DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 8/6/2024 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 1/30/2026.
a. Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, 20 are amended
Overall, Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-7 are directed to a computer implemented method, claims 8-14 are directed to computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium, and claims 15-20 are directed to a system.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 8, 15) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 8, 15) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A method for providing fraudulent protection:
[B] performing a machine learning model
[C] classifying a first request for advertisement based on a set of rules and the model;
[D] wherein each of the rules creates a region within an n-dimensional space that denotes non-fraudulent activity
[E] generating a label based on the classification of the first request;
[F] updating the model with the generated label;
[G] receiving a second request for advertisement; and
[H] determining whether an identifier associated with a source of the second request is to be included in a blacklist in accordance with the updated model.
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 8,15) recites: classifying an advertisement request based on rules and generating a label ([C], [E]); updating a model ([F]); receiving a second request for an advertisement; ([G]); and assessing if the request matches any of the rules of the model ([H]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “identifying fraudulent advertisements by using a continuously updated list”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers agreements in the form of advertising, marketing, which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)), as well as reasonable performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. For example, the step receiving an advertisement and using a reference list, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally making a comparison. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 8, 15) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – Additional Elements]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “a system,” “one or more processors,” and “a memory” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements “wherein each of the rules creates a region within an n-dimensional space that denotes non-fraudulent activity” as applied to the rules, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These additional elements of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “identifying fraudulent advertisements by using a continuously updated list”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: [B] performing a machine-learning model. When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“identifying fraudulent advertisements by using a continuously updated list”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional steps of independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 8, 15) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 8, 15) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 8, 15 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 3 which is representative of dependent claims 10, 17:
validating the classified first request, wherein the generating the label is based on a result of the validating.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “identifying fraudulent advertisements by using a continuously updated list”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“identifying fraudulent advertisements by using a continuously updated list”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“identifying fraudulent advertisements by using a continuously updated list”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“identifying fraudulent advertisements by using a continuously updated list”).
Therefore, dependent claim 3 (which is representative of dependent claims 10, 17) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 4 which is representative of dependent claims 11, 18:
incorporating the generated label with initial labeled data.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “identifying fraudulent advertisements by using a continuously updated list”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“identifying fraudulent advertisements by using a continuously updated list”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“identifying fraudulent advertisements by using a continuously updated list”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“identifying fraudulent advertisements by using a continuously updated list”).
Therefore, dependent claim 4 (which is representative of dependent claims 11, 18) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 2, 5-7, which is representative of dependent claims 9, 12-14, 16, 19-20 respectively, recite:
wherein the first request is classified as one where a source of the first request is to be deemed as a fraudulent source or a non-fraudulent source.
wherein the first request is classified as one where a source of the first request is to be deemed as a fraudulent source or a non-fraudulent source.
wherein the updating the model is based on the generated label and the initial labeled data.
wherein the predetermined type source is either a fraudulent source or a non-fraudulent source.
the first request is a logged request for advertisement which was temporarily granted.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements – the first request; the updating model – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (“identifying fraudulent advertisements by using a continuously updated list”), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 2, 5-7, which is representative of dependent claims 9, 12-14, 16, 19-20 respectively, are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 112(d):
“Subject to the following paragraph, a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.”
Claims 6, 13, 20 are rejected under 35 USC 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim.
Claims 6, 13, 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) because they recite both alternatives of a binary situation (i.e., score that indicates either a fraudulent or a non-fraudulent value), thus not further limiting the claims from which they depend.
The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
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 difference 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 the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schler et al (US 2017/0053307), in view of Wright et al (US 2002/0194119).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, 15: Schler discloses: A method for providing fraudulent protection, the method comprising:
performing a machine learning model by {see at least fig4, [0079] … begin a new model, incorporating lessons learned during the previous modeling cycles (based on the BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on machine learning model)}
classifying based on a set of rules and a model a first request for advertainment originating from a predetermined type of source; {see at least fig4, rcS430, [0049] compare source to content to list (based on BRI {MPEP 2111), reads on classifying request for advertisement; it also reads on rules, model)}
generating a label based on the classification of the first request; {see at least fig4, rcS450, [0050] message determined as fraudulent (reads on generating label)}
updating the model with the generated label; {see at least fig5, rcS560, [0054] ad serving data updated}
receiving a second request for advertisement; and {see at least fig4, rcS430, [0049] compare source to content to list (based on BRI {MPEP 2111), reads on classifying request for advertisement; it also reads on rules, model); fig4, rc470, [0051] “additional advertisements – YES” (reads on second request for advertisement)}
determining whether an identifier associated with a source of the second request is to be included in a blacklist in accordance with the updated model. {see at least fig2, rc230, [0041] fraudulent URL kept in blacklist}
Schler does not disclose, however, Wright discloses:
wherein each of the rules creates a region within an n-dimensional space {see at least fig5, rcRZ4, [0087] two-dimensional space (reads on n-dimensional space)} that denotes non-fraudulent activity {see at least fig5, rcRZ4, [0087] zone with non-fraudulent transactions}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Schler to include the elements of Wright. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to graphically represent the zone of interest. In the instant case, Schler evidently discloses detecting fraudulent advertisements. Wright is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of a graphic representation of the non-fraudulent zone in the same or similar context. Since both detecting fraudulent advertisements, as well as graphic representation of the non-fraudulent zone are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Schler, as well as Wright would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Schler / Wright.
Regarding Claims 2, 9, 16: Schler, Wright discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8, 15. Schler further discloses:
wherein the first request is classified as one where a source of the first request is to be deemed as a fraudulent source or a non-fraudulent source. {see at least fig4, rcS430, [0049] compare source to content to list (based on BRI {MPEP 2111), reads on classifying request for advertisement; it also reads on rules, model)}
Regarding Claims 3, 10, 17: Schler, Wright discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8, 15. Schler further discloses:
validating the classified first request, wherein the generating the label is based on a result of the validating. {see at least [0040] pre-bidding verification process on each ad impression (reads on validation)}
Claims 4-6, 11-13, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schler et al (US 2017/0053307), in view of Wright et al (US 2002/0194119), in further view of Orsini et al (US 2014/0303960).
Regarding Claims 4, 11, 18: Schler, Wright discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8, 15. Schler, Wright does not disclose, however, Orsini discloses:
incorporating the generated label with initial labeled data. {see at least [0325] initial training data used for training is limited (reads on initial label data)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Schler, Wright to include the elements of Orsini. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to identify the changes over time. In the instant case, Schler, Wright evidently discloses detecting fraudulent advertisements. Orsini is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of utilizing the initial label data in the same or similar context. Since both detecting fraudulent advertisements, as well as utilizing the initial label data are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Schler, Wright, as well as Orsini would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Schler, Wright / Orsini.
Regarding Claims 5, 12, 19: Schler, Wright, Orsini discloses the limitations of Claims 4, 11, 18. Orsini further discloses:
wherein the updating the model is based on the generated label and the initial labeled data. {see at least [0325] initial training data used for training is limited (reads on initial label data)}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Schler, Wright, Orsini to include additional elements of Orsini. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to identify the changes over time. In the instant case, Schler, Wright, Orsini evidently discloses detecting fraudulent advertisements. Orsini is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of initial label data in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 6, 13, 20: Schler, Wright, Orsini discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8, 15. Wright further discloses:
wherein the predetermined type source is either a fraudulent source or a non-fraudulent source. {see at least xxxx}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Schler, Wright, Orsini to include additional elements of Wright. One would have been motivated to do so, segregate fraudulent from non-fraudulent sources. Schler, Wright, Orsini evidently discloses detecting fraudulent advertisements. Wright is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of semi-supervised learning in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 7, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schler et al (US 2017/0053307), in view of Wright et al (US 2002/0194119), in further view of Kang (US 2010/0070351).
Regarding Claims 7, 14: Schler, Wright discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8. Schler, Wright does not disclose, however, Kang discloses:
the first request is a logged request for advertisement which was temporarily granted. {see at least [0075]-[0076] provisionally granting request for advertising}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Schler, Wright to include the elements of Kang. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide for situations in which a grant has to be reversed. In the instant case, Schler, Wright evidently discloses detecting fraudulent advertisements. Kang is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of a temporarily granted request in the same or similar context. Since both detecting fraudulent advertisements, as well as a temporarily granted request are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Schler, Wright, as well as Kang would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Schler, Wright / Kang.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20090043847 A1 Laurila; Antti Group Communication in a Communication System In a communication system providing a group communication service, a group document server is configured to detect that a scheduled conference for a group is created or modified in a group information document, and to send to an appropriate application server a group advertisement message which is extended to include a new flag, which indicates whether this group is used for a scheduled conference or not. Upon receiving the message with the scheduled conference flag, the application server is adapted to fetch a respective group document from the group document server and with it also the information about the scheduled conference of the group. The application server then schedules the conference to initiate according to the received information.
US 20160140111 A1 Mirkin; Shachar SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INCREMENTALLY UPDATING A REORDERING MODEL FOR A STATISTICAL MACHINE TRANSLATION SYSTEM A method for updating a reordering model of a statistical machine translation system includes, at a first time, receiving new training data for retraining an existing statistical machine translation system, the new training data including at least one sentence pair, each pair including a source sentence in a source language and a target sentence in a target language. Phrase pairs are extracted from the new training data and used to generate a new reordering file. A reordering model of the existing statistical machine translation system is updated, based on the new reordering file. The reordering model includes a reordering table. At a second time after the first time, new training data is received. The extracting of phrase pairs, generating of the new reordering file and the updating the reordering model is reiterated, based on the new training data received at the second time.
US 20140288918 A1 Orsini; Francois et al. Systems and Methods for Multi-User Multi-Lingual Communications Various embodiments described herein facilitate multi-lingual communications. The systems and methods of some embodiments enable multi-lingual communications through different modes of communication including, for example, Internet-based chat, e-mail, text-based mobile phone communications, postings to online forums, postings to online social media services, and the like. Certain embodiments implement communication systems and methods that translate text between two or more languages. Users of the systems and methods may be incentivized to submit corrections for inaccurate or erroneous translations, and may receive a reward for these submissions. Systems and methods for assessing the accuracy of translations are described.
US 20080109553 A1 Fowler; Brian System and method for reducing click fraud The present invention provides a way to reduce click fraud by verifying that a human user is making URI requests. In a preferred embodiment, the present invention comprises a client-side plug-in or other suitable component adapted to: (a) assemble a list of enabled domains; (b) when a user first requests a resource from an enabled domain, modify hyperlinks in the response that target resources in any enabled domain; and (c) when a user attempts to follow a modified hyperlink, present a challenge to the user that the user must successfully negotiate before the user is granted access to the resource targeted by the hyperlink.
US 20060251033 A1 Oprescu-Surcobe; Valentin et al. Method and apparatus for signaling ad-hoc group of mobile units. Various embodiments are described for signaling an ad-hoc group of mobile units (MUs). The ad-hoc group may be a group of MUs for which signaling awaits transmission via a wireless communication resource (111). Signaling such a group involves deriving a mobile unit group identifier (MUGI) by combining individual mobile unit identifiers (MUIs) of the targeted ad-hoc group. The individual MUIs are either an identifier of each MU or derived from an identifier of each MU. The derived MUGI is then included in combined signaling that is transmitted (by RAN 121, e.g.) via the wireless communication resource. A receiving MU (101) determines whether the MUGI could have been derived from its MUI in combination with at least one other MU's MUI. When it determines that the MUGI could have been derived from its MUI, the receiving MU processes the signaling as directed to itself.
US 20170053307 A1 SCHLER; Jonathan et al. TECHNIQUES FOR DETECTING AND VERIFYING FRAUDULENT IMPRESSIONS A system and method for verifying ad-impressions of online advertisements are provided. The method includes receive an ad-impression; determining an impression source of the received ad-impression; comparing the determined impression source to a non-advertisement-serving web-source (NASW) list, wherein the NASW list contains at least one web-source that does not display online advertisements; determining whether the impression source matches a web-source listed in the NASW list; and upon determining a match, identifying the received ad-impression as fraudulent.
US 20180107928 A1 Zhang; Jing et al. DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DEEP LEARNING MODELS CONFIGURED FOR SEMICONDUCTOR APPLICATIONS Methods and systems for performing diagnostic functions for a deep learning model are provided. One system includes one or more components executed by one or more computer subsystems. The one or more components include a deep learning model configured for determining information from an image generated for a specimen by an imaging tool. The one or more components also include a diagnostic component configured for determining one or more causal portions of the image that resulted in the information being determined and for performing one or more functions based on the determined one or more causal portions of the image.
US 20070282685 A1 Huh; Kang-Suk et al. GROUP ADVERTISEMENT METHOD IN SIP BASED MESSAGE SERVICE A group advertisement method in a SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) based message service, and a PT client device are discussed. According to an embodiment, the method includes receiving, by a PT server, a request to send a group advertisement message for a specific PT group from a requesting PT client; determining, by the PT server, if the specific PT group is a restricted chat group or a pre-arranged group; determining, by the PT server, if the requesting PT client is allowed to send a group advertisement based on a PT group document associated with the specific PT group; and selectively transmitting, by the PT server, the group advertisement message to at least one member of the specific PT group based on results of the determining steps.
US 20100070351 A1 Kang; Dong Kyun ELECTRONIC ADVERTISEMENT METHOD AND SYSTEM USING ADVERTISEMENT INTERMEDIATION SITE The present invention is related to an electronic advertisement method using an advertisement intermediation site, comprising: registering an electronic ad of a sponsor with an ad identifier of the electronic ad on the advertisement intermediation site; distributing the registered electronic ad to a text writing area of other site with attaching a distributor identifier when a distributor member distributes the registered electronic ad to said other site including at least one text writing area; monitoring distribution status, exposure number and click number of the distributed electronic ad using the ad identifier and the distributor identifier so as to calculate an advertising result; and rewarding the distributor member with a portion of an advertising cost paid by the sponsor as a first advertising fee based on the advertising result of the distributor member. According to the present invention, anybody using the network environment regardless of owning a site can distribute electronic ads to arbitrary sites that allow the text writing so as to positively participate in advertising and take a reward for the distribution activity.
US 20160283975 A1 Kaul; Vivek et al. SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR FRAUD DETECTION BASED ON IMAGE ANALYSIS Systems, methods, and non-transitory computer readable media configured to receive an advertisement including an image. A fraud assessment value for the advertisement can be determined. An image assessment value for the image can be determined. The fraud assessment value and a threshold value for fraud assessment can be compared. The image assessment value and a threshold value for image assessment can be compared. Fraud associated with the advertisement can be determined based on comparison of the fraud assessment value and the threshold value for fraud assessment and comparison of the image assessment value and the threshold value for image assessment.
US 20150324909 A1 deOliveira; Marcio et al. SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CREATING AD HOC SELF-ENFORCING CONTRACTS IN NETWORK-BASED EXCHANGES Systems and methods enable the creation, administration, and enforcement of self-enforcing electronic contracts within a network-based participation exchange as well as the matching of participation opportunities with exchange participants having compatible profiles. In one embodiment, participation opportunity data is provided to an exchange participant computing device, and the exchange participant computing device transmits a participation opportunity purchase request to an exchange network computing device. In response to the purchase request, the exchange network computing device generates an electronic contract.
US 20140303960 A1 Orsini; Francois et al. Systems and Methods for Multi-User Multi-Lingual Communications Various embodiments described herein facilitate multi-lingual communications. The systems and methods of some embodiments enable multi-lingual communications through different modes of communication including, for example, Internet-based chat, e-mail, text-based mobile phone communications, postings to online forums, postings to online social media services, and the like. Certain embodiments implement communication systems and methods that translate text between two or more languages. Users of the systems and methods may be incentivized to submit corrections for inaccurate or erroneous translations, and may receive a reward for these submissions. Systems and methods for assessing the accuracy of translations are described.
US 20100131359 A1 Ting; Chyr-Chong Joseph et al. SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SECURING INVOCATIONS FOR SERVING ADVERTISEMENTS AND INSTRUMENTATION IN ONLINE ADVERTISING An improved system and method for securing invocations for serving advertisements and instrumentation in online advertising is provided. An advertisement exchange server may provide services for publisher servers to add executable instructions to securely display online advertisements on a client device within allocated space of a web page of content published by the publisher servers. A client device may retrieve a document with added executable instructions and execute the executable instructions that may calculate a checksum, extract the internet protocol address of the publisher server, and send a request with the checksum and internet protocol address of the publisher server to retrieve an advertisement to display with content of the document. The advertisement exchange server may verify that the checksum is valid for the internet protocol address of the publisher server and may send the request to an advertiser server to serve an advertisement to the client device.
US 20190042952 A1 JIA; Xibin et al. It discloses multi-task semi-supervised online sequential extreme learning method for emotion recognition of user, including establishing multiple channels at input layer and hidden layer based on semi-supervised online sequential extreme learning machine, including main-task channel for treating emotion main task, multiple sub-task channels for processing multiple emotion recognition sub-task, establishing multi-task semi-supervised online sequential extreme learning algorithm; establishing multi-layer stack self-coding extreme learning network in each channel; performing facial expression image feature extraction on user's expression, and inputting extracted feature vector to main-task channel and corresponding sub-task channel; connecting each output node and all hidden layers nodes on output layer, calculating output, output node being set to T, T=[t.sub.1, t.sub.2], t.sub.1=1, t.sub.2=0, expressing positive emotions, t.sub.1=0, t.sub.2=1, expressing negative emotions.
US 11503071 B2 Harris; Robert Jason et al. Identifying fraudulent requests for content One or more computing devices, systems, and/or methods are provided. A request for content associated with a device and/or a set of request information associated with the request for content may be received. A content item may be transmitted to the device. A set of client information associated with the device may be received. The set of client information may be analyzed to determine a fraudulence label associated with the request for content. Fraud detection information generated based upon the set of request information, the set of client information and/or the fraudulence label may be stored in a fraud detection database. A second request for content associated with a second device and/or a second set of request information associated with the second request for content may be received. A second fraudulence label may be determined based upon the second set of request information and/or the fraud detection database.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “Initially, claim 1 as a whole is related to "providing fraudulent protection via machine learning," which does not fall under the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" and "Mental Processes" groupings of abstract ideas.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Based on the claim language (“[G] receiving a second request for advertisement; and [H] determining whether an identifier associated with a source of the second request is to be included in a blacklist in accordance with the updated model.”) and in light of the specification (“… detecting fraudulent advertisement activity”), the claims are unambiguously directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)), as well as Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
The machine learning model is merely utilized as a tool to implement the identified abstract idea
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The above-quoted claim features cannot be performed in the human mind at least because the human mind cannot perform machine learning, and thus the claims do not fall within the "Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant office action does not allege that the limitation “[D] wherein each of the rules creates a region within an n-dimensional space that denotes non-fraudulent activity” can be performed in the human mind.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Further, the recited machine learning features extend far beyond fundamental economic principles or practices …”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Also, these claim features are not directed to mathematical concepts.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant office action does not make such an allegation.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Moreover, claim 1 is patent eligible because the claimed concepts are integrated into a practical application.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... 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 .... 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. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The claims provide an improvement to known technical problems caused by fraudulent activities in ad-networks.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
MPEP 2106.05(a) discloses that the additional claim elements bring about “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.” Detecting fraudulent advertisement activities is a pure BUSINESS problem, rather than a technology or technical field problem. As such, the limitations which have not been deemed as being part of the identified abstract idea, i.e., the “additional limitations,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “In the instant application, the Office Action appears to allege that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 8, 15) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 8, 15 are deemed ineligible.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(a).
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits the prior art of record does not disclose the emended limitation “classifying, based on a set of rules and the model, a first request for advertisement as a request originating from a predetermined type of source, wherein each of the rules creates a region within an n-dimensional space that denotes non-fraudulent activity.”
Examiner agrees.
However, Scher discloses:
classifying based on a set of rules and a model a first request for advertainment originating from a predetermined type of source; {see at least fig4, rcS430, [0049] compare source to content to list (based on BRI {MPEP 2111), reads on classifying request for advertisement; it also reads on rules, model)}
Furthermore, Wright discloses:
wherein each of the rules creates a region within an n-dimensional space {see at least fig5, rcRZ4, [0087] two-dimensional space (reads on n-dimensional space)} that denotes non-fraudulent activity {see at least fig5, rcRZ4, [0087] zone with non-fraudulent transactions}
Therefore, Schler, Wright discloses the amended claim limitation.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
The other arguments presented by Applicant continually point back to the above arguments as being the basis for the arguments against the other 103 rejections, as the other arguments are presented only because those claims depend from the independent claims, and the main argument above is presented against the independent claims. Therefore, it is believed that all arguments put forth have been addressed by the points above.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The changes of the grounds for rejection, if any, have been necessitated by Applicant’s extensive amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection is maintained, necessitated by the extensive amendments and by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Conclusion
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 mailing date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571.272.7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3698