held the nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in term of patentability. See MPEP 2111.05.
Regarding claims 13 and 22: Gilliam and Maughan, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Gilliam further discloses: The method of claim 11, further comprising:
identifying a supplier associated with the one or more usage right terms associated with the URC (Gilliam [0055]: In an exemplary embodiment, a user can browse a Web site running on Web server 150a of a vendor 150; [0076]: For example, a user can supply conditions to a supplier in the license 142, and which the supplier would have to satisfy in order to make a sale); and
transmitting a notification to the supplier in response to authorizing access to the property (see paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claims 14 and 23: Gilliam and Maughan, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Gilliam further discloses: The method of claim 11, further comprising accessing metadata associated with the property, wherein receiving the URC includes extracting the URC from the metadata associated with the property (Gilliam [0257]: read the digital information or extract information from a printed ticket, such as by scanning, and the like, with no need for the customer and the vendor to engage in an online form of communication), (see paragraphs [0051]-[0052]).
Regarding claims 15 and 24: Gilliam and Maughan, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Gilliam further discloses: The method of claim 11, wherein the request to access the property includes a request to present the property via a presentation device, wherein the one or more necessary rights includes a necessary right associated with presenting the property via the presentation device (Gilliam [0051]: In an exemplary embodiment, the item ticket 134, with the security mechanism unlocked, can include a human readable or computer readable coupon, a code, a document, and the like; [0257]: read the digital information or extract information from a printed ticket, such as by scanning, and the like, with no need for the customer and the vendor to engage in an online form of communication), (see paragraphs [XXXX] and Fig. #).
Regarding claims 16, 25 and 29: Gilliam and Maughan, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Gilliam further discloses: The method of claim 11, further comprising:
initially determining that the one or more necessary rights are not satisfied by the determined one or more usage rights terms (Gilliam [0052]: The item ticket 134 also can include a human readable description of the item or any suitable post license condition 134b not yet satisfied. For example, if a condition in the license 142 specifies that the item ticket 134 must be redeemed at a certain location or time, such a condition can be parsed and transferred to the item ticket 134 as the post license condition 134b);
identifying at least one unsatisfied necessary right from the one or more necessary rights (see paragraph [0052]);
facilitating a transaction to acquire the one or more additional usage right terms (see paragraph [0078]); and
updating the determined one or more usage rights terms with the one or more additional usage rights terms, such that the determined one or more usage rights terms now satisfy all of the one or more necessary rights (see paragraphs [0078]-[0080]).
Regarding claims 18 and 27: Gilliam and Maughan, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Gilliam further discloses: The method of claim 11, wherein receiving the URC associated with the request to access the property includes:
identifying a set of usage right terms associated with the request to access the property (see paragraphs [0056], [0264] and [0154]);
generating the URC based at least in part on the identified set of usage right terms (see paragraphs [0056]-[0058], [0264] and [0154]); and
automatically procuring the set of usage right terms based at least in part on the generated URC (see paragraphs [0056]-[0058], [0264] and [0154]).
Claims 17, 26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilliam et al. (US 20040039704 A1, “Gilliam”), alternatively, in view of Maughan et al. (US 20190325114 A1, “Maughan”) further in view of DEORE et al. (US 20150010304 A1, “DEORE”).
Regarding claims 17, 26 and 30: Gilliam and Maughan, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Gilliam further discloses: The method of claim 11, further comprising determining that the one or more usage right terms includes one or more superfluous usage right terms unnecessary to satisfy the one or more necessary rights (Gilliam [0269]: Accordingly, principles and advantages of distributed processing, such as redundancy, replication, and the like, also can be implemented, as desired, for example, to increase the robustness and performance of the exemplary systems described with respect to FIGS. 1-11);
Gilliam doesn’t explicitly disclose, However, DEORE discloses:
facilitating a transaction to remove the one or more superfluous usage right terms (see abstract and paragraphs [0076 and [0088]); and
updating the URC to remove the one or more superfluous usage rights terms (see abstract and paragraphs [0076 and [0088]).
Therefore, 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 combination of Gilliam and Maughan with DEORE to include well-known functions of Digital Rights Management (DRM), such as identifying unused licenses and removing the identified unused licenses to enhance Digital Rights Management system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAHED ALI whose telephone number is (571)270-1085. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F.
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.
/JAHED ALI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3699
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699