Remarks
Claims 1-22 are pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 2/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-22 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-22 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 recites the limitation "the user device of the particular user" in the penultimate limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. All independent claims have the same issue and are rejected for the same reasons. All dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependencies.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7, 15, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 states “wherein the URL is used to block content from being displayed at the at least one user device”. However, claim 1 has been amended to state “blocking content associated with the URL from being displayed on at least the user device of the particular user”. Thus, claim 7 does nothing to further limit claim 1. Claims 15 and 22 have the same issue and are rejected for the same reasons. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strauss (U.S. Patent 10,616,255) in view of O’Connor (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0352772) and Sainio (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0222107).
Regarding Claim 1,
Strauss discloses a method for detecting URLs of undesirable web pages comprising:
Identifying a web page having an associated URL (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Column 2, line 52 to Column 3, line 7; Column 4, lines 4-39, Column 4, line 60 to Column 5, line 36; Column 6, lines 11-22; Column 6, lines 36-50; Column 7, line 21 to Column 8, line 25; Column 11, lines 25-51; and associated figures; web page with URL, for example);
Rendering the content of the web page (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Column 2, line 52 to Column 3, line 7; Column 4, lines 4-39, Column 4, line 60 to Column 5, line 36; Column 6, lines 11-22; Column 6, line 36 to Column 7, line 4; Column 7, line 21 to Column 8, line 25; Column 11, lines 25-51; and associated figures; processing and displaying web page, for example);
Logging the URL associated with the web page (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Column 2, line 52 to Column 3, line 7; Column 4, lines 4-39, Column 4, line 60 to Column 5, line 36; Column 6, lines 11-22; Column 6, line 36 to Column 7, line 4; Column 7, line 21 to Column 8, line 25; Column 8, line 55 to Column 9, line 43; Column 11, lines 25-51; and associated figures);
Analyzing the rendered content to identify at least one attribute within the rendered content that is unwanted by a particular user by applying a machine learning algorithm comprising a neural network having been trained to recognize attributes within content that are unwanted by at least the particular user (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Column 2, line 52 to Column 3, line 36; Column 3, line 57 to Column 4, line 39; Column 4, line 60 to Column 6, line 50; Column 9, line 60 to Column 17, line 27; and associated figures; identifying undesirable (e.g., cloaked, adult, illegal products, illegal services, violence, false, threatening, fraudulent, criminal, policy violating, etc.) content by analyzing via machine learning, neural networks, vectors, and the like, to determine if undesirable content is present, for example);
Upon identifying at least one unwanted attribute in the rendered content, storing the URL in a database for subsequent use by at least one user device to control access by at least the particular user to the URL and the associated web page (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Column 2, line 52 to Column 3, line 36; Column 3, line 57 to Column 4, line 39; Column 4, line 60 to Column 6, line 50; Column 9, line 60 to Column 17, line 27; and associated figures; adding URL to blocked site stores, preventing mobile devices from accessing content, blocking content at online system, or the like, as examples); and
Blocking content associated with the URL from being displayed on at least he user device of the particular user (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Column 2, line 52 to Column 3, line 36; Column 3, line 57 to Column 4, line 39; Column 4, line 60 to Column 6, line 50; Column 9, line 60 to Column 17, line 27; and associated figures; preventing mobile devices from accessing content, blocking content at online system, or the like, as examples);
But does not explicitly disclose that the at least one attribute within the rendered content that is unwanted by a particular user has been identified as unwanted by the particular user and displaying a message on at least a user device of the particular user to enable the particular user to select whether or not content associated with the URL that is being blocked from display should continue to be blocked from display.
It is noted that this method is performed at at least one of a user device or server using at least one processor coupled to at least one non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, which, when executed thereby, cause the at least one processor to perform the operations of the method (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Column 2, line 52 to Column 3, line 36; Column 3, line 57 to Column 4, line 39; Column 4, line 60 to Column 6, line 50; Column 9, line 60 to Column 17, line 27; Column 17, line 48 to Column 18, line 9; and associated figures; processor, medium instructions, device(s) described above and below, for example).
O’Connor, however, discloses that the at least one attribute within the rendered content that is unwanted by a particular user has been identified as unwanted by the particular user (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44-49 and associated figures; user sets filters, preferences, etc. regarding how to filter content, such as malware, adult web sites, potential phishing/pharming sites, and other sites deemed inappropriate by the user, for example, which are then used to block web sites that would otherwise be viewed by the user when deemed inappropriate by the user);
Blocking content associated with the URL from being displayed on at least he user device of the particular user (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44-49 and associated figures; blocking, for example); and
Enable the particular user to select whether or not content associated with the URL that is being blocked from display should continue to be blocked from display (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 44-49, 118, and associated figures; allowing user to override or not overriding, any ability to modify what is blocked/not blocks, 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 user provided preferences of O’Connor into the cloaking detection system of Strauss in order to allow each user to set preferences for what type of content the user wants and does not want to view, to allow for a user to define a set of preferences that can be applied when using different subscriber networks, to allow for a wide variety of categories to be used to classify content, and/or to increase security in the system.
Sainio, however, discloses displaying a message on at least a user device of the particular user to enable the particular user to select whether or not content associated with the URL that is being blocked from display should continue to be blocked from display (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 30, 39, 49, 51, 53, 64, 67-69, and associated figures; displaying a message allowing user to decide whether or not access to a blocked page should be given or still blocked, 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 access control modification techniques of Sainio into the cloaking detection system of Strauss as modified by O’Connor in order to allow users to later request access for a blocked site, to allow for changing access to blocked or from blocks when necessary, to give a user the option to request access upon accessing a blocked site, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 9,
Claim 9 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 is a system claim that corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 2,
Strauss discloses that the identifying is performed using a web crawler (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Column 2, line 52 to Column 3, line 7; Column 4, lines 4-39, Column 4, line 60 to Column 5, line 36; Column 6, lines 11-22; Column 6, lines 36-50; Column 7, line 21 to Column 8, line 25; Column 11, lines 25-51; and associated figures; crawler, for example).
Regarding Claim 10,
Claim 10 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 is a system claim that corresponds to method claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 3,
Strauss disclose that the identifying is performed using a browser (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Column 2, line 52 to Column 3, line 7; Column 4, lines 4-39, Column 4, line 60 to Column 5, line 36; Column 6, lines 11-22; Column 6, lines 36-50; Column 7, line 21 to Column 8, line 25; Column 11, lines 25-51; and associated figures; browser, for example).
Regarding Claim 11,
Claim 11 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18 is a system claim that corresponds to method claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 4,
Strauss discloses that attributes of the rendered content that are unwanted by at least the particular user comprise dynamic content (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Column 2, line 52 to Column 3, line 36; Column 3, line 57 to Column 4, line 39; Column 4, line 60 to Column 6, line 50; Column 9, line 60 to Column 17, line 27; and associated figures; cloaked content, flash animation, etc., as examples).
Regarding Claim 12,
Claim 12 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 19,
Claim 19 is a system claim that corresponds to method claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 5,
Strauss discloses that the database is located within a server and the server communicates the URL to a plurality of user devices (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Column 2, line 52 to Column 3, line 36; Column 3, line 57 to Column 4, line 39; Column 4, line 60 to Column 6, line 50; Column 9, line 60 to Column 17, line 27; and associated figures; 390, for example).
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 is a system claim that corresponds to method claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 6,
Strauss discloses that the database is located in a user device and the user device communicates the URL to a plurality of other user devices (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Column 2, line 52 to Column 3, line 36; Column 3, line 57 to Column 4, line 39; Column 4, line 60 to Column 6, line 50; Column 9, line 60 to Column 17, line 27; and associated figures; all devices are user devices, storing of a URL on any mobile device, online system, or the like, and distributing to any other device, etc., as examples).
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 21,
Claim 21 is a system claim that corresponds to method claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 7,
Strauss discloses that the URL is used to block content from being displayed at the at least one user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Column 2, line 52 to Column 3, line 36; Column 3, line 57 to Column 4, line 39; Column 4, line 60 to Column 6, line 50; Column 9, line 60 to Column 17, line 27; and associated figures).
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to method claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 22,
Claim 22 is a system claim that corresponds to method claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 8,
Strauss discloses that the method is performed by either a server or a user device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Column 2, line 52 to Column 3, line 36; Column 3, line 57 to Column 4, line 39, Column 4, line 60 to Column 6, line 50; Column 9, line 60 to Column 17, line 27; and associated figures, and associated figures).
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
Prosecution Insights