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 claim(s) 1-6, 9-23 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 § 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, 3-6, 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) in view of Larson (US 2020/0366671)
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)
Yu and Singh 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.
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
Larson (US 2020/0366671) teaches denying the request that is received based on the flagging of the request that is received (Paragraph [0017-0018] teaches using geolocation to flag whether there is a fraud risk)
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 (Paragraph [0074] teaches rejecting users attempt to access content and to provide indications of the rejection to the selected recipient)
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 Larson and the results would be predictable (i.e. the flagged request would be denied and an indication of the denial is sent to the client)
Regarding Claim 3,
Yu, Singh and Larson teaches the 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, Singh and Larson teaches the 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, Singh and Larson teaches the 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, Singh and Larson teaches the 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, 11-14,
Claims 9, 11-14 are similar in scope to Claims 1, 3-6 and are rejected for a similar rationale.
Regarding Claims 15-16, 18-20,
Claims 15-16, 18-20 are similar in scope to Claims 1, 3-6 and are rejected for a similar rationale.
Claim(s) 2, 10, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu and Singh and Larson in view of Mahasenan (US 12,439,364)
Regarding Claim 2,
Yu, Singh and Larson 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)
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu in view of Mahasenan in further view of Larson (US 2020/0366671)
Regarding Claim 22,
Yu and Mahasenan 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.
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
Larson (US 2020/0366671) teaches denying the request that is received based on the flagging of the request that is received (Paragraph [0017-0018] teaches using geolocation to flag whether there is a fraud risk)
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 (Paragraph [0074] teaches rejecting users attempt to access content and to provide indications of the rejection to the selected recipient)
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 Larson and the results would be predictable (i.e. the flagged request would be denied and an indication of the denial is sent to the client)
Claim(s) 23 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) in view of Larson (US 2020/0366671) in further view of De Bonet (US 8,024,186)
Regarding Claim 23,
Yu, Singh and Larson teaches the system of claim 1. Yu teaches determining the geolocation of the IP address, the second electronic processor is further configured to extract the IP address from a header of the HTTP (Fig. 3, 300, and associated text, wherein IP addresses are in the header)
but does not explicitly teach wherein the request received from the client device is a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request generated by an application interface of the client device, wherein the location information is appended to the HTTP request by the application interface, and wherein, to determine the geolocation of the IP address
De Bonet (US 8,024,186) teaches wherein the request received from the client device is a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request generated by an application interface of the client device, wherein the location information is appended to the HTTP request by the application interface (Col. 10, lines 51-59, teaches location information is appended to the original HTTP request)(Col. 10, lines 28-30, teaches API call),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yu, Singh, Larson with the location appending method of De Bonet and the results would be predictable (i.e. location information would be appended to the HTTP request)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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