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 .
Claims 15-32 and 34-36 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding double patenting rejection, the rejection is withdrawn in light of Terminal Disclaimer filed on 4/22/26.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections, Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant mainly argues that the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose
classifying the at least one identified document by:
processing at least one identified location using a first classifier trained to process identified locations of documents and output location classifications of the document,
processing content of the at least one identified document using a second classifier configured to analyze content of documents and output content classification of the documents, and/or
processing the at least one document property using a third classifier trained to process document properties of documents and output property classifications of the documents;
selecting, using at least one identified location, content, and/or property of the at least one identified document and configuring the network entity to restrict transfer of data between the network entity and the at least one identified location.
However, the examiner disagrees.
Based on broadest reasonable interpretation, Bronson teaches or at least suggests the disputed limitations by disclosing monitoring distribution of digital content file to detect media piracy and select action to be applied based on policy associated with the media content, wherein the actions are taken in response to classifying the location of the detected document as one of whitelist, graylist, or blacklist (Bronson: col. 6 line 63 - col. 7 line 32: content tracking network module operates as DHCP system or browser application extension to identify suspicious users and prevent pirated users from accessing additional content using blacklist, whitelist or greylist; Figs. 2-4 and col. 1 line 65 – col. 2 line 20: content tracking system maintains whitelist, blacklist or greylist of websites that distribute contents). The classification to identify location of detected document as whitelist, greylist or blacklist facilitates actions taken to mitigate potential violations. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive in light of above explanation.
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 15-32 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez et al. U.S. 2009/0012944 (hereinafter Rodriguez) in view of Bronson et al. U.S. 10,817,592 (hereinafter Bronson).
As per claim 15, 21 and 34, Rodriguez discloses a system/method/memory for obtaining one or more locations of copies of a document on a computer network based on at least one property of the document (Rodriguez: [0010]: report location of tracked media content, including documents), the system comprising a non-transitory memory storing executable code; and at least one processor that, upon executing the executable code, is configured to perform:
generating at least one marker representing the at least one document property (Rodriguez: [0041]; [0126]: watermark/encoded marker is embedded on content, the watermark is based on keyword or information/marker);
generating one or more search terms using the at least one marker (Rodriguez: [0125]-[0127]: search terms are derived from keyword or information);
using a search engine to search the computer network using the one or more search terms to obtain one or more search results (Rodriguez: [0126]: search tool receives the watermark identifier);
identifying, from among the one or more search results, at least one document having the at least one document property and a respective at least one identified location on the computer network (Rodriguez: [0052]: the watermark-based keywords are searchable by search engines; [0126]-[0127]: mark some or all of the content using the identifier);
applying the at least one action to a network entity, wherein the at least one action comprises generating a notification message to the network entity (Rodriguez: [0031]-[0032]: report to central server or directly to content owner based on identified content).
Rodriguez does not explicitly disclose classifying the at least one identified document by: processing at least one identified location using a first classifier trained to process identified locations of documents and output location classifications of the document, processing content of the at least one identified document using a second classifier configured to analyze content of documents and output content classification of the documents, and/or processing the at least one document property using a third classifier trained to process document properties of documents and output property classifications of the documents; selecting, using at least one identified location, content, and/or property of the at least one identified document and configuring the network entity to restrict transfer of data between the network entity and the at least one identified location. However, Bronson discloses monitoring distribution of digital content file to detect media piracy and select action to be applied based on policy associated with the media content, wherein the actions are taken in response to classifying the location of the detected document as one of whitelist, graylist, or blacklist (Bronson: col. 6 line 63 - col. 7 line 32: content tracking network module operates as DHCP system or browser application extension to identify suspicious users and prevent pirated users from accessing additional content using blacklist, whitelist or greylist; Figs. 2-4 and col. 1 line 65 – col. 2 line 20: content tracking system maintains whitelist, blacklist or greylist of websites that distribute contents). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to restrict transfer of information between identified location/blacklist site and user device when violation/unauthorized usage of copyrighted content is detected by browser extension because Bronson and Rodriguez are analogous art involving searching public network for copyrighted content. The motivation to combine would be to deter further distribution of copyrighted content.
As per claim 16 and 22, Rodriguez as modified discloses the limitations according to claims 15 and 21 respectively. Rodriguez further discloses receive one or more basic markers; receive an encoding function associated with the at least one document property; produce an encoded marker based on the one or more basic markers according to the encoding function; and mark the document with the encoded marker (Rodriguez [0125]-[0127]: various encoding functions may be used, including receiving some keywords or information/basic marker to produce watermark identifier/encoded marker for generating watermark content based on specific encoding function).
As per claim 17, Rodriguez as modified discloses the limitations of claim 16. Rodriguez further discloses wherein the encoding function comprises at least one obfuscation element (Rodriguez: [0007]: function of digital watermark is to embed codes that is imperceptible or nearly imperceptible to the user; [0025]: embedding digital watermarks).
As per claim 18, Rodriguez as modified discloses the limitations of claim 15. Rodriguez further discloses generating the one or more search terms using the at least one marker comprises: producing one or more search terms based on at least one markers and according to a decoding function (Rodriguez: [0127]: different identifiers can be generated based on the same basic identifier, i.e. Disneyland, to retrieve different search results).
As per claim 19 and 24, Rodriguez as modified discloses the limitations of claims 15 and 21 respectively. Rodriguez further discloses wherein the at least one action to apply to the network entity comprises a rule-based action (Rodriguez: [0029]-[0032]: search for watermarked content and report content location to central server or the content owner for enforcement actions).
As per claim 20 and 25, Rodriguez as modified discloses the limitations according to claims 15 and 21 respectively. Rodriguez further discloses wherein generating the at least one marker representing the at least one document property comprises applying an encoding function associated with the document property (Rodriguez: [0125]-[0127]: embed watermark identifier associated with common document property for indexing, and search content with common property based on the identifier, e.g. some or all pictures taken at Disneyland).
As per claim 23 and 30, Rodriguez as modified discloses the limitations of claims 21 and 15 respectively. Rodriguez further discloses wherein generating the one or more search terms using the at least one marker comprises: producing the one or more search terms based on the at least one marker and according to a decoding function (Rodriguez: [0125]-[0127]).
As per claim 26 and 29, Rodriguez as modified discloses the method of claims 21 and 15 respectively. Rodriguez further discloses wherein the at least one document property comprises a property selected from the group consisting of: a subject of the document, a title of the document, an owner of the document, a pertinence of the document, and a level of secrecy associated with the document (Rodriguez: [0030]-[0032]; [0125]-[0127]).
As per claim 27, Rodriguez as modified discloses the method of claim 21. Rodriguez further discloses wherein the identifying the at least one document comprises: retrieving one or more documents according to the at least one identified location, and applying the at least one decoding function to the one or more retrieved documents to identify the at least one document having the at least one document property (Rodriguez: [0030]: finding and decoding watermarked content).
As per claim 28 and 31, Rodriguez as modified discloses the limitations of claims 21 and 15 respectively. Rodriguez as modified further discloses processing the at least one identified location using the first classifier trained to process identified locations of the documents and output the location classifications of the documents and selecting, based on the results of classifying the at least one identified document the at least one action to apply to the network entity (Bronson: col. 6 line 63 - col. 7 line 32: content tracking network module operates as DHCP system or browser application extension to identify suspicious users and prevent pirated users from accessing additional content using blacklist, whitelist or greylist; Figs. 2-4 and col. 1 line 65 – col. 2 line 20: content tracking system maintains whitelist, blacklist or greylist of websites that distribute contents). Same rationale applies here as above in rejecting claims 21 and 15.
As per claim 32, Rodriguez as modified discloses the limitations of claim 15. Rodriguez as modified teaches or at least suggests wherein the at least one action comprises generating a notification message to the network entity or configuring the network entity to restrict transfer of data between the network entity and the at least one identified location (Rodriguez: [0031]-[0032]; [0041]).
As per claim 35 and 36, Rodriguez as modified discloses the limitations of claim 15 and 21 respectively. Rodriguez as modified further discloses wherein selecting, based on the results of classifying the at least one identified document, the at least one action to apply to the network entity comprises: selecting, based on membership of the at least one identified document in at least one of a first group associated with the location classifications, a second group associated with the content classifications, and a third group associated with priority classifications, the at least one action to apply to the network entity (Bronson: col. 6 line 63 - col. 7 line 32: content tracking network module operates as DHCP system or browser application extension to identify suspicious users and prevent pirated users from accessing additional content using blacklist, whitelist or greylist; Figs. 2-4 and col. 1 line 65 – col. 2 line 20: content tracking system maintains whitelist, blacklist or greylist of websites that distribute contents).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bommireddipalli et al. U.S. 2015/0096041 discloses identifying and classifying pirated media content.
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 SHIN HON (ERIC) CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9am- 7pm.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. 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.
/SHIN-HON (ERIC) CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights