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 .
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 8, 9 and 15 recites the limitation “the CDN server". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 – 2 and 4 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinukonda (Vinu), publication number: US 2018/0205742 in view of Gupta, publication number: 2018/0332065.
As per claims 1, 10 and 16, Vinu teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a processing device of a content delivery network, a first request for desired content from a client device, wherein the first request comprises one or more resource locators for accessing the desired content and a trust data, in response to a second request for the desired content from the client device (second content request including URL and a token, [0107]);
determining a client device trust status based on the trust data (token validation, [0109]); and
responsive to the client device trust status indicating that the client device is authorized to receive the desired content, providing playback of the desired content to the client device (request to view or listen to item, [0098]).
Vinu does not teach a partial trust metric generated, by a content sharing platform.
In an analogous art, Gupta teaches a partial trust metric generated, by a content sharing platform (generating a trust score for a new device, [0056][0058])
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 Vinu’s access system by including a device score as described in Gupta’s streaming system for the advantage of preventing unwanted content access.
As per claim 2, the combination teaches wherein the partial trust metric is generated using heuristic rules (Gupta: weighted average [0056], Vinu: user validation, [0101]).
As per claims 4, 11 and 17, the combination teaches further comprising:
responsive to the client device trust status indicating that the client device is not authorized to receive the desired content, providing playback of the desired content to the client device using a downgraded quality (Vinu: token validation, [0110]).
As per claim 5, the combination teaches further comprising:
responsive to the client device trust status indicating that the client device is not authorized to receive the desired content, rejecting the first request (Gupta: providing access based on threshold, [0051]).
As per claims 6, 12 and 18, the combination teaches wherein the first request is digitally signed using one or more signed parameters that provide at least one of an expiration time for the one or more resource locators, an expiration time for the partial trust metric, a bit rate for delivering the desired content, or an identifier of a playback event created for the first request (Vinu: expiration time, [0102]).
As per claims 7, 13 and 19, the combination teaches wherein a plurality of characteristics used to generate the partial trust metric are not available to the CDN server, and wherein the partial trust metric but not any of the plurality of characteristics are provided to the CDN server when the client device requests the desired content (Vinu: token with request, [0107]).
As per claims 8, 14 and 20, the combination teaches further comprising:
combining the partial trust metric with one or more additional factors to determine the client device trust status, wherein the one or more additional factors are identified by the CDN server based on data available to the CDN server (Gupta: determining trust, [0056][0058]).
As per claims 9 and 15, the combination teaches wherein the additional factors comprise at least one of an IP address used by the client device to request the content from the CDN server, one or more cookies provided to the CDN server with the content request, a client agent reported by the client device to the CDN server, a type of the requested content, a bitrate of the requested content, or an amount of content requested in the content request (Vinu: IP address, [0102]).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinukonda (Vinu), publication number: 2018/0205742 in view of Gupta, publication number: 2018/0332065 in further view of Makey, publication number: US 2022/0141223.
As per claim 3, the combination of Vinu and Gupta teach a trust metric system.
The combination does not teach wherein the partial trust metric is generated using a machine learning model.
In an analogous art, Makey teaches wherein the partial trust metric is generated using a machine learning model (Machine learning, [0037]).
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 the combination of Vinu and Gupta’s trust system to include generating metrics based using machine learning as described in Makey’s trust metric system for the advantages of having a smart system that is able to determine trust based on evolving and more complex attributes.
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