DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/30/2026 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner’s Comment
This Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 01/30/2026 with Amended Claims and Applicant's Remarks filed on 01/30/2026.
Applicant has amended claims 1, 2, 4, 11, and 19 and canceled claim 8 according to Amendments filed on 01/30/2026. Claims 1-6, 9-17, 19, and 20 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
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 1-6, 9-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: In a test for patent subject matter eligibility, claims 1-6, 9-17, 19, and 20 are found to be in accordance with Step 1 (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility), as they are related to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1-6 and 9-10 recite a method, claims 11-17 recites a device, and claims 19-20 recites a machine-readable medium. When assessed under Step 2A, Prong I, they are found to be directed towards an abstract idea. The rationale for this finding is explained below:
Step 2A, Prong I: Under Step 2A, Prong I, claims 1-6, 9-17, 19, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, as they all recite a judicial exception. Independent claims 1, 11, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea of a method, device, and machine-readable medium, respectively, for omitting advertisement videos from being presented based on comparing event metrics to determine whether the video streaming applications are fraudulent in association with advertising fraud. Claims 1, 11, and 19 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea including […] present one or more advertisement videos between playback segments of media content within a video stream of a first video streaming application; receiving a first set of event metrics indicative of one or more events performed at least one of by or utilizing the first video streaming application; […] present one or more advertisement videos between playback segments of media content within a video stream of a second video streaming application; receiving a second set of event metrics indicative of one or more events performed at least one of by or utilizing the second video streaming application; determining a first combined metric for the first video streaming application based upon at least two event metrics of the first set of event metrics indicative of the one or more events performed at least one of by or utilizing the first video streaming application; determining a second combined metric for the second video streaming application based upon at least two event metrics of the second set of event metrics indicative of the one or more events performed at least one of by or utilizing the second video streaming application; determining, based upon the first combined metric for the first video streaming application and the second combined metrics for the second video streaming application, a threshold metric associated with anomalous behavior of a video streaming application; comparing the threshold metric associated with anomalous behavior of a video streaming application with one or more combined metrics, of the first combined metric and the second combined metric, associated with one or more first video streaming applications to determine whether the one or more first video streaming applications are fraudulent in association with advertising fraud; and based upon the determination of whether the one or more first video streaming applications are fraudulent in association with advertising fraud, […] to omit at least one insertion of one or more advertisement videos between playback segments of media content within a video stream of the one or more first video streaming applications. These further limitations are not seen as any more than the judicial exception. Claims 1, 11, and 19 recite additional limitations including configuring a content system to present/omit advertisement videos. Claim 11 recites additional limitations including computing device comprising: a processor; and memory comprising processor-executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause performance of operations. Claim 19 recites additional limitations including non-transitory machine readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions that when executed cause performance of operations. A method, system, and computer-readable medium, respectively, for omitting advertisement videos from being provided based on comparing event metrics to determine whether the video streaming applications are fraudulent in association with advertising fraud is considered to be an abstract idea, specifically, certain methods of organizing human activity; such as commercial interactions, advertising, marketing, and sales because comparing event metrics of a video streaming applications or content to determine whether the video streaming application or content is associated with advertising fraud in order to omit advertisement videos from being presented is seen to be reciting concepts under fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Furthermore, the analysis in which to determine whether the video streaming applications are fraudulent in association with advertising fraud takes place falls under another abstract idea, specifically mental processes; such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) because determining event information; determining combined metrics; determining a threshold metric; and comparing the combined event metrics to the threshold metric are all concepts that can be performed by a user in their mind with pen and paper and the necessary information. Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong I, claims 1, 11, and 19 are directed towards an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong II: Step 2A, Prong II is to determine whether any claim recites any additional element that integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application. Claims 1, 11, and 19 recite additional limitations including configuring a content system to present/omit advertisement videos. Claim 11 recites additional limitations including computing device comprising: a processor; and memory comprising processor-executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause performance of operations. Claim 19 recites additional limitations including non-transitory machine readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions that when executed cause performance of operations. The additional limitation reciting – configuring a content system to present/omit advertisement videos”; “computing device comprising: a processor; and memory comprising processor-executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause performance of operations”; and “non-transitory machine readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions that when executed cause performance of operations” are seen as merely reciting using content system to present/omit advertisement videos and processor/memory to determine and compare data. These are not found to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are seen as adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f), adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, alone, and in combination, these additional elements are seen as using a computer or tool to perform an abstract idea, adding insignificant-extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. They do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, i.e. system and/or processor/memory, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The courts decided that although the additional elements did limit the use of the abstract idea, the court explained that this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and this fails to add an inventive concept to the claims (See Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC,). Under Step 2A, Prong II, these claims remain directed towards an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 11, and 19 recite additional limitations including configuring a content system to; and via one or more internet resources. Claim 11 recites additional limitations including computing device comprising: a processor; and memory comprising processor-executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause performance of operations. Claim 19 recites additional limitations including non-transitory machine readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions that when executed cause performance of operations. The additional limitation reciting – “configuring a content system to; and via one or more internet resources”; “computing device comprising: a processor; and memory comprising processor-executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause performance of operations”; and “non-transitory machine readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions that when executed cause performance of operations” do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application because of the analysis provided in Step 2A, Prong II. The independent claims do not include additional elements or a combination of elements that result in the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements listed amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component. In addition, the applicant’s specifications describe “software, firmware, hardware, or any combination” elements, ¶ [00137], for implementing the computer system, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Furthermore, there is no improvement in the functioning of the computer or technological field, and there is no transformation of subject matter into a different state. Under Step 2B in a test for patent subject matter eligibility, these claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6, 9-10; 11-17; and 20 further recite the method, system, and computer-readable medium of claims 1, 11, and 19, respectively. Dependent claims 2-6, 9-10, 11-17, and 20 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea:
Under Step 2A, Prong I, these additional claims only further narrow the abstract idea set forth in claims 1, 11, and 19. For example, claims 2-6, 9-10, 11-17, and 20 describe the limitations for comparing event metrics to determine whether the video streaming applications are fraudulent in association with advertising fraud – which is only further narrowing the scope of the abstract idea recited in the independent claims.
Under Step 2A, Prong II, for dependent claims 2-6, 9-10, 11-17, and 20, there are no additional elements introduced. Thus, they do not present integration into a practical application, or amount to significantly more.
Under Step 2B, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, there is no improvement in the functioning of the computer or technological field, and there is no transformation of subject matter into a different state. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional claims do not provide any additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Under Step 2B, these claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 9-17, 19, and 20 allowable over the prior art:
Independent claims 1, 11, and 19 are allowable over the U.S. Publication 2021/0318915 to Wang and U.S. Publication 2019/0261222 to Raleigh references because the claims recite – “receiving a first set of event metrics indicative of one or more events performed at least one of by or utilizing a first video streaming application; and receiving a second set of event metrics indicative of one or more events performed at least one of by or utilizing a second video streaming application; determining a first combined metric for the first video streaming application based upon at least two event metrics of the first set of event metrics indicative of the one or more events performed at least one of by or utilizing the first video streaming application; determining a second combined metric for the second video streaming application based upon at least two event metrics of the second set of event metrics indicative of the one or more events performed at least one of by or utilizing the second video streaming application; and determining, based upon the first combined metric for the first video streaming application and the second combined metrics for the second video streaming application, a threshold metric associated with anomalous behavior of a video streaming application”. The Wang and Raleigh references do not disclose event metrics being associated or from a video streaming application, let alone a first and second video streaming application.
The Examiner was able to do a search within the allotted time and found U.S. Patent 11,552,971 to Karak to be pertinent to the amendments. Upon further review of the Karak reference, the claims are allowable because the claims recite – “determining a second combined metric for the second video streaming application based upon at least two event metrics of the second set of event metrics indicative of the one or more events performed at least one of by or utilizing the second video streaming application; and determining, based upon the first combined metric for the first video streaming application and the second combined metrics for the second video streaming application, a threshold metric associated with anomalous behavior of a video streaming application; and comparing the threshold metric associated with anomalous behavior of a video streaming application with one or more combined metrics, of the first combined metric and the second combined metric, associated with one or more first video streaming applications to determine whether the one or more first video streaming applications are fraudulent in association with advertising fraud.” The Karak reference discloses metrics associated with video streaming application but does not disclose comparing metrics from a second video streaming application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 10 of the Remarks disclosed, filed on 12/30/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection(s) of claim(s) 8 has been considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has canceled claim 8 and therefore, obviates the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection(s) of claim(s) 8. The rejection(s) of claim(s) 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see pages 10-12 of the Remarks disclosed, filed on 12/30/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 8-17, 19, and 20 have been considered but are not persuasive:
The Applicant asserts “Claim 1 is patent-eligible because it is directed to a specific, computer- implemented reconfiguration of a video streaming content system, rather than to the abstract idea of fraud detection. The claim expressly recites an initial configuration in which a content system inserts advertisement videos between playback segments of media content within video streams of video streaming applications. The claim then recites collecting event metrics from multiple video streaming applications, determining combined metrics and a threshold metric associated with anomalous behavior, and identifying advertising fraud. Notably, the claim does not end with that determination. Instead, based on the fraud determination, the content system is reconfigured to omit at least one insertion of advertisement videos between playback segments within the video stream of the fraudulent application. This before-and-after change reflects a concrete modification to how the video stream is assembled and presented by the system…Accordingly, the claim is directed to a technological solution in the field of video streaming systems that changes system operation, not merely to analyzing information or applying a business rule. The fraud determination functions as a control input that triggers a specific alteration of the video streaming process itself, which is disabling or reducing advertisement insertion within a video stream. This recited system reconfiguration goes beyond "using a computer as a tool" and instead defines how the content system operates differently in response to detected anomalous behavior. Because the claim ties any alleged abstract concept to a specific, automated modification of video stream assembly in a networked content system, it is integrated into a practical application and is patent-eligible.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitation reciting – “the content system is reconfigured to omit at least one insertion of advertisement videos between playback segments within the video stream of the fraudulent application” is recited at high, apply it level of detail. There is no recitation of “concrete modification” of the content system in technical detail. Furthermore, because the “control input” is not specified in technical detail that shows how the content system is modified, the content system is seen as "using a computer as a tool" (See updated 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis above). Therefore, the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 9-17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained above with an updated analysis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The following reference are cited to further show the state of the art:
US Publication 2021/0318915 to Wang for disclosure of One or more computing devices, systems, and/or methods are provided. Event information associated with a plurality of events may be identified. The plurality of events may be associated with first entities corresponding to a first entity type and second entities associated with a second entity type. A first network profile associated with the first entities and the second entities may be generated based upon the event information. First representations associated with the first entities and second representations associated with the second entities may be generated based upon the first network profile. Clusters in the first representations and/or the second representations may be identified. One or more coalition networks associated with fraudulent activity may be identified based upon the clusters.
U.S. Publication 2019/0261222 to Raleigh for disclosure of Secure architectures and methods for improving the security of mobile devices are disclosed. Also disclosed are apparatuses and methods to detect and mitigate fraud in device-assisted services implementations.
U.S. Patent 11,552,971 to Karak for disclosure of Techniques for detection of the fraudulent use of content delivery network (CDN) served byte streams are described. A fraud detection service obtains CDN log data, distribution data, and account data and uses elements therefrom to perform a distribution-centric fraud analysis using machine learning techniques. Based on the likelihood of fraud determined by the analysis, the fraud detection service can rapidly perform actions to address the fraud, such as the termination of service for the distribution, throttling of resources provided for the distribution, or further investigation techniques.
U.S. Publication 2020/0279027 to Gould for disclosure of Methods and apparatus for secondary content management, including preventing viewing fraud, are disclosed. In one embodiment, apparatus of the present disclosure includes an Advertisement Decisioning Service (ADS) and Manifest Manipulator (MM) configured cooperate to receive client requests for secondary content, select one or more secondary content elements ( e.g., advertisements), and generate and transmit one or more identifiers that uniquely identify the client's request for a session. The selected advertisements in one implementation include embedded beacons or tags used to ensure accurate accounting with regards to the amount or quality of consumption of the advertisement by a user.
U.S. Publication 2020/0076835 to Ladnai for disclosure of In a threat management platform, a number of endpoints log events in an event data recorder. A local agent filters this data and feeds a filtered data stream to a central threat management facility. The central threat management facility can locally or globally tune filtering by local agents based on the current data stream, and can query local event data recorders for additional information where necessary or helpful in threat detection or forensic analysis. The central threat management facility also stores and deploys a number of security tools such as a web-based user interface supported by machine learning models to identify potential threats requiring human intervention and other models to provide human-readable context for evaluating potential threats.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Azam Ansari, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7047. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8 AM and 4:30 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Waseem Ashraf, can be reached at (571) 270-3948.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephonic interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/AZAM A ANSARI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
March 5, 2026