Remarks
Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-21 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 of the response, Applicant alleges “the Examiner concedes that Strauss and O’Connor fail to each or suggest ‘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’.” This is incorrect. O’Connor was cited as disclosing “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”. As all of Applicant’s allegations are based on Applicant’s erroneous belief that “the Examiner concedes that Strauss and O’Connor fail to each or suggest ‘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’”, Applicant’s allegations are clearly incorrect.
With respect to Applicant’s allegations spanning pages 9-10 of the response, it is noted that the claim does not actually call for overriding the blocking. Rather, the claim calls for “displaying a message” that enables a user to override the blocking. Therefore, the claim never actually overrides the blocking. A message is simply displayed, as occurs in Sainio (e.g., figure 5A, 5B).
Moreover, as Applicant notes, the specification states that “display a query such that a user may override the block, e.g., provide authorization.” Thus, providing authorization is within the definition of overriding the block. Therefore, even if overriding was actually required by the claim (which it is not, as discussed above).
Furthermore, it is noted that the claim actually does not preclude multiple devices displaying a message. Indeed, the claim calls for “displaying a message on at least the user device of the particular user to enable the particular user to override the blocking of the content associated with the URL”. Thus, displaying a message on the user’s device as well as another device is within the scope of the claims. Moreover, since the claim opens the door to this message being on multiple devices, this is certainly within Sainio.
With respect to Applicant’s allegations in the large paragraph on page 10 of the response, Applicant entirely ignored the fact that O’Connor discloses a large portion of subject matter from this limitation. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, Sainio certainly discloses this displaying of a message in Sainio’s disclosure of a message allowing the user to authorize unblocking, such as in figure 5A. Moreover, as noted above, the claim allows for multiple devices to receive messages (“displaying a message on at least the user device…”). Therefore, displaying messages on multiple devices, as Applicant notes is within an embodiment of Sainio, is certainly within the scope of the claims. Furthermore, paragraph 30 of Sainio discloses that the accessing and monitoring clients may be within 1 device (e.g., “In one embodiment, the monitoring client 107a and the accessing clients 107b-107n may be a common proxy client that provides both monitoring and accessing capabilities”). Thus, all messages associated with authorization/overriding could be displayed on the 1 device that includes the monitoring client and accessing clients. Further still, as Applicant notes above, overriding the blocking is equated to authorization in the specification. Thus, even if another step were to be required of another user also authorizing the unblocking, the user attempting access also is enabled to override by displaying the message of figure 5A, for example.
Applicant’s allegations on pages 10-12 do not appear to add any argument to the above. No further response is necessary.
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 1-6, 8-14, and 16-21 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 a 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 the user device of the particular user to enable the particular user to override the blocking of the content associated with the URL.
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 override the blocking of the content associated with the URL (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 override the blocking of the content associated with the URL (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 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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