DETAILED ACTION
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
Following response to arguments is based on Applicant’s arguments filed on 17 March 2026.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 112(d)
Previous rejection of claim 7 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to the rejected claims.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 112(b)
Previous rejection of claims 7 and 14 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to the rejected claims.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments [Pages 8-9] with respect to rejection of claims 1, 8, 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s).
Regarding claim 1, on pages 8-9, Applicant argues that prior art of record fails to teach “such that the identifier of the second device and the identifier of the second location obfuscate data in the first data pattern associated with at least one of the first device or the first location… such that the at least one of the identifier of the third device or the identifier of the third location obfuscate data in the request associated with at least one of the first device or the first location”.
Newly found reference Hook discloses a system (Fig. 1), where IDs for the locations and devices 130, 140 are related to the obfuscation of patterns in the communication of data related to the devices and their corresponding devices. That is, when several devices are exchanging location data, said data is obfuscated for security purposes. Hence, a person having ordinary skills in the art would recognize that the teachings of Deen and Pathak comprise the obfuscation of data patterns when being communicated between devices [Hook – Paragraphs 12-14, 16, 25, 27, 30, 36-39].
Regarding claims 8 and 15, these claims have been amended to incorporate similar limitations to those set forth in independent claim 1, and are rejected based on similar reasoning.
Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejections.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 7-8, 14-15 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 of this title, 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 1-5, 8-12, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deen et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0250888) in view of Pathak (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0289047) and further in view of Hook et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0169891).
Regarding claim 1, Deen teaches a computer-implemented method (Fig. 1), comprising:
identifying a first data pattern for a first device at a first location (a monitoring device of network 105 identifies first data pattern and first location, via address element 110A, for first device 102A [Paragraphs 36-37]) and a second data pattern for a second device at a second location (the monitoring device of network 105 also identifies second data pattern and second location, via address element 110B, for second device 102B [Paragraphs 36-37]);
modifying the first data pattern to indicate an identifier of the second device and an identifier of the second location (second device 102B exchanges communication with first device 102A, including the provision of its data patterns and location’s id 110B, so that first device 102A injects its own data and 102B’s data, thus modifying first data pattern [Paragraph 39]), [
[
outputting a data stream comprising the modified first data pattern (the streams provided to monitoring device in network 105 by first device 102A comprises the modified first data pattern [Paragraphs 36-37, 39]) [.
However, Deen does not explicitly mention:
a) modifying a request from the first device for content from a content source to indicate at least one of an identifier of a third device or an identifier of a third location… and the modified request for the content;
b) such that the identifier of the second device and the identifier of the second location obfuscate data in the first data pattern associated with at least one of the first device or the first location… such that the at least one of the identifier of the third device or the identifier of the third location obfuscate data in the request associated with at least one of the first device or the first location.
Pathak teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of data communication systems, the following:
a) modifying a request from the first device for content from a content source to indicate at least one of an identifier of a third device or an identifier of a third location (Figs. 2, 8C, discloses a system where first device 130 modifies a request for content from client service 106 comprising third device id or location [Paragraphs 2-4, 43, 54])… and the modified request for the content (thus the data stream provided to network 224 also comprises the modified request for the content [Paragraphs 87, 96, 105]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data communication system (as taught by Deen) by modifying content request (as taught by Pathak) for the purpose of properly forwarding connection requests (Pathak – Paragraph 4).
But, the combination of Deen and Pathak does not explicitly mention:
b) such that the identifier of the second device and the identifier of the second location obfuscate data in the first data pattern associated with at least one of the first device or the first location… such that the at least one of the identifier of the third device or the identifier of the third location obfuscate data in the request associated with at least one of the first device or the first location.
Hook teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of data communication systems, the following:
b) such that the identifier of the second device and the identifier of the second location obfuscate data in the first data pattern associated with at least one of the first device or the first location… such that the at least one of the identifier of the third device or the identifier of the third location obfuscate data in the request associated with at least one of the first device or the first location (for the disclosed system (Fig. 1), IDs for the locations and devices 130, 140 are related to the obfuscation of patterns in the communication of data related to the devices and their corresponding devices. That is, when several devices are exchanging location data, said data is obfuscated for security purposes. Hence, a person having ordinary skills in the art would recognize that the teachings of Deen and Pathak comprise the obfuscation of data patterns when being communicated between devices [Hook – Paragraphs 12-14, 16, 25, 27, 30, 36-39]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data communication system (as taught by Deen) by modifying content request (as taught by Pathak) by obfuscating the data (as taught by Hook) for the purpose of avoiding the leaking of key information being exchanged (Hook – Paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 2, Pathak further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first data pattern and the second data pattern each comprise at least one of additional requests for the content from the content source or requests for additional content from additional content sources (each of devices 130 and 132 request additional content from source 106 [Paragraph 28, 36]).
Regarding claim 3, Deen further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the outputting the data stream further comprises sending, to the content source, the modified request for the content (the stream outputted from devices 102A,B comprising the modified request is thus being inputted into network 105 [Paragraphs 32, 42]).
Regarding claim 4, Deen further teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising sending, based on the content received from the content source and an identifier of the first device mapped to the modified request for the content, the content to the first device (internet services sent from network 105 to device 102A is based on the data received from the same device 102B comprising the ID of the device and the modified content data [Paragraphs 27, 31]).
Regarding claim 5, Deen further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: modifying the second data pattern to indicate an identifier of the first device, an identifier of the first location, an identifier of another device, or an identifier of another location, wherein the data stream further comprises the modified second data pattern (first device 102A exchanges communication with second device 102B, including the provision of its data patterns and location’s id 110A, so that second 102B injects its own data and 102A’s data, thus modifying second data pattern [Paragraph 39]).
Regarding claims 8-12, these claims are also rejected as applied to claims 1-5.
Regarding claims 15-19, these claims are also rejected as applied to claims 1-5.
Claims 6-7, 13-14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deen et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0250888) in view of Pathak (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0289047) and further in view of Hook et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0169891) and Specter et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0262103).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Deen, Pathak and Hook teaches all the limitations recited in claim 1.
However, the combination of Deen, Pathak and Hook does not explicitly mention: further comprising generating, based on at least one of the first data pattern or the second data pattern, a plurality of simulated requests for a plurality of content items associated with a plurality of content sources, wherein the data stream further comprises the plurality of simulated requests.
Specter teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of data transmission systems, the following:
further comprising generating, based on at least one of the first data pattern or the second data pattern, a plurality of simulated requests for a plurality of content items associated with a plurality of content sources, wherein the data stream further comprises the plurality of simulated requests (for the disclosed system, based on the pattern data for every electronic device, simulated requests are generated for the content, thus the data streams comprise these simulated requests [Paragraphs 100, 103, 104, 106, 118, 129-131, 135]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data communication system (as taught by Deen) by modifying content request (as taught by Pathak) by obfuscating the data (as taught by Hook) by generating simulated requests (as taught by Specter) for the purpose of identifying proper learning models for the generation of streams (Specter – Paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Deen, Pathak and Hook teaches all the limitations recited in claim 1.
However, the combination of Deen, Pathak and Hook does not explicitly mention: wherein demographic information for at least one of the first data pattern or the second data pattern matches demographic information for at least a portion of the plurality of simulated requests.
Specter teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of data transmission systems, the following:
wherein demographic information for at least one of the first data pattern or the second data pattern matches demographic information for at least a portion of the plurality of simulated requests (for the disclosed system, demographic info from the electronic devices is being compared to demographic info related to the simulated requests generated in connection to the contents [Paragraphs 100, 103, 104, 106, 118, 129-131, 135]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data communication system (as taught by Deen) by modifying content request (as taught by Pathak) by obfuscating the data (as taught by Hook) by generating simulated requests (as taught by Specter) for the purpose of identifying proper learning models for the generation of streams (Specter – Paragraph 5).
Regarding claims 13-14, these claims are also rejected as applied to claims 6-7.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is also rejected as applied to claim 6.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5708. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
March 28, 2026
/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights