DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 26 March 2026 for application 18/051,535 filed 01 November 2022.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10-11, 19-20 is/are currently amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
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, 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 26 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection(s) of claim(s) 19-20 have been fully considered and, in light of the amendments to the claims, are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection(s) of claim(s) 19-20 has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered and, in light of the amendments to the claims, are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the claims recite an improvement in the data processing. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As acknowledge by applicant the process can be performed by a human. However, applicant argues, the use of the computer allows for faster and more accurate data processing. As noted in the MPEP, additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must "play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly"). MPEP 2106.05(b)(II). The MPEP further states that "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). MPEP 2106.05(f). It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement and an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. MPEP 2106.05(a). Here, simply adding additional elements to perform the data processing faster or more accurately does not create an improvement. Moreover, as noted below, the data processing steps are abstract and any potential improvement in the data processing is, at best an improvement in an abstract idea.
Applicant next argues that the limitations cannot be performed in the human mind. Specifically, applicant argues that the embedding and dimension reduction cannot be performed in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While most of applicant’s arguments are directed at assertions that are not included in the claims, applicant does acknowledge that operations are mathematical. Here, as detailed below, Examiner interpreted the steps as mental processes due to the broadness of the claims as a human can convert data to various simpler formats as well as reduce their dimensionality.
Applicant next argues that the recited elements are not well-understood routine and conventional. First, Examiner notes that Examiner did not interpret any elements as well-understood routing and conventional in claim 1. Further, applicant makes assertions about information not included in the claim.
Applicant next argues that the claims do not preempt the general idea of categorizing cookies. However, as stated in the MPEP, while preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The remainder of applicant’s arguments are moot as they do not address the rejection below or address data not included in the claims.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claim 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the references do not teach receiving cookies from multiple sources and storing the cookies in tables which are then processed into new source specific table. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hu teaches acquiring cookies from multiple sources and storing the cookies in source specific lists (Hu, section 1). Hu further teaches using a classifier to categorize and predict source specific cookies (Hu, section 3).
Applicant next argues that the cited references do not teach converting the complex features into discrete features and embedding them to create a model. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hu teaches converting cookies into tokens and clustering tokens to create a classifier (Hu, section 3).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, bother references are related to website cookie categorization and it would be obvious to combine them in order to make efficient and accurate use of categorical data (Modarresi, Abstract).
The remainder of applicant’s arguments are moot as they do not address data not included in the claims and/or simply assert a lack of teaching.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-20 is maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea, and because the claim elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., 573 US 208 (2014).
Regarding claim 1, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for categorization of cookies.
The limitation of gathering … information about a plurality of cookies from a first source and a second source wherein the plurality of cookies comprises a plurality of features wherein the plurality of features comprise a combination of complex features and discrete features, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of populating … the plurality of cookies into a first table and a second table corresponding to the first source and the second source respectively wherein the first source comprises of a plurality of lists and the second source comprises of a plurality of websites, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of convert … the complex features of the plurality of cookies into corresponding discrete features, wherein the discrete features are set by using at least one of external datasets and embedding the complex features, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of embed … the plurality of cookies, upon converting the complex features into corresponding discrete features, wherein a classifier is built as an output of an embedding of the plurality of cookies, wherein the classifier is defined as a feature, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of create … a model by using ensembling learning with inputs comprising a reduced-dimensionality output resultant from the embedding and actual values of the discrete features, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of predicting … the categorization of the plurality of cookies... into a plurality of classes based on a threshold wherein the plurality of cookies is populated into a third table and a fourth table corresponding to the first source and second source respectively, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – computer-implemented, processing subsystem. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – one or more machine learning techniques, classifier, model, ensembling learning. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites subjecting the first table and the second table to one or more machine learning techniques to recognize and determine the plurality of features ...; ... through the machine learning technique ... which is simply applying the model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
computer-implemented, processing subsystem amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying the model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
one or more machine learning techniques, classifier, model, ensembling learning amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for categorization of cookies.
The limitation of wherein the plurality of classes from the third table and the fourth table, upon prediction, are merged together with precedence to manually categorized cookies, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites subsequently storing the third table and the fourth table, upon merging, into a fifth table …, which is simply storing data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
storing data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for categorization of cookies. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 3 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the information about the plurality of cookies is automatically retrieved from the second source by crawling the plurality of websites with a special plugin and subsequently storing the information in the second table.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the information about the plurality of cookies is automatically retrieved from the second source by crawling the plurality of websites with a special plugin and subsequently storing the information in the second table, which is simply retrieving and storing data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
retrieving and storing data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for categorization of cookies. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 4 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein a part of the first table and the second table comprises manually categorized cookies.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for categorization of cookies.
The limitation of ... learns the relationship between the plurality of features of the plurality of cookies and corresponding categories, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for categorization of cookies. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 2 is applicable here since claim 6 carries out the method of claim 2 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the fifth table comprises the categorization of the plurality of cookies and metadata used for subsequent training of the one or more machine learning technique.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for categorization of cookies. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 7 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the plurality of cookies is categorized online and offline.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data categorization and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data categorization do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for categorization of cookies. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 8 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the plurality of cookies are website cookies.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for categorization of cookies. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 9 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the one or more machine learning techniques are Ensemble Deep Learning modelling approach and End-to-End Deep Learning modelling approach.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the one or more machine learning techniques are Ensemble Deep Learning modelling approach and End-to-End Deep Learning modelling approach which is simply additional information regarding the machine learning techniques, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – Ensemble Deep Learning, End-to-End Deep Learning. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
Ensemble Deep Learning, End-to-End Deep Learning amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the machine learning techniques do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium ... to perform a method for categorization of cookies.
The limitation of gathering … information about a plurality of cookies from a first source and a second source wherein the plurality of cookies comprises a plurality of features wherein the plurality of features comprise a combination of complex features and discrete features, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of populating … the plurality of cookies into a first table and a second table corresponding to the first source and the second source respectively wherein the first source comprises of a plurality of lists and the second source comprises of a plurality of websites, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of convert … the complex features of the plurality of cookies into corresponding discrete features, wherein the discrete features are set by using at least one of external datasets and embedding the complex features, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of embed … the plurality of cookies, upon converting the complex features into corresponding discrete features, wherein a classifier is built as an output of an embedding of the plurality of cookies, wherein the classifier is defined as a feature, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of create … a model by using ensembling learning with inputs comprising a reduced-dimensionality output resultant from the embedding and actual values of the discrete features, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of predicting … the categorization of the plurality of cookies ... into a plurality of classes based on a threshold wherein the plurality of cookies is populated into a third table and a fourth table corresponding to the first source and second source respectively, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – computer-readable medium, computer program, processor, processing subsystem. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – one or more machine learning techniques, classifier, model, ensembling learning. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites subjecting the first table and the second table to one or more machine learning techniques to recognize and determine the plurality of features ...; ... through the machine learning technique ... which is simply applying the model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
computer-readable medium, computer program, processor, processing subsystem amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying the model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
one or more machine learning techniques, classifier, model, ensembling learning amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium ... to perform a method for large scale categorization of cookies.
The limitation of wherein the plurality of classes from the third table and the fourth table, upon prediction, are merged together with precedence to manually categorized cookies, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites subsequently storing the third table and the fourth table, upon merging, into a fifth table …, which is simply storing data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
storing data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium ... to perform a method for categorization of cookies. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 10 is applicable here since claim 12 carries out the computer-readable medium of claim 10 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the information about the plurality of cookies is automatically retrieved from the second source by crawling the plurality of websites with a special plugin and subsequently storing the information in the second table.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the information about the plurality of cookies is automatically retrieved from the second source by crawling the plurality of websites with a special plugin and subsequently storing the information in the second table, which is simply retrieving and storing data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
retrieving and storing data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium ... to perform a method for categorization of cookies. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 10 is applicable here since claim 13 carries out the computer-readable medium of claim 10 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein a part of the first table and the second table comprises manually categorized cookies.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium ... to perform a method for categorization of cookies.
The limitation of ... learns the relationship between the plurality of features of the plurality of cookies and corresponding categories, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium ... to perform a method for categorization of cookies. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 11 is applicable here since claim 15 carries out the computer-readable medium of claim 11 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the fifth table comprises the categorization of the plurality of cookies and metadata used for subsequent training of the one or more machine learning technique.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium ... to perform a method for categorization of cookies. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 10 is applicable here since claim 16 carries out the computer-readable medium of claim 10 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the plurality of cookies is categorized online and offline.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data categorization and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data categorization do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium ... to perform a method for categorization of cookies. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 10 is applicable here since claim 17 carries out the computer-readable medium of claim 10 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the plurality of cookies are website cookies.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium ... to perform a method for categorization of cookies. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 10 is applicable here since claim 18 carries out the computer-readable medium of claim 10 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the one or more machine learning techniques are Ensemble Deep Learning modelling approach and End-to-End Deep Learning modelling approach.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the machine learning techniques are Ensemble Deep Learning modelling approach and End-to-End Deep Learning modelling approach which is simply additional information regarding the machine learning techniques, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – Ensemble Deep Learning, End-to-End Deep Learning. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
Ensemble Deep Learning, End-to-End Deep Learning amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the machine learning techniques do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for categorization of cookies.
The limitation of gather information about a plurality of cookies from a first source and a second source wherein the plurality of cookies comprises a plurality of features wherein the plurality of features comprise a combination of complex features and discrete features, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of populate the plurality of cookies into a first table and a second table corresponding to the first source and the second source respectively wherein the first source comprises of a plurality of lists and the second source comprises of a plurality of websites, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of recognize and determine the plurality of features ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of converting the complex features of the plurality of cookies into corresponding discrete features, wherein the discrete features are set by using at least one of external datasets and embedding the complex features, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of embedding the plurality of cookies, upon converting the complex features into corresponding discrete features, wherein a classifier is built as an output of an embedding of the plurality of cookies, wherein the classifier is defined as a feature, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of creating a model by using ensembling learning with inputs comprising a reduced-dimensionality output resultant from the embedding and actual values of the discrete features, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of predicting the categorization of the plurality of cookies ... into a plurality of classes based on a threshold wherein the plurality of cookies is populated into a third table and a fourth table corresponding to the first source and second source respectively, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – system, processing subsystem, server, network. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – one or more machine learning techniques, classifier, model, ensembling learning. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites ... with one or more machine learning techniques ...; ... through the machine learning technique ... which is simply applying the model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites processing subsystem ... configured to execute on a network to control bidirectional communications among a plurality of modules, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
system, processing subsystem, server, network amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying the model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
one or more machine learning techniques, classifier, model, ensembling learning amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for large scale categorization of cookies.
The limitation of ... merge the plurality of classes from the third table and the fourth table, upon prediction, with precedence to manually categorized cookies, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites subsequently storing the third table and the fourth table, upon merging, into a fifth table, which is simply storing data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
storing data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-8, 10, 13-14, 16-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (CCCC: Corralling Cookies into Categories with CookieMonster, hereinafter referred to as “Hu”) in view of Modarresi et al. (US 2019/0286747 A1 – Categorical Data Transformation and Clustering for Machine Learning Using Data Repository Systems, hereinafter referred to as “Modarresi”).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Hu teaches a computer-implemented (Hu, section 3 – teaches collecting browser cookies from websites [This necessarily requires the use of a computer]) method for categorization of cookies (Hu, section 3.2 – teaches method of cookie categorization) comprising:
gathering, by a processing subsystem, information about a plurality of cookies from a first source and a second source (Hu, section 1 – teaches gathering cookies from Cookiepedia [first source] and cookies from Alexa websites [second source]) wherein the plurality of cookies comprises a plurality of features wherein the plurality of features comprise a combination of complex features and discrete features (Hu, section 3.2.1 – teaches extracted features from the cookie names using tokenization);
populating, by the processing subsystem, the plurality of cookies into a first table and a second table corresponding to the first source and the second source respectively wherein the first source comprises of a plurality of lists and the second source comprises of a plurality of websites (Hu, section 1 – teaches Cookiepedia [first source] is a populated list [table] of cookies and collecting a list of cookies from Alexa websites [second source] [It would be obvious that collection would also be a populated list (i.e., table)]);
subjecting the first table and the second table to one or more machine learning techniques to recognize and determine the plurality of features wherein the one or more machine learning techniques (Hu, sections 3.2-3.3 – teaches subjecting both datasets to machine learning techniques (e.g., feature extraction and classification) in order to determine features of the cookies) is operable to:
convert, by the processing subsystem, the complex features of the plurality of cookies into corresponding discrete features (Hu, section 3.2 – teaches tokenizing the complex features [names] into discreate features [tokens]), wherein the discrete features are set by using at least one of external datasets and embedding the complex features (Hu, section 3.2 – teaches tokenizing based on at least the enchant dictionary [external dataset]);
embed, by the processing subsystem, the plurality of cookies, upon converting the complex features into corresponding discrete features, wherein a classifier is built as an output of embedding of the plurality of cookies, wherein the classifier is defined as a feature (Hu, section 3.2.2 – teaches clustering the tokens into four categories);
create, by the processing subsystem, a model by using ensembling learning with inputs comprising a reduced-dimensionality output resultant from the embedding and actual values of the discrete features (Hu, section 3.3 – teaches using the tokens to create the CookieMonster cookie classifier using a plurality of models [ensembling]); and
predicting, by the processing subsystem, the categorization of the plurality of cookies, through the one or more machine learning techniques, into a plurality of classes based on a threshold wherein the plurality of cookies is populated into a third table and a fourth table corresponding to the first source and second source respectively (Hu, section 3.3.5 – teaches using the CookieMonster model to predict unknown cookies in both the Alexa dataset [first source] and the Cookiepedia dataset [second source] using multinomial naïve bayes [based on a threshold]; [It would be obvious that the first and second tables could be considered third and fourth tables to include the new classified data]).
While Hu teaches converting cookie names [complex features] into token [discrete features], Hu does not explicitly teach that any given cookie name is originally a token.
Modarresi teaches
… wherein the plurality of cookies comprises a plurality of features wherein the plurality of features comprise a combination of complex features and discrete features (Modarresi, [0015] – teaches machine learning data can be both categorical [complex] and numerical [discrete]; [In light of the Hu reference, the data is interpreted to be cookies]);
subjecting … to one or more machine learning techniques to recognize and determine the plurality of features wherein the one or more machine learning techniques (Modarresi, [0016]-[0021] – teaches machine learning techniques to determine features) is operable to:
convert, by the processing subsystem, the complex features of the plurality of cookies into corresponding discrete features (Modarresi, [0016] – teaches converting categorical [complex] data into numerical [discrete] data) …;
embed, by the processing subsystem, the plurality of cookies … wherein a classifier is built as an output of embedding of the plurality of cookies, wherein the classifier is defined as a feature (Modarresi, [0017]-[0021] – teaches embedding the categorical data into classifications [creating a classifier]);
create, by the processing subsystem, a model … with inputs comprising a reduced-dimensionality output resultant from the embedding and actual values of the discrete features (Modarresi, [0022] – teaches inputting numerical data [original numerical data (discrete) and converted categorical data (reduced-dimensionality data)] into a machine learning model for training); and
predicting, by the processing subsystem, the categorization of the plurality of cookies, through the one or more machine learning techniques, into a plurality of classes based on a threshold (Modarresi, [0022] – teaches using the machine learning model for predictions, some model types being based on a threshold) ...
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hu with the teachings of Modarresi in order to make efficient and accurate use of categorical data in the field of website cookie categorization (Modarresi, Abstract – “Categorical data transformation and clustering techniques and systems are described for machine learning. These techniques and systems are configured to improve operation of a computing device to support efficient and accurate use of categorical data, which is not possible using conventional techniques. In an example, categorical data is received by a computing device that includes a categorical variable having a non-numerical data type for a number of classes. The categorical data is then converted into numerical data based on clustering used to generate a plurality of latent classes.”).
Regarding claim 4 (Original), Hu in view of Modarresi teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Hu further teaches wherein a part of the first table and the second table comprises manually categorized cookies (Hu, section 3.2.2 – teaches manually classifying cookies; see also Hu, section 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hu and Modarresi for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5 (Previously Presented), Hu in view of Modarresi teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Hu further teaches wherein the one or more machine learning techniques learns the relationship between the plurality of features of the plurality of cookies and corresponding categories (Hu, section 3.3 – teaches training a model [learning relationships] to learn categories from tokens [features]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hu and Modarresi for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7 (Original), Hu in view of Modarresi teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. However, Hu in view of Modarresi does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of cookies is categorized online and offline. Hu further teaches wherein the plurality of cookies is categorized online and offline (Hu, section 4 – teaches offline and online cookie categorization).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hu and Modarresi for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8 (Previously Presented), Hu in view of Modarresi teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Hu further teaches wherein the plurality of cookies are website cookies (Hu, section 1 – teaches the cookies are website cookies).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hu and Modarresi for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10 (Currently Amended), it is the computer-readable medium embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. Hu further teaches non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program that, when executed by a processor (Hu, section 3 – teaches collecting browser cookies from websites [This necessarily requires the use of a computer]), causes the processor to perform a method for categorization of cookies (Hu, section 3.2 – teaches method of cookie categorization) …
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hu and Modarresi for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 13 (Original), the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Hu in view of Modarresi for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 14 (Previously Presented), the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Hu in view of Modarresi for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 16 (Original), the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Hu in view of Modarresi for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 17 (Previously Presented), the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Hu in view of Modarresi for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 19 (Currently Amended), it is the system of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. Hu further teaches a system for categorization of cookies (Hu, section 3.2 – teaches method of cookie categorization) comprising:
a processing subsystem hosted on a server and configured to execute on a network to control bidirectional communications among a plurality of modules (Hu, section 3 – teaches collecting browser cookies from websites [This necessarily requires the use of a computer]) …
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hu and Modarresi for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 11, 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Modarresi and further in view of Shinde et al. (US 2020/0110904 A1 – Method and System for Providing Data Privacy Based on Customized Cookie Consent, hereinafter referred to as “Shinde”).
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), Hu in view of Modarresi teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. However, Hu in view of Modarresi does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of classes from the third table and the fourth table, upon prediction, are merged together with precedence to manually categorized cookies and subsequently storing the third table and the fourth table, upon merging, into a fifth table, by the processing subsystem.
Shinde teaches wherein the plurality of classes from the third table and the fourth table, upon prediction, are merged together with precedence to manually categorized cookies and subsequently storing the third table and the fourth table, upon merging, into a fifth table, by the processing subsystem (Shinde, [0039] – teaches storing classified entity cookies [fourth table] in the historical database of classified cookies [third table] creating a combined database of all cookies [fifth table]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hu in view of Modarresi with the teachings of Shinde in order to improve existing services for customers in the field of website cookie categorization (Shinde, [0003] – “Digital and internet world comprises of exhaustive types of data that also includes personal information. In today's competitive digital world, to enable innovative solutions and improvement in existing services for customers, the exhaustive personal data is collected, stored and coupled with emerging techniques of big data and analytics to performing analytics, market decisions, and research. The personal data can be collected from the digital internet by several ways, of which cookies are most popular.”).
Regarding claim 6 (Previously Presented), Hu in view of Modarresi and further in view of Shinde teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 2 as noted above. Shine further teaches wherein the fifth table comprises the categorization of the plurality of cookies and metadata used for subsequent training of the one or more machine learning techniques (Shinde, [0039] – teaches using the combined database [fifth table] for future actions regarding entities [including updating models]; see also Shinde, [0037] – teaches using the historic database [fifth table after combination] for machine learning techniques).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hu, Modarresi and Shinde in order to use the combined datasets to improve existing services (Shinde, [0003]).
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Hu in view of Modarresi and further in view of Shinde for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 15 (Previously Presented), the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Hu in view of Modarresi and further in view of Shinde for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 20 (Currently Amended), the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Hu in view of Modarresi and further in view of Shinde for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Claim(s) 3, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Modarresi and further in view of Kaizer et al. (Towards Automatic Identification of JavaScript-Oriented Machine-Based Tracking, hereinafter referred to as “Kaiser”).
Regarding claim 3 (Previously Presented), Hu in view of Modarresi teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. However, Hu in view of Modarresi does not explicitly teach wherein the information about the plurality of cookies is automatically retrieved from the second source by crawling the plurality of websites with a special plugin and subsequently storing the information in the second table.
Kaizer teaches wherein the information about the plurality of cookies is automatically retrieved from the second source by crawling the plurality of websites with a special plugin and subsequently storing the information in the second table (Kaizer, section 2 – teaches using a web crawler browser plug-in to acquire cookie data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hu in view of Modarresi with the teachings of Kaiser in order to improve website tracking in the field of website cookie categorization (Kaizer – “Machine-based tracking is a type of behavior that extracts information on a user's machine, which can then be used for fingerprinting, tracking, or profiling purposes. In this paper, we focus on JavaScript-oriented machine-based tracking as JavaScript is widely accessible in all browsers. We find that coarse features related to JavaScript access, cookie access, and URL length/subdomain information can perform well in a supervised machine learning classifier that can identify machine-based trackers with 97.7% accuracy. We then use the classifier on real-world datasets based on 30-minute website crawls of different types of websites - including websites that target children and websites that target a popular audience - and find 85%+ of all websites utilize machine-based tracking, even when they target a regulated group (children) as their primary audience.”).
Regarding claim 12 (Previously Presented), the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Hu in view of Modarresi and further in view of Kaizer for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Claim(s) 9, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Modarresi and further in view of Kim et al. (Connecting Devices to Cookies via Filtering, Feature Engineering, and Boosting, hereinafter referred to as “Kim”).
Regarding claim 9 (Previously Presented), Hu in view of Modarresi teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. However, Hu in view of Modarresi does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more machine learning techniques are Ensemble Deep Learning modelling approach and End-to-End Deep Learning modelling approach.
Kim teaches wherein the one or more machine learning techniques are Ensemble Deep Learning modelling approach and End-to-End Deep Learning modelling approach (Kim, section IV – teaches using an ensemble model to classify cookies).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hu in view of Modarresi with the teachings of Kim in order to match devices to improve targeted markets and recommendations in the field of website cookie categorization (Kim, section I – “Record linkage, also known as entity resolution, is the task of connecting the different representations of the same object. The task in ICDM 2015: Drawbridge Cross-Device Connections challenge is similar to the entity resolution problem. The objective of this contest is to link devices and cookies such that the F0.5 score is maximized. This allows the client organization to determine the probability that two digital devices are used by the same person. A machine learning system that can identify users across devices could be useful in targeted marketing and recommendation engines. This paper explores the development and testing of a machine learning system in R/Python to address the ICDM 2015: Drawbridge Cross-Device Connections competition. The ideas presented in this paper obtained a private F0.5 score of 0.849562 for a final rank of 12th/340. The Kaggle competition platform computes this final rank on private data where the ground truth is withheld from the competitors. We believe these results are robust given our local ten-fold cross validation showed a mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.982.”).
Regarding claim 18 (Previously Presented), the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Hu in view of Modarresi and further in view of Kim for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to MARSHALL WERNER whose telephone number is (469) 295-9143. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at (571) 272-7796. The fax 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.
/MARSHALL L WERNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights