Acknowledgements
This communication is in response to applicant’s response filed on 09/21/2026.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-9, 11, 15-16, and 18 have been amended. Claims 22-23 have been added. Claims 1-23 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding applicant’s arguments:
Regarding applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10, filed 09/21/2026, with respect to the Specification Objection regarding the term “access control parameter” is inherently disclosed by the specification has been considered and is not persuasive. Therefore, the Specification Objection is maintained.
Regarding applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10, filed 09/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-21 under Double Patenting that a Terminal Disclaimer has been filed for US Patent Nos. 11,551,238 and 12,373,852 have been considered and are persuasive. The Double Patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11, filed 09/21/2026, with respect to the Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f) regarding claims 1-7 that the claims have been amended to identify the specific electronic structures that perform the recited operations have been considered and are persuasive. The Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f) has been withdrawn.
Regarding applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11, filed 09/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 that since the Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f) has been withdrawn the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 should be withdrawn has been considered and is persuasive. The Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 have been withdrawn.
Regarding applicant’s arguments: see pgs. 10-11, filed 09/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-21 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 that the claims do not recite an abstract idea does not provide any detailed arguments and is not persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 for claims 1-21 has been maintained.
Regarding applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 11, filed 09/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-21 under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1) that the amended claims are not taught by Ginter (US 5,892,900) are persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1) for claims 1, 8, and 15 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Vijay (US 20060224520).
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of US Application No. 18/145,098 filed on 12/22/2022 is acknowledged. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of US Application No. 15/990,990 filed on 05/29/2018 is acknowledged. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of US Application No. 12/697,145 filed on 01/29/2010 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The term "access control parameter" appears in the
independent claims 1, 8 and 15. The specification is silent about a description of the
access control parameter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 16, line 1: “The system of claim 5” should be “The system of claim 15” since claim 16 should depend from claim 15.
In claim 23, line 2: The second “an” in “an an insubstantial portion of” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-2, 5-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis, claim 1 directed to is a system, claim 8 is directed to a method, and claim 15 is directed to a system (an apparatus, a process, and an apparatus).
Under Step 2A Prong One, Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite: a content database storing items of media content belonging to disparate content providers, each item of media content being associated with a media content characteristic and an access control parameter, wherein the access control parameter defines one or more licensing packages by which a user is granted access to that item of media content; a distribution module comprising one or more processors and a network interface configured to receive user requests for distribution of items of media content according to access control parameters of those items of media content, the distribution module being configured to track accesses of a particular item of media content of a first content provider and a value of the access control parameter associated with those accesses; a data aggregation database configured to compile data from the content database and the distribution module including media content access data and associated access control parameters for items of media content including the particular item, the data aggregation database being configured to compile access data comprising numbers of accesses and access control parameters for a plurality of items of media content, including the particular item of media content, having corresponding media content characteristics; a network interface configured to transmit the access data from the content distribution platform, wherein an access control parameter of a second item of media content associated with a second content provider is updated based on the access data, the updating being based on a comparison of the compiled access data to one or more predefined thresholds, wherein the updated access control parameter defines a first licensing package and a second licensing package; wherein the distribution module is configured to provide access to the second item of media content according to the updated access control parameter; and wherein the distribution module is configured to grant a user a first license to the second item of media content under the first licensing package, to offer the user the second licensing package, and, responsive to the user accepting the offer for the second licensing package, to grant the user access to the second item of media content under the second licensing package and cause the first license to expire.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 as drafted include language (see underlined language above) that recite an abstract idea of storing items of media content belonging to disparate content providers, receiving user requests for distribution of items of media content, tracking accesses of a particular item of media content of a first content provider and a value of the access control parameter associated with those accesses, compiling media content access data and associated access control parameters for items of media content including the particular content item, transmitting the access data from the content distribution platform and providing access to the second item of media content according to the updated access control parameter, which falls under certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., a commercial interaction as the distribution and accessing of media content falls under the category of a marketing or sales activity) and as the claim only requires observation of an access and counting or recording each time the content is accessed can also be viewed as a mental process.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional claim element(s), considered individually, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional claim elements(s) “a computer-implemented system for providing access to content, comprising: one or more data processors, memory,” “a content database,” “a distribution module comprising one or more processors and a network interface,” and “a data aggregation database,” generally “apply” the concept of storing items of media content belonging to disparate content providers, receiving user requests for distribution of items of media content, tracking accesses of a particular item of media content of a first content provider and a value of the access control parameter associated with those accesses, compiling media content access data and associated access control parameters for items of media content including the particular content item, transmitting the access data from the content distribution platform and providing access to the second item of media content according to the updated access control parameter on a computer. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claims do not recite a specific technical improvement to computer functionality or another technical field. The claims do not require a particular machine, transformation, or unconventional technical solution, but rather, automates a business process using generic computer components. Accordingly, these 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional claim element(s) of claims, considered in combination, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer-implemented system for providing access to content, comprising: one or more data processors, memory, a content database, a distribution module comprising one or more processors and a network interface, and a data aggregation database amounts to no more than applying the abstract idea of storing items of media content belonging to disparate content providers, receiving user requests for distribution of items of media content, tracking accesses of a particular item of media content of a first content provider and a value of the access control parameter associated with those accesses, compiling media content access data and associated access control parameters for items of media content including the particular content item, transmitting the access data from the content distribution platform and providing access to the second item of media content according to the updated access control parameter on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Under Step 2B, the additional claim element(s), considered individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself for similar reasons outlined under Step 2A Prong Two.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 which claims “wherein the distribution module is further configured to capture a user metric associated with each tracked access” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 which claims “wherein the transmitted access data is filtered according to the user metric” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 4, 11, and 18 which claims “wherein the user metric is a location of an accessor” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 which claims “wherein the access data is transmitted upon occurrence of a trigger condition” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 6, 13, and 20 which claims “wherein the trigger is based on a request received at the platform or a passage of time” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 7 and 14, 21 which claims “wherein the access data includes anonymized historical information regarding activity associated with one or more items of media content that share a common value media content characteristic and are associated with multiple content providers” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 22 which claims “wherein substantive content of the first item of media content is identical to at least a portion of substantive content of the second item of media content” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 23 which claims “wherein substantive content of the first item of media content is identical to none of, or an insubstantial portion of, substantive content of the second item of media content” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginter (US 5,892,900) in view of Vijay (US 20060224520).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15, Ginter teaches a computer-implemented system for providing access to content, comprising: one or more data processors, memory storing instructions for execution by the one or more data processors (Page21, lines 1-21, teaches designing VOE capabilities into one or more standard microprocessor; microcontroller and/or other digital processing components may materially reduce VOE related hardware costs by employing the same hardware resources for both the transaction management uses contemplated by the present invention and for other, host electronic appliance functions; this means that a VOE SPU can employ (share) circuitry elements of a "standard" CPU For example, if a "standard" processor can operate in protected mode and can execute VOE related instructions as a protected activity, then such an embodiment may provide sufficient hardware security for a variety of applications and the expense of a special purpose processor might be avoided; under one preferred embodiment of the present invention. certain memory (e.g., RAM, ROM, NVRAM) is maintained during VOE related instruction processing in a protected mode (for example, as supported by protected mode microprocessors); this memory is located in the same package as the processing logic (e.g. processor); desirably, the packaging and memory of such a processor would be designed using security techniques that enhance its resistance to tampering), and a content distribution platform by which a plurality of content providers distribute a plurality of items of media content for users of the platform to access (Abstract teaches the present invention provides systems and methods for electronic commerce including secure transaction management and electronic rights protection; electronic appliances such as computers employed in accordance with the present invention help to ensure that information is accessed and used only in authorized ways, and maintain the integrity, availability, and/or confidentiality of the information; secure subsystems used with such electronic appliances provide a distributed virtual distribution environment (VOE) that may enforce a secure chain of handling and control; for example, to control and/or meter or otherwise monitor use of electronically stored or disseminated information; such a virtual distribution environment may be used to protect rights of various participants in electronic commerce and other electronic or electronic-facilitated transactions); a content database storing items of media content belonging to disparate content providers, each item of media content being associated with a media content characteristic and an access control parameter (Page 2, lines 33-56, 41-47 and Page 7, lines 48-57 teach a fundamental problem for electronic content providers is extending their ability to control the use of proprietary information; content providers often need to limit use to authorized activities and amounts; these participants need the ability to embody their range of agreements and requirements, including use limitations, into an "extended" agreement comprising an overall electronic business model; this extended agreement is represented by electronic content control information that can automatically enforce agreed upon rights and obligations; alternatively, VOE may be used with information that is dispersed by authors and/or publishers to one or more recipients; this information may take many forms including: movies, audio recordings, games, electronic catalog shopping, multimedia, training materials, e-mail and personal documents, object oriented libraries, software programming resources, and reference/record keeping information resources (such as business, medical, legal, scientific, governmental, and consumer databases); a distribution module comprising one or more processors and a network interface configured to receive user requests for distribution of items of media content according to access control parameters of those items of media content, the distribution module being configured to track accesses of a particular item of media content of a first content provider and a value of the access control parameter associated with those accesses (Page 54, lines 37-56, teaches for example, video production studio might release a half-hour exercise video in the hope that as many viewers as possible will view it; the video production studio wishes to receive $2.00 per viewing; video production studio may, through information utility, make the exercise video available in "protected" form to all consumers; video production studio may also provide "rules and controls" for the video; these "rules and controls" may specify for example: (1) any consumer who has good credit of at least $2.00 based on a credit account with independent financial provider (such as Mastercard or VISA) may watch the video, (2) virtual distribution environment will "meter" each time a consumer watches the video, and report usage to video production studio from time to time, and (3) financial provider may electronically collect payment ($2.00) from the credit account of each consumer who watches the video, and transfer these payments to the video production studio); a data aggregation database configured to compile data from the content database and the distribution module including media content access data and associated access control parameters for items of media content including the particular item, the data aggregation database being configured to compile access data comprising numbers of accesses and access control parameters for a plurality of items of media content, including the particular item of media content, having corresponding media content characteristics (Page 55, lines 44-58, and Page 317, lines 14-20, teach information utility may include a "transaction processor" that processes transactions (to transfer electronic funds, for example) based on requests from participants and/or report receiver; it may also include a "usage analyst" that analyzes reported usage information; a "report creator" may create reports based on usage for example, and may provide these reports to outside participants and/or to participants within information utility; a "report receiver" may receive reports such as usage reports from content users; a ''permissioning agent" may distribute "rules and controls" granting usage or distribution permissions based on a profile of a consumer's credit worthiness, for example; an administrator may provide information that keeps the virtual distribution environment operating properly; as indicated above, end users in this example will periodically contact the VOE repository to transmit content usage information (e.g. related to consumption of budget, recording of other usage activities, etc.), replenish their budgets, modify their account profile, access usage analysis information, and perform other administrative and information exchange activities); a network interface configured to transmit the access data from the content distribution platform, wherein an access control parameter of a second item of media content associated with the second content provider is updated based on the access data; and wherein the distribution module is configured to provide access to a second item of media content according to the updated access control parameter (Page 336, lines 20-48, teaches in this example, distributor C may receive VOE content containers from creator B, creator C, and creator D, and associated sets of control information C.sub.B, C.sub. C, and C.sub.D; distributor C may use the embedding control information and other control information to produce a new container with two or more VOE objects received from creator B, creator C, and creator D; in addition or alternatively, distributor C may create enabling control information for distribution to users and/or user/distributors (or in the case of C.sub.D, for distributors) for such received containers individually; for example, distributor C may create a container including content portions (e.g. embedded containers) from creator B, creator C, and creator D in which each such portion has control information related to its access and use that records, and allows an auditor to gather, sufficient information for each such creator to securely and reliably receive payments from distributor C based on usage activities related to users and/or user/distributors enabled by distributor C; furthermore, distributor C may negotiate using VOE with some or all of such creators to enable a model in which distributor C provides overall control information for the entire container based on a "uniform" fee (e.g. calculated per month. per access. from a combined model. etc.) charged to users and/or user/distributors, while preserving the models of each such creator with respect to payments due to them by distributor C based on C.sub.B, C.sub.C, and/or C.sub.D, and, for example, resulting from each of their differing models for the collection of content usage information and any related (e.g. advertising) information).
However, Ginter does not explicitly teach wherein the access control parameter defines one or more licensing packages by which a user is granted access to that item of media content; a network interface configured to transmit the access data from the content distribution platform, wherein an access control parameter of a second item of media content associated with a second content provider is updated based on the access data, the updating being based on a comparison of the compiled access data to one or more predefined thresholds, wherein the updated access control parameter defines a first licensing package and a second licensing package; and wherein the distribution module is configured to grant a user a first license to the second item of media content under the first licensing package, to offer the user the second licensing package, and, responsive to the user accepting the offer for the second licensing package, to grant the user access to the second item of media content under the second licensing package and cause the first license to expire.
Vijay from same or similar field of endeavor teaches a content database storing items of media content belonging to disparate content providers, each item of media content being associated with a media content characteristic and an access control parameter, wherein the access control parameter defines one or more licensing packages by which a user is granted access to that item of media content (Paragraph 0022 teaches FIG. 3 illustrates a flow diagram for software suite activation, according to some embodiments of the invention; the flow diagram illustrates the operations for activating a software suite having a number of individual software products on a machine; moreover, such operations are described wherein a copy of one of the individual software products is already activated on the machine); a network interface configured to transmit the access data from the content distribution platform, wherein an access control parameter of a second item of media content associated with a second content provider is updated based on the access data, the updating being based on a comparison of the compiled access data to one or more predefined thresholds, wherein the updated access control parameter defines a first licensing package and a second licensing package (Paragraphs 0017, 0019, and 0023-0024 teach the installation of suite operation may cause other operations—the deactivation operation and the serial number change operation; with regard to the deactivation operation, the installation of the software suite may cause the software A product to be deactivated; with regard to the serial number change operation, the installation of the software suite may cause a serial number of the software A product to be changed to a serial number of the software suite; the serial number for the software A product may be stored within files stored on a machine-readable medium (not shown) of the machine; teach the activation logic of a machine may receive a copy of a software suite; the adoption logic determines whether a copy of one of the number of software products is already activated on the machine; the adoption logic may make this determination based on the existence of a file stored on the hard disk drive of the machine, the setting of a flag in a file that is part of the installation of the software product, etc.; the adoption logic may make this determination based on a query to the activation logic on the server over the network); and wherein the distribution module is configured to grant a user a first license to the second item of media content under the first licensing package, to offer the user the second licensing package, and, responsive to the user accepting the offer for the second licensing package, to grant the user access to the second item of media content under the second licensing package and cause the first license to expire (Paragraphs 0025 and 0028-0029 teach upon determining that a copy of one of the number of software products is already activated on the machine, the activation logic deactivates the copy of the software product on the machine; with reference to FIGS. 1 and 2, the activation logic communicates a deactivation message (deactivation operation) to the server; the activation logic of the server may deactivate the license of the copy of the software product A for the machine; the adoption logic redirects a license of the copy of the software product A to a license of the copy of the software suite; with reference to FIGS. 1 and 2, the adoption logic may perform this redirection based on creation of a file, setting a flag in a file, etc.; therefore, if a change is to occur to a license of the software suite, the same change will be made to the license of the copy of the software A product and vice versa; logic that is to make changes to the license may be updated accordingly; the activation logic activates the copy of the software suite; with reference to FIGS. 1 and 2, the activation logic may activate the copy of the software suite by sending an activation message to the server; the server may determine whether the copy of the software suite may be activated; the activation of the software suite may cause the deactivation of the individual copy of the software product, but not cause the adoption of the individual copy of the software product).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ginter to incorporate the teachings of Vijay for the access control parameter to define one or more licensing packages by which a user is granted access to that item of media content; a network interface configured to transmit the access data from the content distribution platform, wherein an access control parameter of a second item of media content associated with a second content provider is updated based on the access data, the updating being based on a comparison of the compiled access data to one or more predefined thresholds, wherein the updated access control parameter defines a first licensing package and a second licensing package; and wherein the distribution module is configured to grant a user a first license to the second item of media content under the first licensing package, to offer the user the second licensing package, and, responsive to the user accepting the offer for the second licensing package, to grant the user access to the second item of media content under the second licensing package and cause the first license to expire.
There is motivation to combine Vijay into Ginter because, for example, if the license of the software suite is to be deactivated, etc., the logic to perform this operation may check for the existence of a certain file. Upon determining that this file exists, the logic may perform the same operation to the license of the software A product (Vijay Paragraph 0028).
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16, the combination of Ginter and Vijay teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 above; and Ginter further teaches wherein the distribution module is further configured to capture a user metric associated with each tracked access (Page 166, lines 42-46, teaches the user might be offered a discount on time and/or quantity billing if he is willing to allow certain details concerning his retrieval of content to be provided to third parties (e.g., for demographic purposes)).
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 17, the combination of Ginter and Vijay teaches all the limitations of claims 2, 9, and 16 above; and Ginter further teaches wherein the transmitted access data is filtered according to the user metric (Page 303, lines 15-19 and 25-32, the originating user may wish to permit distribution only to specific users, defined groups of users, defined geographic areas; users authorized to act in specific organizational roles, or a combination of any or all such attributes; the organization and/or originating users may wish to know to what uses or geographic locations a document has been distributed; the organization may wish to know where documents with certain protection attributes have been distributed, for example, based on geographic information stored in site configuration records and/or name services records).
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18, the combination of Ginter and Vijay teaches all the limitations of claims 2, 9, and 16 above; and Ginter further teaches wherein the user metric is a location of an accessor (Page 303, lines 15-19 and 25-32, the originating user may wish to permit distribution only to specific users, defined groups of users, defined geographic areas; users authorized to act in specific organizational roles, or a combination of any or all such attributes; the organization and/or originating users may wish to know to what uses or geographic locations a document has been distributed; the organization may wish to know where documents with certain protection attributes have been distributed, for example, based on geographic information stored in site configuration records and/or name services records).
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 19, the combination of Ginter and Vijay teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 above; and Ginter further teaches wherein the access data is transmitted upon occurrence of a trigger condition (Page 40, lines 48-61, Page 332, lines 63-67, Page 333, lines 1-13 and 66-67, Page 334, lines 1-5, teach as another example, a distributor that failed to make payments and/or report usage information to a content provider might find that their budget for creating permissions records to distribute the content provider's content to users, and/or a security budget limiting one or more other aspect of their use of the provider's content, are not being refreshed by the content provider, once exhausted or timed-out (for example, at a predetermined date); in these and other cases, the offended party might decide not to refresh time ageing keys that had "aged out;" such a use of time aged keys has a similar impact as failing to refresh budgets or time-aged authorizations, the set of control information D.sub.A (C.sub.B) may include one or more meter methods that record the number of bytes of content from creator B's container decrypted by user A (in order to allow correct calculation of amounts owed by distributor A to creator B for user A's usage of creator B's content in accordance with the control information of C.sub.B that requires payment of $0.50 per kilobyte of decrypted information), and a further meter method associated with recording usage such that distributor A may gather sufficient information to securely generate billings associated with user A's usage of creator B's content and based on a "rental" model (e.g. distributor A may, for example, have included a meter method that records each calendar month that user A makes use of creator B's content. and relates to further control information that charges user A $10 per month for each such month during which user A makes use of such content); User/distributor A may receive control information C.sub.B directly from creator B., C.sub. C may further include, for example: (a) a requirement that distributors ensure that creator C receive $1 per article accessed by users and/or user/distributors, which payment allows a user to access such an article for a period of no more than six months (e.g. using a map-type meter method that is aged once per month, time aged decryption keys, expiration dates associated with relevant permissions records, etc.)).
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 20, the combination of Ginter and Vijay teaches all the limitations of claims 5, 12, and 19 above; and Ginter further teaches wherein the trigger is based on a request received at the platform or a passage of time (Page 40, lines 48-61, Page 332, lines 63-67, Page 333, lines 1-13 and 66-67, Page 334, lines 1-5, teach as another example, a distributor that failed to make payments and/or report usage information to a content provider might find that their budget for creating permissions records to distribute the content provider's content to users, and/or a security budget limiting one or more other aspect of their use of the provider's content, are not being refreshed by the content provider, once exhausted or timed-out (for example, at a predetermined date); in these and other cases, the offended party might decide not to refresh time ageing keys that had "aged out;" such a use of time aged keys has a similar impact as failing to refresh budgets or time-aged authorizations; the set of control information D.sub.A (C.sub.B) may include one or more meter methods that record the number of bytes of content from creator B's container decrypted by user A (in order to allow correct calculation of amounts owed by distributor A to creator B for user A's usage of creator B's content in accordance with the control information of C.sub.B that requires payment of $0.50 per kilobyte of decrypted information), and a further meter method associated with recording usage such that distributor A may gather sufficient information to securely generate billings associated with user A's usage of creator B's content and based on a "rental" model (e.g. distributor A may, for example, have included a meter method that records each calendar month that user A makes use of creator B's content. and relates to further control information that charges user A $10 per month for each such month during which user A makes use of such content); User/distributor A may receive control information C.sub.B directly from creator B., C.sub. C may further include, for example: (a) a requirement that distributors ensure that creator C receive $1 per article accessed by users and/or user/distributors, which payment allows a user to access such an article for a period of no more than six months (e.g. using a map-type meter method that is aged once per month, time aged decryption keys, expiration dates associated with relevant permissions records, etc.)).
Regarding Claims 7, 14, and 21, the combination of Ginter and Vijay teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 above; and Ginter further teaches wherein the access data includes anonymized historical information regarding activity associated with one or more items of media content that share a common value media content characteristic and are associated with multiple content providers (Page 57, lines 45-55, teaches "rules and controls" can be used to protect the content user's privacy by limiting the information that is reported to other VOE participants; as one example, "rules and controls" can cause content usage information to be reported anonymously without revealing content user identity, or it can reveal only certain information to certain participants (for example, information derived from usage) with appropriate permission, if required; this ability to securely control what information is revealed and what VOE participant(s) it is revealed to allows the privacy rights of all VOE participants to be protected).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Ginter and Vijay teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein substantive content of the first item of media content is identical to at least a portion of substantive content of the second item of media content.
Vijay further teaches wherein substantive content of the first item of media content is identical to at least a portion of substantive content of the second item of media content (Paragraph 0014 teaches a first copy of the software product (software product A) may be currently activated on a machine; a user of the machine may attempt to activate a software suite (having a number of individual copies of software products, which includes a second copy of the software product A) on the same machine).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Ginter and Vijay to incorporate the further teachings of Vijay for substantive content of the first item of media content to be identical to at least a portion of substantive content of the second item of media content.
There is motivation to further combine Vijay into the combination of Ginter and Vijay because of the same reasons listed above for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Ginter and Vijay teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein substantive content of the first item of media content is identical to none of, or an insubstantial portion of, substantive content of the second item of media content.
Vijay further teaches wherein substantive content of the first item of media content is identical to none of, or an insubstantial portion of, substantive content of the second item of media content (Paragraph 0014 teaches a first copy of the software product (software product A) may be currently activated on a machine; a user of the machine may attempt to activate a software suite (having a number of individual copies of software products, which includes a second copy of the software product A) on the same machine).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Ginter and Vijay to incorporate the further teachings of Vijay for substantive content of the first item of media content to be identical to none of, or an insubstantial portion of, substantive content of the second item of media content.
There is motivation to further combine Vijay into the combination of Ginter and Vijay because of the same reasons listed above for claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Raciborski (US 20050119977) teaches systems and associated processes for generating user attribute interest data and using that data to present and/or develop reviews of items are described herein. These systems and processes can dynamically collect data on a user's interest in specific item attributes from the user's interaction with an electronic catalog and can store this data in association with the user. This data may be used to provide users with a personalized set of reviews which will provide the user with information relevant to interesting item attributes. Further, this data may be used to display a set of dynamically generated statements and/or questions that prompt users to write an item review on specific item attributes. Accordingly, user attribute interest data can potentially both present and elicit more thorough and useful feedback than existing review systems in some embodiments.
Schnell et al. (US 20080255994) teaches a preview license for digital content. In some instances, the preview license indicates that it allows a content-consuming device to consume less than all of the content. This preview license may create a list specifying multiple portions of the digital content that the content-consuming device may consume. These techniques may also present to a device user an offer to purchase rights to consume all of the digital content after consumption of the preview-licensed portion(s). In other instances, a content server may embed the preview license into a content package that contains the digital content, allowing the server to distribute the package to multiple devices. In still other instances, the preview license may be bound to a domain rather than to individual devices. This allows member devices to share the digital content and the preview license, such that each member device may enjoy the preview experience.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY JONES whose telephone number is (469)295-9137. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 4:30 pm CST (M-Th).
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, Neha Patel can be reached at (571) 270-1492. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/COURTNEY P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights