DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to application filed on April 11th, 2025.
Claims 1~20 are examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/16/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered 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 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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).
Claims 1~20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1~30 of U.S Patent 12,299,144 and claims 1~20 of U.S Patent 11,893,090. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the U.S Patents mentioned above are similar to claims 1~20 of the instant application.
For example, U.S Patents recite limitations with regards to request for content to an encoder and sending another request for the encryption key data if not in the cache. Claims 1, 10, and 19 of the instant application recites requesting for the encryption key data to a second packager if not in the cache of the first packager, which is similar to the other U.S Patents. The computing device of the U.S Patents is the packager of the instant application. Hence, the U.S Patents cover every element of claims 1~20 of the instant application. A subset of the instant application’s claims are compared to the latest U.S Patent’s claims granted.
Instant Application 19/177,164
U.S Patent 12,299,144
1. (New) A method comprising: receiving, by a first cache, a request for encryption key data associated with a content item; determining the encryption key data is not in the first cache; determining the request is from a packager associated with the first cache; and sending, based on the encryption key data not being in the first cache and based on the request being from the packager, a second request for the encryption key data to a second cache associated with a second packager.
1. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: receive a request for content; send a second request for the content to an encoder; receive, based on the second request, the content and a content manifest; determine that encryption key data for the content is not in a cache associated with a computing device; and send, based on the determination that the encryption key data is not in the cache, a request for the encryption key data to a cache associated with a second computing device.
6. (New) A method comprising: receiving, by a second cache and from a first cache, a request for encryption key data associated with a content item; determining the encryption key data is not in the second cache; determining the request is from the first cache; and causing, based on the encryption key data not being in the second cache and based on the request being from the first cache, the first cache to access the encryption key data from a keystore.
9. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to: receive, based on sending the request for the encryption key data, an indication that the encryption key data is not stored in the cache associated with the second computing device; and
receive, based on a request to a keystore, the encryption key data from the keystore.
21. (New) A system comprising: a first cache configured to: receive a request for encryption key data associated with a content item; determine the encryption key data is not in the first cache; determine the request is from a packager associated with the first cache; and send, based on the encryption key data not being in the first cache and based on the request being from the packager, a second request for the encryption key data to a second cache associated with a second packager; and the second cache configured to: receive the second request.
21. A system comprising: a first computing device configured to: receive a request for content; send a second request for the content to an encoder; receive, based on the second request, the content and a content manifest; determine that encryption key data for the content is not in a cache associated with the first computing device; and send, based on the determination that the encryption key data is not in the cache, a request for the encryption key data to a cache associated with a second computing device; and a user device configured to: send the request for the content.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 11, 16, and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: claim 1, 11, and 21 recites “...sending, based on the encryption key data not being in the first cache and based on the request being from the packager, a second request for the encryption key data to a second cache associated with a second packager.” The claim leaves a functional gap after the request is made to the second cache. There is no response sent from the second cache since a determination was made that the encryption key data is not in the first cache.
Claim 6, 16, and 26 recites “…causing, based on the encryption key data not being in the second cache and based on the request being from the first cache, the first cache to access the encryption key data from a keystore.” The claim leaves a functional gap after the access to the encryption key is made from the keystore. There is no response sent from the keystore since a determination was made that the encryption key data is not in the second cache.
Claims 2~5, 7~10, 12~15, 17~20, 22~25, and 27~30 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency to claims 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, and 26.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1~30 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and the Double Patenting rejection set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEE SOO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on (571) 272-3889. 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.
/H.K/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
/HEE SOO KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights