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 .
Priority
This application is a continuation of and claims priority to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/950,856, filed Nov. 24, 2015, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/06/2025 was filed along with the mailing date of the Non-Provisional Patent Application on 03/06/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to a Non-Provisional Patent Application received on 03/06/2025. In the application, claims 1-28 have been received for consideration and have been examined.
Specification
Applicant’s submitted specification has been reviewed and found to be in compliance.
Drawings
Applicant’s submitted drawings have been reviewed and found to be in compliance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 (Abstract Idea)
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 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more analyzed according to MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The independent claims 1, 8, 15 and 22 do fall into one of the four statutory categories of “a method”, “a device”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, and “a system” claims. Nevertheless, the claims still considered as abstract idea (i.e., combination of Mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and Methods of organizing human activity (commercial/legal interactions) and data collection/manipulation) for the following prongs and reasons.
Breakdown of the Eligibility Analysis
Step 2A, Prong One (Identification): The claim's focus is receiving a request, deciding what policies apply, packaging those rules (a DRM license and instructions) into a file, and sending it. Managing who can access what content is a longstanding business and legal practice.
Step 2A, Prong Two (Integration into a Practical Application): The claim uses generic computer components and standard functions (receiving requests, generating files, sending data, executing instructions) as a tool to implement the abstract concept. It does not recite a specific, unconventional technical improvement to computer functionality itself (such as how a computer or memory device operates under the box).
The Result: Because it merely automates a conventional policy-enforcement and licensing concept using generic server-client communications, claim limitations are rejected under § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without providing "significantly more" (an inventive concept).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using general purpose computer.
To support this factual conclusion, the examiner takes Official Notice that one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found processors and/or software well-known and routine in technology that involves computers (instant spec. Pregrant-Pub [0032-0034] discloses that the functions of the disclosed claims can be implemented using generic computer(s)) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the examiner asserts that the above noted elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not constitute as “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-21 and 23-28 of respective independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 22 have been analyzed and fall into one of the statutory categories and therefore passes step 1 analysis. However, under step 2, 2A & 2B analysis, the dependent claims recite mental processes which can be implemented by one or more human users using pen and paper. Thus, dependent claims also recite abstract idea and considered ineligible.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
wherein the computing device is configured to:
the user device is configured to:
in claim 22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim limitations in claim 22
wherein the computing device is configured to:
the user device is configured to:
invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22-28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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 1-2, 4, and 6-7 of instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-2, 11-12, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. US12314414B2 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:
Instant Application # 19/072,134
US Patent # US12314414B2
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device and from a user device, a request indicating a use of a content item;
generating, based on the request, a manifest file for the indicated use of the content item, wherein the manifest file comprises:
a digital rights management (DRM) license for the indicated use of the content item, wherein the DRM license identifies the user device,
one or more policies for controlling the indicated use of the content item by the user device in accordance with the DRM license, and
one or more executable instructions that, when executed by the user device, cause the user device to:
enforce the one or more policies for controlling the indicated use of the content item, and
after enforcing the one or more policies, access the content item for the indicated use; and
sending the manifest file to the user device.
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device and from a user device, a request indicating a use of a content item;
generating, based on the request, a manifest file for the indicated use of the content item, wherein the manifest file comprises:
a plurality of digital rights management (DRM) authentication values for a plurality of segments of the content item,
a plurality of decryption keys for the plurality of segments of the content item,
a DRM license for the indicated use of the content item, wherein the DRM license identifies the user device,
one or more policies for controlling the indicated use of the content item by the user device in accordance with the DRM license, and
one or more executable instructions that, when executed by the user device, cause the user device to:
enforce the one or more policies for controlling the indicated use of the content item, and
after enforcing the one or more policies, authenticate the plurality of segments of the content item; and
sending the manifest file to the user device.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the manifest file further comprises a digital signature for a linear origin of the content item.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a digital signature for a linear origin of the content item, wherein the content item is on a stream; and
storing the digital signature in the manifest file.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the DRM license grants access to the content item only for the indicated use.
15. The method of claim 1, wherein the DRM license grants access to the content item only for the indicated use.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the request indicating the use of the content item comprises one or more of: a request for video on demand access to the content item, a request for a rental of the content item, a request for a purchase of the content item, a request for access to a stream containing the content item, a request to record the content item, a request to access a recording of the content item, or a request to access a preview of the content item.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the request indicating the use of the content item comprises one or more of: a request for video on demand access to the content item, a request for a rental of the content item, a request for a purchase of the content item, a request for access to a stream containing the content item, a request to record the content item, a request to access a recording of the content item, or a request to access a preview of the content item.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the manifest file indicates:
a channel associated with a linear stream of the content item,
a broadcast start time of the content item, and
a broadcast end time of the content item.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the manifest file indicates:
a channel associated with a linear stream of the content item,
a broadcast start time of the content item, and
a broadcast end time of the content item.
Instant application claims recite subject matter which is broader in nature compare to the patented claims. Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
Other Independent claims and their dependent claims are also rejected under Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejection.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18-20, 22-23, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley., (US20080172718A1) in view of Brandenburg et al., (US20160198202A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bradley discloses:
A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device (i.e., tracker/uploader; [0024-0025]) and from a user device (i.e., downloader; [0019]), a request indicating a use of a content item ([0044] The downloader sends requests for relevant fragments to uploader(s) identified by the tracker(s); [0045] a request is sent to the tracker, requesting, e.g., discovery of uploaders associated with a desired piece of content and/or a fragment thereof (6002). For example, in one embodiment, a downloader provides information identifying itself and the fragment(s) that the downloader desires; [0052] discloses that downloader [consumer] requests to rent or purchase the indicated content which is construed as ‘indicating a use of a content item’);
generating, based on the request, a manifest file for the indicated use of the content item ([0040] the policies identified or generated in block 3004 are associated with the fragments (3010), and a manifest comprising the metadata and policy information is formed (3012)), wherein the manifest file comprises:
one or more policies (i.e., policy) for controlling the indicated use of the content item by the user device in accordance with the DRM license ([0051] For example, a video store may package a piece of content with additional material as defined by a policy. For example, commercials can be provided in separate fragments driven by a policy that specifies that purchasers who choose not to pay an additional premium must download the content with the commercials and assemble them within the content. Similarly, a policy for renters might define an expiration date after which the content will not be available without renewal of the rental contract or purchase. To implement such a business model, a policy could be included in the manifest associated with the content), and
one or more executable instructions that, when executed by the user device, cause the user device to: enforce the one or more policies for controlling the indicated use of the content item ([0055] The DRM engine [which is part of the downloader or client device] would also enforce any other rules or constraints specified in the DRM license, additional non-limiting examples of which can be found in the '693 application. Thus, in this example, the policy specified in the manifest mandates a temporal ordering of the fragments (e.g., first the license fragment is obtained, then any required commercials, then the content), while the DRM engine controls decryption and enforcement of any other requirements specified in the DRM license (e.g., an expiration date after which the content can no longer be viewed)), and
after enforcing the one or more policies (i.e., Example policy shown under [0031] depicts that fragment validation is occurring using hash value after enforcing distribution policy for the content), authenticate the plurality of segments (i.e., fragments of the digital content using hash value) of the content item ([0031] an XML description of policy related to a piece of content as a whole and/or to a specific content fragment might include: a distribution (authentication) policy … an authorization policy in which an attribute of a fragment is required by the policy and must be verified;
PNG
media_image1.png
391
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0033] Referring back to the example policy shown above, the integrity policy indicates that fragments can be received in any order, and that validation is to be performed on a fragment-by-fragment basis; [0034] the policy also specifies an integrity policy that is to be used in validating certain individual fragments. For example, the <IntegrityPolicy/> field associated with the fragment “F1” might indicate that the fragment needs to be validated using a hash, a digital signature, and/or the like); and sending the manifest file to the user device ([0044] In some embodiments, trackers may also handle search requests from downloaders. For example, a downloader may obtain one or more manifests that identify the content (and possibly its associated policies)).
Bradley fails to disclose:
wherein the manifest file comprises:
a DRM license for the indicated use of the content item, wherein the DRM license identifies the user device.
However, Brandenburg discloses:
[receiving by the user device from the server] a DRM license for the indicated use of the content item, wherein the DRM license identifies (i.e., validation information (e.g. user- or device ID) the user device ([0122] FIG. 3 depicts the protocol flow of a DRM-protected streaming process according to an embodiment of the invention. The protocol flow in FIG. 3 may be executed by a content delivery system; [0123] The access rights (license) of the customer for accessing the content item or content collection may be stored in the DRM server and associated with DRM identification information (e.g. DRM ID); [0124] The message may include a content identifier (content ID) and DRM identification information (DRM ID), which are forwarded by the DRM module in a content access request message (DRM request) to the DRM server (step 306). On the basis of the content ID, the DRM ID and/or further validation information (e.g. user- or device ID, password, tokens, etc.), the DRM server may check whether the license of the consumer is still valid. If that is the case, the DRM server may send a manifest file back to the DRM module (step 308)).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bradley reference and include a method and a system of a digital rights management (DRM) which comprises a manifest file including device validation and identification, as disclosed by Brandenburg.
The motivation to include such a manifest file with validation and identification of the device is to ensure device is capable of receiving the requested content item.
Regarding claim 8, it is a device claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 1 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 15, it is a non-transitory computer-readable media claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 1 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 22, it is a system claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 1 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bradley, and Brandenburg discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the manifest file further comprises a digital signature for a linear origin of the content item (Brandenburg: [0078-0079]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bradley reference and include a method and a system of a digital rights management (DRM) which comprises a manifest file including key information for encrypted content item, as disclosed by Brandenburg.
The motivation to include such a manifest file with key information for the encrypted content item is enable decryption of encrypted content item.
Regarding claim 9, it is a device claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 2 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 16, it is a non-transitory computer-readable media claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 2 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 23, it is a system claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 2 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bradley, and Brandenburg discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the DRM license grants access to the content item only for the indicated use (Bradley: [0050]).
Regarding claim 11, it is a device claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 4 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 18, it is a non-transitory computer-readable media claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 4 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 25, it is a system claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 4 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bradley, and Brandenburg discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the manifest file causes:
the enforcing the one or more policies for controlling the indicated use, authenticating each segment of a plurality of segments of the content item, and decrypting each segment of the plurality of segments (Brandenburg: [0099]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bradley reference and include a method and a system of a digital rights management (DRM) which comprises a manifest file including key information for encrypted content item, as disclosed by Brandenburg.
The motivation to include such a manifest file with key information for the encrypted content item is enable decryption of encrypted content item.
Regarding claim 12, it is a device claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 5 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 19, it is a non-transitory computer-readable media claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 5 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 26, it is a system claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 5 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bradley, and Brandenburg discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the request indicating the use of the content item comprises one or more of: a request for video on demand access to the content item, a request for a rental of the content item, a request for a purchase of the content item, a request for access to a stream containing the content item, a request to record the content item, a request to access a recording of the content item, or a request to access a preview of the content item (Brandenburg: [0078]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bradley reference and include a method and a system of a digital rights management (DRM) which comprises a manifest file including key information for encrypted content item, as disclosed by Brandenburg.
The motivation to include such a manifest file with key information for the encrypted content item is enable decryption of encrypted content item.
Regarding claim 13, it is a device claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 6 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 20, it is a non-transitory computer-readable media claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 6 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 27, it is a system claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 6 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Claims 3, 10, 17, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley., (US20080172718A1) in view of Brandenburg et al., (US20160198202A1) and further in view of Levy et al., (US20130205209A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Bradley, and Brandenburg fails to disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein the sending the manifest file comprises sending the manifest file in a header of a stream transporting the content item.
However, Levy discloses:
sending the manifest file comprises sending the manifest file in a header of a stream transporting the content item ([0014] Header data can also identify content, and carry other auxiliary data, such as copy control information, etc. It is easy to associate with a content item, easy to read, and easy to remove, by accident or maliciously. Header data can be authenticated and locked to the content using digital signatures of all or part of the header data and/or all or part of the content as part of header data packet; [0054] In the case where a header is used, the header data is preferably authenticated. Encryption methods, including digital signature techniques, can be used to keep the header information secure and authenticate it. This authentication can include verifying that the header is from a valid source as well as verifying that the header has not been modified; [0056] FIG. 3 shows an enhanced embodiment, where the system identifies the content and PD, and determines whether or not the device has the right to render the content; [0067] 6. If the user does not have rights to the content and the content is copyrighted (as determined from the content ID and copyright database or inherently from a
copyright watermark or header data), the system provides a copyright notification window which states that content is protected and user does not have rights to play.
Examiner interprets that all this copyright information is being delivered to the client device in a header of the data packet).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary persons skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reference of Bradley, Brandenburg, and Winograd to check header content for content metadata, as disclosed by Levy.
The motivation is to be able to identify multimedia content in a digital rights management system based on metadata encoded in data packet header.
Regarding claim 10, it is a device claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 3 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 17, it is a non-transitory computer-readable media claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 3 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 24, it is a system claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 6 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Claims 7, 14, 21, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley., (US20080172718A1) in view of Brandenburg et al., (US20160198202A1) and further in view of Binder et al., (US20160337704A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Bradley, and Brandenburg fails to disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein the manifest file indicates:
a channel associated with a linear stream of the content item, a broadcast start time of the content item, and a broadcast end time of the content item.
However, Binder discloses:
wherein the manifest file indicates: a channel associated with a linear stream of the content item, a broadcast start time of the content item, and a broadcast end time of the content item ([0024] discloses ‘video core 101’ to provide information about packaged linear 102 [regular linear channel] and non-linear 103 [DVR or VOD content] content in a manifest file; [0045] discloses a content start time and end time presented in the manifest file).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bradley, and Brandenburg references and include a content processing system which creates a manifest file comprises broadcasting channel information and content start and end time, as disclosed by Binder.
The motivation to include Binder’s system is to optimize the manifest file by the system for the user device with information which includes linear and non-linear content.
Regarding claim 14, it is a device claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 7 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 21, it is a non-transitory computer-readable media claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 7 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 28, it is a system claim and recite similar subject matter as claim 7 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED M AHSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5018. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, William Korzuch can be reached at 571-272-7589. 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.
/SYED M AHSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights