DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination on the merits.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/25/2025, 02/24/2025, 12/26/2024 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 07/25/2025 are accepted by the examiner.
Priority
The application is filed on 09/06/2024 which is a CON 17/760,881 filed on
03/16/2022 and has 371 of PCT/US2020/063409 filed on 12/04/2020.
Double Patenting
1. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement, and there is no statutory double patenting rejection applied to other claim/claims of the set. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
2. Claims 1-20 of instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. US 12,111,945 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications recite similar subject matter with respect to allowing suitable digital components to be automatically selected and provided to a client device and generating a universal identifier for a digital component that is presented in the application. Furthermore, both applications recite he application identifies digital components and the corresponding universal identifiers that are blocked and generates a probabilistic data structure representing the set of blocked universal identifiers. The application creates multiple shares of the probabilistic data structure and transmits different shares to different servers.
Claim Comparison Table
Instant Application: 18/827,180
Patent No. US 12,111,945 B2
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: identifying, by an application, a set of blocked universal identifiers that are blocked from being used to present digital components in the application; generating, by the application, a probabilistic data structure representing the set of blocked universal identifiers; creating, by the application, multiple shares of the probabilistic data structure; transmitting, by the application, different ones of the multiple shares to different servers; receiving, by the application, a separate response generated by each of the different servers based on the different ones of the multiple shares transmitted to the different servers; and identifying, by the application and based on a combination of the separate responses, a digital component to present in the application.
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: generating, by an application and for a digital component presented in the application, a universal identifier that is an encrypted version of a combination of (i) a campaign identifier for a content source that provides the digital component and (ii) a domain of the content source; updating, by the application, a set of universal identifiers that have been created for digital components presented by the application over a specified time period based on the generated universal identifier; identifying, by the application, a set of blocked universal identifiers corresponding to universal identifiers that have been (i) generated by the application, and (ii) blocked from being used to present future digital components in the application; generating, by the application, a probabilistic data structure representing the set of blocked universal identifiers; creating, by the application, multiple shares of the probabilistic data structure; transmitting, by the application, different ones of the multiple shares to different servers; receiving, by the application, a separate response generated by each of the different servers based on the different ones of the multiple shares transmitted to the different servers; and identifying, by the application and based on a combination of the separate responses, a digital component to present in the application.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting, by the application, interaction with a mute element corresponding to a given digital component presented in the application; and updating the set of blocked universal identifiers to include a universal identifier of the given digital component in response to detecting the interaction with the mute element in a most recent timeframe.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting, by the application, interaction with a mute element corresponding to a given digital component presented in the application; and updating the set of blocked universal identifiers to include the universal identifier of the given digital component in response to detecting the interaction with the mute element in a most recent timeframe.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising incrementing a presentation counter indicative of a frequency of presentation of digital components having a particular universal identifier in response to presentation of a digital component associated with the particular universal identifier by the application.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein updating the set of universal identifiers comprises incrementing a presentation counter indicative of a frequency of presentation of digital components having a particular universal identifier in response to presentation of a digital component associated with the particular universal identifier by the application.
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising adding the particular universal identifier to the set of blocked universal identifiers when the presentation counter exceeds a specified value.
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising adding the particular universal identifier to the set of blocked universal identifiers when the presentation counter exceeds a specified value.
Claims 5-20
Claims 5-20
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
4. 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.
5. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
7. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alsina et al. (US 20150348102 A1, hereinafter, Alsina) in view of Irazabal et al. (US 20210075617 A1, hereinafter, Irazabal).
Regarding claim 1, Alsina discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising: identifying, by an application, a set of blocked universal identifiers that are blocked from being used to present digital components in the application (Para 0093: one or more unique user IDs (UUIDs) associated with customer segments represented by those segment identifiers wherein real identity of the segments and customers, as well as any private information used or analyzed by the device, can be masked or concealed from the content delivery system);
[generating, by the application, a probabilistic data structure representing the set of blocked universal identifiers]
creating, by the application, multiple shares of the [probabilistic data structure] (Para 0006: share the random string and unique user identifiers with the advertising system or company, without exposing or sharing the actual identity of the segments or users … deliver advertising content to the unique user identifiers associated with the string, in order to control the targeting of segments of the business' customers without exposing the customer's private information);
transmitting, by the application, different ones of the multiple shares to different servers (Para 0086, 0048: sending content associated with multiple segments/shares to the server with respective segment identifier represented by the unique user identifiers wherein segment identifiers can be, for example, strings such as private strings, random strings);
receiving, by the application, a separate response generated by each of the different servers based on the different ones of the multiple shares transmitted to the different servers (Para 0011-0012: server can then deliver the invitational content to the segment based on the request, without knowing the identity of the segment or the users in the segment. The request can be sent to the server in response to a triggering event. The triggering event can be, for example, a user action or behavior, a date, a time, a user context, a user location, an estimated user interest, a campaign, a sale, a promotion, a condition; Fig. 1 and associated texts109n, 110n, 11n); and
identifying, by the application and based on a combination of the separate
responses, a digital component to present in the application (Para 0026-0027: content package can include text, graphics, audio, video, executable code, or any combination thereof. Further, an assembled content package can include invitational content designed to inform or elicit a pre-defined response from the user. The content can be associated with a product and then the identified content/product can be directly or indirectly advertised).
Alsina does not explicitly state but Irazabal from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches generating, by the application, a probabilistic data structure representing the set of blocked universal identifiers (Irazabal, Paras 0043,0065-0066: populates a set of probabilistic data structure, filters …that confirms knowledge of a unique element without revealing content of the unique element).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein generating, by the application, a probabilistic data structure representing the set of blocked universal identifiers as taught by Alsina in the teachings of Irazabal for the advantage of validating uniqueness of a non-disclosed element of data, including in response to receiving a plurality of elements, generating an index of the plurality of elements of data received from a data store to create uniquely indexed data, generating filters from the index, generating a hash tree for the uniquely indexed data using the index, and validating a unique element of data from the hash tree and filters (Irazabal, Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Alsina and Irazabal discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising incrementing a presentation counter indicative of a frequency of presentation of digital components having a particular universal identifier in response to presentation of a digital component associated with the particular universal identifier by the application (Alsina Para 0076, 0078, 0036: if a user (associated with a unique user identifier (UUID)) has been demonstrated to visit or engage with invitational content from entertainment venues at a threshold frequency, the taxonomy can allow the user to specify additional user preferences for allowing or disallowing invitational content from different goods or services…wherein throttling is coupled with other settings such as frequency settings).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Alsina and Irazabal discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising adding the particular universal identifier to the set of blocked universal identifiers when the presentation counter exceeds a specified value (Alsina Para 0076, 0078, 0036, 0089: if a user (associated with a unique user identifier (UUID)) has been demonstrated to visit or engage with invitational content from entertainment venues at a threshold frequency, the taxonomy can allow the user to specify additional user preferences for allowing or disallowing invitational content from different goods or services…wherein throttling is coupled with other settings such as frequency settings… where analysis of the business's customers and/or customer habits and behavior can be generated with a determination that a previous set of segment identifiers has been in use for more than a threshold amount of time).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Alsina and Irazabal discloses the method of claim 1, wherein generating the probabilistic data structure comprises generating the probabilistic data structure representing (i) the set of blocked universal identifiers (Alsina Para 0093: one or more unique user IDs (UUIDs) associated with customer segments represented by those segment identifiers wherein real identity of the segments and customers, as well as any private information used or analyzed by the device, can be masked or concealed from the content delivery system) and
(ii) a set of user group identifiers corresponding to user groups assigned to a user of the application (Alsina, Para 0048: delivering application content to the devices associated with UUIDs linked to the segment identifier associated with targeted customers, as the segments are disguised, masked, and concealed by the segment identifier and the users are similarly disguised, masked, and concealed by the UUIDs).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Alsina and Irazabal discloses the method of claim 1, wherein an entity providing the digital component generates a universal identifier for the digital component (Para 0009-0010: system uses the UUID to target content to the user(s) by sending the digital content to the user's device, without knowing the actual, real identity of the user.. wherein delivering invitational content to the UUIDs associated with the segment identifier based on the campaign parameters).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Alsina and Irazabal discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the probabilistic data structure is a cuckoo filter (Irazabal Para 0066: Probabilistic filters can be high-speed, space-efficient data structures that support set-membership tests with a one-sided error. These filters claim that a given entry is definitely not represented in a set of entries, or might be represented in the set. That is, negative responses are conclusive, whereas positive responses incur a small false positive probability (FPP). Examples can be Bloom filters, Cuckoo filters, etc.).
Regarding claim 9; Claim 9 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 11; Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 3, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 12; Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 13; Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15; Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 7, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 16; Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 8, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17; Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 19; Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 3, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20; Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 2, 6, 10, 14, 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
9. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for placing 2, 6, 10, 14, 18 under allowable subject matters:
The limitation of dependent claims 2, 6, 10, 14, 18 are allowed and the corresponding dependent claims including respective and any intervening claims are not disclosed by the any of the prior art of record. For example, the limitations in claim 6 including the intervening claims recites “..wherein generating the probabilistic data structure comprises generating the probabilistic data structure representing (i) the set of blocked universal identifiers and (ii) a set of user group identifiers corresponding to user groups assigned to a user of the application….wherein generating the probabilistic data structure further comprises using a pseudo random function that is parameterized by two or more random variables..” which are not are not taught or fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
The allowable subject matters in above dependent claims are novel and non-obvious in scope over the prior art of record as the prior-art references fail to teach each and every features of the aforesaid dependent claim(s) including the limitations set forth above.
In view of the foregoing, the scope of claimed subject matters renders the invention patentably distinct as none of the prior art of record, either taken by itself or in any combination, would have anticipated or made obvious the invention of the present application at or before the time it was filed.
Furthermore, the Examiner performed updated search which does not yield other specific references that reasonably, either alone or in combination, would result a proper rejection of all the claimed features presented in each of the dependent claims 2, 6, 10, 14, 18 under 35 U.S.C 102 or 35 U.S.C.103 with proper motivation.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Turner et al. (US 20130326007 A1) discloses that using uniquely generated identifiers in a network-based ecosystem in which a plurality of client devices request media content and software applications from online distribution system and additionally request invitational content from invitational content providers.
Paturi et al. (US 20200351298 A1) discloses method for cyber risk quantification calculated from the likelihood of a cyber-attack on the target enterprise and/or cyber ecosystem wherein stochastic probabilistic measures are preferably applied to a knowledge base for predicting malicious user actions in real time..
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHFUZUR RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7638. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday.
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached on 571-272-8878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAHFUZUR RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498