Remarks
Claims 1-46 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/13/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s allegations regarding the 112 rejections appear to be moot based on the amendment and new 112 rejections are presented below.
Applicant appears to rely on common knowledge regarding an end user device: “It is well known that a visitor or user would use a browser on a user device to access a website.” However, Applicant has not proven that it was known at the time of the invention (which has a priority date over a decade ago) that an end user device makes a request to a content provider and then, without receiving the request from the end user device, a separate server performs functionality, which would be necessary to cover the end user device aspects of claim 1. The instant application does not refer to any end user device and, thus, without proof of these facts, a 112(a) rejection is presented below.
With respect to Applicant’s allegations on page 14, of the response, it is noted that, while figure 3 of Mao may show a direct connection between the client and proxy, Mao includes other embodiments. For example, figure 2 shows that a network (such as the Internet) is between the client and proxy. Therefore, no request from the client can ever be received directly from the client by the proxy, since it goes through the Internet first. Other networks are also described in Mao (e.g., paragraph 34) that also include intermediaries between the client and proxy. This is simply one example. As another example, if the proxy device is, itself, viewed as the claimed client device, it may not receive a content request from itself. Since the claim explicitly requires a request from the end user device, this step can never occur, since it is impossible to have not received the request from the end user device. Also, since this request is within a method performed at the server, it must be received by the server and, therefore, cannot be not received by the server. Alternatively, if this request is not received at the server, this subject matter regarding the request has no effect on the scope of the claim, since it is a request that is never received by any portion of the claim or processed by any element within the claim. Moreover, this step is in response to receiving the tokens, which is not a reception of the request.
With respect to Applicant’s allegation that “Applicant(s) respectfully disagree(s) because there are instances where the visitor is authorized”, the Examiner notes that this means that the rejection is correct that there are instances where the visitor is not authorized. Therefore, the claims are indefinite, since this branch is left entirely open for undefined and indefinite processing.
Applicant then appears to provide the same arguments again. A full response has already been provided to these arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 states that portions of tokens are received “following a request for the content by an end user device of the visitor to the content provider” and then states “solely in response to receiving the visitor token and the content provider token from the content provider at the server computer and without receiving the request for content at the server computer from the end user device, the server computer” performs various steps. However, the application as originally filed does not include basis for this receiving of a request while simultaneously not receiving the request. In fact, the application is entirely premised on the visitor first requesting to register with the server (e.g., paragraph 32 of the specification as originally filed) and the visitor sending a request for a website or the like. Figure 4 shows the visitor browser visiting a website, which is the same as making a request associated with the website. All independent claims have the same issue and are rejected for the same reasons. All dependent claims are also rejected at least based on their dependencies.
Claim 1 and many claims have been amended to include reference to an “end user device”. However, the application as originally filed does not include any reference to any end user device. While Applicant attempts to claim that this end user device is common knowledge by, for example, stating “It is well known that a visitor or user would use a browser on a user device to access a website” at the bottom of page 13 of the response dated 7/23/2025, Applicant’s admission of what is known in the art does not show that it was known in the art, at the time the invention was made (with an effective date of 3/15/2013), for this end user device, that is not explicitly mentioned in the application as originally filed, to provide a request that is not received by the claimed server in order to provide functionality, as required for the claimed “solely in response to receiving the visitor token and the content provider token from the content provider at the server computer and without receiving the request for content at the sever computer from the end user device, the server computer” limitation. All independent claims have the same issue and are rejected for the same reasons. All dependent claims are also rejected at least based on their dependencies, with many dependent claims also including issues based on the end user device.
Claim 23 is directed to an apparatus comprising a server computer, which performs every step within the claim. The claim states “following a request for the content by an end user device…” and “without receiving the request…”. These are mutually exclusive. Since all steps are performed by the server computer, it cannot both receive a request and not receive the request. If this request is supposed to be received by some other non-claimed entity, it clearly has no effect on the scope of the claim and cannot be used in a negative limitation to state that it is not received, since it does not even exist within the scope of the claim. All independent claims have the same issue and are rejected for the same reasons. All dependent claims are also rejected at least based on their dependencies.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states that portions of tokens are received “following a request for the content by an end user device of the visitor to the content provider” and then states “solely in response to receiving the visitor token and the content provider token from the content provider at the server computer and without receiving the request for content at the server computer from the end user device, the server computer” performs various steps. It is unclear just how any of these steps may be performed since a request has been received. It appears as though only the first 2 steps are required by the claim, since the “solely” step and all steps thereafter cannot be performed since the conditional (without receiving any request from the visitor device) within the “solely” limitation can never be true. Moreover, there is no embodiment in the application as originally filed that actually meets this, since a visitor always sends a request prior to the server generating the token and then use of the token later and requests websites and the like. There is simply no situation in which the request is described as being not received from the end user device. All independent claims have the same issue and are rejected for the same reasons. All dependent claims are also rejected at least based on their dependencies.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sever computer" in the solely limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-22 are rejected at lease based on their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, 19-25, 27-31, 33, and 41-46 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Mao (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0071052).
Regarding Claim 1,
Mao discloses a computerized method for increasing relevance of a content provided to a visitor by a content provider, the method comprising:
Providing a server computer and at least one data storage communicably coupled to the server computer (Exemplary Citations: for example, Figures 1-4 and associated figures; server, such as reverse proxy, for example);
Receiving at least a portion of a visitor token and at least a portion of a content provider token from the content provider at the server computer following a request for the content by an end user device of the visitor to the content provider (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures; receiving cookies, webpages, documents, requests, responses, URLs, links, etc., following a request for a webpage or the like, for example);
Solely in response to receiving the visitor token and the content provider token from the content provider at the server computer and without receiving the request for content at the sever computer from the end user device, the server computer (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, 101, and associated figures; This “end user device” may be any device that may be considered an end user device, such as another device that is currently powered down, another client, another server (e.g., as in paragraph 36, a server can also be a client) or the like. As another example, the proxy itself is an end user device, since it is a client of the server. The proxy does not receive a request from itself, thus meeting the passive limitation of “without receiving the request for content”. Alternatively, since the claim explicitly requires a request from the end user device, this step can never occur, since it is impossible to have not received the request from the end user device. Also, since this request is within a method performed at the server, it must be received by the server and, therefore, cannot be not received by the server. Alternatively, if this request is not received at the server, this subject matter regarding the request has no effect on the scope of the claim, since it is a request that is never received by any portion of the claim or processed by any element within the claim. Moreover, this step is in response to receiving the tokens, which is not a reception of the request. Thus, this step must be a step that includes “without receiving the request for content at the sever computer from the end user device”. As to the rest, the reverse proxy performs the following after receiving a cookie, URL, link, request, or the like, from the client, and a webpage, document, response, URL, link, or the like, from the server, as examples):
Determines whether a creation of a relevant content for the visitor is authorized based on the visitor token, the content provider token, and one or more preferences stored in the at least one data storage (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures; determining whether to create relevant content, such as in modifying links, sending a response, or the like, as examples. This is based on the URLs, links, requests, responses, cookies, webpages, documents, or the like, as well as the programming in the system and the rules provided in the system, as examples);
Updates the visitor token and the content provider token to include a portion of the one or more preferences, one or more categories, one or more ads, or one or more keywords for the visitor when the creation of the relevant content for the visitor is authorized (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures; this does not need to happen (i.e. when the creation of the relevant content for the visitor is not authorized). Thus, this step has no patentable weight. Furthermore, the URLs, links, webpages, documents, cookies, requests, and responses are modified by changing URLs/links to a URL/link of the proxy server, changing URLs/links directed to the proxy server to URLs/links of the content server, which meets at least one of this Markush group, for example); and
Sends the updated visitor token and the updated content provider token (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures; as above, this does not need to happen (i.e., when the creation of the relevant content for the visitor is not authorized). Thus, this step has no patentable weight. Inasmuch as it may be amended to have patentable weight, sending URLs, links, web pages, documents, cookies, requests, and responses, for example).
Regarding Claim 23,
Claim 23 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 45,
Claim 45 is a system claim that corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
For any subject matter not explicitly found in claim 1 (e.g., the network to which each of the one or more visitor devices, one or more content provider devices, and server computer are communicably coupled) are also met by the cited portions of Mao showing a network that the devices are communicably coupled to, such as the Internet.
Regarding Claim 2,
Mao discloses creating the visitor token for the visitor (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures; cookie, URL, link, etc., as examples);
Sending the visitor token to the end user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures; sending to client, server, proxy, etc., for example);
Receiving the one or more preferences from the end user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, 101, and associated figures; personalize proxy services for the user, such as by allowing use of proxy from any location, archiving of traffic for the user to later search through, searching through the archive, auto-fill, requests to the proxy, etc., as examples); and
Storing the one or more preferences for the visitor in the data storage (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, 101, and associated figures; the above is stored in order to be used, for example, in one of the storage mechanisms shown in figure 1 and associated written description, for example).
Regarding Claim 24,
Claim 24 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 46,
Claim 46 is a medium claim that corresponds to method claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 3,
Mao discloses that the one or more preferences comprise one or more general preferences, one or more payment preferences, one or more contact preferences, or a combination thereof (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, 101, and associated figures).
Regarding Claim 25,
Claim 25 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 5,
Mao discloses that the one or more categories, the one or more ads or the one or more keywords for the visitor are provided by the server computer (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures; proxy adds its own address to URL, as one example).
Regarding Claim 27,
Claim 27 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 6,
Mao discloses that server computer performs the determining, updating and sending steps in response to the end user device accessing a website or a search engine (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures).
Regarding Claim 28,
Claim 28 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 7,
Mao discloses that the visitor token or the content provider token does not contain any personal information (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures; a URL/link does not contain any information personal to the user, for example).
Regarding Claim 29,
Claim 29 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 8,
Mao discloses that the visitor token and the content provider token comprise a cookie, a digital certificate, or an electronic passport (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures; cookie, or certificate, for example).
Regarding Claim 30,
Claim 30 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 9,
Mao discloses creating a regular content at the content provider device whenever the creation of the relevant content for the visitor device was not authorized (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures; server creates content, legacy server, etc., as examples);
Sending the regular content from the content provider device to the end user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures; server sends content to client, proxy, server, etc., legacy server, etc., as examples).
Regarding Claim 31,
Claim 31 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 11,
Mao discloses creating the relevant content based on the at least the portion of the one or more preferences, one or more ads or one or more keywords for the visitor at the content provider device whenever the creation of the relevant content for the visitor was authorized (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, 101, and associated figures); and
Sending the relevant content from the content provider device to the end user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, 101, and associated figures).
Regarding Claim 33,
Claim 33 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 11 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 19,
Mao discloses providing a messaging system between the visitor and the content provider (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures; proxied communications, encrypted communications, for example).
Regarding Claim 41,
Claim 41 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 19 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 20,
Mao discloses that the visitor remains private with the messaging system (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures; separate links between client and proxy and server and proxy, encrypted communications to proxy, differently sent to server, for example).
Regarding Claim 42,
Claim 42 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 20 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 21,
Mao discloses that the portion of the one or more preferences, one or more keywords, one or more ads or one or more keywords for the visitor does not reveal an identity of the visitor (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures; URL, for example).
Regarding Claim 43,
Claim 43 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 21 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 22,
Mao discloses that a receiving device of the visitor or the content provider controls a receipt of any messages from a sending device to the receiving device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures; receiving device controls everything that is received, for example).
Regarding Claim 44,
Claim 44 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 22 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 19-25, 27-29, 31-33, and 41-46 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Diab (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0228780).
Regarding Claim 1,
Diab discloses a computerized method for increasing relevance of a content provided to a visitor by a content provider, the method comprising:
Providing a server computer and at least one data storage communicably coupled to the server computer (Exemplary Citations: for example, Figures 1, 9, and associated written description, as well as all below citations; this may be subdomain server, query process (which, as in paragraph 75, could include hardware), or the like, as examples);
Receiving at least a portion of a visitor token and at least a portion of a content provider token from the content provider at the server computer following a request for the content by an end user device of the visitor to the content provider (Exemplary Citations: for example, 28, 33-37, 39, 45, 60, 63, 74-76, 90, and associated figures; subdomain server receiving redirected query, or other server that receives a recast query, or location specific server receiving query from main search server, or redirecting to a service that the search server cannot access, or brokering searches, or servers as in figure 9 receiving search queries through HTTP server(s), as examples. This could also be the query process in figure 9 receiving the search queries through the servers through the HTTP server(s), as another example, since paragraph 75 states that the query processes may include hardware. All of these include at least a portion of a visitor token, such as the search, any portion thereof, explicit tokens provided in the search, hints, or the like, as well as at least a portion of a content provider token, such as any information provided by the previous server (e.g., search server, HTTP server, recasting server, brokering server, or the like), such as the entirety of the data sent to the brokered server, recast to server, subdomain server, query process, or the like. As one example, the final step of figure 8 shows that the redirected information includes at least the address of the redirected to server and the query. Many other examples exist in the cited portions);
Solely in response to receiving the visitor token and the content provider token from the content provider at the server computer and without receiving the request for content at the sever computer from the end user device, the server computer (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures; this can occur at the subdomain server, query process, redirected to server, brokered to server, etc., which are not the initial server receiving the request from the client, for example):
Determines whether a creation of a relevant content for the visitor is authorized based on the visitor token, the content provider token and one or more preferences stored in the at least one data storage (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures; determine what can be placed in the page, such as by checking for context and personalization (e.g., returning only age appropriate hits), as well as localization, inserting of ads and location relevant data, data that the requestor is authorized for, but the search engine is not (e.g., paragraph 90), or the like. It is noted that this could happen at the subdomain server (e.g., Paragraph 53), query processors (e.g., paragraph 75), brokered server (e.g., paragraph 91), or the like, for example);
Updates the visitor token and the content provider token to include a portion of the one or more preferences, one or more categories, one or more ads or one or more keywords for the visitor when the creation of the relevant content for the visitor is authorized (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures; updating the above described tokens to include at least a portion of content, search results, ads, suggested queries, etc., as examples); and
Sends the updated visitor token and the updated content provider token (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures; sending back to the client, either through the search server, HTTP server(s), or directly from subdomains(e.g., paragraph 39), for example).
Regarding Claim 23,
Claim 23 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 45,
Claim 45 is a system claim that corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
For any subject matter not explicitly found in claim 1 (e.g., the network to which each of the one or more visitor devices, one or more content provider devices, and server computer are communicably coupled) are also met by the cited portions and other portions (e.g., Paragraphs 4-7, 38, 75, and associated figures) of Diab showing a network that the devices are communicably coupled to, such as the Internet.
Regarding Claim 2,
Diab discloses creating the visitor token for the visitor (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures; any token, such as a set of search results, for example);
Sending the visitor token to the end user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures; sending, for example);
Receiving the one or more preferences from the end user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures; setting of preferences, personalization information, choosing a link, selecting a document, setting context for a future search to take into account prior searches, etc., as examples); and
Storing the one or more preferences for the visitor in the data storage (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures; storing the above in any fashion for any period of time, for example).
Regarding Claim 24,
Claim 24 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 46,
Claim 46 is a medium claim that corresponds to method claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 3,
Diab discloses that the one or more preferences comprise one or more general preferences, one or more payment preferences, one or more contact preferences, or a combination thereof (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures; any preferences could be considered general preferences, contact preferences regarding email or phone numbers, etc., as examples).
Regarding Claim 25,
Claim 25 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 5,
Diab disclose that the one or more categories, the one or more ads or the one or more keywords for the visitor are provided by the server computer (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures; above described server adding, as noted in the rejection of claim 1, for example).
Regarding Claim 27,
Claim 27 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 6,
Diab discloses that the server computer performs the determining, updating and sending steps in response to the end user device accessing a website or a search engine (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures).
Regarding Claim 28,
Claim 28 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 7,
Diab discloses that the visitor token or the content provider token does not contain any personal information (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures; at least one of these does not include personal information, such as an address of a subdomain or other redirected to server, for example).
Regarding Claim 29,
Claim 29 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 9,
Diab discloses creating a regular content at the content provider device whenever the creation of the relevant content for the visitor was not authorized (Exemplary Citations: for example, in addition to the above citations, Paragraphs 39, 57, 58, 61, and associated figures; general/regular search and/or error message, for example); and
Sending the regular content from the content provider device to the end user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, in addition to the above citations, Paragraphs 39, 57, 58, 61, and associated figures; general/regular search and/or error message, for example).
Regarding Claim 31,
Claim 31 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 10,
Diab discloses displaying a warning on the end user device whenever the creation of the relevant content for the visitor was not authorized (Exemplary Citations: for example, in addition to the above citations, Paragraphs 39, 57, 58, 61, and associated figures; general/regular search and/or error message, for example).
Regarding Claim 32,
Claim 32 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 11,
Diab discloses creating relevant content based on the at least the portion of the one or more preferences, one or more ads or one or more keywords for the visitor at the content provider device whenever the creation of the relevant content for the visitor device was authorized (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures); and
Sending the relevant content from the content provider device to the end user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures).
Regarding Claim 33,
Claim 33 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 11 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 19,
Diab discloses providing a messaging system between the visitor and the content provider (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 8, 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures; the sending of messages between the devices, for example).
Regarding Claim 41,
Claim 41 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 19 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 20,
Diab discloses that the visitor remains private with the messaging system (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 8, 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures; user specific information need not be sent, SSL being used, etc., for example).
Regarding Claim 42,
Claim 42 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 20 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 21,
Diab discloses that the portion of the one or more preferences, one or more keywords, one or more ads or one or more keywords for the visitor does not reveal an identity of the visitor (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures; search query does not necessarily include any visitor identifying information, for example).
Regarding Claim 43,
Claim 43 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 21 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 22,
Diab discloses that a receiving device of the visitor or the content provider controls a receipt of any messages from a sending device to the receiving device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures; receiving device controls everything that is received, for example).
Regarding Claim 44,
Claim 44 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 22 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4 and 26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mao in view of Gilley (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0154190).
Regarding Claim 4,
Mao does not appear to explicitly disclose that the one or more payment preferences comprise paying the visitor for use of an unfilled demand for the visitor, time spent on the website by the visitor, or clicking on an advertisement.
Gilley, however, discloses that the one or more payment preferences comprise paying the visitor for use of an unfilled demand for the visitor, time spent on the website by the visitor, or clicking on an advertisement (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 55, 60, 61, 155, 198, 242, and associated figures; preferences to be given ads that result in user being paid, clicking on ads that result in user being paid, etc., as examples). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the advertisement techniques of Gilley into the proxy system of Mao in order to allow users to get paid for viewing and/or clicking on ads, to allow content creators to use ads as a source of revenue, and/or to allow advertisers to get their advertisements in front of potential customers.
Regarding Claim 26,
Claim 26 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 10 and 32 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mao in view of Bretschneider (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0324551).
Regarding Claim 10,
Mao does not explicitly disclose displaying a warning on the end user device whenever the creation of the relevant content for the visitor was not authorized.
Bretschneider, however, discloses displaying a warning on the end user device whenever the creation of the relevant content for the visitor was not authorized (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 24-27, 29, 30, 33, 36, and associated figures; alert/warning regarding changes that are not authorized, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the web content change detection and alerting techniques of Bretschneider into the proxy system of Mao in order to allow the system to inform users if a vulnerability is present in a webpage that was previously fine, to allow website operators to be automatically notified of potential issues and how to fix them, to confirm whether or not changes are authorized prior to marking them as trusted, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 32,
Claim 32 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 12-18 and 34-40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mao in view of Mauseth (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0270209).
Regarding Claim 12,
Mao discloses preparing a customized content for the content provider whenever the creation of the relevant content for the visitor is authorized, and sending the customized content with the content from the content provider to the end user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures);
But does not explicitly disclose that the customized content comprises a customized seal.
Mauseth, however, discloses preparing a customized seal for the content provider whenever the creation of the relevant content for the visitor is authorized, and sending the customized seal with the content from the content provider to the end user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Figure 2 and associated written description; seal with merchant score and/or other information provided with and displayed on a webpage, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the merchant scoring techniques of Mauseth into the proxy system of Mao in order to allow users to readily determine whether a website can be trusted or not, to provide for myriad determinations in figuring out how trusted a website may be, to provide a trusted third party that can inform users of the trust of a given website, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 34,
Claim 34 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 12 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 13,
Mao discloses determining data for the content provider and sending the data with the content from the content provider to the end user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures);
But does not explicitly disclose that the data comprises a privacy score.
Mauseth, however, discloses determining a privacy score for the content provider and sending the privacy score with the content from the content provider to the end user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 31-41 and associated figures; determining metric and client retrieving web page with metric, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the merchant scoring techniques of Mauseth into the proxy system of Mao in order to allow users to readily determine whether a website can be trusted or not, to provide for myriad determinations in figuring out how trusted a website may be, to provide a trusted third party that can inform users of the trust of a given website, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 35,
Claim 35 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 13 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 14,
Mao as modified by Mauseth discloses the method of claim 13, in addition, Mauseth discloses incorporating the privacy score in a customized seal (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 31-41 and associated figures).
Regarding Claim 36,
Claim 36 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 14 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 15,
Mao as modified by Mauseth discloses the method of claim 13, in addition, Mauseth discloses that the privacy score is displayed on the end user device as a number, a graphic or both along with the content from the content provider (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 31-41 and associated figures).
Regarding Claim 37,
Claim 37 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 15 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 16,
Mao as modified by Mauseth discloses the method of claim 13, in addition, Mauseth discloses that the privacy score is determined based on a content provider rating, how the content provider settles disputes, how the content provider uses visitor behavioral profiles, spyware, cookies, web beacons, web bugs, adware, spam, visitor personal information, or a combination thereof (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 46-304 and associated figures; this shows dozens of metrics used to determine the privacy scores which are associated with at least one of the above as well as combinations of the metrics into the score, for example).
Regarding Claim 38,
Claim 38 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 16 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 17,
Mao as modified by Mauseth discloses the method of claim 13, in addition, Mauseth discloses that the privacy score is determined by: setting the privacy score to a first value if the content provider uses the token, or to zero if the content provider does not use the token (also, Mao: Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures), adding a second value to the privacy score if the content provider agrees not to store a behavioral profile without permission of the visitor, adding a third value to the privacy score if the content provider does not use spyware, cookies, web beacons, web bugs, adware or spam without permission from the visitor, adding a fourth value to the privacy score if the content provider agrees not to share, trade or sell personal information without permission of the visitor, adding a fifth value to the privacy score if the content provider agrees to use best efforts to resolve disputes with the visitor, multiplying the privacy score by a sixth value when there are a specified number of ratings for the content provider, and adding an average rating for the website divided by a seventh value to the privacy score where there are not the specified number of ratings for the content provider (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 46-304 and associated figures; as above, this shows dozens of metrics used to calculate the merchant score. Furthermore, none of these limitations have patentable weight, since they rely on human actions and never need to occur. Moreover, what values to use for the values is a mere matter of design choice).
Regarding Claim 39,
Claim 39 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 17 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 18,
Mao as modified by Mauseth discloses the method of claim 13, in addition, Mauseth discloses that the first value, the second value, the third value, the fourth value and the fifth value are all equal to ten and the sixth value and the seventh value are equal to two (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 46-304 and associated figures; as above, this shows dozens of metrics used to calculate the merchant score. Furthermore, none of these limitations have patentable weight, since they rely on human actions and never need to occur. Moreover, what values to use for the values is a mere matter of design choice).
Regarding Claim 40,
Claim 40 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 18 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 19, 20, 41, and 42 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mao in view of Primus (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0010308).
Regarding Claim 19,
Mao discloses providing a messaging system between the visitor and the content provider (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures; proxied communications, encrypted communications, for example).
Primus, however, discloses providing a messaging system between the visitor and the content provider (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 6, 15, 16, 24-27, 41-43, and associated figures; comments, feedback, ratings, requests, etc., for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feedback techniques of Primus into the proxy system of Mao in order to allow users to remain anonymous when communicating online, to provide relevant ratings and feedback to users, and/or to allow for demographics-based feedback.
Regarding Claim 41,
Claim 41 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 19 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 20,
Mao discloses that the visitor remains private with the messaging system (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures; separate links between client and proxy and server and proxy, encrypted communications to proxy, differently sent to server, for example); and
Primus discloses that the visitor remains private with the messaging system (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 6, 15, 16, 24-27, 41-43, and associated figures; anonymous comments, anonymous feedback, anonymous ratings, providing of only demographic information that allows the user to stay private in the user’s eyes, etc., as examples).
Regarding Claim 42,
Claim 42 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 20 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 4 and 26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Diab in view of Gilley.
Regarding Claim 4,
Diab does not appear to explicitly disclose that the one or more payment preferences comprise paying the visitor for use of an unfilled demand for the visitor, time spent on the website by the visitor, or clicking on an advertisement.
Gilley, however, discloses that the one or more payment preferences comprise paying the visitor for use of an unfilled demand for the visitor, time spent on the website by the visitor, or clicking on an advertisement (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 55, 60, 61, 155, 198, 242, and associated figures; preferences to be given ads that result in user being paid, clicking on ads that result in user being paid, etc., as examples). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the advertisement techniques of Gilley into the search system of Diab in order to allow users to get paid for viewing and/or clicking on ads, to allow content creators to use ads as a source of revenue, and/or to allow advertisers to get their advertisements in front of potential customers.
Regarding Claim 26,
Claim 26 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 8 and 30 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Diab in view of Mao.
Regarding Claim 8,
Diab does not appear to explicitly disclose that the visitor token and the content provider token comprise a cookie, a digital certificate or an electronic passport.
Mao, however, discloses that the visitor token and the content provider token comprise a cookie, a digital certificate or an electronic passport (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures; cookie, or certificate, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention to incorporate the cookie and certificate use techniques of Mao into the search system of Diab in order to allow the system to make use of cookies to provide information to other systems, to allow for a convenient mechanism by which to cache information for use in future requests/sessions, to allow for verification of entities via certificates, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 30,
Claim 30 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 12-18 and 34-40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Diab in view of Mauseth.
Regarding Claim 12,
Diab discloses preparing a customized content for the content provider whenever the creation of the relevant content for the visitor is authorized, and sending the customized content with the content from the content provider to the end user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures);
But does not explicitly disclose that the customized content comprises a customized seal.
Mauseth, however, discloses preparing a customized seal for the content provider whenever the creation of the relevant content for the visitor is authorized, and sending the customized seal with the content from the content provider to the end user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Figure 2 and associated written description; seal with merchant score and/or other information provided with and displayed on a webpage, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the merchant scoring techniques of Mauseth into the search system of Diab in order to allow users to readily determine whether a website can be trusted or not, to provide for myriad determinations in figuring out how trusted a website may be, to provide a trusted third party that can inform users of the trust of a given website, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 34,
Claim 34 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 12 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 13,
Diab discloses determining a data for the content provider and sending the data with the content from the content provider to the end user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures);
But does not explicitly disclose that the data comprises a privacy score.
Mauseth, however, discloses determining a privacy score for the content provider and sending the privacy score with the content from the content provider to the end user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 31-41 and associated figures; determining metric and client retrieving web page with metric, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the merchant scoring techniques of Mauseth into the search system of Diab in order to allow users to readily determine whether a website can be trusted or not, to provide for myriad determinations in figuring out how trusted a website may be, to provide a trusted third party that can inform users of the trust of a given website, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 35,
Claim 35 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 13 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 14,
Diab as modified by Mauseth discloses the method of claim 13, in addition, Mauseth discloses incorporating the privacy score into a customized seal (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 31-41 and associated figures).
Regarding Claim 36,
Claim 36 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 14 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 15,
Diab as modified by Mauseth discloses the method of claim 13, in addition, Mauseth disclose that the privacy score is displayed on the end user device as a number, a graphic or both along with the content from the content provider (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 31-41 and associated figures).
Regarding Claim 37,
Claim 37 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 15 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 16,
Diab as modified by Mauseth discloses the method of claim 13, in addition, Mauseth discloses that the privacy score is determined based on a content provider rating, how the content provider settles disputes, how the content provider uses visitor behavioral profiles, spyware, cookies, web beacons, web bugs, adware, spam, visitor personal information, or a combination thereof (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 46-304 and associated figures; this shows dozens of metrics used to determine the privacy scores which are associated with at least one of the above as well as combinations of the metrics into the score, for example).
Regarding Claim 38,
Claim 38 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 16 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 17,
Diab as modified by Mauseth discloses the method of claim 13, in addition, Mauseth discloses that the privacy score is determined by: setting the privacy score to a first value if the content provider uses the token, or to zero if the content provider does not use the token (also, Diab: Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures), adding a second value to the privacy score if the content provider agrees not to store a behavioral profile without permission of the visitor, adding a third value to the privacy score if the content provider does not use spyware, cookies, web beacons, web bugs, adware or spam without permission from the visitor, adding a fourth value to the privacy score if the content provider agrees not to share, trade or sell personal information without permission of the visitor, adding a fifth value to the privacy score if the content provider agrees to use best efforts to resolve disputes with the visitor, multiplying the privacy score by a sixth value when there are a specified number of ratings for the content provider, and adding an average rating for the website divided by a seventh value to the privacy score where there are not the specified number of ratings for the content provider (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 46-304 and associated figures; as above, this shows dozens of metrics used to calculate the merchant score. Furthermore, none of these limitations have patentable weight, since they rely on human actions and never need to occur. Moreover, what values to use for the values is a mere matter of design choice).
Regarding Claim 39,
Claim 39 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 17 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 18,
Diab as modified by Mauseth discloses the method of claim 13, in addition, Mauseth discloses that the first value, the second value, the third value, the fourth value and the fifth value are all equal to ten and the sixth value and the seventh value are equal to two (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 46-304 and associated figures; as above, this shows dozens of metrics used to calculate the merchant score. Furthermore, none of these limitations have patentable weight, since they rely on human actions and never need to occur. Moreover, what values to use for the values is a mere matter of design choice).
Regarding Claim 40,
Claim 40 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 18 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 19, 20, 41, and 42 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Diab in view of Primus.
Regarding Claim 19,
Diab discloses providing a messaging system between the visitor and the content provider (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 8, 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures; the sending of messages between the devices, for example).
Primus also discloses providing a messaging system between the visitor and the content provider (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 6, 15, 16, 24-27, 41-43, and associated figures; comments, feedback, ratings, requests, etc., for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feedback techniques of Primus into the search system of Diab in order to allow users to remain anonymous when communicating online, to provide relevant ratings and feedback to users, and/or to allow for demographics-based feedback. ).
Regarding Claim 41,
Claim 41 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 19 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 20,
Diab as modified by Primus discloses the method of claim 19, in addition, Diab discloses that the visitor remains private with the messaging system (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 8, 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures; user specific information need not be sent, SSL being used, etc., for example); and
Primus discloses that the visitor remains private with the messaging system (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 6, 15, 16, 24-27, 41-43, and associated figures; anonymous comments, anonymous feedback, anonymous ratings, providing of only demographic information that allows the user to stay private in the user’s eyes, etc., as examples).
Regarding Claim 42,
Claim 42 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 20 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 19-25, 27-33, and 41-46 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mao in view of Diab.
Regarding Claim 1,
Mao discloses a computerized method for increasing relevance of a content provided to a visitor by a content provider, the method comprising:
Providing a server computer and at least one data storage communicably coupled to the server computer (Exemplary Citations: for example, Figures 1-4 and associated figures; server, such as reverse proxy, for example);
Receiving at least a portion of a visitor token and at least a portion of a content provider token from the content provider at the server computer following a request for the content by an end user device of the visitor to the content provider (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures; receiving cookies, webpages, documents, requests, responses, URLs, links, etc., following a request for a webpage or the like, for example);
Solely in response to receiving the visitor token and the content provider token from the content provider at the server computer and without receiving the request for content at the sever computer from the end user device, the server computer (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, 101, and associated figures; This “end user device” may be any device that may be considered an end user device, such as another device that is currently powered down, another client, another server (e.g., as in paragraph 36, a server can also be a client) or the like. As another example, the proxy itself is an end user device, since it is a client of the server. The proxy does not receive a request from itself, thus meeting the passive limitation of “without receiving the request for content”. Alternatively, since the claim explicitly requires a request from the end user device, this step can never occur, since it is impossible to have not received the request from the end user device. Also, since this request is within a method performed at the server, it must be received by the server and, therefore, cannot be not received by the server. Alternatively, if this request is not received at the server, this subject matter regarding the request has no effect on the scope of the claim, since it is a request that is never received by any portion of the claim or processed by any element within the claim. Moreover, this step is in response to receiving the tokens, which is not a reception of the request. Thus, this step must be a step that includes “without receiving the request for content at the sever computer from the end user device”. As to the rest, the reverse proxy performs the following after receiving a cookie, URL, link, request, or the like, from the client, and a webpage, document, response, URL, link, or the like, from the server, as examples):
Determines whether a creation of a relevant content for the visitor is authorized based on the visitor token, the content provider token, and one or more preferences stored in the at least one data storage (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures; determining whether to create relevant content, such as in modifying links, sending a response, or the like, as examples. This is based on the URLs, links, requests, responses, cookies, webpages, documents, or the like, as well as the programming in the system and the rules provided in the system, as examples);
Updates the visitor token and the content provider token to include a portion of the one or more preferences, one or more categories, one or more ads, or one or more keywords for the visitor when the creation of the relevant content for the visitor is authorized (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures; this does not need to happen (i.e. when the creation of the relevant content for the visitor is not authorized). Thus, this step has no patentable weight. Furthermore, the URLs, links, webpages, documents, cookies, requests, and responses are modified by changing URLs/links to a URL/link of the proxy server, changing URLs/links directed to the proxy server to URLs/links of the content server, which meets at least one of this Markush group, for example); and
Sends the updated visitor token and the updated content provider token (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44, 47-53, 59-63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 78, 84-88, 93-97, and associated figures; as above, this does not need to happen (i.e., when the creation of the relevant content for the visitor is not authorized). Thus, this step has no patentable weight. Inasmuch as it may be amended to have patentable weight, sending URLs, links, web pages, documents, cookies, requests, and responses, for example).
Diab also discloses a request for the content by an end user device of the visitor to the content provider (Exemplary Citations: for example, 28, 33-37, 39, 45, 60, 63, 74-76, 90, and associated figures; request for search or content being received at a search server, HTTP server, content server, or the like, for example);
That the determines, updates, and sends steps are performed solely in response to receiving the visitor token and the content provider token from the content provider at the server computer and without receiving the request for content at the sever computer from the end user device, the server computer (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures; sending the tokens along to a subdomain server, query process, redirected to server, brokered to server, recast to server, etc., which are not the initial server receiving the request from the client, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention to incorporate the redirection and brokering techniques of Diab into the proxy system of Mao in order to allow the system to redirect between various servers, to allow for requests to be handled by the most appropriate domain/subdomain, to allow for other services to be brokered, to increase revenue, and/or to increase security in the system.
Alternatively, Diab also discloses providing a server computer and at least one data storage communicably coupled to the server computer (Exemplary Citations: for example, Figures 1, 9, and associated written description, as well as all below citations; this may be subdomain server, query process (which, as in paragraph 75, could include hardware), or the like, as examples);
Receiving at least a portion of a visitor token and at least a portion of a content provider token from the content provider at the server computer following a request for the content by an end user device of the visitor to the content provider (Exemplary Citations: for example, 28, 33-37, 39, 45, 60, 63, 74-76, 90, and associated figures; subdomain server receiving redirected query, or other server that receives a recast query, or location specific server receiving query from main search server, or redirecting to a service that the search server cannot access, or brokering searches, or servers as in figure 9 receiving search queries through HTTP server(s), as examples. This could also be the query process in figure 9 receiving the search queries through the servers through the HTTP server(s), as another example, since paragraph 75 states that the query processes may include hardware. All of these include at least a portion of a visitor token, such as the search, any portion thereof, explicit tokens provided in the search, hints, or the like, as well as at least a portion of a content provider token, such as any information provided by the previous server (e.g., search server, HTTP server, recasting server, brokering server, or the like), such as the entirety of the data sent to the brokered server, recast to server, subdomain server, query process, or the like. As one example, the final step of figure 8 shows that the redirected information includes at least the address of the redirected to server and the query. Many other examples exist in the cited portions);
Solely in response to receiving the visitor token and the content provider token from the content provider at the server computer and without receiving the request for content at the sever computer from the end user device, the server computer (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures; this can occur at the subdomain server, query process, redirected to server, brokered to server, etc., which are not the initial server receiving the request from the client, for example):
Determines whether a creation of a relevant content for the visitor is authorized based on the visitor token, the content provider token and one or more preferences stored in the at least one data storage (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures; determine what can be placed in the page, such as by checking for context and personalization (e.g., returning only age appropriate hits), as well as localization, inserting of ads and location relevant data, data that the requestor is authorized for, but the search engine is not (e.g., paragraph 90), or the like. It is noted that this could happen at the subdomain server (e.g., Paragraph 53), query processors (e.g., paragraph 75), brokered server (e.g., paragraph 91), or the like, for example);
Updates the visitor token and the content provider token to include a portion of the one or more preferences, one or more categories, one or more ads or one or more keywords for the visitor when the creation of the relevant content for the visitor is authorized (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures; updating the above described tokens to include at least a portion of content, search results, ads, suggested queries, etc., as examples); and
Sends the updated visitor token and the updated content provider token (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 39-50, 53, 55, 60, 63-68, 74-80, 83, 90, 91, and associated figures; sending back to the client, either through the search server, HTTP server(s), or directly from subdomains(e.g., paragraph 39), for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention to incorporate the redirection and brokering techniques of Diab into the proxy system of Mao in order to allow the system to redirect between various servers, to allow for requests to be handled by the most appropriate domain/subdomain, to allow for other services to be brokered, to increase revenue, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claims 2-3, 5-11, 19-25, 27-33, and 41-46,
See above rejections regarding Mao and Diab.
Claims 4 and 26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mao in view of Diab and Gilley.
Regarding Claims 4 and 26,
See above rejections regarding Mao, Diab, and Gilley.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the advertisement techniques of Gilley into the proxy system of Mao as modified by Diab in order to allow users to get paid for viewing and/or clicking on ads, to allow content creators to use ads as a source of revenue, and/or to allow advertisers to get their advertisements in front of potential customers.
Claims 10 and 32 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mao in view of Diab and Bretschneider.
Regarding Claims 10 and 32,
See above rejections regarding Mao, Diab, and Bretschneider.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the web content change detection and alerting techniques of Bretschneider into the proxy system of Mao as modified by Diab in order to allow the system to inform users if a vulnerability is present in a webpage that was previously fine, to allow website operators to be automatically notified of potential issues and how to fix them, to confirm whether or not changes are authorized prior to marking them as trusted, and/or to increase security in the system.
Claims 12-18 and 34-40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mao in view of Diab and Mauseth.
Regarding Claims 12-18 and 34-40,
See above rejections regarding Mao, Diab, and Mauseth.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the merchant scoring techniques of Mauseth into the proxy system of Mao as modified by Diab in order to allow users to readily determine whether a website can be trusted or not, to provide for myriad determinations in figuring out how trusted a website may be, to provide a trusted third party that can inform users of the trust of a given website, and/or to increase security in the system.
Claims 19, 20, 41, and 42 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mao in view of Diab and Primus.
Regarding Claims 19, 20, 41, and 42,
See above rejections regarding Mao, Diab, and Primus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feedback techniques of Primus into the proxy system of Mao as modified by Diab in order to allow users to remain anonymous when communicating online, to provide relevant ratings and feedback to users, and/or to allow for demographics-based feedback.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey D Popham whose telephone number is (571)272-7215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/Jeffrey D. Popham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432