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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to amendment filed April 1, 2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant amended the claims. Claims 1-15 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/1/26, have been fully considered and are found to be partially persuasive.
Previous Double Patenting rejection is withdrawn in view of the Terminal Disclaimer filed on 4/20/26.
Previous 101 rejection is withdrawn.
On pages 8-9 of remarks, Applicant argues that Dudmesh does not teach the method “performed at an electronic device… configured to communicate with a server… and rendering the webpage… and invoking the control tag”.
In reply, Applicant is reminded that the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In this case, the claims do not provide sufficient details and functionality to make them clearly and functionally different from the teachings of Dudmesh and Galarneau. Specifically, Dudmesh teaches that a user computer device (ie. the claimed electronic device) is performing the claim steps via a user interface that interacts with the website and the server. The user device enables the user to control the tag information that is embedded in the website that it requests from the server. The claim needs more functionality and contextual details to make t clearly distinguishable from the prior art.
On pages 9-11 of remarks, Applicant argues that Dudmesh does not teach the method “performed at an electronic device… configured to communicate with a server… and rendering the webpage… and invoking the control tag”.
In reply, There is ambiguity in the claim language related to the apparent different or same tracking tags of the web page. Accordingly, it seems that the Dudmesh reference satisfies the broad and ambiguous claim language since Dudmesh invokes and interacts with a content prompt tag that enables the user to choose the set of tracking tags which are to be subsequently obtained from the server.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1 for example: Lines 3-4 recite “tracking tags of the web page”, line 9 recites “… the tracking tags”, and lines 14-15 recite “… a first set of tracking tags of the web page…”.
However, these limitations appear inconsistent and are unclear if they are all the same tags or different tags. It is unclear if these are previous tags or if they are more tags which are in addition to the previous tags.
Dependent claims 2-13 inherit the deficiencies of parent claim 1 and are thus rejected based upon the same rationale.
Claims 14-15 are slight variations of claims 1-13 and are rejected based upon the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudmesh et al (US Publication 20210243262) in view of Galarneau et al (US Publication 20150302052).
In reference to claim 1, Dudamesh teaches a method, performed at an electronic device, for controlling tracking elements of a web page, wherein the electronic device is configured to communicate to a server device configured to detect, identify and store tracking tags of the web page and to a web server associated with the web page, the method comprising:
obtaining a web page address of the web page to connect to the web server; transmitting a web page request to the web server based on the web page address (see at least Figure 2 #s 20,24 & ¶ 29 lines 1-2 & 60 line 5, which teaches a user accessing a website, where accessing a website includes transmitting a request to a web server based on a website URL);
receiving, from the web server, a web page response, wherein the web page response comprises the tracking elements, configured to monitor one or more activities of a user of the web page, wherein the tracking elements comprise the tracking tags (see at least ¶ 55 & ¶ 59 lines 1-10 and ¶ 64 lines 1-5, which teaches tracking tags deployed on a website which are sent in a website, responsive to a user accessing the website, and for collecting user activity data);
wherein the web page response comprises a control tag configured to control permission of the tracking elements of the web page to protect against tracking (see at least ¶ 61 lines 9-20 & ¶ 96, which teaches a consent prompt tag which controls permissions of the other tags, and ¶ 63 lines 13-16, which teaches that the permissions include a user denying consent of certain tracking tags thus protecting against tracking);
rendering the web page based on the web page response; wherein rendering the web page comprises invoking the control tag (see at least ¶ 61 lines 15-23, which teaches displaying the website to the user including invoking a consent prompt tag which displays a menu for getting the users consent); and
wherein invoking the control tag comprises obtaining a first set of tracking tags of the web page from the server device (see at least ¶ 60 lines 5-13 and ¶s 62,63, which teaches invoking the consent tag for obtaining all of the permitted tracking tags).
Although Dudamesh teaches sending webpage responses with the trackings and control tags and embedded in the webpage, Dudmesh fails to explicitly teach wherein the same web page response comprises both the tracking elements and the control permissions. However, Galarneau teaches controlling audience data and tracking (see Galarneau, at least Abstract). Galarneau discloses sending to a user, a master tag for controlling which user identified (ie. permitted) tags are to be injected/rendered on the page (see Galarneau, at least ¶ 12). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dudmesh based on the teachings of Galarneau for the purpose of managing user data collection in a single client-server transaction and ensuring that user permission is obtained prior to any user data collection is performed.
In reference to claim 2, this is taught by Dudmesh, see at least ¶ 59 lines 4-10 and ¶ 60 lines 5-8, where Dudmesh teaches identifying and loading different types of tags as sets of user consented tags.
In reference to claim 3, this is taught by Dudmesh, see at least ¶ 63 lines 8-18, where Dudmesh teaches deactivating tracking tags by denying consent.
In reference to claim 4, this is taught by Dudmesh, see at least ¶ 61 lines 18-23, where Dudmesh teaches obtaining control/consent parameters from users.
In reference to claim 5, this is taught by Dudmesh, see at least ¶ 59 lines 4-10 and ¶ 143 lines 1-12, where Dudmesh teaches multiple tracking categories to be accepted by the user.
In reference to claim 6, this is taught by Dudmesh, see at least ¶ 60 lines 5-13, where Dudmesh teaches activating all of the tracking tags as a third set.
In reference to claim 7, this is taught by Dudmesh, see at least ¶ 69 lines 1-10, where Dudmesh teaches requesting and deploying a set of tags to the web page.
In reference to claim 8, this is taught by Dudmesh, see at least ¶ 60 lines 5-13, where Dudmesh teaches obtaining consent for the sets of tracking tags.
In reference to claim 9, this is taught by Dudmesh, see at least ¶s 59 & 143, where Dudmesh teaches activating all of the tracking tags as a third set, where all the tags includes different tags such as a first and second tag which collect different information.
In reference to claim 10, this is taught by Dudmesh, see at least ¶ 62 and ¶ 83 lines 10-22, where Dudmesh teaches deactivating by denying consent, and modifying tracking tag attributes.
In reference to claim 11, this is taught by Dudmesh, see at least ¶ 83 lines 10-22 and ¶ 89 lines 1-10, where Dudmesh teaches overwriting tag data structures with modified tag information, thus excluding the original source.
In reference to claim 12, this is taught by Dudmesh, see at least ¶ 63 lines 1-20, where Dudmesh teaches modifying the tags to an original database.
In reference to claim 13, this is taught by Dudmesh, see at least ¶ 59 lines 6-16 and Figure 10, where Dudmesh teaches different tracking tag attributes.
Claims 14,15 correspond to claim 1 and are claimed as a different statutory category. Therefore claims 14,15 are rejected based upon the same rationale as given above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users.
To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov.
Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format.
For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
May 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights