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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 are pending in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 5, 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the PRIORITY CLAIM section needs updated to reflect applications that have matured into patents. 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 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,483,604. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application and patent claim a method for handling secure distribution of live video content comprising: receiving a first manifest file comprising a plurality of segments that form the live media content; sending a content encryption key request to a second server; receiving a first content encryption key from the second server, the first content encryption key associated with a first segment; decrypting the live media content, wherein decrypting the live media content comprises: decrypting a first segment of the encrypted live media content using the first content encryption key; proactively receiving a second content encryption key from the second server, the second content encryption key retrieved proactively to prevent disruption of the decryption of the live media content; and decrypting a second segment of the encrypted live media content using the second content encryption key.
The patent further claims sending a first request to a first server for playback of a live media content; wherein at least two segments of the encrypted live media content are decrypted using two different content encryption keys. The instant application further claims detecting a flag prior to a second segment, that flag indicates the expiration of the first encryption key and the start of a second encryption key.
It would have been obvious to include a flag for expiration of a first key since the patent includes the second content encryption key retrieved proactively to prevent disruption of the decryption of the live media content. When decrypting live video, disruption in decrypting can cause undesired results.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterka et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0172368) in view of Bocharov et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0235528).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Peterka et al. teaches a method for handling secure distribution of live video content comprising: prior to requesting a first segment of the live video content, requesting a first encryption key, the first encryption key associated with the first segment and at least one additional segment of the live video content, wherein the first encryption key is associated with less than all of the segments of the live video content (paragraph 0121-0125); decrypting the first segment and the at least one additional segment of the live video content using the first encryption key (paragraph 0082 and 0105-0106); detecting a flag prior to a second segment, that flag indicates the expiration of the first encryption key and the start of a second encryption key, the second encryption key associated with the second segment and at least one additional segment (paragraph 0096); requesting the second encryption key (paragraph 0092, 0108, and 0116); and decrypting the second segment and the at least one other additional segment of the live video content using the second decryption key (paragraph 0112, 0122, and 0129).
Peterka et al. does not teach receiving a first manifest file associated with live video content, the live video content comprising a plurality of segments.
Bocharov et al. teaches receiving a first manifest file associated with live video content, the live video content comprising a plurality of segments (paragraph 0024 and 0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine receiving a first manifest file, as taught by Bocharov et al., with the method of Peterka et al. It would have been obvious for such modifications because the manifest file provides location updates of new data as the rotation takes place.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Peterka et al. teaches wherein each segment of the plurality of segments is encrypted (paragraph 0083).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Peterka et al. teaches wherein no segment of the plurality of segments can be decrypted with two different encryption keys (paragraph 0083).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Peterka et al. teaches wherein the first segment comprises at least one key frame and the second segment comprises at least one different key frame (paragraph 0129).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Peterka et al. teaches wherein requesting the second encryption key comprises requesting the second encryption key prior to the expiration of the first encryption key (paragraph 0082).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Peterka et al. teaches wherein the flag comprises an address from which to request the second encryption key (paragraph 0106).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Peterka et al. teaches wherein the plurality of segments are requested from a different server than the first and second encryption keys (paragraph 0038-0039).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Peterka et al. as modified by Bocharov et al. teaches wherein the flag is in the manifest file (see paragraph 0042 of Bocharov et al.).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Peterka et al. as modified by Bocharov et al. teaches wherein the flag is in an updated manifest file (see paragraph 0042 of Bocharov et al.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON HOFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3863. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached at (571)272-6798. 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.
/BRANDON HOFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights