DETAILED ACTION
Status
This communication is in response to Applicant’s “RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION” filed on March 19, 2026 (hereinafter “Amendment”). In the Amendment, Applicant amended Claims 1, 11 and 20; cancelled no claim(s); and added no claim(s). Claims 4-5, 10, 14-15 and 19 were previously cancelled. Therefore, Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-13, 16-18 and 20 remain currently pending and presented for examination. Of the pending claims, Claims 1, 11 and 20 remain independent claims.
The present application, filed after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
Examiner notes that this U.S. Patent Application No. 16/399,775 corresponds to Publication No. 2019/0333103 of SOHUM et al. (hereinafter “Sohum”).
Examiner’s Notes
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.
Priority Claim
No U.S. domestic benefit claim has been made in this application.
The instant patent application claims foreign priority to India Patent Application No. 201821016234, which was filed on April 30, 2018, and later published under Publication No. 201821016234 on January 11, 2019. A certificate of this foreign application was issued by WIPO on June 24, 2024. Examiner notes 37 CFR 1.55(f)(3) regarding petition.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Examiner notes similarity between Figure 3 of Applicant’s drawings in this application and Figure 11 of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0103955 of Flake et al. (hereinafter “Flake”). Examiner notes that Flake qualifies as prior art under §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
Examiner notes that Affle is listed as an Applicant in this patent application (i.e., U.S. Patent Application No. 16/399,775) as well as in:
U.S. Application No. 16/399,565 (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 11,157,952);
U.S. Application No. 16/399,618 (abandoned);
U.S. Application No. 16/399,637 (revived & pending with Examiner);
U.S. Application No. 16/399,684 (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 11,151,605);
U.S. Application No. 16/399,716 (abandoned);
U.S. Application No. 16/399,747 (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 12,406,280); and
U.S. Application No. 16/653,776 (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 12,288,222).
Applicant has been notified of:
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”.
37 C.F.R. 1.56, which states that each inventor named in the application has a duty to disclose information material to patentability.
Response to Amendments
A Summary of the Response to Applicant’s Amendment:
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes the previous rejection to Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); therefore, the Examiner withdraws the previous § 112(b) rejection to Claim 20. However, Applicant’s Amendment introduces new rejections to the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); therefore, the Examiner submits § 112(b) rejections to the pending claims.
Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome rejections to Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-13, 16-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101; therefore, the Examiner maintains/asserts § 101 rejections to Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-13, 16-18 and 20, as provided below.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see Examiner’s “Response to Arguments” provided below.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the America Invents Act (AIA ):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-13, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. “A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear” (MPEP § 2173.05(e)).
Regarding independent Claims 1, 11 and 20, Examiner notes two (2) different versions of recited “selected rules” exist:
(-1-) selected rules before Applicant’s recited “updating” (i.e., “selected rules stored in a database”); and
(-2-) “updated selected rules” which exist after Applicant’s recited “updating” to identify fraud.
Since two (2) versions of “selected rules” exist, it is unclear as to what the phrase “the selected rules” in the phrase “a feedback loop that continuously updates the selected rules” (bolding emphasis added)
makes antecedent reference to in the independent claims and, therefore, Claims 1, 11 and 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. In other words, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the selected rules”, as currently recited in Claims 1, 11 and 20. For example, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “the selected rules” in the phrase “a feedback loop that continuously updates the selected rules” references:
(-1-) the first-recited “selected rules stored in a database” (i.e., rules before updating);
(-2-) the “updated selected rules” used to identify fraud (i.e., rules after updating); or
(-3-) some combination thereof {e.g., both (-1-) and (-2-) or parts of (-1-) and (-2-)}…
given that two different versions of “selected rules” exist in Applicant’s independent claims: (1) selected rules stored in a database; and (2) “the updated selected rules” used to identify fraud — they are not the same set of rules. Consequently, insufficient antecedent basis exists for “the selected rules” in the phrase “a feedback loop that continuously updates the selected rules” (bolding emphasis added by Examiner), as currently recited in independent Claims 1, 11 and 20. Relatedly, it is unclear whether recited “feedback loop that continuously updates” is to be understood as performing recited “updating… selected rules stored in a database” as part of the feedback loop or whether recited “continuously updates” is to be understood as only performing updates as part of the feedback loop only after “updating… selected rules stored in a database” occurs. In summary, Claims 1, 11 and 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims 2-3 and 6-9 directly depend from Claim 1, but do not resolve the above issues and directly inherit the deficiencies of independent Claim 1; therefore, Claims 2-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA . Similarly, Claims 12-13 and 16-18 directly depend from Claim 11, but do not resolve the above issues and directly inherit the deficiencies of independent Claim 11; therefore, Claims 12-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA . Appropriate corrections are 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, 6-9, 11-13, 16-18 and 20 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, 6-9, 11-13, 16-18 and 20 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1: Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-13, 16-18 and 20 satisfy Step 1 enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Step 2A: Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-13, 16-18 and 20 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 identifying a publisher as perpetuating fraud (e.g., due to false advertisement views/clicks/transactions) based on selected rules to identify fraud, generating a report on the publisher perpetuating fraud, blacklisting the publisher regarding publication of one or more advertisements, and adding the publisher to a blacklist, as more particularly recited in Applicant’s pending claims save for recited (non-abstract claim elements):
one or more third parties;
at least one publisher;
each recited step/processes of: receiving a connection request from the one or more third parties, the request comprising data; updating, using bots or a software for publishing, sharing by sending a notification in real time; automatically controlling publication by: sending a signal to block publication and by blocking a payment to the publisher to stop publishing/publication;
(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 executable by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform;
(only Claims 1, 9 and 11) a data sharing platform;
(only Claim 11) a data sharing platform with a processor; as well as
(only Claim 20) a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium encoding computer executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, perform a method;
and a computing device.
However, utilizing rules to identify a publisher as perpetuating fraud (e.g., due to false advertisement views/clicks/transactions), generating a report on the publisher perpetuating fraud, blacklisting the publisher regarding publication of one or more advertisements, and adding the publisher to a blacklist, as currently recited in Applicant’s pending claims and further explained below, is within 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). It may be worth being mindful that in Zuili vs. Google (decided on Feb. 9, 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held that a particular process of detecting and preventing fraudulent ads and ad clicks was not only § 101 abstract, but also § 101 ineligible. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) provides examples of “fundamental economic principles or practices” and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) provides 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 {e.g., a computer network of 3rd parties, one or more media devices, at least one publisher, and either “a data sharing platform” as recited in Claims 1, 9 and 11, or “a computing device” as recited in Claim 20}. Instead, any improvement is to the underlying abstract idea of using rules to identify a publisher perpetuating fraud (e.g., due to false advertisement views/clicks/transactions), generating a report on the publisher perpetuating fraud, blacklisting the publisher regarding publication of one or more advertisements, and adding the publisher to a blacklist, as generally recited in Applicant’s independent claims. 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 updating “selected rules” based on “the set of data received from the one or more third parties” as recited in the independent claims appears as a high-level black box with no detail about the updating algorithm itself or any updating processes, such as how Applicant's updating uses input data (i.e., “the set of data” recited) to produce an output, such as Applicant’s “the updated selected rules” recited in each of independent Claims 1, 11 and 20. In addition, Examiner notes that no detail of any updating algorithm appears to be mentioned in Applicant's disclosure and, therefore, no specific way of updating the selected rules exists. Consequently, Applicant's mere recitation to updating “selected rules” and “the updated selected rules” 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 pending claims require “correlating”, “calculating a … score” using “the updated selected rules”, and “comparing…the… score to the threshold” (e.g., see Claims 1, 11 and 20), these techniques encompass 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 computer network of 3rd parties, one or more media devices, at least one publisher, and either “a data sharing platform” as recited in Claims 1, 9 and 11, or “a computing device” as recited in Claim 20)}, and amount to no more than combining the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited steps/processes of “receiving” a connection request from the one or more third parties, “updating”, “sharing” by “sending” a notification in real time, and post-solution activities of automatically controlling publication by blocking to stop publishing/publication and blocking payment, 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 11-13 and 16-18 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 “a data sharing platform with a processor” and at “the data sharing platform with the processor” encompasses a situation where the data sharing platform does no more than assist/help a person perform such steps/processes or thoughts when the person is at and using the data sharing 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 computer-implemented network of 3rd parties, one or more media devices, at least one publisher, and either “a data sharing platform” as recited in Claims 1, 9 and 11, or “a computing device” as recited in Claim 20}, and having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited steps/processes of “receiving” a connection request from the one or more third parties, “updating”, “sharing” by “sending” a notification in real time, and post-solution activity of automatically controlling publication by blocking to stop publishing/publication and blocking payment, as further explained below. Examiner also notes that albeit limitations recited in Applicant’s Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are performed by the generically recited “one or more processors” while limitations recited in Claim 20 are 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 computer network of 3rd parties, one or more media devices, at least one publisher, and either “a data sharing platform” as recited in Claims 1, 9 and 11, or “a computing device” as recited in Claim 20}, and no more than a combination of the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited steps/processes of “receiving” a connection request from the one or more third parties, “updating”, “sharing” by “sending” a notification in real time, and post-solution activity of automatically controlling publication by blocking to stop publishing/publication and blocking payment, as further explained below. As mentioned above, the claim elements in addition to the abstract idea arguably include: one or more third parties; at least one publisher; each recited step/processes of: receiving a connection request from the one or more third parties, the request comprising data; updating, using bots or a software for publishing, sharing by sending a notification in real time; automatically controlling publication by: sending a signal to block publication and by blocking a payment to the publisher to stop publishing/publication; (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 executable by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform; (only Claims 1, 9 and 11) a data sharing platform; (only Claim 11) a data sharing platform with a processor; (only Claim 20) a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium encoding computer executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, perform a method; and a computing device. 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, updating, correlating, identifying, generating, controlling, sharing/sending, and blocking — there is no indication that Applicant’s combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology since the additional elements taken individually and collectively merely provide conventional computer implementations known to the industry. Furthermore, Examiner notes that none of the processes/steps recited in Applicant’s 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, updating, correlating, identifying, generating, controlling, sharing/sending, and blocking, 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 “updating” encompasses a data saving or storing 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 “correlating”, “identifying” and “blocking” encompasses a data recognition/inquiry function or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see 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 recognition); each of the steps of “correlating” and “comparing…to the threshold” encompasses a simple mathematical/financial function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., Bilski, Freddie Mac, and In re Abele}; and each of the steps of “sharing”, “controlling”, “sending” and “blocking” 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)}. In addition, Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure mentions that “FIG. 3 is merely illustrative of an exemplary device 300 that can be used in connection with one or more embodiments of the present invention” (Sohum at ¶ [0057]). However, Examiner notes that Figure 3 of Applicant’s drawings is substantively identical to at least Figure 11 of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0103955 of Flake et al. (“Flake”), which qualifies as prior art under §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) of the America Invents Act (AIA ). Note that Figure 11 of Flake discloses each of the elements shown in Applicant’s Figure 3. See MPEP § 608.02(g). 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, 6-9, 11-13, 16-18 and 20 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 March 19, 2026, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant's Arguments in the Amendment
(Pages 13-23) Applicant asserts that Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-13, 16-18 and 20 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 Applicant’s 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 Applicant’s independent claims.
At its core, Applicant’s pending claims are directed to identifying a publisher as perpetuating a fraud (e.g., due to false advertisement views/clicks/transactions) based on selected rules and then blacklisting the publisher regarding advertisement publication as well as financial payment, and the role of each of Applicant’s “blocking” activities (i.e., via (“automatically controlling”) appear to embody no more than a post-solution activity in response to Applicant’s identifying a publisher as perpetuating a fraud/in a blacklist with the recited “blocking” function being of a generic computer limited to functions comprising simple forms of information updates (e.g., updating the data sharing platform) and/or information transmittal (e.g., sending a blocking notification message), all of which are conventional functions that can be performed by a generic computer without any novel programming or improvement in the operation of the computer itself.
In June 2025 Applicant asserted various “technical improvements” (e.g., see page 19 of Applicant’s June 2025 amendment listing “reduces…latency”, “high-speed data matching” and rule maintenance; as well as page 20 of Applicant’s June 2025 amendment “improve…by enabling faster processing, higher accuracy, and immediate mitigation”), Examiner noted that Applicant’s disclosure lacks any description of any technologically novel or inventive hardware that is required to perform any of these alleged steps/processes. Later, on page 22 of Applicant’s October 2025 amendment, Applicant argued that “enhance[d] processing speed, accuracy, and responsiveness” as well as “reducing system latency” were an “improvement… in the computing mechanism” and, therefore, were sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Now, in Applicant’s March 2026 Amendment, Applicant’s notes “performing real-time fraud detection” (page 18), “real-time correlation…” (page 18), “correlating…data in real time” (page 18), “real-time inputs” (page 19), “real-time sharing” (page 19), “The requirement that correlation is performed in real time” (page 21), “control system enables real-time detection and mitigation” (page 21), “real-time correlation” (page 22), “real-time fraud detection and enforcement” (page 23). However, Applicant’s argument that “real-time” implementation ties the abstract concept to improvements is insufficient like the “real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid” in Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n.1, 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1 was insufficient. In addition, Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure lacks any description of any technologically novel or inventive hardware that is required to perform any of Applicant’s method steps/processes. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Enfish, 822 F.3d. at 1336 (focusing on whether the claim is “an improvement to [the] computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity”). Similarly, “relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible” per OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359); also see Intellectual Ventures, LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d at 1367 (“claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer [does not] provide a sufficient inventive concept”). Consequently, like in Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354, “the focus of [Applicant’s] claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.”
Examiner notes that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element(s) is not a relevant consideration in Step 2B. As the Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept and does not guarantee eligibility: “The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point. There is no dispute that a computer is a tangible system (in § 101 terms, a ‘machine’), or that many computer-implemented claims are formally addressed to patent-eligible subject matter. But if that were the end of the § 101 inquiry, an applicant could claim any principle of the physical or social sciences by reciting a computer system configured to implement the relevant concept. Such a result would make the determination of patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the draftsman’s art,’ Flook, supra, at 593, 98 S. Ct. 2522, 57 L. Ed. 2d 451, thereby eviscerating the rule that ‘ “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable,” ‘ Myriad, 133 S. Ct. 1289, 186 L. Ed. 2d 124, 133).”
Examiner notes that many of Applicant’s steps are recited at an “apply it” level due to the fact that Applicant’s claims recite merely using generic computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Thus, Applicant’s pending claims fit into the familiar category of claims that do not “focus... on [] an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools” (Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354). Examiner notes that the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas cannot be circumvented by limiting the use of the idea to a particular technological environment, as discussed above in Examiner’s § 101 rejections.
Finally, Examiner directs Applicant to Zuili vs. Google (decided on Feb. 9, 2018), where the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held that Zuili’s process of detecting and preventing fraudulent ads and ad clicks was not only § 101 abstract, but also §101 ineligible.
Thus, based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-13, 16-18 and 20, in view of Applicant’s disclosure, remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 No. 8,561,184 issued to Marsa et al. (hereinafter “Marsa”) as indicated in § 102 rejections of Applicant’s Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16-18 and 20 in Examiner’s non-final Office action dated 4/25/2024.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0339705 of Raji et al. (hereinafter “Raji”) as indicated in § 103 rejections of Applicant’s Claims 5 and 15 in Examiner’s non-final Office action dated 4/25/2024.
U.S. Patent No. 7,657,626 issued to Richard K. Zwicky (hereinafter “Zwicky”) for “Click Fraud Detection” —Title of Zwicky; and “creation of automated feedback processes, which can be used to select advertising for dynamic on-page advertising…. such a feedback process is used within an advertising network. For example, individuals and/or organizations (identifiable by, for example, IP address or a block of IP address ranges) that appear to be targeting a particular advertising campaign can be prevented from viewing further advertising from the advertising campaign” —Zwicky; “Static global IP addresses and IP address ranges will typically have similar activity patterns. As discussed earlier, if certain IP addresses, blocks of IP address ranges, or geographically-related IP address ranges deviate from observed patterns of IP addresses, ranges, etc., of other users in other geographical areas, in similar industries or services, then click-through events and the associated charges from these aberrations should be filtered out of the PPC event data or PPI event data and examined as suspicious” —Zwicky (86); “after an IP address and/or range for a computer that is suspected of participating in click fraud is identified, this IP address/range is sent to advertising network members and/or publishers which provide advertising services for the targeted websites. This generates an automated feedback loop wherein the advertising network can police itself effectively for fraudulent activity, and can eliminate suspicious activity based on user trends. Advertisement network and/or publisher websites can then block the corresponding IP addresses from being served advertising sponsor ads by either removing the ads from pages served to these IP addresses or by denying these addresses access to the publisher's websites. Remedial actions are indicated as 215 in FIG. 2.”
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0130440 of Qiu et al. (hereinafter “Qiu”) for “Upon extracting the IP address, the online request handling unit activates an Ad-serving response unit 450 which is configured to generate a response to the request…. the ad-serving response unit 450 triggers a blacklist look-up unit 430 in order to generate the response. The blacklist look-up unit 430 accesses a blacklist 440 to determine whether the extracted IP address is included in a list of IP addresses stored in the blacklist…. to perform the search of the extracted IP address within the blacklist in an efficient manner, the blacklist look-up unit 430 performs a real-time look-up of the extracted address in the list of designated addresses, wherein each address in the list is stored as a classless inter-domain routing (CIDR) IP identifier. Moreover, to perform the search in a time-efficient manner, the list of CIDR IP addresses is maintained in a radix tree format….” —Qiu at ¶ [0051].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0057009 of Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”) for “When the user takes an action (e.g., installs a software application) in response to the content presentations, the attribution service provider may select one of the publishers to receive the credit or attribution for the action” —Wang at ¶ [0031].
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. 2015/0051970 of Stafford et al. (hereinafter “Stafford”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0156390 of Aaron et al. (hereinafter “Aaron”) for “Specific sources, as identified by, for example, IP address, measured location or other means, may also be “blacklisted” so that requests for a web page originating from those sources are not honored (i.e., the web page is not delivered) or so that no pay-per-click charge is incurred for activations by the blacklisted source” —Aaron.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0325591 of Asher Delug (hereinafter “Delug”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0346202 of Kouladjie et al. (hereinafter “Kouladjie ‘202”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0226692 of Kouladjie et al. (hereinafter “Kouladjie ‘692”) for “Click Fraud Monitoring Based On Advertising Traffic” —Title of Kouladjie; and “monitor and/or detect click fraud based on inputs from the analysis module 162, the calculation module 166, or other input 154 (e.g., offline manual input). For example, in certain embodiments, the fraud module 164 can include comparison routines configured to compare at least one the following parameters to a corresponding threshold: a number of client IDs corresponding to an IP address a number of requests corresponding to a particular client ID a ratio and/or percentage of the requests with client IDs and anonymous requests for a publisher a ratio and/or percentage of the requests with client IDs and anonymous requests for an advertiser” —Kouladjie at ¶ [0???].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0084146 of Richard K. Zwicky (hereinafter “Zwicky”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0161492 of Granville (hereinafter “Granville”) for “Rules may also measure other characteristics of the agent. For example, one rule may score IP addresses and maintain a "blacklist" of IP addresses that generate low quality traffic. The blacklist may contain IP addresses, scores generated by traffic originating from those IP addresses, and other details. The facility may evaluate an IP address associated with a new agent by referencing the blacklist. Agents having IP addresses on the blacklist may be scored appropriately, and agents having an IP address in close proximity to IP addresses on the blacklist may be scored based on a function of the numerical distance between the agent's IP address and blacklisted IP addresses. Rules may also measure publisher and advertiser characteristics, including where a publisher resides within an advertising network hierarchy or the amount of money an advertiser is charged for each agent action associated with an advertisement. A sophisticated rule related to a publisher distribution partner may measure whether more than a certain percentage (e.g., >80%) of the IP addresses associated with the publisher have multiple user agents associated with those IP addresses as measured on the day that a click from that distribution partner was received. Such a characteristic is often indicative of traffic with little or no value to an advertiser” —Granville at ¶ [0103].
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. (“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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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, 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 3682
Prosecution Insights