DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 1-3 and 7 are independent.
3. The IDS submitted on 6/5/2025 has been considered.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1-3 and 7 are objected to because each claim recites "the method comprising:" (emphasis added) in the preamble of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this phrase in each claim. A recommended amendment would be to replace "the method comprising:" with "the content processing method comprising:" to overcome this claim objection.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "can be …" recited in the claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Accordingly, claims 5 and 6 are also rejected based on their dependency of the rejected claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, the phrases "can be …" and "cannot be …" recited in the claim render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following these phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Accordingly, claim 12 is also rejected based on its dependency of the rejected claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase " cannot be" recited in the claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
7. Claims 2-4, 6, 11-13, 18 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claim 1, 7-10, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Grannan (US PG. Pub 2005/0049886).
As regarding claims 1 and 9, Grannan discloses A content processing method executed by a computer, for which prepared are a plurality of content providers providing a plurality of content pieces, a database including the plurality of content pieces, wherein each of the plurality of content pieces includes real data, the content pieces include management information for managing the real data or management information is linked to the content pieces, the management information includes an identifier that uniquely identifies a content piece, an identifier of a user that possesses the content piece, and an identifier of a content provider that provided the content piece, and a player that at least enables a client device on a user side to reproduce each of the plurality of content pieces, the method comprising:
authenticating the user by receiving, via the client device on the user side, information based on the user identifier [para. 20; authenticating the user by receiving the user single sign-on credentials];
providing an environment presenting a set of content pieces associated with the identifier of the authenticated user to the authenticated user side client device [para. 20 and FIG. 2; providing an environment presenting a list of content];
receiving an identifier of a content piece designated by the authenticated user via the client device [para. 18 and 22; receiving content ID to re-obtain the lost content];
executing a search as to whether the received content piece identifier is registered in the database in association with the identifier of the authenticated user [para. 18 and 22; searching, by the third party provider, for the requested content based on content ID to send to the user];
if the result of the search indicates that the received content piece identifier is registered therein in association with the identifier of the authenticated user, causing the player to reproduce the designated content piece on the client device [para. 18 and 22; downloading a copy of the content to the user device]; and
synchronizing, in each of the plurality of content providers, information stored in the database with information on a plurality of content pieces managed by each of the content providers [para. 16 and 20; providing an environment presenting a list of content including content the user has already purchased and content from providers available for purchase].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grannan (US PG. Pub 2005/0049886) in view of Block (US PG Pub. 2013/00660661).
As regarding claims 2 and 10, Grannan discloses A content processing method executed by a computer, for which prepared are a plurality of content providers providing a plurality of content pieces, a database including the plurality of content pieces, wherein each of the plurality of content pieces includes real data, the content pieces include management information for managing the real data or management information is linked to the content pieces, the management information includes an identifier that uniquely identifies a content piece, an identifier of a user that possesses the content piece, and an identifier of a content provider that provided the content piece, and a player that at least enables a client device on a user side to reproduce each of the plurality of content pieces, the method comprising:
authenticating the user by receiving, via the client device on the user side, information based on the user identifier [para. 20; authenticating the user by receiving the user single sign-on credentials];
providing an environment presenting a set of content pieces associated with the identifier of the authenticated user to the authenticated user side client device [para. 20 and FIG. 2; providing an environment presenting a list of content];
receiving an identifier of a content piece designated by the authenticated user via the client device [para. 18 and 22; receiving content ID to re-obtain the lost content];
executing a search as to whether the received content piece identifier is registered in the database in association with the identifier of the authenticated user [para. 18 and 22; searching, by the third party provider, for the requested content based on content ID to send to the user];
if the result of the search indicates that the received content piece identifier is registered therein in association with the identifier of the authenticated user, causing the player to reproduce the designated content piece on the client device [para. 18 and 22; downloading a copy of the content to the user device];
Grannan does not explicitly disclose, but Block discloses, the following limitations: receiving a first instruction to transfer a right to possess the content piece from a first user to a second user [Block para. 54; receiving request to transfer ownership of the digital content from a first user to a second user]; and
updating the database, in response to the first instruction, so as to change a user identifier associated with the content piece from an identifier of the first user to an identifier of the second user [Block para. 35 and 56; storing the second ownership data including a user identifier of the second user and revoking the first ownership data including a user identifier of the first user].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Grannan’s method to further comprise the missing claim limitations, as disclosed by Block, to prevent the original first owner from accessing the digital content once ownership of the content has been transferred to another user [Block abstract para. 6 and 57].
14. Claims 3-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grannan (US PG. Pub 2005/0049886) in view of Lin (US PG Pub. 2008/0112683).
As regarding claims 3 and 11, Grannan discloses A content processing method executed by a computer, for which prepared are a plurality of content providers providing a plurality of content pieces, a database including the plurality of content pieces, wherein each of the plurality of content pieces includes real data, the content pieces include management information for managing the real data or management information is linked to the content pieces, the management information includes an identifier that uniquely identifies a content piece, an identifier of a user that possesses the content piece, and an identifier of a content provider that provided the content piece, and a player that at least enables a client device on a user side to reproduce each of the plurality of content pieces, the method comprising:
authenticating the user by receiving, via the client device on the user side, information based on the user identifier [para. 20; authenticating the user by receiving the user single sign-on credentials];
providing an environment presenting a set of content pieces associated with the identifier of the authenticated user to the authenticated user side client device [para. 20 and FIG. 2; providing an environment presenting a list of content];
receiving an identifier of a content piece designated by the authenticated user via the client device [para. 18 and 22; receiving content ID to re-obtain the lost content];
executing a search as to whether the received content piece identifier is registered in the database in association with the identifier of the authenticated user [para. 18 and 22; searching, by the third party provider, for the requested content based on content ID to send to the user];
if the result of the search indicates that the received content piece identifier is registered therein in association with the identifier of the authenticated user, causing the player to reproduce the designated content piece on the client device [para. 18 and 22; downloading a copy of the content to the user device];
Grannan does not explicitly disclose, but Lin discloses, the following limitations:
receiving a second instruction to edit the content piece from the authenticated user via the player [Lin para. 55-56]; and
storing information of the second instruction in the database, wherein the second instruction includes any one or a combination of editing instructions to cut, cut and paste, and add new information to the real data of the content piece, but does not include editing instructions to copy or copy and paste the real data of the content piece [Lin para. 55-56].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Grannan’s method to further comprise the missing claim limitations, as disclosed by Lin, to add special effects to digital videos [Lin para. 2].
As regarding claim 4, Grannan and Lin further disclose The content processing method according to claim 3, wherein the management information includes information defining details of editing information about the editing, so that the content piece can be restored to a state where the content piece is not edited [Lin para. 57].
As regarding claim 5, Grannan and Lin further disclose The content processing method according to claim 4, wherein the causing the player to reproduce the content piece includes, if there is editing information applied to the content piece by a user other than the user that possesses the content piece at the time of the reproduction, causing the player to reproduce the content piece on the client device by always applying the applied editing information [Grannan para. 18 and 22; downloading a copy of the content to the user device || Lin para. 57; transmitting the modified video to the clients].
As regarding claim 6, Grannan and Lin further disclose The content processing method according to claim 4, wherein the causing the player to reproduce the content piece includes, if there is the editing information, causing the player to not reproduce the content piece on the client device without applying the editing information to the content piece [Grannan para. 18 and 22; downloading a copy of the content to the user device || Lin para. 57; transmitting the modified video to the clients].
15. Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grannan (US PG. Pub 2005/0049886) in view of Takehara (US Patent 8,526,282).
As regarding claims 7 and 12, Grannan discloses A content processing method executed by a computer, for which prepared are a plurality of content providers providing a plurality of content pieces, a database including the plurality of content pieces, wherein each of the plurality of content pieces includes real data, the content pieces include management information for managing the real data or management information is linked to the content pieces, the management information includes an identifier that uniquely identifies a content piece, an identifier of a user that possesses the content piece, and an identifier of a content provider that provided the content piece, a player that at least enables a client device on a user side to reproduce each of the plurality of content pieces, a master content piece used to generate the content piece including a copy of the real data, and a predetermined number defining the number of content pieces that can be generated, each having a copy of the real data included in the master content piece, the predetermined number being a natural number equal to or greater than zero that is determined by a person with authority and cannot be changed by a person without the authority, the method comprising:
authenticating the user by receiving, via the client device on the user side, information based on the user identifier [para. 20; authenticating the user by receiving the user single sign-on credentials];
providing an environment presenting a set of content pieces associated with the identifier of the authenticated user to the authenticated user side client device [para. 20 and FIG. 2; providing an environment presenting a list of content];
receiving an identifier of a content piece designated by the authenticated user via the client device [para. 18 and 22; receiving content ID to re-obtain the lost content];
executing a search as to whether the received content piece identifier is registered in the database in association with the identifier of the authenticated user [para. 18 and 22; searching, by the third party provider, for the requested content based on content ID to send to the user];
if the result of the search indicates that the received content piece identifier is registered therein in association with the identifier of the authenticated user, causing the player to reproduce the designated content piece on the client device [para. 18 and 22; downloading a copy of the content to the user device];
Grannan does not explicitly disclose, but Takehara discloses, the following limitations:
if the number of times the content piece can be generated is less than the predetermined number [Takehara col. 13 lines 55-64], assigning a unique identifier to a new content piece including a copy of the real data, when the new content piece is generated, according to an instruction of the person with the authority [Takehara FIG. 9 and col. 13 line 52 thru col. 14 line 7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Grannan’s method to further comprise the missing claim limitations, as disclosed by Takehara, to provide a limit on the number of authorized copies of digital content.
Grannan and Takehara further disclose storing the new content piece in the database [Takehara FIG. 9 and col. 13 line 52 thru col. 14 line 7].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG P TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7905. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached on 57127267986798. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THONG TRUONG/
Examiner, Art Unit 2433
/JEFFREY C PWU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2433
