Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended to include “Wherein the location information is generated by a location-determining component of the client device and transmitted with the request.”
Singh (US 12,537,836) teaches the client device using GPS or Wi-Fi adapter as a location determining component (Col. 79, lines 50-60).
Applicant argues: “The cited portions of Singh fail to disclose receiving a request (i.e. network traffic) form the user device including both the IP address user to determine the second geolocation and the location information related to the devices (Remarks pg. 11).”
Applicant continues “Singh describes data collection at a general level and does not disclose the request-level architecture now recited (Remarks pg. 11).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yu teaches the request (i.e. login event). Singh is being used as data to be included in the request. The combination teaches the IP address being included with the request.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2, 10, 17, 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U. S. C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as being directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, 9, 15, 21, the claim is directed to an abstract idea as reciting the limitations “receive a request” “determine a geolocation of the client device” “determine a geolocation of an IP address” “determine a distance” “flag the request.” The aforementioned steps are “mental process/mathematical calculation/re-arranging human activities” as broadly interpreted said steps could be performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Said abstract idea and/or judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as the claim does not recite any other active steps that utilize determination result into a practical application. It’s noted that the claims recite additional elements (i.e. first and second electronic processor). However, said additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of detecting and determining) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception or abstract idea using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As mentioned above, although the claims recite additional elements, said elements taken individually or as a combination, do not result in the claim amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea because as the additional elements perform generic computer content distributing functions routinely used in information technology field. As discussed above, the additional elements recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 2-8, 10-14, 16-20 the dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reasons addressed above as the claims recite an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application or significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 11-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 2012/0102169) in view of Singh (US 12,537,836)
Regarding Claim 1,
Yu (US 2012/0102169) teaches a system for identifying electronic communications from at least one of a virtual private network or proxy, the system comprising:
a client device including a first electronic processor and a first memory;
and a server including a second electronic processor and a second memory including a VPN/Proxy communication identifier application, the second electronic processor configured to:
receive, with the VPN/Proxy communication identifier application, a request from the client device, wherein the request is enriched with location information of the client device (Fig. 3, 300, and associated text),
determine, with the VPN/Proxy communication identifier application, a geolocation of the client device based on the location information of the request that is enriched (Fig. 3, 300, and associated text),
determine, with the VPN/Proxy communication identifier application, a geolocation of an internet protocol (IP) address associated with the client device (Fig. 3, 302, travel IP address),
determine, with the VPN/Proxy communication identifier application, a distance between the geolocation of the client device and the geolocation of the IP address (Fig. 3, 304, and associated text),
and flag, with the VPN/Proxy communication identifier application, the request that is received as associated with a virtual private network based on the distance that is determined (Fig. 3, 304, also see Paragraph [0023] teaches if the transition between home IP and travel IP is faster than the upper bound…it likely corresponds to a VPN or proxy server”)
Yu does not explicitly teach wherein the request is enriched with location information of the client device and includes an internet protocol (IP) address associated with the request, determine, a distance between the geolocation of the client device associated with the request and the geolocation of the IP address associated with the request
Singh (US 12,537,836) teaches wherein the request is enriched with location information of the client device and includes an internet protocol (IP) address associated with the request, determine, a distance between the geolocation of the client device associated with the request and the geolocation of the IP address associated with the request (Col. 84, lines 45-51, teaches comparing the geolocation of the device with the geolocation of the IP address)(Fig. 10, 1008, teaches determining whether the distance of the geolocation of the client device and IP address are proximate)
Wherein the location information is generated by a location-determining component of the client device and transmitted with the request (Col. 79, lines 50-60, teaches the client device using GPS or Wi-Fi adapter as a location determining component)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yu with the method of determining the distance between the geolocation of the client device and the IP address as taught by Singh and the results would be predictable (i.e. the distance between the geolocation of the client device and IP address would be compared)
The motivation is to determine whether the device is connected to a virtual private network (Col. 84, lines 45-51)
Regarding Claim 3,
Yu and Singh teaches system of claim 1. Yu teaches wherein, to determine, with the VPN/Proxy communication identifier application, the geolocation of the IP address, the second electronic processor is further configured to extract the IP address from the request, and identify a location associated with the IP address that is extracted (Paragraph [0017] teaches geolocation database which identifies a location associated with the IP address).
Regarding Claim 4,
Yu and Singh teaches system of claim 1. Yu teaches wherein, to determine, with the VPN/Proxy communication identifier application, the distance between the geolocation of the client device and the geolocation of the IP address, the second electronic processor is further configured to determine a first geographic coordinate for the geolocation of the client device and a second geographic coordinate for the geolocation of the IP address, and determine a difference in distance between the first geographic coordinate and the second geographic coordinate (Fig. 3, 304, also see Paragraph [0023] teaches the transition between home IP and travel IP)(Paragraph [0019, 0022] teaches calculating geographic distance of the IP addresses)
Regarding Claim 5,
Yu and Singh teaches system of claim 4. Yu teaches wherein, to flag, with the VPN/Proxy communication identifier application, the IP address based on the distance that is determined, the second electronic processor is further configured to compare the difference in distance that is determined to a threshold, and in response to determining the difference in distance is less than or equal to the threshold, flag the request as not received from the virtual private network (Paragraph [0023] teaches only distances that are above the upper bound are likely VPN or proxy servers)
Regarding Claim 6,
Yu and Singh teaches system of claim 4. Yu teaches wherein, to flag, with the VPN/Proxy communication identifier application, the IP address based on the distance that is determined, the second electronic processor is further configured to compare the difference in distance that is determined to a threshold, and in response to determining the difference in distance is greater than the threshold, flag the request as received from the virtual private network (Paragraph [0023] teaches distances that are above the upper bound are likely VPN or proxy servers)
Regarding Claims 9-14,
Claims 9-14 are similar in scope to Claims 1-6 and are rejected for a similar rationale.
Regarding Claims 15-20,
Claims 15-20 are similar in scope to Claims 1-6 and are rejected for a similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu and Singh in view of Nathan (US 2015/0350160)
Regarding Claim 7,
Yu and Singh teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the second electronic processor is further configured to deny the request that is received based on the flagging of the request that is received.
Nathan (US 2015/0350160) teaches deny the request that is received based on the flagging of the request that is received (Paragraph [0058] teaches denying future connections if risk assessment process determines a high probability of “spoofing” (i.e. VPN detected))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yu to include denying the request based on flagging of the request received
The motivation is to prevent IP address spoofing (Abstract of Nathan)
Regarding Claim 8,
Yu teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the second electronic processor is further configured to transmit an indication to the client device based on the flagging of the request that is received, wherein the indication indicates denial of the request from the client device.
Nathan (US 2015/0350160) teaches transmit an indication to the client device based on the flagging of the request that is received, wherein the indication indicates denial of the request from the client device. (Paragraph [0058] teaches denying future connections if risk assessment process determines a high probability of “spoofing” (i.e. VPN detected))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yu to include denying the request based on flagging of the request received
The motivation is to prevent IP address spoofing (Abstract of Nathan)
Claim(s) 2, 10, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu and Singh in view of Mahasenan (US 12,439,364)
Regarding Claim 2,
Yu and Singh teaches system of claim 1. Yu teaches wherein the second electronic processor is further configured to define, with the VPN/Proxy communication identifier application, a threshold based on a source of the location information for the client device, wherein the location information includes geographic data related to a physical location of the client device (Fig. 3, 304, also see Paragraph [0023] teaches if the transition between home IP and travel IP is faster than the upper bound…it likely corresponds to a VPN or proxy server”).
Yu and Singh does not explicitly teach define a distance threshold based on a device type, wherein accuracy of the physical location of client device varies based on the device type of the source
Mahasenan (US 12,439,364) teaches define a distance threshold based on a device type, wherein accuracy of the physical location of client device varies based on the device type of the source (Col. 21, lines 64-67, Col. 22, lines 1-15, teaches accuracy threshold varies based on the device type)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yu and Singh with the method of varying distance threshold based on device type as taught by Mahasenan and the results would be predictable (i.e. the distance threshold would vary based on device type)
Regarding Claims 10, 17,
Claims 10, 17 are similar in scope to Claim 2 and are rejected for a similar rationale.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu in view of Mahasenan
Regarding Claim 21,
Yu (US 2012/0102169) teaches method for identifying electronic communications from at least one of a virtual private network or proxy, the method comprising:
receiving, with an electronic processor, a first request of a client device with a first internet protocol (IP) address (Fig. 3, 300, and associated text),,
receiving, with the electronic processor, a subsequent request of the client device with a second IP address (Fig. 3, 302, travel IP address),,
determining, with the electronic processor, a geographic distance between the first IP address and the second IP address using geolocation information for the first IP address and the second IP address, and
flagging, with the electronic processor, the client device as associated with a virtual private network or a proxy based on the geographic distance that is determined and a distance threshold, wherein the distance threshold is defined based on a source of the geolocation information for the first IP address and the second IP address (Fig. 3, 304, also see Paragraph [0023] teaches if the transition between home IP and travel IP is faster than the upper bound…it likely corresponds to a VPN or proxy server”)(Paragraph [0002] teaches location for home IP and travel IP).
Yu does not explicitly teach define a distance threshold based on a device type, wherein accuracy of the physical location of client device varies based on the device type of the source
Mahasenan (US 12,439,364) teaches define a distance threshold based on a device type, wherein accuracy of the physical location of client device varies based on the device type of the source (Col. 21, lines 64-67, Col. 22, lines 1-15, teaches accuracy threshold varies based on the device type)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yu and Singh with the method of varying distance threshold based on device type as taught by Mahasenan and the results would be predictable (i.e. the distance threshold would vary based on device type)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRIS C WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1462. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LUU PHAM can be reached at 571-270-5002. 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.
/HARRIS C WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights