DETAILED ACTION
Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission filed on December 8, 2025 has been entered.
Status
This communication is in response to Applicant’s RCE and accompanying “AMENDMENT ACCOMPANYING REQUEST FOR CONTINUED EXAMINATION” filed on December 8, 2025 (hereinafter “Amendment”). In the Amendment, Applicant amended Claims 1, 9 and 17; cancelled no claim(s); and added no claim(s). Applicant previously cancelled Claims 2, 4, 10 and 12. Therefore, Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11 and 13-17 remain currently pending and presented for examination. Of the pending claims, Claims 1, 9 and 17 remain independent claims.
The present application (U.S. App. No. 16/399,637), which claims priority to foreign application (Indian Application IN201821016230) filed on April 30, 2018, is being examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ) since both applications were filed after March 16, 2013.
This Application (U.S. App. No. 16/399,637) corresponds to U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0333099 of SOHUM et al. (hereinafter “Sohum”).
Priority/Benefit Claim
Examiner notes that no domestic benefit claim exists.
This application (App. No. 16/399,637) claims foreign priority to India Application IN201821016230 filed on April 30, 2018. Priority Documents appear to have been electronically retrieved at the USPTO on 1/22/2025.
Examiner Notes
Examiner notes similarity between Figure 3 of Applicant’s drawings and Figure 11 of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0103955 of Flake et al. (hereinafter “Flake”), which qualifies as prior art under §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 17, 2025 has been considered by the examiner. However, Examiner notes MPEP § 2004, item number 13: “It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance.”
Examiner notes 37 C.F.R. 1.56, which states that each inventor named in the application has a duty to disclose information material to patentability.
Examiner notes MPEP § 2001.06(b): “prior art references from one application must be made of record in another subsequent application if such prior art references are ‘material to patentability’ of the subsequent application”.
Examiner notes that Affle is listed as an Applicant in:
(1) U.S. Application No. 16/399,565 (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 11,157,952);
(2) U.S. Application No. 16/399,618 (abandoned with § 101 by Examiner Busch);
(3) U.S. Application No. 16/399,637 (revived & pending with Examiner);
(4) U.S. Application No. 16/399,684 (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 11,151,605);
(5) U.S. Application No. 16/399,716 (abandoned);
(6) U.S. Application No. 16/399,747 (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 12,406,280);
(7) U.S. Application No. 16/399,775 (pending); and
(8) U.S. Application No. 16/653,776 (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 12,288,222).
Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC)
Examiner notes CPC classification G06Q30/0248 for methods of fraud prevention in advertising. Examiner notes G06Q30-0248 is listed under:
Commerce, e.g., shopping or e-commerce
• Marketing
•• Advertisement
••• Avoiding fraud
In addition, Examiner notes the following CPC subclasses:
G06Q 30/0246 .... {Traffic}
H04L 63/0236 {Filtering by address, protocol, port number or service, e.g. IP-address or URL}
H04L 63/1425 {Traffic logging, e.g. anomaly detection}
Response to Amendments
A Summary of the Response to Applicant’s Amendment:
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes all previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); therefore, the Examiner withdraws all previous § 112(b) rejections.
Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101; therefore, the Examiner asserts/maintains the rejections under § 101, as provided below.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see Examiner’s “Response to Arguments” provided below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical/parallelism error because:
“…cause the…processors to: receive…; classify…; segregate…; …analyze…; score…; allocate…; and …blocking….” (bolding & underlining emphases added by Examiner)
should be:
“…cause the…processors to: receive…; classify…; segregate…; …analyze…; score…; allocate…; and …block….” (bolding emphasis added by Examiner).
In a more detailed explanation, Claim 1 recites:
“…cause the…processors to: receive…; classify…; segregate…; …analyze…; score…; allocate…; and …blocking….” (bolding & underlining emphases added by Examiner);
however, Applicant’s recited gerund of “blocking” in Claim 1, which follows a set of infinitives in Claim 1, is improper since such mixing of verb forms in Claim 1 does not provide parallel structure of what step/process “the one or more processors” of Claim 1 is operative to do/perform — faulty parallelism.
Appropriate correction(s) is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 3, 5-9, 11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP § 2111). In view of this standard and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11 and 13-17 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1: Independent Claims 1, 9 and 17 satisfy Step 1 enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Step 2A: Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11 and 13-17 are rejected under § 101 because Applicant’s claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this finding is that Applicant’s claims recite (i.e., abstract claim elements):
classifying data into a plurality of classes based on data collected from a plurality of sources;
segregating/categorizing activity of entities in the data;
identifying/detecting the entities as being abnormal based on the segregating/categorizing;
based on identifying one or more entities as being abnormal, analyzing the activity of the entities based on a plurality of numerical parameters and the data;
scoring each entity in the data based on the analyzing; and
when the scoring of the entities exceeds a threshold limit, classifying/allocating the entities (as abnormal) into a blacklist {see Glasswall Solutions Ltd. v. Clearswift Ltd., Appeal No. 18-1407 (Fed. Cir. 2018) for “a conventional black-list” and with claims being similar to claims found ineligible in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) where “The method claims in Intellectual Ventures I called for receiving data, determining whether the received data matched certain characteristics, and outputting data based on the determining step. Id. at 1313. We held that the claims were ‘directed to methods of screening emails and other data files for unwanted content.’ Id. at 1311. We concluded that this was an abstract idea because filtering mail (and likewise filtering e-mail) according to known characteristics was a ‘long-prevalent practice.’ Id. at 1314. Other claims included ‘inhibiting communication of at least a portion of the computer data from the telephone network’ and ‘determining that virus screening is to be applied’ based on the parties involved. Id. at 1319. We held that these claims were also abstract.”; and “filtering in the allowable content rather than filtering out the non-allowable content as in Intellectual Ventures I does not make the claimed method any less abstract” quoted from Glasswall Solutions v. Clearswift; also see Zuili v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 17-2161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) where the CAFC held that the asserted claims to be directed to an “abstract idea of collecting, transmitting, analyzing, and storing data to detect fraudulent and/or invalid clicks based on the time between two requests by the same device or client” },
as more particularly recited in Applicant’s pending claims save for recited (non-abstract claim elements):
a fraud detection platform;
at least one publisher on one or more media devices;
a plurality of third party databases;
traffic at IP addresses (e.g., abnormal traffic, normal traffic);
each of Applicant’s recited steps/processes of receiving and blocking;
(only Claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims) A computer system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory for storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform;
(only Claim 9 and corresponding dependent claims) a fraud detection platform with a processor; and
(only Claim 17) a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium encoding computer executable instructions that performs when executed by at least one processor.
However, classifying data into a plurality of classes based on data collected from a plurality of sources; segregating/categorizing activity of entities in the data; identifying the entities as being abnormal based on the segregating/categorizing of the activity; based on identifying one or more entities as being abnormal, analyzing the activity of the entities based on a plurality of numerical parameters and the data; scoring each entity in the data based on the analyzing; and classifying the entities (as abnormal) into a blacklist when the scoring of the entities exceeds a threshold limit, as currently recited in Applicant’s pending claims and further explained below, is within “mathematical concepts” and/or a certain method of organizing human activity — (i) fundamental economic principle or practice; and/or (ii) commercial interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) provides examples of “Mathematical concepts” and while MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) provides examples of “fundamental economic principles or practices” and additional discussion and examples of commercial or legal interactions. This judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea exception) is not integrated into a practical application because each claim as a whole, having the combination of additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception and, therefore, the pending claims are “directed to” a judicial exception under USPTO Step 2A. More specifically, each claim as a whole does not appear to reflect the combination of additional elements as: (1) improving the functioning of a computer itself or improving another technology or technical field, (2) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine/manufacture that is integral to the claim, (3) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (4) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Instead, any improvement is to the underlying abstract idea of identifying and classifying abnormal entities into a blacklist category based on data received, such as based on statistical/mathematical analysis of data received. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12590, Slip. Op. 13 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract realm.”). Examiner notes that Applicant's recited use or usage of “a machine learning algorithm trained” in independent Claims 1, 9 and 17 appears as a high-level black box with no detail about the machine learning algorithm itself or any machine learning processes, such as how Applicant's model/tool operates on input data (e.g., historical data, real-time data) to do any analysis, such as analysis of the abnormal traffic, as recited in each of independent Claims 1, 9 and 17. In addition, Examiner notes that no detail of any training algorithm appears to be mentioned in Applicant's disclosure and, therefore, no specific way of training the algorithm/model exists within Applicant's recited use of a trained “machine learning algorithm”. Consequently, Applicant's mere recitation to a trained "machine learning algorithm" is not sufficient to amount to a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis. In addition, although Applicant’s independent claims require: “segregation…based on a number of users….and a number of downloads”; scoring based on “relative weights of parameters”; and allocation “when the score exceeds a threshold limit” (independent claims), etc., these techniques are mathematical concepts in the form of formulas, equations, and calculations which also have been determined to constitute abstract ideas. See Memorandum, "Grouping of Abstract Ideas" and cases cited in footnote 12, such as enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50). As noted on page 4 of the “October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” issued by the USPTO, Examiner notes that a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim, in light of the specification, encompasses one or more mathematical calculations. Applicant’s additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not appear to be integrated into a practical application since they embody mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, do no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a computerized advertising network having user devices 136 with IP addresses for uniquely identifying the user devices 136, advertisers 146, and a server 150 with a database 152, such as illustrated in Figure 1A of Applicant’s drawings — “the server 150 may be any other server” per page 14, lines 3-4 of Applicant’s as-filed specification, and “[t]he database 152 may be… any other database” per page 13, lines 5-6 of Applicant’s as-filed specification}, and amount to no more than combining the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of receiving data and blocking addresses, as further explained below. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2B: Under Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), Applicant’s instant claims do not recite limitations, taken individually and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea because Applicant’s claims do not recite, as further explained in detail below, an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, an application with or by a particular machine, a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, unconventional steps confining the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Examiner notes that each of Claims 9, 11 and 13-16 is drawn to a method; however, the method steps do not recite, require, or indicate implementation by a particular machine since none of limitations recited in Applicant’s method claims are performed by any computer or processing device since recited use at the fraud detection platform with a processor encompasses a situation where the platform/processor does no more than assist/help a person perform such steps/processes or thoughts when the person is at the fraud detection platform. Even if a computer/machine was implied, Applicant’s claim limitations taken individually and in combination would be merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and would require no more than generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a computerized advertising network having user devices 136 with IP addresses for uniquely identifying the user devices 136, advertisers 146, and a server 150 with a database 152, such as illustrated in Figure 1A of Applicant’s drawings}, and having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of receiving data and blocking addresses, as further explained below. Examiner also notes that albeit limitations recited in the Claims 1, 3 and 5-8 are performed by the generically recited “one or more processors” while Claim 17 is performed by the generically recited “at least one processor”, these claim limitations taken individually and in combination are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a computerized advertising network having user devices 136 with IP addresses for uniquely identifying the user devices 136, advertisers 146, and a server 150 with a database 152, such as illustrated in Figure 1A of Applicant’s drawings}, and no more than a combination of the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of receiving data and blocking addresses, as further explained below. As mentioned above, the claim elements in addition to the abstract idea arguably include: a fraud detection platform; at least one publisher on one or more media devices; a plurality of third party databases; traffic at IP addresses (e.g., abnormal traffic, normal traffic); each of Applicant’s recited steps/processes of receiving and blocking; (only Claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims) A computer system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory for storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform; (only Claim 9 and corresponding dependent claims) a fraud detection platform with a processor; and (only Claim 17) a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium encoding computer executable instructions that performs when executed by at least one processor. However, each of these components is recited at a high level of generality that taken individually and in combination perform corresponding generic computer functions of receiving and blocking — there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology since the additional elements taken individually and collectively merely provide generic computer implementations known to the industry. Furthermore, Examiner notes that none of the processes/steps recited in the pending claims taken individually and in combination impose a meaningful limit on the claim’s scope since none of recited processes/steps taken individually and in combination involve activity that amounts to more than generic computer functions/activity. The steps/processes of receiving and allocating, as currently recited individually and in combination in Applicant’s claims, are considered to be generic computer functions since they involve having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use previously known to the industry — each of the steps of “receiving” encompasses a data input/loading or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360; see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)}; each of the steps of allocating encompasses a data saving or storage function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360; Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Cyberfone”; and Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Content Extraction”, for data storage}; each of the steps of allocating also encompasses a data output/transmittal function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014)}; and each of the steps of blocking encompasses a method of a screening/inhibition function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) for “inhibiting communication” and “methods of screening emails and other data files for unwanted content” Id. at 1311. “Like in Intellectual Ventures I, the claims here deliver the allowable content and inhibit the communication of other content. The claims merely require the conventional manipulation of information by a computer. We have often held similar conventional data manipulation to be abstract. See Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014)” quoted from Glasswall Solutions Ltd. v. Clearswift Ltd., Appeal No. 18-1407 (Fed. Cir. 2018) with bolding emphasis added by Examiner; also see Glasswall Solutions v. Clearswift regarding “The use of a conventional white-list of approved application-specific functions instead of a conventional black-list of virus definitions does not change the nature of the claims”; see CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2011) regarding use of “IP addresses” in a fraud-detection method}. Examiner notes it may be worth being mindful of the “July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” document, at page 7, second and sixth bullet points (July 30, 2015) regarding various well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer. Employing well-known computer functions individually and in combination to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the computer-implemented abstract idea in Flook (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978)) to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims do not satisfy Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Consequently, based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. For information regarding 35 U.S.C. 101, please see Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instructional materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes guidance, memoranda, and updates regarding SME under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Amendment filed on December 8, 2025, have been fully considered, but are not persuasive regarding the claims being in condition for allowance. Examiner notes rejections under § 101 (provided above) with respect to each of Applicant’s pending claims.
Applicant's Arguments in the Amendment
(Pages 11-19) Applicant asserts that the independent claims, as currently amended, are drawn to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner’s Response to Applicant's Arguments
Please see updated/modified § 101 rejections above regarding pending claims being drawn to ineligible subject matter in view of considering all relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole including amended portions of the independent claims (e.g., “blocking…blacklisted IP addresses” being added to the independent claims).
In Applicant’s Amendment, Applicant argues that its invention solves a technical problem via fraud detection and prevention; however, Examiner notes that Applicant’s recited “blacklist” (recited in each of Applicant’s independent claims) is merely used for “blocking” (a post-solution activity) resembling the “apply it” (or an equivalent) of Applicant’s abstract idea. In other words, merely including “blocking” instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), does not automatically make a claim directed to an abstract idea patent-eligible. In other words, with respect to each claim as a whole, recited “blocking…blacklisted IP addresses” amounts to no more than effectively adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) and amounts to no more than a mere instruction to implement an effect of Applicant’s “blacklisting” abstract idea on a computer. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) for “inhibiting communication”. As explained by the Supreme Court in Alice Corp., in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’ ”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965).
Similar to ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3rd 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the alleged “inventive concept” that solves problems identified in the field is that the IP addresses are identified & classified as abnormal and then put into a blacklist. But blacklisting based on identifying & classifying abnormalities is the abstract idea itself, and “a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., quoting BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at 1290.
Consequently, Applicant’s pending claims, which amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer, do not render Applicant’s abstract idea eligible, like in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. In summary, Applicant's pending claims, as currently submitted in this Amendment, remain drawn to unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Please see updated § 101 rejections above to the pending claims.
It may be worth keeping in mind Examiner’s remarks noted in the final Office action dated September 8, 2025, regarding improvements alleged by Applicant without Applicant’s newly-added “blocking…blacklisted IP addresses” language, which is currently recited in each of Applicant’s independent claims. (Also, it may be worth noting Examiner Busch’s remarks made on pages 6-10 of his final Office action dated June 1, 2025, regarding U.S. App. No. 16/399,618).
Conclusion
The following references are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, and are being made of record albeit the references are not relied upon as a basis for rejection in this Office action:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0130440 of Qiu et al. (hereinafter “Qiu”) for “DETECTING FRAUDULENT ADVERTISEMENT ACTIVITY” —Title of Qiu; and “bots can be configured to perform many types of fraud and can be given lists of publishers' pages to visit, ads to click on, and proxies to use to diversify the bot's IP addresses.” —Abstract of Qiu.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0332058 of Maxwell et al. (hereinafter “Maxwell”) for “NETWORK TRAFFIC ANALYSIS” —Title of Maxwell; “fraudulent entities such as click fraud bots” —Maxwell at ¶ [0003]; and “the traffic may be determined to be normal or abnormal based upon the groupings. Unclassified traffic grouped with known abnormal traffic may be determined to be abnormal and/or malicious. Unclassified traffic grouped with known normal traffic may be determined to be normal and/or non-malicious.” —Maxwell at ¶ [0027].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0108016 of Jin (hereinafter “Jin”) as cited by Examiner in U.S. Application No. 16/399,716.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0287014 of Vu (hereinafter “Vu”) as cited by Examiner in U.S. Application No. 16/399,716.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0195353 of Taylor (hereinafter “Taylor”) as cited by Examiner in U.S. Application No. 16/399,716.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0339721 of Raji et al. (hereinafter “Raji”) for “if an ad publisher is identified as providing fraudulent information identifying interactions with advertisements, the online system…. blacklists the ad publisher to prevent the ad publisher from subsequently presenting advertisements from the online system” —Raji at ¶ [0006]; and “remedial measures include blacklisting an ad publisher 140 identified as providing fraudulent information describing user interactions….” —Raji at ¶ [0029]; “The online system 150 maintains information identifying the ad publisher 140 as blacklisted, so the online system 150 does not subsequently provide advertisements to the ad publisher 140 when the ad publisher 140 requests an advertisement” —Raji at ¶ [0041].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0103955 of Flake et al. (hereinafter “Flake”) for “ACCOUNTING FOR TRUSTED PARTICIPANTS IN AN ONLINE ADVERTISING EXCHANGE” —Title of Flake. Examiner notes similarity between Figure 3 of Applicant’s drawings and Figure 11 of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0103955 of Flake et al. (hereinafter “Flake”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0136294 of Linden et al. (hereinafter “Linden”) for “Performing Real-time Click Fraud Detection, Prevention And Reporting For Online Advertising” —Title of Linden.
Non-prior art reference U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0333101 corresponding to Applicant’s published disclosure in U.S. Application No. 16/399,716.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mathew Syrowik whose telephone number is 313-446-4862. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM (Eastern Time). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf, can be reached at telephone number 517-270-3948. 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 Patent Center. Status information of published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information of unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, please contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) or by email at EBC@uspto.gov. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conference using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please email Mathew.Syrowik@USPTO.gov or applicant may use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form. For additional information or questions, please contact the Inventors Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199 (toll free), 571-272-1000 (local), or 1-800-877-8339 (TDD/TTY).
/Mathew Syrowik/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621