Patent Application 18755221 - CONTENT DELIVERY USING DISTRIBUTED LEDGER AND

Title: CONTENT DELIVERY USING DISTRIBUTED LEDGER AND AI-BASED TRANSCODING TECHNOLOGIES
Application Information

Invention Title: CONTENT DELIVERY USING DISTRIBUTED LEDGER AND AI-BASED TRANSCODING TECHNOLOGIES
Application Number: 18755221
Submission Date: 2025-04-10T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2024-06-26T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2024-06-26T00:00:00.000Z
Examiner Employee Number: 78157
Art Unit: 2166
Tech Center: 2100
Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 1
103 Rejections: 1
Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:
US 0242215🔗
US 0083507🔗
Office Action Text



    DETAILED ACTION
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 .

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.


Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-13, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zou (US 2020/0242215 A1, Applicant’ submitted IDS filed 7/07/2024), hereinafter “Zou”.

As per claim 1, Zou teaches a system comprising: at least one processor, memory, operatively connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform a set of operations comprising:
“receiving, from a content source, an indication of content” at [0031];
(Zou teaches the transaction node is configured to upload a target image (i.e., “indication of content”) into a blockchain)
“storing the content in a data store” at [0036];
(Zou teaches the target image is added into an image transaction pool (i.e., “a data store”))
“generating a content hash based on the content” at [0038];
(Zou teaches generating image hash value of the target image)
“storing the content hash as a content record in a distributed ledger” at [0038];
(Zou teaches the image hash value is stored as copyright certificate of the target image, maintained by the blockchain (i.e., “distributed ledger”))
“receiving, from a client device, a request for the content” at [0042]-[0046];
(Zou teaches the transaction request triggers a designated smart contract corresponding to the target image to complete a transaction of the target image, and to trigger the designate smart contract to upload, after the transaction is completed, a transaction record corresponding to the transaction into the blockchain. The designated smart contract may further upload, after each image transaction is completed, a transaction record corresponding to the transaction into the blockchain, so that other nodes (e.g., a judicial agency node) in the blockchain confirm and record this transaction record for evidence collection when transaction disputes occur later)
“providing, in response to the request, at least a part of the content from the data store” at [0061].
(Zou teaches the images obtained by the transaction node from the image transaction pool may be displayed to the user on a transaction platform)

As per claim 2, Zou teaches the system of claim 1 discussed above. Zou also teaches: “generating a smart contract associated with the content, wherein the smart contract is associated with a trigger, identifying the trigger based on the request for the content from the client device; and in response to identifying the trigger, executing the smart contract to generate a new record in the distributed ledger” at [0042]-[0046] 
(Zou teaches the transaction request triggers a designated smart contract corresponding to the target image to complete a transaction of the target image, and to trigger the designate smart contract to upload, after the transaction is completed, a transaction record (i.e., “a new record”) corresponding to the transaction into the blockchain. The designated smart contract may further upload, after each image transaction is completed, a transaction record corresponding to the transaction into the blockchain, so that other nodes (e.g., a judicial agency node) in the blockchain confirm and record this transaction record for evidence collection when transaction disputes occur later)


As per claim 4, Zou teaches the system of claim 1, wherein “the indication of content further comprises metadata associated with the content; and the metadata is not used to generate the content hash” at [0011].

As per claim 5, Zou teaches the system of claim 4, wherein “at least a part of the metadata is stored in the content record” at [0011].

As per claim 6, Zou teaches the system of claim 4, wherein “at least a part of the metadata is stored in a metadata repository and associated with the content hash” at [0011].

As per claim 7, Zou teaches a method for generating a smart contract for content of a network comprising:
“receiving, from a content source, an indication of content” at [0031];
(Zou teaches the transaction node is configured to upload a target image (i.e., “indication of content”) into a blockchain)
“generating a smart contract associated with the content, wherein the smart contract is associated with a trigger” at [0042]-[0046];
(Zou teaches if the transaction node selects the target image from the image transaction pool for transaction, the transaction node sends, based on the target image, a transaction request to the blockchain, so as to trigger a designated smart contract corresponding to the target image to complete a transaction of the target image, and to trigger the designate smart contract to upload, after the transaction is completed, a transaction record corresponding to the transaction into the blockchain)
“storing the smart contract in a distributed ledger” at [0042]-[0045];
(Zou teaches storing the smart contract in the blockchain)
“receiving, from a client device, a request for the content” at [0045];
(Zou teaches if the transaction node selects the target image from the image transaction pool for transaction, the transaction node sends, based on the target image, a transaction request to the blockchain)
“identifying the trigger based on the request for the content from the client device, in response to identifying the trigger, executing the smart contract to generate a new record in the distribute ledger” at [0045]-[0046];
(Zou teaches the transaction request triggers a designated smart contract corresponding to the target image to complete a transaction of the target image, and to trigger the designate smart contract to upload, after the transaction is completed, a transaction record (i.e., “a new record”) corresponding to the transaction into the blockchain. The designated smart contract may further upload, after each image transaction is completed, a transaction record corresponding to the transaction into the blockchain, so that other nodes (e.g., a judicial agency node) in the blockchain confirm and record this transaction record for evidence collection when transaction disputes occur later)
“providing, in response to the request, at least a part of the content” at [0061].
(Zou teaches the images obtained by the transaction node from the image transaction pool may be displayed to the user on a transaction platform)

As per claim 8, Zou teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising: “generating content hash based on the content; storing the content hash as a content record in the distributed ledger” at [0038].

As per claim 10, Zou teaches the method of claim 8, wherein: “the indication of content further comprises metadata associated with the content; and the metadata is not used to generate the content hash” at [0011].

As per claim 11, Zou teaches the method of claim 7, wherein “the content is a subpart of streaming content from the content source” at [0003]-[0004].

Claims 12-13, 15-17 recite similar limitations as in claims 1-2, 4-6 and are therefore rejected by the same reasons.

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 3, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-13, 15-17 above, and in view of Crowell (US 2022/0083507 A1, Applicant’s submitted IDS filed 7/07/2025), hereinafter “Crowell”. 

As per claim 3, Zou teaches the system of claim 1 discussed above. Zou does not explicitly teach: “receiving, from the client device, a validation request comprising a second content hash; determining that the content is validated when the first content hash matches the second content hash; and in response to the validation request, providing an indication that the content is validated” as claimed. However, Crowell teaches a similar method for storing content and content hash in a distributed ledger, including the steps of: “receiving, from the client device, a validation request comprising a second content hash; determining that the content is validated when the first content hash matches the second content hash; and in response to the validation request, providing an indication that the content is validated” at [0085]-[0087] and Fig. 4. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Crowell with Zou’s teaching in order to determine whether the content is unmodified and trusted based on the matching hash values.


Claims 9, 14 recite similar limitations as in claim 3 and are therefore rejected by the same reasons.


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). 
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.

Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of US patent No. 12,032,591.  Claims 1-15 of US patent No. 12,032,591contain every element of claims 1-17 of the instant application and as such anticipate claims 1-17 of the instant application.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim.  In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED:  May 30, 2001). 

Conclusion
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. 

	
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHANH B PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571)272-4098. 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.





/KHANH B PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166                                                                                                                                                                                                        
April 7, 2025