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 .
Oath/Declaration
Applicant’s oath/declaration filed on 11/04/2024 has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/04/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 11/04/2024 with the instant application are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The specification submitted on 11/04/2024 with the instant application are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 6-7 of Claim 11, the limitation “protected content within the web content” should read: “protected content within the original web content”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10-11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravi et al. (US 10565385 B1), hereinafter Ravi, in view of Gupta et al. (Gupta, R., V., M. V., & K., M. (2021). An Innovative Security Strategy using reactive web application honeypot. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 9(5). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2105.04773), hereinafter Gupta.
Regarding Claim 1:
Ravi teaches a method for limiting access to web content (Ravi – Col. 1, Line 64-67, and Col. 2, Line 1-3: Techniques described and suggested herein relate to the provisioning of substitute web content for detecting automated agents and determining whether to prevent, deter, reroute or the automated agents from accessing web content provided by a provider computing system associated with a website in which interaction with the web content by the automated agent is undesirable), the method comprising: duplicating, by a processor, original web content accessible via a web application (Ravi – Col. 2, Line 17-40: The provider computing system may be configured to receive a request from a user to access web content, such as a webpage. A rendering service of the provider computing system may, in response to the provider computing system receiving the request, obtain content information from the content service of the provider computing system. The content information may correspond to authentic web content information for the web content requested … The rendering service may use the content information obtained to generate substitute web content information configured to, upon processing by a web browser or application on a computing device of the requesting user, render substitute web content that has visual content appearing identical to or resembling data objects of the authentic web content.); scanning, by the processor, the original web content to identify protected content within the original web content (Ravi – Col. 7, Line 23-57: The content service 210 may store or obtain secondary information associated with the web content requested that is used to determine whether to render the authentic web content with the substitute web content … In one embodiment, the associated secondary information may include information characterizing a status of the web content or subcontent that the rendering service may use to determine whether to render the web content or subcontent as authentic or substitute content. The status information may be priority protection status information indicating content that should be protected from being compromised or accessed by an automated agent, such as a web crawler); replacing, by the processor, the protected content with metadata, wherein the metadata is accessible as part of limited web content [via a duplicated web application] (Ravi – Col. 7, Line 23-49: The content service 210 may store or obtain secondary information associated with the web content requested that is used to determine whether to render the authentic web content with the substitute web content. The secondary information may indicate whether authentic content of the webpage should be rendered or whether substitute web content should be rendered. The secondary information may indicate subcontent on the webpage that should be rendered as authentic web content while other subcontent should be rendered as substitute web content. Subcontent is content of a webpage or web content that corresponds to a set of data objects on a webpage that comprises less than the entire webpage. As one example, the associated secondary information may specify some data objects on the webpage, such as buttons or hyperlinks, to be rendered in association with the webpage that should be rendered as substitute web content and specify other data objects that should be rendered as authentic web content. The secondary information may include other information, such as a behavior to be performed in association with automated agent activity—for example, specifying one or more data objects that should be rendered as substitute web content when automated agent activity is associated with the requestor. The secondary information may identify entire webpages that should be rendered as substitute content, or may identify subcontent therein that should be rendered as substitute content. Col. 10, Line 33-41: The substitute web content information may include information that causes an automated agent to be directed to an application programming interface (“API”) or other web interface configured to generate substitute web content visually conveying the same information that the original web content would convey to a human user, but requiring less computation or memory than the original web content (e.g., plaintext values or JSON objects instead of content with graphics and animation); Examiner’s Comment: At least Paragraph [0032] of the instant specification recites: “It should be appreciated that the metadata 322, 324 can be any information that describes the original data, including the original data in the sub-pages 314, 318”. Thus, the plaintext values and JSON objects, in addition to substitute content which appears/behaves identically to authentic content are interpreted to represent the claimed metadata); routing, by the processor, one or more non-human users [to the duplicated web application and] allowing access to the limited web content; and routing, by the processor, one or more human users to the web application and allowing access to the original web content (Ravi – Col. 9, Line 3-17: The bot detection service 212 may provide the status or confidence information to other services. The bot detection service 212 may provide the confidence information to the rendering service 208 for use and responding to a request from the requestor 202. If the confidence information provided to the rendering service 208 indicates an elevated confidence that the requestor 202 is an automated agent or a low confidence that the requestor 202 is a human user, the rendering service 208 may provide substitute web content information to the requestor 202 By contrast, the rendering service may provide the authentic web content information instead of substitute web content information if the confidence information indicates a low confidence that the requestor 202 was an automated agent or high confidence that the requestor is a human user).
Ravi does not expressly teach via a duplicated web application; and the duplicated web application.
However, Gupta teaches via a duplicated web application (Gupta – P. 2, Left Col.: The first and principal thing we need is the attack surface with all the emulated vulnerabilities. Here, we introduce SNARE; it creates the attack surface by cloning all the web pages of the application fed as input and names the files by their md5 hash. It serves all the web pages on top of itself, becoming a server and hence monitoring all the HTTP events/flows throughout the application. SNARE has an inbuilt Cloner that works asynchronously to reduce the time taken to clone all the pages but has to be invoked before SNARE to serve all the pages … Moreover, it also scrapes all the images on the web pages, scripts, and action elements as well so that the clone looks as good as the real system); and the duplicated web application (Gupta – P. 2, Left Col.: The first and principal thing we need is the attack surface with all the emulated vulnerabilities. Here, we introduce SNARE; it creates the attack surface by cloning all the web pages of the application fed as input and names the files by their md5 hash. It serves all the web pages on top of itself, becoming a server and hence monitoring all the HTTP events/flows throughout the application. SNARE has an inbuilt Cloner that works asynchronously to reduce the time taken to clone all the pages but has to be invoked before SNARE to serve all the pages … Moreover, it also scrapes all the images on the web pages, scripts, and action elements as well so that the clone looks as good as the real system).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ravi, further incorporating Gupta to arrive at the conclusion of the claimed invention. Gupta is directed to cloning web applications to create honeypots to attract and observe attacker behavior. The cloned applications are intended to appear legitimate in order to deceive attackers. It would have been obvious to implement Gupta’s cloned web applications in combination with Ravi’s provision of protected content to detected automated users. The combination would produce the obvious benefit of a capability to dynamically create a convincing alternate version of web content in a scenario in which a system deems that the web content should be protected from an automated requestor.
Regarding Claim 10:
The combination of Ravi and Gupta teaches the method of claim 1.
Ravi further teaches wherein non-human users comprise one or more of a web search engine and a web archiver using a web crawler (Ravi – Col. 7, Line 54-57: The status information may be priority protection status information indicating content that should be protected from being compromised or accessed by an automated agent, such as a web crawler).
The motivation to combine the arts is the same as that of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11:
Claim 11 is a system claim with limitations corresponding to those of method Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected with the rationale as that of the rejection of Claim 1.
Ravi further teaches the additional structural elements a system for limiting access to web content, the system comprising: one or more processors; a tangible computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (Ravi – Col. 8, Line 38-45: Each server typically will include an operating system that provides executable program instructions for the general administration and operation of that server and typically will include a computer-readable storage medium (e.g., a hard disk, random access memory, read only memory, etc.) storing instructions that, when executed (i.e., as a result of being executed) by a processor of the server, allow the server to perform its intended functions).
Regarding Claim 20:
Ravi teaches a method of filtering web traffic, the method comprising: filtering, by a processor, non-human web traffic and routing the filtered non-human web traffic [to a duplicated web application] to access limited web content (Ravi – Col. 3, Line 1-19: The provider computing system may include a bot detection service for analyzing information regarding user interactions and generating assessment information indicating a confidence of whether a user is associated with automated agent activity. The rendering service may provide information regarding the interaction information received from the user computing device to the bot detection service, which the bot detection service may analyze to provide an indication of automated agent activity in association with the user. The bot detection service may provide the rendering service with an indication of whether the user is associated with automated agent activity. For instance, the rendering service may generate the substitute web content information in response to receiving an indication that the user has been previously determined to exhibit behavior consistent with an automated agent. Conversely, the rendering service may generate authentic web content in response to receiving an indication that the user has been previously determined to exhibit behavior consistent with a human user. Col. 12, lines 62-66: As another example, the browser 408 may replace or exchange the entire substitute web content rendered (e.g., with the visual element 310 having a grey color) with the substitute web content 410 having the visual element 416 with a blue product.), wherein the limited web content comprises duplicated web content based on original web content having protected content replaced with metadata (Ravi – Col. 7, Line 23-49: The content service 210 may store or obtain secondary information associated with the web content requested that is used to determine whether to render the authentic web content with the substitute web content. The secondary information may indicate whether authentic content of the webpage should be rendered or whether substitute web content should be rendered. The secondary information may indicate subcontent on the webpage that should be rendered as authentic web content while other subcontent should be rendered as substitute web content. Subcontent is content of a webpage or web content that corresponds to a set of data objects on a webpage that comprises less than the entire webpage. As one example, the associated secondary information may specify some data objects on the webpage, such as buttons or hyperlinks, to be rendered in association with the webpage that should be rendered as substitute web content and specify other data objects that should be rendered as authentic web content. The secondary information may include other information, such as a behavior to be performed in association with automated agent activity—for example, specifying one or more data objects that should be rendered as substitute web content when automated agent activity is associated with the requestor. The secondary information may identify entire webpages that should be rendered as substitute content, or may identify subcontent therein that should be rendered as substitute content; and Col. 10, Line 33-41: The substitute web content information may include information that causes an automated agent to be directed to an application programming interface (“API”) or other web interface configured to generate substitute web content visually conveying the same information that the original web content would convey to a human user, but requiring less computation or memory than the original web content (e.g., plaintext values or JSON objects instead of content with graphics and animation); Examiner’s Comment: At least Paragraph [0032] of the instant specification recites: “It should be appreciated that the metadata 322, 324 can be any information that describes the original data, including the original data in the sub-pages 314, 318”. Thus, the plaintext values and JSON objects, in addition to substitute content which appears/behaves identically to authentic content are interpreted to represent the claimed metadata); and filtering, by the processor, human web traffic and routing the filtered human web traffic to a web application allowing access to the original web content (Ravi – Col. 3, Line 1-19: The provider computing system may include a bot detection service for analyzing information regarding user interactions and generating assessment information indicating a confidence of whether a user is associated with automated agent activity. The rendering service may provide information regarding the interaction information received from the user computing device to the bot detection service, which the bot detection service may analyze to provide an indication of automated agent activity in association with the user. The bot detection service may provide the rendering service with an indication of whether the user is associated with automated agent activity. For instance, the rendering service may generate the substitute web content information in response to receiving an indication that the user has been previously determined to exhibit behavior consistent with an automated agent. Conversely, the rendering service may generate authentic web content in response to receiving an indication that the user has been previously determined to exhibit behavior consistent with a human user.).
Ravi does not expressly teach a duplication web application.
However, Gupta teaches a duplication web application (Gupta – P. 2, Left Col.: The first and principal thing we need is the attack surface with all the emulated vulnerabilities. Here, we introduce SNARE; it creates the attack surface by cloning all the web pages of the application fed as input and names the files by their md5 hash. It serves all the web pages on top of itself, becoming a server and hence monitoring all the HTTP events/flows throughout the application. SNARE has an inbuilt Cloner that works asynchronously to reduce the time taken to clone all the pages but has to be invoked before SNARE to serve all the pages … Moreover, it also scrapes all the images on the web pages, scripts, and action elements as well so that the clone looks as good as the real system).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ravi, further incorporating Gupta to arrive at the conclusion of the claimed invention. Gupta is directed to cloning web applications to create honeypots to attract and observe attacker behavior. The cloned applications are intended to appear legitimate in order to deceive attackers. It would have been obvious to implement Gupta’s cloned web applications in combination with Ravi’s provision of protected content to detected automated users. The combination would produce the obvious benefit of a capability to dynamically create a convincing alternate version of web content in a scenario in which a system deems that the web content should be protected from an automated requestor.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 8, 12-14, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravi, in view of Gupta and Patel et al. (US 20120209963 A1), hereinafter Patel.
Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Ravi and Gupta teaches the method of claim 1.
Ravi does not expressly teach wherein the protected content comprises web content subject to one or more intellectual property rights.
However, Patel teaches wherein the protected content comprises web content subject to one or more intellectual property rights (Paragraph [0027]: FIG. 3 illustrates a method 300 for determining alternative video content, in accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention. While the method illustrated in FIG. 3 is directed to determining alternative video content, in other embodiments, the method can be customized to determine alternative data, such as alternative image content, alternative audio content, etc; and Paragraph [0029]: Licensed content is video content that is cleared by the owner of the content. For instance, many websites can include content that infringes someone's copyright. However, by swapping potentially infringing content or non-licensed content with licensed content (i.e., content that the site has the right to provide), a website owner may be able to avoid potential legal disputes).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ravi and Gupta, further incorporating Patel to arrive at the conclusion of the claimed invention. Patel is directed to methods for dynamically identifying content in a webpage for the purpose of replacing the content, based on publisher preferences. Particularly, Patel teaches identification and replacement of potentially problematic use of copyrighted content. Thus, Patel established a known means for dynamically processing and selectively swapping content to be displayed in place of unpermitted content. It would have been obvious to implement this technique in combination with at least Ravi to achieve the predictable benefit of protecting intellectual property from web crawler access. Ravi explicitly teaches determining, for web page content, “priority protection status information indicating content that should be protected from being compromised or accessed by an automated agent, such as a web crawler”, and producing substitute content to render in place of the protected authentic content. This teaching naturally combines with Patel’s replacement of content for which a publisher may not have the rights to display.
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Ravi, Gupta, and Patel teaches the method of claim 2.
Ravi further teaches wherein the web content … is replaced … the metadata (Ravi – Col. 7, Line 23-49: The content service 210 may store or obtain secondary information associated with the web content requested that is used to determine whether to render the authentic web content with the substitute web content. The secondary information may indicate whether authentic content of the webpage should be rendered or whether substitute web content should be rendered. The secondary information may indicate subcontent on the webpage that should be rendered as authentic web content while other subcontent should be rendered as substitute web content. Subcontent is content of a webpage or web content that corresponds to a set of data objects on a webpage that comprises less than the entire webpage. As one example, the associated secondary information may specify some data objects on the webpage, such as buttons or hyperlinks, to be rendered in association with the webpage that should be rendered as substitute web content and specify other data objects that should be rendered as authentic web content. The secondary information may include other information, such as a behavior to be performed in association with automated agent activity—for example, specifying one or more data objects that should be rendered as substitute web content when automated agent activity is associated with the requestor. The secondary information may identify entire webpages that should be rendered as substitute content, or may identify subcontent therein that should be rendered as substitute content; and Col. 10, Line 33-41: The substitute web content information may include information that causes an automated agent to be directed to an application programming interface (“API”) or other web interface configured to generate substitute web content visually conveying the same information that the original web content would convey to a human user, but requiring less computation or memory than the original web content (e.g., plaintext values or JSON objects instead of content with graphics and animation); Examiner’s Comment: At least Paragraph [0032] of the instant specification recites: “It should be appreciated that the metadata 322, 324 can be any information that describes the original data, including the original data in the sub-pages 314, 318”. Thus, the plaintext values and JSON objects, in addition to substitute content which appears/behaves identically to authentic content are interpreted to represent the claimed metadata).
Patel further teaches wherein the web content subject to one or more intellectual property rights is replaced with web content not subject to one or more intellectual property rights (Patel – Paragraph [0027]: FIG. 3 illustrates a method 300 for determining alternative video content, in accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention. While the method illustrated in FIG. 3 is directed to determining alternative video content, in other embodiments, the method can be customized to determine alternative data, such as alternative image content, alternative audio content, etc. In this embodiment, in order to determine the alternative video content, JavaScript embedded within the code of the webpage is configured to transmit at 305 a request to the intermediary server. The request identifies which content should be replaced or swapped. Based on the request, the intermediary server searches at 310 an intermediary server database for the alternative video content. Based on the search, the intermediary server is configured to return a result at 315 identifying the alternative video content; and Paragraph [0028]: The alternative video content can include revenue generating content, licensed content, alternative format content, etc; and Paragraph [0029]: Licensed content is video content that is cleared by the owner of the content. For instance, many websites can include content that infringes someone's copyright. However, by swapping potentially infringing content or non-licensed content with licensed content (i.e., content that the site has the right to provide), a website owner may be able to avoid potential legal disputes).
The motivation to combine the arts is the same as that of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Ravi, Gupta, and Patel teaches the method of claim 2.
Gupta further teaches the duplicated web application (Gupta – P. 2, Left Col.: The first and principal thing we need is the attack surface with all the emulated vulnerabilities. Here, we introduce SNARE; it creates the attack surface by cloning all the web pages of the application fed as input and names the files by their md5 hash. It serves all the web pages on top of itself, becoming a server and hence monitoring all the HTTP events/flows throughout the application. SNARE has an inbuilt Cloner that works asynchronously to reduce the time taken to clone all the pages but has to be invoked before SNARE to serve all the pages … Moreover, it also scrapes all the images on the web pages, scripts, and action elements as well so that the clone looks as good as the real system).
Patel further teaches wherein the web content subject to one or more intellectual property rights is removed (Patel – Paragraph [0027]: FIG. 3 illustrates a method 300 for determining alternative video content, in accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention. While the method illustrated in FIG. 3 is directed to determining alternative video content, in other embodiments, the method can be customized to determine alternative data, such as alternative image content, alternative audio content, etc. In this embodiment, in order to determine the alternative video content, JavaScript embedded within the code of the webpage is configured to transmit at 305 a request to the intermediary server. The request identifies which content should be replaced or swapped. Based on the request, the intermediary server searches at 310 an intermediary server database for the alternative video content. Based on the search, the intermediary server is configured to return a result at 315 identifying the alternative video content; and Paragraph [0028]: The alternative video content can include revenue generating content, licensed content, alternative format content, etc; and Paragraph [0029]: Licensed content is video content that is cleared by the owner of the content. For instance, many websites can include content that infringes someone's copyright. However, by swapping potentially infringing content or non-licensed content with licensed content (i.e., content that the site has the right to provide), a website owner may be able to avoid potential legal disputes).
The motivation to combine the arts is the same as that of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Ravi, Gupta, and Patel teaches the method of claim 2.
Patel further teaches wherein the web application comprises a photography website and the protected content comprises one or more images subject to the one or more intellectual property rights (Patel – Paragraph [0003]: Many website publishers display content, such as audio, video, and images, on one or more pages of their website; and Paragraph [0029]: For instance, many websites can include content that infringes someone's copyright), and further comprising removing the one or more images subject to the one or more intellectual property rights (Patel – Paragraph [0027]: FIG. 3 illustrates a method 300 for determining alternative video content, in accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention. While the method illustrated in FIG. 3 is directed to determining alternative video content, in other embodiments, the method can be customized to determine alternative data, such as alternative image content, alternative audio content, etc. In this embodiment, in order to determine the alternative video content, JavaScript embedded within the code of the webpage is configured to transmit at 305 a request to the intermediary server. The request identifies which content should be replaced or swapped. Based on the request, the intermediary server searches at 310 an intermediary server database for the alternative video content. Based on the search, the intermediary server is configured to return a result at 315 identifying the alternative video content; and Paragraph [0029]: Licensed content is video content that is cleared by the owner of the content. For instance, many websites can include content that infringes someone's copyright. However, by swapping potentially infringing content or non-licensed content with licensed content (i.e., content that the site has the right to provide), a website owner may be able to avoid potential legal disputes).
The motivation to combine the arts is the same as that of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 8:
The combination of Ravi, Gupta, and Patel teaches the method of claim 2.
Patel further teaches wherein the web application comprises a document website and the protected content comprises one or more published documents subject to the one or more intellectual property rights (Patel – Paragraph [0003]: Many website publishers display content, such as audio, video, and images, on one or more pages of their website; and Paragraph [0029]: For instance, many websites can include content that infringes someone's copyright), and further comprising removing the one or more images subject to the one or more intellectual property rights (Patel – Paragraph [0027]: FIG. 3 illustrates a method 300 for determining alternative video content, in accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention. While the method illustrated in FIG. 3 is directed to determining alternative video content, in other embodiments, the method can be customized to determine alternative data, such as alternative image content, alternative audio content, etc. In this embodiment, in order to determine the alternative video content, JavaScript embedded within the code of the webpage is configured to transmit at 305 a request to the intermediary server. The request identifies which content should be replaced or swapped. Based on the request, the intermediary server searches at 310 an intermediary server database for the alternative video content. Based on the search, the intermediary server is configured to return a result at 315 identifying the alternative video content; and Paragraph [0029]: Licensed content is video content that is cleared by the owner of the content. For instance, many websites can include content that infringes someone's copyright. However, by swapping potentially infringing content or non-licensed content with licensed content (i.e., content that the site has the right to provide), a website owner may be able to avoid potential legal disputes).
The motivation to combine the arts is the same as that of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 12:
Rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. In addition, Claim 12 is a system claim with limitations corresponding to those of method Claim 2. Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected with the rationale as that of the rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 13:
Rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. In addition, Claim 13 is a system claim with limitations corresponding to those of method Claim 3. Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected with the rationale as that of the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 14:
Rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. In addition, Claim 14 is a system claim with limitations corresponding to those of method Claim 4. Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected with the rationale as that of the rejection of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 16:
Rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. In addition, Claim 16 is a system claim with limitations corresponding to those of method Claim 6. Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected with the rationale as that of the rejection of Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 18:
Rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. In addition, Claim 18 is a system claim with limitations corresponding to those of method Claim 8. Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected with the rationale as that of the rejection of Claim 8.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravi, in view of Gupta, Patel and WebAIM (Alternative text. WebAIM. (2021, October 19). https://webaim.org/techniques/alttext/), hereinafter WebAIM.
Regarding Claim 5
The combination of Ravi, Gupta, and Patel teaches the method of claim 2.
Patel further teaches wherein the web application comprises a photography website and the protected content comprises one or more images subject to the one or more intellectual property rights (Patel – Paragraph [0003]: Many website publishers display content, such as audio, video, and images, on one or more pages of their website; and Paragraph [0029]: For instance, many websites can include content that infringes someone's copyright), and further comprising replacing the one or more images subject to the one or more intellectual property rights (Patel – Paragraph [0027]: FIG. 3 illustrates a method 300 for determining alternative video content, in accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention. While the method illustrated in FIG. 3 is directed to determining alternative video content, in other embodiments, the method can be customized to determine alternative data, such as alternative image content, alternative audio content, etc. In this embodiment, in order to determine the alternative video content, JavaScript embedded within the code of the webpage is configured to transmit at 305 a request to the intermediary server. The request identifies which content should be replaced or swapped. Based on the request, the intermediary server searches at 310 an intermediary server database for the alternative video content. Based on the search, the intermediary server is configured to return a result at 315 identifying the alternative video content; and Paragraph [0029]: Licensed content is video content that is cleared by the owner of the content. For instance, many websites can include content that infringes someone's copyright. However, by swapping potentially infringing content or non-licensed content with licensed content (i.e., content that the site has the right to provide), a website owner may be able to avoid potential legal disputes).
The combination of Ravi, Gupta, and Patel does not expressly teach replacing the one or more images … with text describing the one or more images.
However, WebAIM teaches replacing the one or more images … with text describing the one or more images (WebAIM – P. 1: Alternative text is a textual substitute for non-text content in web pages … If an image fails to load or the user has blocked images, the browser will present the alternative text visually in place of the image).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ravi, Gupta, and Patel, further incorporating WebAIM to arrive at the conclusion of the claimed invention. One would be motivated to incorporate WebAIM’s teaching to present alternative text in place of protected images according to user preferences into Ravi, Gupta, and Patel’s method for limiting access to web content. This additional functionality provides selective alternate presentation for preventing unauthorized access to images subject to intellectual property rights.
Regarding Claim 15:
Rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. In addition, Claim 15 is a system claim with limitations corresponding to those of method Claim 5. Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected with the rationale as that of the rejection of Claim 5.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravi, in view of Gupta, Patel, and Google (Google. (2012, December 24). FAQ – google books. Google. https://www.google.com/googlebooks/perspectives/facts.html), hereinafter Google.
Regarding Claim 7:
The combination of Ravi, Gupta, and Patel teaches the method of claim 2.
Patel further teaches wherein the web application comprises a document website and the protected content comprises one or more published documents subject to the one or more intellectual property rights (Patel – Paragraph [0003]: Many website publishers display content, such as audio, video, and images, on one or more pages of their website; and Paragraph [0029]: For instance, many websites can include content that infringes someone's copyright), and further comprising replacing one or more portions of the one or more published documents subject to the one or more intellectual property rights (Patel – Paragraph [0027]: FIG. 3 illustrates a method 300 for determining alternative video content, in accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention. While the method illustrated in FIG. 3 is directed to determining alternative video content, in other embodiments, the method can be customized to determine alternative data, such as alternative image content, alternative audio content, etc. In this embodiment, in order to determine the alternative video content, JavaScript embedded within the code of the webpage is configured to transmit at 305 a request to the intermediary server. The request identifies which content should be replaced or swapped. Based on the request, the intermediary server searches at 310 an intermediary server database for the alternative video content. Based on the search, the intermediary server is configured to return a result at 315 identifying the alternative video content; and Paragraph [0029]: Licensed content is video content that is cleared by the owner of the content. For instance, many websites can include content that infringes someone's copyright. However, by swapping potentially infringing content or non-licensed content with licensed content (i.e., content that the site has the right to provide), a website owner may be able to avoid potential legal disputes).
The combination of Ravi, Gupta, and Patel does not expressly teach replacing one or more portions of the one or more published documents … with a shorter version of text of the one or more published documents.
However, Google teaches replacing one or more portions of the one or more published documents … with a shorter version of text of the one or more published documents (Google – P.1: Google Books helps you search within and discover books, not download or read books without paying for them. So when you find a book that's still under copyright, you'll see only a small portion of the book at a time–either the Snippet View or the Sample Pages View–plus links to places where you can buy or borrow it).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ravi, Gupta, and Patel, further incorporating Google to arrive at the conclusion of the claimed invention. One would be motivated to incorporate Google’s teaching to present only publisher-permitted snippets of protected documents into Ravi, Gupta, and Patel’s method for limiting access to web content. This additional functionality provides selective alternate presentation for preventing unauthorized access to documents subject to intellectual property rights.
Regarding Claim 17:
Rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. In addition, Claim 17 is a system claim with limitations corresponding to those of method Claim 7. Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected with the rationale as that of the rejection of Claim 7.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravi, in view of Gupta and Balasubramanian et al. (US 20170118224 A1), hereinafter Balasubramanian.
Regarding Claim 9:
The combination of Ravi and Gupta teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Ravi and Gupta does not expressly teach wherein the limited web content is machine-readable and configured to allow indexing of the limited web content.
However, Balasubramanian teaches wherein the limited web content is machine-readable and configured to allow indexing of the limited web content (Balasubramanian – Paragraph [0017]: the present embodiment may provide a links registry (i.e., a content registry) which is accessible to content owners for contributing links relating to their domain and SEs to consume the information and return such information as part of search queries. Additionally, the content owners may be able to update the registry using an application program interface (API). The registry update may include the links and their relevant metadata using, for example, an XML/JSON post. Then the SEs may subscribe to the links registry to receive new content when it is updated in order for the information to be utilized in the SEs indexing or caching solutions without having to crawl the web pages as a result of the content possibly being restricted and access not existing for the SE. As such, when a search query is executed and relevant information exists in the registry based on tags, keywords, or metadata etc., the SE may return the relevant information as part of the result set allowing for quick discovery of the links; and Paragraph [0036]: content owners will use an API to post a new content format to a registry which includes the links and relevant metadata. As such, content owners may use an API to post the content in a format such as Extensible Markup Language (XML) or JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format to the Links Registry 206 (FIG. 2). The content format includes the links and relevant metadata associated with the content. XML is a markup language that defines a set of rules for encoding documents in a format which is both human-readable and machine-readable).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ravi and Gupta, further incorporating Balasubramanian to arrive at the conclusion of the claimed invention. One would be motivated to incorporate Balasubramanian’s teaching of machine-readable metadata representations of web content into Ravi and Gupta’s method for limiting access to web content. This combination would refine protective capabilities of the system by implementing them in a proper format for defense against automated users.
Regarding Claim 19:
The combination of Ravi and Gupta teaches the system of claim 11.
Ravi further teaches and wherein the non-human users comprise one or more of a web search engine and a web archiver using a web crawler (Ravi – Col. 7, Line 54-57: The status information may be priority protection status information indicating content that should be protected from being compromised or accessed by an automated agent, such as a web crawler).
The combination of Ravi and Gupta does not expressly teach wherein the limited web content is machine-readable and configured to allow indexing of the limited web content by the non-human users.
However, Balasubramanian teaches wherein the limited web content is machine-readable and configured to allow indexing of the limited web content by the non-human users (Balasubramanian – Paragraph [0017]: the present embodiment may provide a links registry (i.e., a content registry) which is accessible to content owners for contributing links relating to their domain and SEs to consume the information and return such information as part of search queries. Additionally, the content owners may be able to update the registry using an application program interface (API). The registry update may include the links and their relevant metadata using, for example, an XML/JSON post. Then the SEs may subscribe to the links registry to receive new content when it is updated in order for the information to be utilized in the SEs indexing or caching solutions without having to crawl the web pages as a result of the content possibly being restricted and access not existing for the SE. As such, when a search query is executed and relevant information exists in the registry based on tags, keywords, or metadata etc., the SE may return the relevant information as part of the result set allowing for quick discovery of the links; and Paragraph [0036]: content owners will use an API to post a new content format to a registry which includes the links and relevant metadata. As such, content owners may use an API to post the content in a format such as Extensible Markup Language (XML) or JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format to the Links Registry 206 (FIG. 2). The content format includes the links and relevant metadata associated with the content. XML is a markup language that defines a set of rules for encoding documents in a format which is both human-readable and machine-readable).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ravi and Gupta, further incorporating Balasubramanian to arrive at the conclusion of the claimed invention. One would be motivated to incorporate Balasubramanian’s teaching of machine-readable metadata representations of web content into Ravi and Gupta’s method for limiting access to web content. This combination would refine protective capabilities of the system by implementing them in a proper format for defense against automated users.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wei et al. (US 20240160832 A1) teaches systems and methods for obfuscating displayable text content for protection from automated user access
Kulick et al. (US 20160092689 A1) teaches methods for protecting data according to user preferences based on metadata tags describing the access rights of users relative to the data
Ferraro (US 20230315908 A1) teaches a system for redirecting restricted users to a cloaked version of sensitive data
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS JOSEPH DILUZIO whose telephone number is (703)756-1229. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri -- 7:30 AM - 5 PM.
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached at 571-272-8878. 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.
/NICHOLAS JOSEPH DILUZIO/Examiner, Art Unit 2498
/YIN CHEN SHAW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2498
Prosecution Insights