DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the amendment and response filed on 12/22/2025.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Arguments and Assertions by the Applicant
Applicant’s arguments received 12/22/2025 with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
With regard to claims 2, 5, 9, 12, and 16, the common knowledge declared to be well-known in the art is hereby taken to be admitted prior art because the Applicant either failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE or failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE adequately. See MPEP §2144.03. To adequately traverse the examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE, the Applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE would be inadequate. Support for the Applicant’s assertion should be included.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Redlich et al. (USPGP 2009/0254572 A1) hereinafter REDLICH, in view of Subramanian et al. (USPGP 2007/0214045 A1), hereinafter SUBRMANIAN, and further in view of Story et al. (USPGP 2008/0091796 A1), hereinafter STORY.
Claims 1, 8, 15:
REDLICH as shown below discloses the following limitations:
receiving, at a content provider, from a user device, a request for a web page, (see at least paragraphs 0331, 0334, and 1278)
the request comprising one or more tags associated with the web page; (see at least paragraphs 0628, 0629, 0872, 0873, 1053, and 2592)
tracking interactions by the user with the electronic content; (see at least paragraphs 1164 and 1533)
REDLICH does not specifically disclose the following limitations, but SUBRMANIAN as shown does:
generating a content request based on the one or more tags and the web page; (see at least paragraph 0053, Figures 2B, 6A, 6B as well as associated and related text)
determining a recipient of the content request based on the one or more tags and the web page; (see at least paragraph 0053, Figures 2B, 6A, 6B as well as associated and related text)
transmitting the content request to the determined recipient; (see at least paragraph 0053, Figures 2B, 6A, 6B as well as associated and related text)
transmitting, to the device of the user, an electronic content received from the recipient; (see at least paragraph 0053, Figures 2B, 6A, 6B as well as associated and related text)
In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of REDLICH with the technique of SUBRMANIAN because “Standard producers of online ad-request inventory are publishers. They own or operate websites that users visit using web browsers, and they allocate space on those pages where advertisements may be added. Consumers of online ad-request inventory are Advertisers. They offer products or services online, and they create advertisements for those offerings which they desire to show to Internet users. Those advertisements are then added into the publishers' pages so that users see them as they browse. Each time an individual user browses to a publishers' page that contains pre-allocated space for advertising, an Ad Request to deliver an ad to fill that allocated space can be made to an Ad Server either by the user's browser or by the Publisher.” (SUBRMANIAN: paragraph 0003). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
The combination of REDLICH/SUBRMANIAN does not specifically disclose:
determining a charge to the recipient is to be blocked based on the tracked interactions by the user with the electronic content;
blocking the charge to the recipient.
STORY, however, in at least paragraphs 0011 and 0073 does. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of REDLICH/SUBRMANIAN with the technique of STORY because, “The proliferation and considerable growth of the Internet and World Wide Web have opened new avenues of content delivery to consumers. Information delivery applications, such as web browsers, have advanced through the years with increasing capabilities and opportunities to transmit and share electronic data. First generation web browsers displayed simple hypertext linked to another file containing additional text. Over time, these browsers have been replaced by more sophisticated, dynamic applications that enable content providers and users alike to interact with each other over a network through the implementation of text, graphics, audio, video and many combinations thereof.” (STORY: paragraph 0003). Moreover, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)).
Claims 3, 10, and 17 :
The combination of REDLICH/SUBRMANIAN/STORY discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SUBRMANIAN further discloses wherein the content provider is at least one of an Internet publisher and a content distribution network. See at least Figure 2A as well as associated and related text. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of REDLICH with the technique of SUBRMANIAN because “Standard producers of online ad-request inventory are publishers. They own or operate websites that users visit using web browsers, and they allocate space on those pages where advertisements may be added. Consumers of online ad-request inventory are Advertisers. They offer products or services online, and they create advertisements for those offerings which they desire to show to Internet users. Those advertisements are then added into the publishers' pages so that users see them as they browse. Each time an individual user browses to a publishers' page that contains pre-allocated space for advertising, an Ad Request to deliver an ad to fill that allocated space can be made to an Ad Server either by the user's browser or by the Publisher.” (SUBRMANIAN: paragraph 0003). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 4, 11, and 18:
The combination of REDLICH/SUBRMANIAN/STORY discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SUBRMANIAN further discloses wherein the electronic content request recipient is at least one of a graphical electronic content exchange and a graphical electronic content server. See at least Figure 2B as well as associated and related text. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of REDLICH with the technique of SUBRMANIAN because “Standard producers of online ad-request inventory are publishers. They own or operate websites that users visit using web browsers, and they allocate space on those pages where advertisements may be added. Consumers of online ad-request inventory are Advertisers. They offer products or services online, and they create advertisements for those offerings which they desire to show to Internet users. Those advertisements are then added into the publishers' pages so that users see them as they browse. Each time an individual user browses to a publishers' page that contains pre-allocated space for advertising, an Ad Request to deliver an ad to fill that allocated space can be made to an Ad Server either by the user's browser or by the Publisher.” (SUBRMANIAN: paragraph 0003). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 6, 13, and 19:
The combination of REDLICH/SUBRMANIAN/STORY discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. REDLICH further discloses:
accessing a database of user data;
determining user data from the database to append to the electronic content request based on the web page from the device of the user;
appending user data from the database to the electronic content request.
See at least paragraphs 1095 and 1318.
Claims 7, 14, and 20:
The combination of REDLICH/SUBRMANIAN/STORY discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SUBRMANIAN further discloses:
receiving, over the electronic network, an electronic content request response from the determined electronic content request recipient,
wherein the response to the electronic content request includes the electronic content request response.
See at least Figure 2B as well as associated and related text. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of REDLICH with the technique of SUBRMANIAN because “Standard producers of online ad-request inventory are publishers. They own or operate websites that users visit using web browsers, and they allocate space on those pages where advertisements may be added. Consumers of online ad-request inventory are Advertisers. They offer products or services online, and they create advertisements for those offerings which they desire to show to Internet users. Those advertisements are then added into the publishers' pages so that users see them as they browse. Each time an individual user browses to a publishers' page that contains pre-allocated space for advertising, an Ad Request to deliver an ad to fill that allocated space can be made to an Ad Server either by the user's browser or by the Publisher.” (SUBRMANIAN: paragraph 0003). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 2, 5, 9, 12, and 16 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REDLICH/SUBRMANIAN/STORY and further in view of Applicant’s own admissions, hereinafter AOA.
Claims 2, 9, and 16:
The combination of REDLICH/SUBRMANIAN/STORY discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. REDLICH/SUBRMANIAN/STORY does not specifically disclose determining, prior to responding to the web page request, whether the device of the user includes an electronic content blocker based on the web page request from the user. However, the Examiner accepts AOA that it is old and well known in the online advertising arts to utilizer ad blockers. In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of REDLICH/SUBRMANIAN/STORY with the technique of using content blockers and filters because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 5 and 12:
The combination of REDLICH/SUBRMANIAN/STORY discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. REDLICH/SUBRMANIAN/STORY does not specifically disclose wherein determining whether the web page request is valid includes: comparing an IP address of the web page request to a list of known fraudulent IP addresses. However, the Examiner accepts AOA that it is old and well known in the online communication arts to track fraudulent IP addresses. In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of REDLICH/SUBRMANIAN/STORY with the technique of detecting fraudulent IP addresses because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non Patent Literature:
Scott, Samuel. “The Alleged $7.5 Billion Fraud in Online Advertising.” (June 22nd, 2015). Retrieved online 31 December 2020. https://moz.com/blog/online-advertising-fraud
Brett Stone-Gross et al. “Understanding Fraudulent Activities in Online Ad Exchanges.” (11/02/2011). Retrieved online 31 December 2020. http://conferences.sigcomm.org/imc/2011/docs/p279.pdf
“Online advertisements (ads) provide a powerful mechanism for advertisers to effectively target Web users. Ads can be customized based on a user’s browsing behavior, geographic location, and personal interests. There is currently a multi-billion dollar market for online advertising, which generates the primary revenue for some of the most popular websites on the Internet. In order to meet the immense market demand, and to manage the complex relationships between advertisers and publishers (i.e., the websites hosting the ads), marketplaces known as “ad exchanges” are employed. These exchanges allow publishers (sellers of ad space) and advertisers (buyers of this ad space) to dynamically broker traffic through ad networks to efficiently maximize profits for all parties. Unfortunately, the complexities of these systems invite a considerable amount of abuse from cybercriminals, who profit at the expense of the advertisers.”
Alexey Reznichenko. “PRIVATE-BY-DESIGN ADVERTISING AND ANALYTICS: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE.” (June 16, 2014). Retrieved online 01/12/2022. https://www.mpi-sws.org/tr/2014-005.pdf
Foreign Art:
PRADHAN et al. (EP 1253539 A2) discloses, “A mobile telephone (10), an advertiser, broadcasts an advertisement over a wireless short range piconet link to another mobile telephone (12), a consumer. The advertisement is broadcast with a predetermined set of classification tags and the consumer phone (12) has a filter set to accept only certain advertisements. When an advertisement of interest is received by the consumer phone (12) it requests further details automatically via the piconet link and the advertiser phone (10) provides then automatically via the piconet link. When the consumer wishes to reply to the advertisement they contact the advertiser phone (10), or an advertiser device, via a long range cellular link (16). An ASP advertisement broker (48) is interposed between the advertiser phone (10) and the consumer phone (12) for the long range telecommunication link.
ANDERSON, JOHN. “DATA MINING FOR SPECIFYING REACTION OF ONLINE USER TO BROADCAST MESSAGE.” (JP 2012/108916 A)
NAGAO, TSUKASA. (JP 2009/015593 A). “To provide a system for disclosing advertisements drawing high attention from a browsing person, and bringing high advertising effects and advertisements which are little different from the impressions of actual merchandise. This advertisement disclosure system is configured by connecting a server 1 to which advertisements are requested from a client, and which manages and discloses advertisements for registered registration merchandise and an advertisement provider terminal 3 for providing the advertisements to the server and a browsing person's terminal 4 for enabling a browser to browse advertisements managed by the server. The server 1 is provided with a reception means 12 for receiving advertisements provided from the advertisement provider terminal 3; a disclosure means 13 for disclosing advertisements in response to a request from the browsing person's terminal; an evaluation requesting means 14 for requesting the evaluation of advertisements to the browsing person's terminal; an evaluation determination means 15 for tabulating evaluation, and for determining general evaluation; a working means 17 for working advertisements based on the determined evaluation; and a reward determination means 18 for determining a reward for an advertisement provider in response to the determined general evaluation.”
Applicant’s amendment filed on 12/22/2025 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)