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
This is a reply to the application filed on 8/5/2026, in which, claim(s) 1-11 are pending.
Claim(s) 7-11 is/are withdrawn.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/29/2025, has been reviewed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statement.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 2/27/2025 is/are accepted by The Examiner.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
nonstatutory double patenting, when the parent is already a patent… either
-anticipated when it fully covers by single ref, or
-obviousness when by covers by 1 or more ref with obviousness rationial:
/// delete me…
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claim(s) 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,714,883 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the claims are not identical; however, the parent application anticipated all the limitations including transmission processes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snodgrass et al. (US 8826036 B1; hereinafter Snodgrass) in view of Amiri et al. (US 20160065364 A1; hereinafter Amiri).
Regarding claim 1, Snodgrass discloses a method for securing media content in a network, the method comprising:
at a media device (electronic book system [Snodgrass; Fig. 1 and associated text]):
generating audio and/or visual media (eBooks [Snodgrass; Fig. 1 and associated text]);
generating a media key (content key [Snodgrass; Figs. 1-2 and associated text]);
receiving a [[domain key]] from a service provider (receiving secret and metadata to obtain the voucher key [Snodgrass; Figs. 1-2 and associated text]);
encrypting the audio and/or visual media using the media key to generate encrypted media (encrypted the content using the content key [Snodgrass; Figs. 1-2, 5 and associated text]);
encrypting the media key using the domain key to generate an encrypted media token (encrypt the content key with the voucher key to obtain the voucher [Snodgrass; Figs. 1-2, 5 and associated text]);
transmitting the encrypted media to a receiving entity (provider the encrypted content [Snodgrass; Figs. 1-2, 5 and associated text]); and
transmitting the encrypted media token to the receiving entity (provider the voucher [Snodgrass; Figs. 1-2, 5 and associated text]). Snodgrass teaches secure and disturbing of media content, using content key and voucher key. Snodgrass does not explicilty discloses receiving a domain key; however, in a related and analogous art, Amiri teaches this feature.
In particular, Amiri teaches key encryption key, which the remote KEK used to encrypt the encryption key is retrieved from a key platform over the cloud [Amiri; Fig. 4A and associated texts]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to modify Snodgrass in view of Amiri KEK with the motivation as a second layer of protection and reduce the workload from the electronic media system.
Regarding claim 2, Snodgrass-Amiri combination discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the audio and/or visual media comprises a number of data packets, and further comprising: at the media device: updating the media key after a pre-determined number of the number of data packets of the audio and/or visual media are encrypted to generate an updated media key; and encrypting subsequent data packets of the number of data packets of the audio and/or visual media using the updated media key (the content key are generated randomly, new keys can be generated over time or per content [Snodgrass; Figs. 1-2, 5 and associated text]).
Regarding claim 3, Snodgrass-Amiri combination discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: at the media device: encrypting the updated media key using the domain key to generate an encrypted updated media token; and transmitting the encrypted updated media token to the receiving entity (whenever new content key is generated, it can be encrypted using the voucher key to generated the voucher [Snodgrass; Figs. 1-2, 5 and associated text]).
Regarding claim 5, Snodgrass-Amiri combination discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: at the media device: receiving an updated domain key from the service provider; encrypting the media key using the updated domain key to generate an updated encrypted media token; and transmitting the updated encrypted media token to the receiving entity (the content key are generated randomly, new keys can be generated over time or per content and new voucher is send based on the content [Snodgrass; Figs. 1-2, 5 and associated text]).
Regarding claim 6, Snodgrass-Amiri combination discloses the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the domain key comprises receiving the domain key encrypted, and further comprising decrypting the domain key using a media device identifier (using identifier to identify the voucher key (the content key are generated randomly, new keys can be generated over time or per content [Snodgrass; Figs. 1-2, 5 and associated text]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snodgrass-Amiri combination in view of Hatano (US 20090310819 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Snodgrass-Amiri combination does not explicilty discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the media device comprises a camera configured to generate the audio and/or visual media; however, in a related and analogous art, Hatano teaches this feature.
In particular, Hatano discloses a device such as phone or tablet with camera, capable of capturing media content [Hatano; ¶85-86, 116; Figs. 2, 20-21 and associated text]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Snodgrass-Amiri combination mobile device with Hatano mobile device with camera and capture media with the motivation to easier create audio books with the eBooks.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http:ljwww.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAO Q HO whose telephone number is (571)270-5998. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am - 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 Nickerson can be reached on (469) 295-9235. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAO Q HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights