DETAILED ACTION
1.This communication is in response to the application filed on 07/23/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1a. Status of the claims:
Claims 1- 10 are pending.
Objection
2. The Abstract is objected to because an abstract language should be clear and concise and should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “This disclosure describes.” MPEP 608.01(b). The language “Disclosed is a method for monitoring illegal distribution of copyrighted works through a torrent network” can be implied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
4. Claims 1, 4-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Gao et al. (hereinafter “Gao”) (US 2014/02898860 A1) in view of Gorfein et al. (hereinafter “Gorfein”) (US 10,402,545 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Gao discloses a method for monitoring illegal distribution of copyrighted works through a torrent network, the method comprising:
checking, by a processor, information on a peer distributing a torrent file designated as copyrighted works to be monitored ( verifying that a participant is sharing the media file that has a copyrighted work using a torrent file , Gao, [0031]; [0049]; [0052]); when the peer is checked to be the Seeder, obtaining, by the processor, a captured image of a monitoring screen of the peer distributing the torrent file as evidence to prove a period of illegal distribution of the copyrighted work (screenshot of a user interface is monitored for a period of October 3, 2012 to October 5, 2012 for copyright infringement using the BitTorrent of the user using a processor ( where the user is the seeder), Gao, [0026];[0058];[0041]; a processor is disclosed in [0041]).
Gao does not disclose checking whether a current status of the peer is a Seeder or a Leecher.
Gorfein discloses checking whether a current status of the peer is a Seeder or a Leecher (The participant will send information that includes the participant's current download completion status, which includes information on how many data pieces that the participant has finished downloading. When the download completion status is received; the participant sharing the media file is also indicated with non-zero download completion where the non zero completion status is checking the Leecher. The Seeder is checked when all data pieces are downloaded, Gorfein, in column 11, lines 55-67; column 12, lines 1-3; The interpretation of the Seeder and the Leecher is in light of the specification [0006] that says that a user who has completely replicated the entire file and is only distributing the entire file acts as a Seeder. In a state in which only some pieces of the file are downloaded and the file is incompletely copied, the user who is downloading and distributing the file plays the role of a Leecher (non-Seeder)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Gorfein’s teachings with Gao’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to check efficiently the status of peer downloading a media file by checking effectively if the status of the participant distributing the file has download completion status or has a non zero completion status.
Regarding claim 4, Gao and Gorfein disclose the method of claim 1, wherein, in order to check the peer distributing the torrent file designated as the copyrighted work to be monitored, the processor loads the torrent file to analyze infohash information ( data piece with cryptographic hash received using copyright infringing BitTorrent is verified to correctly match with the torrent file after downloaded completion station received , using a processor, Gao, [0009]; see processor in [0041]), and checks whether the corresponding torrent file has the same infohash as infohash of the torrent file of the copyrighted work to be monitored ( data piece with cryptographic hash tracked using copyright infringing BitTorrent is verified to correctly match with the torrent file after downloaded completion station received , Gao, [0009]).
Regarding claim 5, Gao and Gorfein disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the monitoring screen includes a plurality of areas displaying at least one of information on the number of torrent files to be monitored, torrent file information, connection log information, settings information, standard time information, tracker information, and connection details information (several display sections are disclosed, a tracking server information is disclosed, Gao, [0009]; Fig.4A).
Regarding claim 6, Gao and Gorfein disclose the method of claim 1, after the checking whether the current status of the peer is the Seeder or the Leecher, further comprising: terminating, by the processor, a connection with the peer distributing the torrent file to prevent from downloading the torrent file ( terminating copyright infringement by BitTorrent users , Gao, [0023]), wherein, in order to monitor the peer distributing the torrent file, the checking whether the current status of the peer is the Seeder or the Leecher (monitoring copyright infringement by the BitTorrent of the user ( where the user is the seeder) , Gao, [0058])and the terminating of the connection with the peer distributing the torrent file are repeatedly performed at a designated time interval ( terminating copyright infringement by BitTorrent users being done at every set period of time according to a set of criteria , Gao, [0023]; [0045]).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is substantially similar to a combination claim 1 and 5, thus the same rationale applies.
4. Claims 2-3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Gao in view of Gorfein, and further in view Holland et al. (hereinafter “Holland”) (WO 20120097740 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Gao and Gorfein disclose the method of claim 1, wherein, after the obtaining of the captured image of the monitoring screen of the peer distributing the torrent file screenshot of the user interface is monitored for copyright infringement by the BitTorrent of the user ( where the user is the seeder) , Gao, [0058]),
the processor stores the information on the peer distributing the torrent file and the captured image of the monitoring screen in a DB server and a capture server (the torrent file will be stored in the database and a tracker server that maintained pieces of files received from peers, using a processor Gao, [0025]; [0020]; see processor in [0041]), and manages the information stored in the DB server and the capture server through a web server (a torrent dedicated file servers that distributed the torrent file stored in the database and allows other participants to access a tracker server that maintains pieces of files received from peers, Gao, [0025]; [0020]), whereby, when the managed information is submitted as the evidence of illegal distribution of the copyrighted work ( media file containing the copyrighted work that is maintained in the torrent file server is verified for illegal publishers Gao, [0025]; [0026]; [0020]),
the processor is implemented to search for only illegal distribution information of a desired torrent file through the web server ( media file containing the copyrighted work that is maintained in the torrent file server is verified for illegal publishers, Gao, [0025]; [0026]).
Gao in view of Gorfein do not disclose output the searched information as a report.
Holland discloses output the searched information as a report (report identified copyright infringement being sent to relevant owners , Holland, page 15, last paragraph starting with Advantageously, the amount of copyright…; relevant owners is disclosed in paragraph 6 of page 15).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Holland’s teachings with Gao’s teachings in view of Gorfein’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to report efficiently the illegality of a transmission of file by automatically reporting the illegality of a transmission of file to relevant owners of the file.
Regarding claim 3, Gao and Gorfein disclose the method of claim 2.
Gao in view of Gorfein do not disclose wherein, when the report submitted as the evidence of illegal distribution of the copyrighted work is output, the web server specifies a period from a time point when a peer to be monitored is first discovered as a Leecher with some file pieces or as a Seeder with all file pieces to a time point when the peer is last detected as the Seeder after being switched to the Seeder, as the period of illegal distribution of the copyrighted work through the torrent network, and allows the specified period to be included in the report when the report is output.
Holland discloses wherein, when the report submitted as the evidence of illegal distribution of the copyrighted work is output (report identified copyright infringement being sent to relevant owners , Holland, page 15, last paragraph starting with Advantageously, the amount of copyright…; relevant owners is disclosed in paragraph 6 of page 15), the web server specifies a period from a time point when a peer to be monitored is first discovered as a Leecher with some file pieces or as a Seeder with all file pieces to a time point when the peer is last detected as the Seeder after being switched to the Seeder (the amount of copyright infringement by an active leach peers taking place at any point of time can be identified , Holland, page 15, last two paragraph starting with Advantageously, the amount of copyright…; relevant owners is disclosed in paragraph 6 of page 15),
as the period of illegal distribution of the copyrighted work through the torrent network (the amount of copyright infringement by an active leach peers taking place at any point of time can be identified using a Bit Torrent trackers in BitTorrent network , Holland, page 15, last two paragraph starting with Advantageously, the amount of copyright…; relevant owners is disclosed in paragraph 7 of page 15), and allows the specified period to be included in the report when the report is output (the amount of copyright infringement by an active leach peers taking place at any point of time can be identified , Holland, page 15, last two paragraph starting with Advantageously, the amount of copyright…; relevant owners is disclosed in paragraph 6 of page 15).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Holland’s teachings with Gao’s teachings in view of Gorfein’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to report efficiently the illegality of a transmission of file by automatically reporting the illegality of a transmission of file to relevant owners of the file.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is substantially similar to a combination claim 2 and 5, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is substantially similar to a combination claim 2 and 5, thus the same rationale applies.
4. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Gao in view of Gorfein, and further in view Fujimatsu et al. (hereinafter “Fujimatsu”) (CN 104284146 B).
Regarding claim 7, Gao and Gorfein disclose the method of claim 1, wherein, in order to acquire the evidence that can prove the period of illegal distribution of the copyrighted work, the processor is configured to: repeatedly monitor the peer distributing the torrent file with the same infohash as infohash of the torrent file of the copyrighted work to be monitored at a designated time interval ( terminating copyright infringement by BitTorrent users being done at every set period of time by monitoring according to a set of criteria where data piece with cryptographic hash received using copyright infringing BitTorrent is verified to correctly match with the torrent file after downloaded completion station received , Gao, [0023]; [0045]; [0009]; by monitoring disclosed in [0056]))
Gao in view of Gorfein do not disclose capture the monitoring screen (First Seen) when the peer is first discovered; capture the monitoring screen (Seed Time) when the peer is determined to be the Seeder; and capture the monitoring screen (Last Seen) when the peer is finally discovered.
Fujimatsu discloses capture the monitoring screen (First Seen) when the peer is first discovered; capture the monitoring screen (Seed Time) when the peer is determined to be the Seeder ( captured image monitored in monitoring personnel tracking is tracked ( when the capture image was tracked by the seeder is equated to the Seed Time), Fujimatsu , page paragraph starting with The auxiliary tracking device…); and capture the monitoring screen (Last Seen) when the peer is finally discovered ( capture image when monitored picture in the display view ( when the capture image was seen by the peer is equated to the last seen) , Fujimatsu , page paragraph starting with When the tracking processing in the camera…) .
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Holland’s teachings with Gao’s teachings in view of Gorfein’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to report efficiently the illegality of a transmission of file by automatically reporting the illegality of a transmission of file to relevant owners of the file.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIEGEORGES A HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3226. The examiner can normally be reached on 11:00am -8:00pm East M-F.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached on 571 272-8365. 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.
/MARIEGEORGES A HENRY/Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/EMMANUEL L MOISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights