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 .
Detailed Action
In amendments dated 6/27/25 Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 12, 14, 18, and 23, canceled claims 6 and 17, and added no new claims. Claims 1-5, 7-16, 18-19, and 23 are presented for examination.
Claim Construction
Independent claims 1, 12, and 23 each recites “determine whether hyperlinks in search results corresponding to execution of the sets of country-specific localized queries provide access to pirated content,” which is a contingent limitation. Per MPEP 2111.04(II), Examiner looked at the BRI of this limitation and notes the limitation determines that hyperlinks corresponding to execution of the sets of country-specific localized queries either provide access to pirated content or do not provide access to pirated content. In the method of claim 12, the limitation following this limitation (“generating a piracy exposure score for the content based on the search results and click-through rates for the search results”) does not meet either of these conditions, and a broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation says, if one of the conditions happens, it cannot be determined if that following limitation is performed. Thus this following limitation is not given patentable weight in claim 12. Per MPEP 2111.04(II), this limitation in claims 1 and 23 has recited structure that must be present so the limitations are given patentable weight in those claims.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 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 1-5, 7-16, 18-19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 12, and 23 each recites generating a query template that includes parameters based on instances of a title associated with content to be searched and keywords; generating sets of country-specific localized queries based on the query template, wherein the query template is provided as an input seed to the system; determining whether hyperlinks in search results corresponding to execution of the sets of country-specific queries provide access to pirated content; and generating a piracy exposure score for the content based on the search results and click-through rates for the search results. Generating a query template and localized queries and a piracy exposure score are generating data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper, and determining whether hyperlinks provide access to pirated content is evaluating and a mental process. Each claim recites the additional element of transmit the set of country specific queries to proxy servers located in one or more countries associated with the sets of country-specific servers to execute the queries in search engine mirror sites in the countries, and transmitting queries for execution is insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 1 recites one or more computer-readable media and a processor and claim 23 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which are each generic components of a computer. Examiner notes specification paragraph 0002 describes the overwhelming amount of digital content available over networked environments, and in particular that “there are instances where such digital content is made available or pirated by unauthorized sources.” Paragraphs 0020-0021 describe how the invention addresses the situation of digital content being pirated by using search engines in other countries that index such pirated content and run queries against such pirated content , such as “finding pirated content being distributed over the Internet in the various countries,” “diverting user traffic away from the authorized sources for the content,” and “removing the uniform resource locators (URLs) associated with the pirated content from the indexes of the search engines and/or the mirror sites for the search engines,” each of which are not claimed. Also, the claim steps do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claims as a whole, transmitting queries is transmitting data across a network (preamble, specification paragraph 0003, figure 3) which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.06(d) part II. The one or more computer-readable media and a processor and claim 23 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium, are each still generic components of a computer. Thus these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental processes.
Claims 2 and 13 each recites initiating delisting of the search results that are determined to provide access to the pirated content, and initiating a process like delisting is broadly recited and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 3 and 14 each recites generating the sets of country-specific localized queries by generating at least one of a combination or permutations of the parameters in the query template, and generating a combination or permutation of parameters is generating data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 4 and 15 each recites generating the sets of country-specific localized queries by translating the keywords in the query template into at least one language spoken in each of the countries, and generating queries is generating data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 5 and 16 each recites generating the sets of country-specific localized queries by replacing instances of the title in the query template with an official launch title in at least one language spoken in each of the countries, and replacing data with data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper.
Claims 7 and 18 each recites determining an overall search volume for the title associated with the content in the one or more countries and in at least one language spoken in each of the one or more countries (determining a volume is evaluating and a mental process); and determining a piracy search volume for the title associated with the content in the one or more countries and in at least one language spoken in each of the one or more countries (determining a volume is evaluating and a mental process). Claims 8 and 19 each recites combining the piracy exposure score with at least one of the overall search volume or the piracy search volume for the title associated with the content (combining a score with a volume is combining numbers and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); and determining, for each of the one or more countries and the at least one language, an expected piracy volume corresponding to a probability that hyperlinks in search results providing access to pirated content are selected (determining an expected volume is evaluating and a mental process).
Claim 9 recites determine an official rank associated with official domains in the search results providing access to authorized content associated with the title (determining a rank is evaluating and a mental process); determine a piracy rank associated with unofficial domains in the search results providing access to pirated content associated with the title (determining a rank is evaluating and a mental process); and determine a difference between the piracy rank and the official rank to provide an indication of a threat of piracy by at least one of country, language, title, or search engine site (determining a difference between ranks is evaluating and a mental process). Claim 10 recites generate database records corresponding to the results (generating records is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); and associate an infringing or pirated label with the results that provide access to pirated content (associating a label with results is evaluating and a mental process). Claim 11 teaches translate the keywords into corresponding primary and secondary languages spoken in the countries (translating keywords into other languages is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper).
Relevant Prior Art
During his search for prior art, Examiner found the following references to be relevant to Applicant's claimed invention. Each reference is listed on the Notice of References form included in this office action:
Shlyunkin et al (US 20200159783) teaches updating a search engine index by dividing said index into chunks representing pluralities of documents and updating said plurality by removing a document from one of the pluralities, does not teach a piracy exposure score, using country-specific queries, or a query template (paragraphs 0015-0016, 0131, 10168-0172, 0210-0237 figure 6); and
Mushtaq (US 20190373002) teaches detecting credential-stealing attacks by comparing candidate brand information to known brand information while looking for replica pages, does not teach a piracy exposure score, using country-specific queries, or a query template (paragraphs 0007, 0066 figure 4).
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks
Regarding objections of claims 1, 12, and 23 for antecedent basis of “the sets of country-specific servers,” in view of amendments reciting “sets of country-specific servers” these objections are withdrawn. Regarding objection to claim 8 for antecedent basis of “the piracy exposure score,” in view of amendments reciting generating a privacy exposure score in claim 1, this objection is withdrawn. Regarding rejections of claims 1-4, 7, 10-15, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Muto in view of Chen, Applicant’s amendments overcome Muto’s and Chen’s teachings, in particular “generate a piracy exposure score for the content based on the search results and click-through rates for the search results.” Regarding rejections of claims 1-19 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting mental processes without significantly more, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
On pages 10-11 of his Remarks Applicant asserts the recited limitations cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Examiner disagrees and notes “transmit the set of country specific queries sets of country-specific localized queries to proxy servers located in one or more countries associated with sets of country-specific servers to execute the queries in search engine mirror sites in the countries” is an additional element as explained in the rejections above. Examiner also notes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B), "the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation." The limitations recite a generic processor that executes instructions in a generic computer for generating a query template, generating sets of country-specific queries, determining whether hyperlinks provide access to pirated content, and generating a privacy exposure score. Each of these limitations is recited broadly without inventive details, i.e. the claim limitations do not recite how the invention generates a query template or country-specific queries or a privacy exposure score or determines hyperlinks provide access to pirated content. A human being could use a simply physical aid like a pen and paper to generate a query template or a query or a score by writing said entity on the paper, and determining whether something is true is simply a mental process.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE M MOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-1718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571 270-5626. 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.
/BRUCE M MOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 9/19/25