Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a reply to the application filed on 9/10/2024, in which, claims 2-21 are pending. Claims 2, 12, and 21 are independent.
When making claim amendments, the applicant is encouraged to consider the references in their entireties, including those portions that have not been cited by the examiner and their equivalents as they may most broadly and appropriately apply to any particular anticipated claim amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 9/10/2024 are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure filed on 9/10/2024 is accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims recite multiple instances of “a browser”, “a user device”, and “a user.” It is not clear the multiple instances of the said elements are referring the same instance or different instance of the said elements, rendering the claim scope unclear. Claims further recite optional element “first content item is invalid because the first content item may be in the set of content items that should not be provided to the user device represented by the probabilistic data structure” rendering the claim scope ambiguous. Dependent claims are rejected under the same rationale for incorporating the deficiency of base claims 2 and 12.
Claims 5, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims recite optional element “may be” rendering the claim scope ambiguous.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, 19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10154116 B1 (hereinafter ‘Bushkin’) in view of US 20140143647 A1 (hereinafter ‘Rashidi’).
As regards claim 2, Bushkin (US 10154116 B1) discloses: A computer implemented method, comprising: transmitting, by a data processing apparatus and to a user device, data that facilitates display of a first content item, (Bushkin: col.12:40-col.13:27; Figs. 5A, 5B and Fig. 6(A), i.e., the user device 102 receives data at (A) from the content management system 100, i.e. the data processing apparatus, that facilitates display of a user's content feed comprising ten content items including content items with ID numbers 3-7, i.e. including a first content item such as content item with ID number 3)
However Bushkin does not but in analogous art, Rashidi (US 20140143647 A1) teaches: the first content item comprising a content item script that instructs a browser of the user device to update a frequency count for one or more content items including the first content item; (Rashidi: Fig. 2, 6, ¶3, ¶30, ¶46-¶52, i.e., the application i.e., browser downloads scripts, application as content wherein the applications download further content via the browser and store it locally in the cache and track if the content is already downloaded and in the cache)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bushkin to include tracking content downloaded via the browser using script/application as taught by Rashidi with the motivation to prevent redundant content from being downloaded (Rashidi: Fig. 2, 6, ¶3, ¶30, ¶46-¶52)
Bushkin et al combination further teaches: receiving, by the data processing apparatus and from the user device, a message comprising a probabilistic data structure representing a set of content items that should not be provided to a browser of a user device, wherein the set of content items represented by the probabilistic data structure comprises a plurality of content items of multiple content providers that are frequency capped or have been muted by a user; (Bushkin: Fig. 6D, col. 12:40 - col. 13:27, i.e., the user device 102 provides a probabilistic Bloom data structure to the content management system 100, i.e. the data processing apparatus, that represents a set of content items that have previously been received and are not to be re-transmitted to the user device. Said content items, thus, fall under the broad scope of frequency capped items, wherein the frequency is one, and of items that have been muted by the user that only wishes to receive them once. The content items are provided to a browser of the user device - col. 5:1-4. See also, Rashidi: Fig. 2, 6, ¶3, ¶30, ¶46-¶52, i.e., the content download is capped at one instance)
obtaining, by the data processing apparatus and from a plurality of content providers, responses indicating particular content items, wherein at least one particular content item is the first content item; (Bushkin: Figs. 1, 6, col. 12:40 - col. 13:27, i.e., the content items provided as responses to the user device are obtained by the content management system 100, i.e. the data processing apparatus, from a plurality of content servers 112, 112a and 112b)
determining, by the data processing apparatus and using the probabilistic data structure, that the first content item is invalid because the first content item may be in the set of content items that should not be provided to the user device represented by the probabilistic data structure; (Bushkin: Figs. 1, 6, col. 12:40 - col. 13:27, i.e., the probabilistic data structure is inspected by content server 112b part of the content management system 100, i.e. the data processing apparatus, to determine that content item with ID number 3, i.e. the first content item, is in the set of content items that should not be transmitted to the user device represented by the probabilistic data structure and is, thus, invalid)
in response to determining that the first content item is invalid, preventing, by the data processing apparatus, each of the plurality of content providers from distributing the first content item to the user device by removing content item data for the first content item from content item data for content items that are available to be provided to the user device; (Bushkin: Figs. 1, 6, col. 12:40 - col. 13:27, i.e., content item with ID number 3, i.e. the first content item, is removed from the content items that are to be included in the user's content feed, i.e. content items that are available to be provided to the user device, upon determination that it is invalid. Consequently, content server 112b, i.e. a content provider, is prevented from distributing content item with ID number 3 by the content management system 100. It is implicit that this operation is performed for each of the content servers upon establishment of a new connection, i.e. is performed for each of the plurality of content providers)
selecting, by the data processing apparatus and using the content item data for the content items that are available to be provided to the user device, a second content item that is still eligible after the content item data for the first content item has been removed; and (Bushkin: Figs. 1, 6, col. 12:40 - col. 13:27, i.e., Content items with ID numbers 11, 12, 13 and 15, i.e. second content items, are selected to be provided to the user device after discarding content item with ID number 3, i.e. after removing the first content item)
transmitting, by the data processing apparatus, the second content item to the user device. (Bushkin: Figs. 1, 6, col. 12:40 - col. 13:27, i.e., Content items with ID numbers 11, 12, 13 and 15, i.e. second content items, are selected to be provided to the user device)
Claims 12 and 21 recite substantially the same features recited in claim 2 above and are rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 4, Bushkin et al combination teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the probabilistic data structure comprises a bloom filter or a cuckoo filter. (Bushkin: Figs. 1, 6, col. 12:40 - col. 13:27)
Claim 14 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 4 above and is rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 5, Bushkin et al combination teaches the method of claim 2, wherein determining, by the data processing apparatus and using the probabilistic data structure, that the first content item is invalid because the first content item may be in the set of content items that should not be provided to the user device represented by the probabilistic data structure comprises querying the probabilistic data structure. (Bushkin: Figs. 1, 6, col. 12:40 - col. 13:27, i.e., the probabilistic data structure is inspected by content server 112b part of the content management system 100, i.e. the data processing apparatus, to determine that content item with ID number 3, i.e. the first content item, is in the set of content items that should not be transmitted to the user device represented by the probabilistic data structure and is, thus, invalid)
Claim 15 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 5 above and is rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 6, Bushkin et al combination teaches the method of claim 2, wherein each of the one or more content items are in a same group of content items as the first content item, the method comprising preventing each of the plurality of content providers from distributing content items in the same group to the user device. (Bushkin: Fig. 6D, col. 12:40 - col. 13:27, i.e., the user device 102 provides a probabilistic Bloom data structure to the content management system 100, i.e. the data processing apparatus, that represents a set of content items that have previously been received and are not to be re-transmitted to the user device. Said content items, thus, fall under the broad scope of frequency capped items, wherein the frequency is one, and of items that have been muted by the user that only wishes to receive them once. The content items are provided to a browser of the user device - col. 5:1-4. See also, Rashidi: Fig. 2, 6, ¶3, ¶30, ¶46-¶52, i.e., the content download is capped at one instance)
Claim 16 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 6 above and is rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 8, Bushkin et al combination teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the plurality of content items comprises the one or more content items in response to the frequency count meeting a maximum threshold. (Rashidi: Fig. 2, 6, ¶3, ¶30, ¶46-¶52, i.e., the content download is capped at one instance)
Claim 18 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 8 above and is rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 9, Bushkin et al combination teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the plurality of content items comprises the one or more content items in response to a user of the user device interacting with a user interface element to mute the first content item. (Bushkin: col. 2:12-23, col. 4:63 to col. 5:4, i.e., user selects the content to be downloaded or not)
Claim 19 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 9 above and is rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 11, Bushkin et al combination teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the browser is configured to expand the set of content items represented by the probabilistic data structure by adding randomly selected noise to the set of content items represented by the probabilistic data structure. (Bushkin: col. 12:22-12:58)
Claim(s) 3, 10, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bushkin in view of Rashidi in view of US 20170288862 A1 (hereinafter ‘Ponz’) in view of Al-Tariq, Abdullah, et al. "A scalable framework for protecting user identity and access pattern in untrusted Web server using forward secrecy, public key encryption and bloom filter." Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience 29.23 (2017): e3863. (hereinafter ‘Tariq’).
As regards claim 3, Bushkin et al combination teaches the method of claim 2. Bushkin et al do not but in analogous art, Ponz (US 20170288862 A1) and Tariq combination teaches: wherein the probabilistic data structure is encrypted using a public key of the data processing apparatus, the method comprising decrypting the probabilistic data structure using a private key corresponding to the public key. (Ponz: ¶10, ¶36, ¶39, i.e., the probabilistic data structure is encrypted/decrypted using a key and hash function. See also, Tariq: pages 10-13, i.e., encrypted bloom filter that is encrypted and searchable using public-private key pairs and symmetrical keys)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bushkin to include encrypting/decrypting probabilistic data structures using public-private key pairs and hash functions as taught by Ponz and Tariq with the motivation to prevent exposure of the content in the structure (Ponz: ¶10, ¶36, ¶39)
Claim 13 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 3 above and is rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 10, Bushkin et al combination teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the content item data for each content item comprises a globally unique identifier generated using a hash function based on a content provider's secret key and a public key of the browser. (Bushkin: col. 12:53-12:58, i.e., generating unique ID using hash for the content. See also, Ponz: ¶10, ¶36, ¶39, i.e., the probabilistic data structure is encrypted/decrypted using a key and hash function. See also, Tariq: pages 10-13, i.e., encrypted bloom filter that is encrypted and searchable using public-private key pairs and symmetrical keys)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bushkin to include encrypting/decrypting probabilistic data structures using public-private key pairs and hash functions as taught by Ponz and Tariq with the motivation to prevent exposure of the content in the structure (Ponz: ¶10, ¶36, ¶39)
Claim 20 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 10 above and is rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
Claim(s) 7, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bushkin in view of Rashidi in view of US 20040205221 A1 (hereinafter ‘Yamanaka’).
As regards claim 7, Bushkin et al combination teaches the method of claim 2. However, Bushkin et al do not but in analogous art, Yamanka (US 20040205221 A1) teaches: wherein each of the one or more content items share a common category with the first content item, the method comprising preventing each of the plurality of content providers from distributing content items of the common category to the user device. (Yamanaka: ¶12, ¶56, ¶123, ¶207, i.e., content filter based on content category that allows providers to either distribute the content or to prevent distribution of content to the user device)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bushkin to include content filter based on content category that allows providers to either distribute the content or to prevent distribution of content to the user device as taught by with the motivation to provide only desired content to the user (Yamanaka: ¶12, ¶56, ¶123, ¶207)
Claim 17 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 7 above and is rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ZAIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-5995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 5:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SYED A ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432