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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the obvious-type double patenting rejections to be held in abeyance are noted by the Examiner.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 are being directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant comments:
“For example, independent claim 1 recites a method comprising "receiving, by a computing device from a user device, a request for content; and sending, to the user device, a manifest file comprising an obfuscated domain name for an advertisement associated with the content." In rejecting claim 1 under Section 101, the Office Action alleges that under Prong One of Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim falls within the "mental processes" subgrouping. Office Action, at 6. However, the "October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility" states that "[c]laims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations." See October 2019 Update, issued October 17, 2019, at page 7 (emphasis added). Moreover, the MPEP states that "Examiners should accordingly be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) and claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis)." MPEP § 2106.04 (II)(A)(1).
The Examiner notes the Applicant’s comments.
It is then argued:
“Here, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed technique in claim 1, when considered as a whole, is not directed to any abstract idea or process that can be performed in the human mind. The human mind cannot perform, for example, "receiving, by a computing device from a user device, a request for content," as recited in claim 1. Nor can a human mind perform, as recited in claim 1, "sending, to the user device, a manifest file comprising an obfuscated domain name for an advertisement associated with the content.
The Office alleges that "receiving a request for content covers a user/network administrator manually receiving a printout of data with respect to readable content, and the sending of data associated with the content reasonably covers the user/network administrator manually delivering the printout of the data with respect to the readable content to another party." Office Action, at 6. But that is incorrect. Claim 1 does not merely cover a user/network administrator manually receiving a printout of data; rather, it specifically recites "receiving, by a computing device from a user device," the request for content. Nor does claim 1 merely cover a "user/network administrator manually receiving a printout of data with respect to readable content with respect to readable content" as the Office alleges. Id. Claim 1 expressly recites, e.g., sending, "to the user device, a manifest file."
Moreover, claim 1 not only recites steps specifically involving a "computing device" and "user device," but the steps involve various electronic transmissions and electronic information (such as a "manifest file") that can neither be outputted nor processed by the human mind. By incorrectly alleging that claim 1 covers a network administrator's manual receiving and delivering data, the Office Action fails to adequately address how the claims supposedly recite the "mental process" exception and improperly ignores of all the aforementioned steps that demonstrate patent eligibility of claim 1. Office Action at 2. Indeed, claims that merely involve an exception, as opposed to reciting an exception, are patent eligible. MPEP § 2106.04 (II)(A)(1). In other words, just because a claim allegedly recites one feature that could theoretically be performed in the human mind, for example, does not mean that the claim as a whole is patent ineligible. As previously explained, the pending claims as a whole are not directed to a mental process, but are directed to improved techniques for enhancing technology-driven automatic content and advertisement retrieval by user devices, making them patent eligible under Prong One of Step 2A.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim is being argued as a whole by the Applicant, whereby the Examiner has taken the position:
“an abstract idea in the form of a mental process because the receiving a request for content and the sending of the content steps reasonably cover a performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, the receiving a request for content covers a user/ network administrator manually receiving a printout of data with respect to readable content, and the sending of data associated with the content reasonably covers the user/network administrator manually delivering the printout of the data with respect to the readable content to another party.”
The Examiner has fulfilled the Step 2A, Prong 1 test of showing if there is a Judicial Exception recited.
With respect to the argued elements and limitations: “"computing device" and "user device," but the steps involve various electronic transmissions and electronic information (such as a "manifest file")”; and
“improved techniques for enhancing technology-driven automatic content and advertisement retrieval by user devices”,
The argued portions are interpreted un Step 2A, Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a practical application, which is addressed below in the next argument section, and as is addressed in the rejection on the record. The Examiner finds the Applicant’s arguments to be non-persuasive.
It is then argued by the Applicant:
“Further, even if it could be shown that claim 1 is directed to one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified in the MPEP, claim 1 recites elements that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Prong 2 of Step 2A. The MPEP provides examples of claim elements that have been found to have integrated a claimed concept into a practical application:
- An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
- Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). Both of these apply to the elements of claim 1 because the elements of claim 1 are directed to improved techniques for enhancing technology-driven automatic content and advertisement retrieval by user devices. The MPEP describes evaluation of such an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field as follows:
In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., 'thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel'). See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) (emphasis added).
The Office Action alleges that the claims are not directed to a technological improvement under Prong 2 because the claims merely recite "conventional computing and networking components." Office Action at 6. Respectfully, the claims are not just limited to performing an abstract idea using conventional computing and networking components as alleged. The Office Action is ignoring the specific features of the claims that are directed to the specific technological improvement described in Applicant's specification.
As mentioned, Applicant's specification describes the claimed technique as an improvement to technology-driven automatic content and advertisement retrieval by user devices. See, e.g., Specification [0002]-[0003], [0014]-[0017]. Configuring a user device to ignore certain domain names may allow the user device to remove sections of content that is meant to be included, such as advertisements used to financially sustain the content. Removal of such content negatively affects content hosts and their financial partners. may limit user devices from blocking domain names. The invention allows user devices to avoid prior art domain-name blockers through the generation of encrypted or otherwise obfuscated domain names. Such an improvement also involves using, an electronic manifest file that includes the obfuscated domain names for electronically sending to a user device. One skilled in the art would recognize that the specification describes such methods for improving techniques for technology-driven automatic content and advertisement retrieval by user devices, including domain-name obfuscation for avoiding electronic domain-name blockers.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, the claims do not recite a technological improvement to how computers or networks operate with respect to the sending and receiving and the elements (receiving a request, sending a manifest) are generic network operations performed by conventional computing and networking components. “To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception”, MPEP 2106.05 (a).
It is additionally shown by the Examiner in support of MPEP 2106.05 A: “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05 (f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05 (d)).
Examples of Federal Circuit and Supreme Court decisions support the Examiner’s position related to the failure recite a technological improvement are as follows under MPEP 2106.05 (a):
Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential);
Recording, transmitting, and archiving digital images by use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any assertion that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining a camera and a cellular telephone, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747; and
Delivering broadcast content to a portable electronic device such as a cellular telephone, when claimed at a high level of generality, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Amazon.com, 838 F.3d 1266, 1270, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
With respect to application of MPEP 2106.05 (b) with the claims using a Particular Machine (i.e., computing device and a user device), the conditions set forth:
The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines). One example of applying a judicial exception with a particular machine is Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 40 USPQ 199 (1939). In this case, a mathematical formula was employed to use standing wave phenomena in an antenna system. The claim recited the particular type of antenna and included details as to the shape of the antenna and the conductors, particularly the length and angle at which they were arranged. 306 U.S. at 95-96; 40 USPQ at 203. Another example is Eibel Process, in which gravity (a law of nature or natural phenomenon) was applied by a Fourdrinier machine (which was understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web. Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923).
It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that Alappat’s rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions). If applicant amends a claim to add a generic computer or generic computer components and asserts that the claim recites significantly more because the generic computer is 'specially programmed' (as in Alappat, now considered superseded) or is a 'particular machine' (as in Bilski), the examiner should look at whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
The claim lacks technical detail as to how the domain name is obfuscated (no specific cryptographic or obfuscation algorithm, key management, protocol, or data structure) or how sending an obfuscated domain in the manifest produces a technical effect such as reduced latency, improved security validated by specific mechanisms, or improved interoperability with streaming clients.
Examples of a Federal Circuit decision support the Examiner’s position related to the failure recite a technological improvement are as follows under MPEP 2106.05 (a) and MPEP 2106.05 (d)
Affixing a barcode to a mail object in order to more reliably identify the sender and speed up mail processing, without any limitations specifying the technical details of the barcode or how it is generated or processed, Secured Mail Solutions, LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 910-11, 124 USPQ2d 1502, 1505-06 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 67, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1964 (2010) provides an example of additional elements that were not an inventive concept because they were merely well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry, which were not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application of the mathematical formula)). In Mayo, the claims at issue recited naturally occurring correlations (the relationships between the concentration in the blood of certain thiopurine metabolites and the likelihood that a drug dosage will be ineffective or induce harmful side effects) along with additional elements including telling a doctor to measure thiopurine metabolite levels in the blood using any known process. 566 U.S. at 77-79, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68. The Court found this additional step of measuring metabolite levels to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity already engaged in by the scientific community because scientists "routinely measured metabolites as part of their investigations into the relationships between metabolite levels and efficacy and toxicity of thiopurine compounds." 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. Even when considered in combination with the other additional elements, the step of measuring metabolite levels did not amount to an inventive concept, and thus the claims in Mayo were not eligible. 566 U.S. at 79-80, 101 USPQ2d at 1968-69, see MPEP 2106.05 (d).
The Examiner notes in response to Applicant's arguments relying upon features of the invention supported by the originally filed specification, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Examiner finds the Applicant’s arguments to be non-persuasive, and hereby maintains the grounds of the rejection.
It is argued by the Applicant:
“As a result, claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Prong Two for at least this reason. Further, the elements of claim 1 are not merely a drafting effort designed to monopolize the alleged abstract idea, but rather are particularly directed to improvements in technology-driven automatic content and advertisement retrieval by user devices, including domain-name obfuscation for avoiding electronic domain-name blockers. Accordingly, the elements of claim 1 do not fall within any of the enumerated groupings, and accordingly, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea under Prongs One and Two. Claim 1 is therefore patent eligible under Step 2A.”
As was addressed in the previous sections, the Examiner has shown the claims to be ineligible under Step 2A, Prong 1 and Step 2A, Prong 2. The current grounds of the rejection is hereby maintained by the Examiner.
With respect to the Applicant’s arguments pertaining to Step 2B:
“Further, even assuming arguendo that claim 1 is not directed to a technical or technological improvement, which the Applicant does not concede, claim 1 is patent eligible under Step 2B because it describes an inventive concept. In order to satisfy Step 2B, one first identifies whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05 (II). Then, one must evaluate those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception). See id.
For reasons similar to those described above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, the claimed technique is an improvement to technology that amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea under Step 2B because, as aforementioned, the claimed technique is directed to an improvement in technology-driven automatic content and advertisement retrieval by user devices, including domain-name obfuscation for avoiding electronic domain-name blockers. The claimed features amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, provide non-conventional computer implementation using non-generic computer components, and therefore provide an inventive concept. The claimed features are clearly non-conventional and non-generic, involving a specifically-programmed computing device for performing various steps of the inventive improvement. For at least the above reasons, the claimed invention defines an inventive concept (i.e., significantly more than the alleged abstract idea) and thus defines patent eligible subject matter under Step 2B.”
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s remarks. The claims do not recite a technological improvement to how computers or networks operate with respect to the sending and receiving and the elements (receiving a request, sending a manifest) are generic network operations performed by conventional computing and networking components. “To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception”, MPEP 2106.05 (a).
It is additionally shown by the Examiner in support of MPEP 2106.05 A: “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05 (f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05 (d)).
Examples of Federal Circuit and Supreme Court decisions support the Examiner’s position related to the failure recite a technological improvement are as follows under MPEP 2106.05 (a):
Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential);
Recording, transmitting, and archiving digital images by use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any assertion that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining a camera and a cellular telephone, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747; and
Delivering broadcast content to a portable electronic device such as a cellular telephone, when claimed at a high level of generality, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Amazon.com, 838 F.3d 1266, 1270, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The claims fail to set forth an inventive concept since conventional and generic components (i.e., computing device and user device) are applied to the instant claims. It is noted that the “improvement in technology-driven automatic content and advertisement retrieval by user devices, including domain-name obfuscation for avoiding electronic domain-name blockers” is not recited in the claims to establish an inventive concept. In response to applicant's argument to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The current grounds of the rejection is hereby maintained by the Examiner.
The Applicant’s remarks conclude with:
“Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for at least the above reasons. Independent claim 9 recites features similar to, albeit not identical to, independent claim 1. Accordingly, claim 9 is patentable eligible at least for the same reasons as claim 1, as well as for the additional features it recites. Claims 2-8 and 10-20 are dependent upon independent claims 1 or 9, and are patent eligible for at least the same reasons above as well as for the additional features they recite. Reconsideration of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of claims 1- 20 is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner has met the conditions under Step 1: Does the claim specify a statutory class of invention; Step 2 analysis, Step 2A, Prong 1: Is there a Judicial Exception recited; Step 2A, Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception integrated into a practical application; and Step 2B: Does the claims provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, the current grounds of the rejection is hereby maintained by the Examiner.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), the Applicant argues:
“Under Section 102, every limitation of a claim must identically appear in a single prior art reference for it to anticipate the claim. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Stated differently, a finding of anticipation requires that "[t]he invention must have been known to the art in the detail of the claim; that is, all of the elements and limitations of the claim must be shown in a single prior reference, arranged as in the claim." Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Here, features of the claims are missing from Bauman.
For example, independent claim 1 recites in part: "receiving, by a computing device from a user device, a request for content; and sending, to the user device, a manifest file comprising an obfuscated domain name for an advertisement associated with the content." (emphasis added). Bauman fails to disclose at least these highlighted features of claim 1.
The Office alleges that paragraph 33 of Bauman discloses the recited "manifest file." Office Action, at 9 ("[A]n adblocker running on the client device filters advertising calls based upon a domain name that match entries in an adblock filter list (i.e., manifest file) . . .." But the Office is misapplying Bauman to the relevant features of claim 1. Bauman describes the operation of an ad- blocker circumvention system from the time a user requests a webpage through the eventual delivery of advertisements despite the presence of an ad blocker. When a user requests a webpage from a content publisher, the content publisher returns the page containing both standard third- party advertisement calls and a circumvention loader. Bauman [0032]. During page parsing and DOM construction, an ad blocker intercepts advertisement requests directed to third-party ad servers. It blocks these requests using predefined filter lists, which the Office appears to equate to the "manifest file" recited in claim 1. Id. [0033]. The predefined filter lists in Bauman, however, are merely lists containing addresses of ad sites that are to be blocked. Bauman's filter lists do not contain an "obfuscated domain name" as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bauman discloses “advertising calls are based on a URL, domain name, host name or other addresses”, paragraph 0033, lines 7-9. The teachings further disclose “issues an obfuscated advertisement call…”, paragraph 0035, lines 25-27. The teachings have been shown where the obfuscated advertisement call is based upon a domain name that is included within the call information, hence meeting the argued limitation of an “obfuscated domain name”. The Examiner finds the Applicant’s arguments to be non-persuasive, and hereby maintains the current grounds of the rejection.
It is then argued:
“Rather, in order to bypass the ad blocker, Bauman describes the circumvention loader as detecting whether an ad blocker is active, identifying which advertisement calls were intercepted, and issuing obfuscated advertisement requests to a circumvention proxy. Id. [0035]. But the cited paragraphs of Bauman merely describe the circumvention loader as issuing an obfuscated advertisement call to the circumvention proxy using an address that is continually changed to ensure that the address is not within the ad blockers' filter lists. Id. Nowhere does Bauman describe the content publisher "sending, to the user device, a manifest file comprising an obfuscated domain name," as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).”
The Examiner disagrees, Bauman disclose of “a user device requesting content from a content publisher” prior to the content being embedded along with an advertising call, paragraph 0032, lines 1-4. An adblocker filter listing (i.e., manifest file) contains information on the advertising call, such as the domain name, paragraph 0033, lines 7-9. The circumvention loader identifies ad placements and then “issues an obfuscated advertisement call…”, paragraph 0035, lines 25-27. The teachings further disclose wherein the circumvention loader detects the presence of an ad blocker (defined by the ad block filter listing, or manifest file), paragraph 0029, lines 10-17. The teachings of Bauman have to shown to disclose "sending, to the user device, a manifest file comprising an obfuscated domain name," the Examiner hereby maintains the current ground of the rejection.
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s remarks: “Because at least these features are missing from Bauman, claim 1 is patentable over Bauman. In addition, independent claim 9 recites features similar to, albeit not identical to, independent claim 1. Accordingly, claim 9 is patentable over Bauman at least for the same reasons as claim 1, as well as for the additional features it recites. Also, claims 2-7, 10-15 and 17-20 depend from one of claims 1 or 9. As a result, they too are patentable for at least the same reasons as claims 1 and 9, as well as for the additional features they recite. Accordingly, the Section 102 rejection of claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-20.” The current grounds of the rejection are hereby maintained by the Examiner.
The Applicant’s following comments are noted by the Examiner. “Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bauman in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,289,816 (hereinafter "Malassenet"). Office Action, at 15. Claims 8 and 16 are dependent upon independent claims 1 or 9. Malassenet does not cure, and is not relied upon to cure, the omissions of Bauman with respect to claims 1 and 9. As such, claims 8 and 16 are allowable for at least the same reasons as claims 1 and 9 as well as for the additional features they recite. Reconsideration of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections is respectfully requested.”
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-19, 21-23, 25, 26, and 28-31 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,252. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the earlier filed patented claims in that the claims of the ‘252 patent contain all of the limitations of the instant application. Claims 1-20 of the instant application therefore are not patentably distinct from the earlier filed ‘252 patented claims, and as such, is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claim 1 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of the ‘252 patent;
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to claim 2 of the ‘252 patent;
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of the ‘252 patent;
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of the ‘252 patent;
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of the ‘252 patent;
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of the ‘252 patent;
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to claim 9 of the ‘252 patent;
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to claims 10 and 11 of the ‘252 patent;
Claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to claim 13 of the ‘252 patent;
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to claim 14 of the ‘252 patent;
Claim 11 of the instant application corresponds to claim 15 of the ‘252 patent;
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds to claim 16 of the ‘252 patent;
Claim 13 of the instant application corresponds to claim 17 of the ‘252 patent;
Claim 14 of the instant application corresponds to claims 18 and 19 of the ‘252 patent;
Claim 15 of the instant application corresponds to claim 21 of the ‘252 patent;
Claim 16 of the instant application corresponds to claims 22 and 23 of the ‘252 patent;
Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds to claim 25 of the ‘252 patent;
Claim 18 of the instant application corresponds to claim 26 of the ‘252 patent;
Claim 19 of the instant application corresponds to claims 28 and 29 of the ‘252 patent; and
Claim 20 of the instant application corresponds to claims 30 and 31 of the ‘252 patent.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 17, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 24, and 38 of U.S. Patent No. 11,704,421 (cited in the IDS filed on 8/8/24). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the earlier filed patented claims in that the claims of the ‘421 patent contain all of the limitations of the instant application. Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 17, and 18 of the instant application therefore are not patentably distinct from the earlier filed ‘421 patented claims, and as such, is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 1 and 2 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of the ‘421 patent;
Claims 9 and 10 of the instant application corresponds to claim 24 of the ‘421 patent; and
Claims 17 and 18 of the instant application corresponds to claim 38 of the ‘421 patent.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the claims specify a statutory class of invention?
Claims 1-8 describe a method/process, claims 9-16 describe a device/apparatus, and claims 17-20 describe of a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions to carry out an intended purpose.
Step 2 analysis for claims 1-8
Step 2A, Prong 1: Is there a Judicial Exception recited?
Independent claim 1 recites of an abstract idea in the form of a mental process because the receiving a request for content and the sending of the content steps reasonably cover a performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, the receiving a request for content covers a user/ network administrator manually receiving a printout of data with respect to readable content, and the sending of data associated with the content reasonably covers the user/network administrator manually delivering the printout of the data with respect to the readable content to another party.
Similarly, dependent claims 2 of encrypting the content involves scrambling the data in an unintelligible form, claim 3 involves replacing and sending which reasonably covers removing data and delivering the content to another party, claims 4 and 5 reasonably covers reasonably covers delivering the content to another party, claim 6 reasonably covers a user/ network administrator manually receiving a printout of data with respect to readable content, claim 7 reasonably covers a user/network administrator manually identifying relevant information, and claim 8 reasonably covers a user/network administrator assigning data that is unique.
Each of these limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation carry out the abstract idea of the mental process of a user/network administrator receiving and delivering printouts manually as set forth in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception integrated into a practical application?
The claim does not recite a technological improvement to how computers or networks operate with respect to the sending and receiving. The recited elements (receiving a request, sending a manifest) are generic network operations performed by conventional computing and networking components. The claim lacks technical detail as to how the domain name is obfuscated (no specific cryptographic or obfuscation algorithm, key management, protocol, or data structure) or how sending an obfuscated domain in the manifest produces a technical effect such as reduced latency, improved security validated by specific mechanisms, or improved interoperability with streaming clients (see MPEP 2106.05 (a), MPEP 2106.05 (b), MPEP 2106.05 (d), and MPEP 2106.05 (d)).
Similarly, dependent claims 2-8 fail to recite of a technological improvement to how computers or networks operate with respect to the sending and receiving contain no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, these elements of the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claims provide an inventive concept?
Under Step 2B, claims 1-8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements amount to generic network operations performed by conventional computing and networking components, they additionally do not recite of a technological improvement to how computers or networks operate with respect to the sending and receiving, and they lack technical details.
For the reasons provided above, claims 1-8 are not patentably eligible.
Step 2 analysis for claims 9-16
Claims 9-16 contain limitations for a device/apparatus, which are similar to the method/process specified in claims 1-8 above. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1; Step 2A, Prong 2; and Step 2B for claims 9-16 are similar to that presented above for claims 1-8.
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 9-16 recite and are directed to an abstract idea, and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Claims 9-16 are therefore not patentably eligible.
Step 2 analysis for claims 17-20
Claims 17-20 contain limitations for a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions to carry out an intended purpose, which are similar to the method/process specified in claims 1-8 above. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1; Step 2A, Prong 2; and Step 2B for claims 17-20 are similar to that presented above for claims 1-8.
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 17-20 recite and are directed to an abstract idea, and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Claims 17-20 are therefore not patentably eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bauman et al, US 2017/0345064.
As per claim 1, it is taught of a method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing device from a user device, a request for content (user device requests content from a content publisher (i.e., computing device), paragraph 0032, lines 1-2); and
sending, to the user device, a manifest file comprising an obfuscated domain name for an advertisement associated with the content (the content is embedded along with an advertising call for advertisements associated with the content, that also includes a domain name, that is then returned to the user device, paragraph 0032, lines 2-11; an adblocker running on the client device filters advertising calls based upon a domain name that match entries in an adblock filter list (i.e., manifest file), paragraph 0033, lines 7-9; and ad placements are identified and an obfuscated advertisement call is issued, wherein the advertisement call includes the domain name, paragraph 0033, lines 7-9 and paragraph 0035, lines 25-27).
As per claim 2, it is disclosed of further comprising generating the obfuscated domain name by encrypting a domain name for the advertisement (ad placements are identified and an obfuscated advertisement call is issued, wherein the advertisement call includes the domain name, paragraph 0033, lines 7-9 and paragraph 0035, lines 25-27 and the obfuscated advertisement call is encoded and encrypted, paragraph 0011, lines 1-5 and paragraph 0036, lines 15-18).
As per claim 3, it is taught of further comprising replacing, within the content, a plaintext domain name with the obfuscated domain name based at least in part on the request for content, and wherein the sending, to the user device, the obfuscated domain name comprises sending, to the user device, at least a portion of the content containing the obfuscated domain name (the content is embedded along with an advertising call for advertisements associated with the content, that also includes a domain name, that is then returned to the user device, paragraph 0032, lines 2-11 and ad placements are identified that exist in obfuscated form (i.e., plaintext form) and an obfuscated advertisement call is issued, wherein the advertisement call includes the domain name, paragraph 0033, lines 7-9 and paragraph 0035, lines 19-27).
As per claim 4, it is disclosed of further comprising sending, to a proxy domain name system server, the obfuscated domain name (a circumvention proxy (i.e., proxy domain name system server) received an obfuscated advertisement call, paragraph 0036, lines 1-2, wherein the advertisement call includes the domain name, paragraph 0033, lines 7-9 and paragraph 0035, lines 25-27).
As per claim 5, it is taught of further comprising appending a domain name associated with a proxy domain name system server to the obfuscated domain name (a circumvention proxy (i.e., proxy domain name system server) received an obfuscated advertisement call, paragraph 0036, lines 1-2, wherein the advertisement call includes the domain name, paragraph 0033, lines 7-9 and paragraph 0035, lines 25-27), wherein sending, to the user device, the obfuscated domain name comprises sending, to the user device, the domain name associated with the proxy domain name system server appended to the obfuscated domain name (the content is embedded along with an advertising call for advertisements associated with the content, that also includes a domain name, that is then returned to the user device, paragraph 0032, lines 2-11 and ad placements are identified and an obfuscated advertisement call is issued, wherein the advertisement call includes the domain name, paragraph 0033, lines 7-9 and paragraph 0035, lines 25-27).
As per claim 6, it is disclosed wherein the manifest file comprises a list of obfuscated domain names including the obfuscated domain name (an adblocker running on the client device filters advertising calls based upon a domain name that match entries in an adblock filter list (i.e., manifest file comprising a list of domain names), paragraph 0033, lines 7-9; and ad placements are identified and an obfuscated advertisement call is issued, wherein the advertisement call includes the domain name, paragraph 0033, lines 7-9 and paragraph 0035, lines 25-27, wherein it is interpreted that there exists multiple obfuscated advertisements associated with particular domain names).
As per claim 7, it is taught wherein the obfuscated domain name is based, at least in part, on identifying information associated with the user device (content associated with the advertisement includes location and other characteristics (i.e., identifying information) associated with the user device, paragraph 0026, lines 6-12 and ad placements are identified and an obfuscated advertisement call is issued, wherein the advertisement call includes the domain name, paragraph 0033, lines 7-9 and paragraph 0035, lines 25-27).
As per claim 9, it is taught of a device, comprising:
one or more processors (paragraph 0030, lines 17-20); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (paragraph 0030, lines 17-20), cause the device to:
receive, from a user device, a request for content (user device requests content from a content publisher, paragraph 0032, lines 1-2); and
send, to the user device, a manifest file comprising an obfuscated domain name for an advertisement associated with the content (the content is embedded along with an advertising call for advertisements associated with the content, that also includes a domain name, that is then returned to the user device, paragraph 0032, lines 2-11; an adblocker running on the client device filters advertising calls based upon a domain name that match entries in an adblock filter list (i.e., manifest file), paragraph 0033, lines 7-9; and ad placements are identified and an obfuscated advertisement call is issued, wherein the advertisement call includes the domain name, paragraph 0033, lines 7-9 and paragraph 0035, lines 25-27).
As per claim 10, it is disclosed wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the device to generate the obfuscated domain name by encrypting a domain name for the advertisement (ad placements are identified and an obfuscated advertisement call is issued, wherein the advertisement call includes the domain name, paragraph 0033, lines 7-9 and paragraph 0035, lines 25-27 and the obfuscated advertisement call is encoded and encrypted, paragraph 0011, lines 1-5 and paragraph 0036, lines 15-18).
As per claim 11, it is taught wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the device to replace, within the content, a plaintext domain name with the obfuscated domain name based at least in part on the request for content, and wherein the instructions that cause the device to send, to the user device, the obfuscated domain name, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the device to send at least a portion of the content containing the obfuscated domain name (the content is embedded along with an advertising call for advertisements associated with the content, that also includes a domain name, that is then returned to the user device, paragraph 0032, lines 2-11 and ad placements are identified that exist in obfuscated form (i.e., plaintext form) and an obfuscated advertisement call is issued, wherein the advertisement call includes the domain name, paragraph 0033, lines 7-9 and paragraph 0035, lines 19-27).
As per claim 12, it is disclosed wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the device to send, to a proxy domain name system server, the obfuscated domain name (a circumvention proxy (i.e., proxy domain name system server) received an obfuscated advertisement call, paragraph 0036, lines 1-2, wherein the advertisement call includes the domain name, paragraph 0033, lines 7-9 and paragraph 0035, lines 25-27).
As per claim 13, it is taught wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the device to append a domain name associated with a proxy domain name system server to the obfuscated domain name (a circumvention proxy (i.e., proxy domain name system server) received an obfuscated advertisement call, paragraph 0036, lines 1-2, wherein the advertisement call includes the domain name, paragraph 0033, lines 7-9 and paragraph 0035, lines 25-27), wherein the instructions that cause the device to send, to the user device, the obfuscated domain name, further cause the device to send, to the user device, the domain name associated with the proxy domain name system server appended to the obfuscated domain name (the content is embedded along with an advertising call for advertisements associated with the content, that also includes a domain name, that is then returned to the user device, paragraph 0032, lines 2-11 and ad placements are identified and an obfuscated advertisement call is issued, wherein the advertisement call includes the domain name, paragraph 0033, lines 7-9 and paragraph 0035, lines 25-27).
As per claim 14, it is disclosed wherein the manifest file comprises a list of obfuscated domain names including the obfuscated domain name (an adblocker running on the client device filters advertising calls based upon a domain name that match entries in an adblock filter list (i.e., manifest file comprising a list of domain names), paragraph 0033, lines 7-9; and ad placements are identified and an obfuscated advertisement call is issued, wherein the advertisement call includes the domain name, paragraph 0033, lines 7-9 and paragraph 0035, lines 25-27, wherein it is interpreted that there exists multiple obfuscated advertisements associated with particular domain names).
As per claim 15, it is taught wherein the obfuscated domain name is based, at least in part, on identifying information associated with the user device (content associated with the advertisement includes location and other characteristics (i.e., identifying information) associated with the user device, paragraph 0026, lines 6-12 and ad placements are identified and an obfuscated advertisement call is issued, wherein the advertisement call includes the domain name, paragraph 0033, lines 7-9 and paragraph 0035, lines 25-27).
As per claim 17, it is taught of a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause:
receiving, by a computing device from a user device, a request for content (user device requests content from a content publisher (i.e., computing device), paragraph 0032, lines 1-2); and
sending, to the user device, a manifest file comprising an obfuscated domain name for an advertisement associated with the content (the content is embedded along with an advertising call for advertisements associated with the content, that also includes a domain name, that is then returned to the user device, paragraph 0032, lines 2-11; an adblocker running on the client device filters advertising calls based upon a domain name that match entries in an adblock filter list (i.e., manifest file), paragraph 0033, lines 7-9; and ad placements are identified and an obfuscated advertisement call is issued, wherein the advertisement call includes the domain name, paragraph 0033, lines 7-9 and paragraph 0035, lines 25-27).
As per claim 18, it is disclosed wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause generating the obfuscated domain name by encrypting a domain name for the advertisement (ad placements are identified and an obfuscated advertisement call is issued, wherein the advertisement call includes the domain name, paragraph 0033, lines 7-9 and paragraph 0035, lines 25-27 and the obfuscated advertisement call is encoded and encrypted, paragraph 0011, lines 1-5 and paragraph 0036, lines 15-18).
As per claim 19, it is taught wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause sending, to a proxy domain name system server, the obfuscated domain name (a circumvention proxy (i.e., proxy domain name system server) received an obfuscated advertisement call, paragraph 0036, lines 1-2, wherein the advertisement call includes the domain name, paragraph 0033, lines 7-9 and paragraph 0035, lines 25-27).
As per claim 20, it is disclosed wherein the manifest file comprises a list of obfuscated domain names including the obfuscated domain name (an adblocker running on the client device filters advertising calls based upon a domain name that match entries in an adblock filter list (i.e., manifest file comprising a list of domain names), paragraph 0033, lines 7-9; and ad placements are identified and an obfuscated advertisement call is issued, wherein the advertisement call includes the domain name, paragraph 0033, lines 7-9 and paragraph 0035, lines 25-27, wherein it is interpreted that there exists multiple obfuscated advertisements associated with particular domain names).
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.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauman et al, US 2017/0345064 in view of Malassenet et al, U.S. Patent 10,289,816.
As per claims 8 and 16, Bauman et al discloses wherein the obfuscated domain name is unique to the user device based (the circumvention loader running on the device is unique since specific encryption/decryption methods are used in order to recover the obfuscated domain information to be used for comparison, paragraph 0036, lines 15-29) however the teachings fail to disclose wherein the uniqueness is at least in part, on metadata associated with the user device, wherein the metadata comprises a key unique to the user device for accessing the content.
Malassenet et al discloses of user device uniqueness is at least in part, on metadata associated with the user device, wherein the metadata comprises a key unique to the user device for accessing the content (encryption and obfuscation keys include additional metadata to provide authentication, certification, verification, and timestamping that are dedicated to a device (i.e., unique), column 22, lines 25-34).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been motivated to apply device unique metadata in order to ensure secure operations associated with an authorized device. Malassenet et al discloses of unique encryption and obfuscation keys tied to a dedicated device to ensure authentication, certification, and verification, column 22, lines 25-34. Although the teachings Bauman discloses of obfuscation of advertisements associated with domain names, the teachings of Malassenet et al offer additional security steps to aid in secure transmission of protected information by using encryption and obfuscation keys include additional metadata to provide authentication, certification, verification, and timestamping that are dedicated to a device.
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.
The relevant art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhou, CN 109040134 A is relied upon for disclosing of obtaining the domain name configuration file after encrypting the target encryption algorithm is obtained by negotiation with the client end by the server; the receiving unit is further used for configuring the domain name of the encrypted file is sent to the client end; so as to enable the client end according to the encryption algorithm of the target domain name of the corresponding decryption algorithm to decrypt the encrypted configuration file to obtain the main website domain name, see machine translation.
Zhai, CN 108270748 A is relied upon for disclosing of a data transmission system further comprising an encryption server, a configuration list includes encryption, encrypted server domain name server domain name address corresponding to the encryption server; when the second data request is unsuccessful. sent by the client transmitting the third data request to the encryption server, the encryption server transmits the third data request to the target server name corresponding to the address of the target server, and receiving and transmitting the target server name corresponding to the address of the target server sends a response message to the client, see machine translation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER REVAK whose telephone number is (571)272-3794. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30am - 3:00pm.
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, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at 571-270-1138. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A REVAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407
Prosecution Insights