Detailed Action
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the application filed on December 12, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are examined.
This Office Action is given Paper No. 20260123 for references purposes only.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. The instant application claims the benefit of application 17/930,200.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on December 12, 2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 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 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claims recite an abstract idea of targeted advertising based on a browser identifier, which is a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk; commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Claim 1, representative of claims 7 and 13, includes the following limitations:
Receiving, a request from a browser for a webpage and a unique browser identifier;
Replacing identification data with the unique browser identifier;
Determining a data element based on the unique browser identifier;
Performing ad verification based on the display information.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim limitations recite the following additional elements that are beyond the judicial exception:
Publisher device;
Data exchange;
Data element distribution entity;
Transmitting the unique browser identifier to a data element distribution entity;
Receiving the data element;
Transmitting the data element to the browser;
Transmitting display information corresponding to the data element.
These additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
They generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
They add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Note that “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity can include both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as whole. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The claim limitations do not recite additional elements, or an ordered combination of additional elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2 above, the additional elements of a “publisher device”, “data exchange”, and “data element distribution entity” generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept at step 2B.
According to the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is mere instructions to apply an exception under step 2A should be re-evaluated at step 2B. Thus, the additional elements of a “publisher device”, “data exchange”, and “data element distribution entity” are re-evaluated to determine whether they constitute significantly more. Examiner finds that the additional elements of a “publisher device”, “data exchange”, and “data element distribution entity” are merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 and MPEP 2106.05(h).
As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2 above, the additional elements of “transmitting the unique browser identifier to a data element distribution entity”, “receiving the data element”, “transmitting the data element to the browser”, and “transmitting display information corresponding to the data element” are extra solution activity that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept at step 2B.
According to the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity under step 2A should be re-evaluated at step 2B. The limitations “transmitting the unique browser identifier to a data element distribution entity”, “receiving the data element”, “transmitting the data element to the browser”, and “transmitting display information corresponding to the data element” are re-evaluated to determine whether they constitute well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. The “transmitting of data” and “receiving of data” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See Symantec, TLI Communications, and MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus, a conclusion that the limitations “transmitting the unique browser identifier to a data element distribution entity”, “receiving the data element”, “transmitting the data element to the browser”, and “transmitting display information corresponding to the data element” are well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported under Berkheimer.
Therefore, when considering all the additional claim elements both individually and as an ordered combination, Examiner finds that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the exception.
The dependent claims fail to cure this deficiency and are rejected accordingly.
Claim 2 recites transmitting non-linked data, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 and MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 3 recites the non-linked data is not linkable to a specific browser or user, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites transmitting the unique browser identifier to the data exchange, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 and MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 5 recites receiving a second request for a webpage and a second browser identifier, and transmitting the second browser identifier, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 and MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 6 recites removing data from the request, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated). See Electric Power Group, and MPEP 2106.05(g).
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 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 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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park (US 2013/0124339), in view of Oliver (US 2014/0129670), and further in view of O’Sullivan et al. (US 2008/0319774).
Claims 1, 7, 13
Park discloses:
receiving, at a publisher device (publisher, see [0035], figure 7), a request (request, see [0035]) from a browser (browser, see [0035]) for a webpage and a unique browser identifier (unique identifier, see [0035]);
transmitting, from the publisher device to at least one data element distribution entity (advertiser, see [0034]), the unique browser identifier (unique identifier, see [0035]);
determining a data element (advertisements, creatives, see [0034-0035]) based, at least in part, on the unique browser identifier;
receiving, at the publisher device, the determined data element (advertisements, creatives, see [0034-0035]);
transmitting, from the publisher device to the browser, the received data element (creative of advertisements is provided for display on web page, see [0035]).
Park does not disclose:
A unique browser identifier;
Replacing… identifier.
Oliver teaches:
a unique browser identifier (unique identifiers that provide a fingerprint for a web browser, see [0033]);
replacing, by the publisher device, identification data (removal of non-respective fields, see [0032]) with the unique browser identifier (unique identifiers that provide a fingerprint for a web browser, see [0033]).
Park discloses receiving a request, transmitting a unique browser identifier, determining a data element, receiving the data element, and transmitting the data element. Park does not disclose a unique browser identifier and replacing identification data with the unique browser identifier, but Oliver does. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the providing multiple creatives for contextual advertising of Park with the unique browser identifier and replacing identification data with the unique browser identifier of Oliver because 1) a need exists for providing related advertisements (see Park [0004]); and 2) a need exists for modifying unique identifiers and analyzing regenerated identifiers (see Oliver [0002]). Having a unique browser identifier and replacing identification data with the unique browser identifier allows for the protection of private or sensitive information pertaining to a user over a network (see Oliver [0001]).
Park in view of Oliver discloses the limitations above. Park in view of Oliver does not disclose:
Transmitting… element;
Performing… element.
O’Sullivan teaches:
transmitting, to a data exchange (outside entity, see [0048]) and a first data element distribution entity (server hosting the web page, see [0048]) corresponding to the determined data element, display information (collected data, monitors cursor movement, see [0040, 0042, 0048]) corresponding to the transmitted data element (advertisements, see [0040, 0042]); and
performing, by the data exchange, ad verification (whether clicking on advertisement is valid, see [0040]) based on the display information corresponding to the transmitted data element.
Park in view of Oliver discloses receiving a request, transmitting a unique browser identifier, determining a data element, receiving the data element, and transmitting the data element, replacing identification data with the unique browser identifier. Park in view of Oliver does not disclose transmitting display information and performing ad verification, but O’Sullivan does. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the providing multiple creatives for contextual advertising of Park, in view of Oliver, with the transmitting display information and performing ad verification of O’Sullivan because a need exists for detecting click fraud (see O’Sullivan [0001]). Transmitting display information and performing ad verification helps efficient targeting by reducing overlap among publishers and ad networks.
Claims 2, 8, 16
Furthermore, Park discloses:
transmitting non-linked data (content of web pages based on keywords and content, see [0035]) to the at least one data element distribution entity, wherein the at least one data element distribution entity further determines the data element based, at least in part, on the non-linked data.
Claims 3, 9, 14, 17
Furthermore, Park discloses:
the non-linked data comprises data that is not linkable to a specific browser or a specific user (content of web pages based on keywords and content, see [0035]).
Claims 4, 18
Furthermore, Park discloses:
transmitting the unique browser identifier to the at least one data element distribution entity further comprises transmitting the unique browser identifier to the data exchange (advertisement system, see [0045, 0051]),
wherein the data exchange transmits non-linked data (content of web pages based on keywords and content, see [0035]) and data (e.g. size of advertisement slot, media types, user fits gender/age, see [0046, 0048]) associated with the unique browser identifier to the at least one data element distribution entity (advertisers, see [0051]), and wherein the at least one data element distribution entity further determines the data element based, at least in part, on the data associated with the unique browser identifier.
Claims 5, 19
Furthermore, Park discloses:
and wherein the method further comprises: receiving a second request (request second web page, see [0036]) for a webpage along with a second unique browser identifier (unique identifier, see [0028]) from the browser; and
transmitting the second unique browser identifier to the at least one data element distribution entity (advertiser, see [0036]), wherein the first unique browser identifier is not cross-referenceable with the second unique browser identifier (e.g. user opts out of collection of information by cookies, anonymization of user data, separation of identity data from other data, see [0083]).
Furthermore, Oliver teaches:
the unique browser identifier is a first unique browser identifier (unique identifiers that provide a fingerprint for a web browser, see [0033]).
Claims 6, 20
Furthermore, Park discloses:
transmitting the unique browser identifier to the at least one data element distribution entity further comprises removing data from the request which can be linked to a specific browser or a specific user (anonymization of user data, separation of identity data from other data, see [0083]), with exception of the unique browser identifier, and transmitting the request to the at least one data element distribution entity.
Claims 10, 15
Furthermore, Oliver teaches:
in response receiving a modify request, causing the unique browser identifier to be modified (modification of fields, see [0033-0034]).
Claim 11
Furthermore, Oliver teaches:
in response to receiving the modify request, causing at least one additional unique browser identifier in at least one additional browser to be modified (modifying one or more fields associated with the identification of the at least one web browser, see [0057, 0067]).
Claim 12
Furthermore, Oliver teaches:
in response to receiving the modify request, causing the unique browser identifier in at least one additional browser on at least one additional device (one or more user equipment, see [0026]) to be modified (modifying one or more fields associated with the identification of the at least one web browser, see [0057, 0067]).
Double Patenting
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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 of the instant application is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of US patent 10,049,392, claims 1-17 of US patent 11,468,482, and claims 1-20 of US patent 12,190,357.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the instant application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the disclosure of US patent 10,049,392, US patent 11,468,482, and US patent 12,190,357.
The instant application is directed to receiving a request from a browser for a webpage and a unique browser identifier; replacing identification data with the browser identifier; transmitting the unique browser identifier; determining a data element based on the browser identifier; receiving the data element; transmitting the data element; transmitting display information; and performing ad verification based on the display information (see claim 1).
US patent 10,049,392 is directed to generating a unique browser identifier; receiving a request for the webpage; obtaining the webpage; identifying a plurality of links in the webpage that link to third party content; replacing the plurality of links to generate a first portion of the webpage; providing the first potion of the webpage; identifying identifier data in the request that is linkable to the user, browser, or device; removing any data in the request that is linkable to the user, browser, or device; inserting the unique browser identifier; providing the portion of the request; receiving the third party content; providing the third party content as a second portion of the webpage; and replacing in the first portion of the webpage with the second portion of the webpage (see claim 1).
US patent 11,468,482 is directed to receiving a request from a browser for a webpage, along with a unique browser identifier; replacing code of the webpage to direct communication to the publisher; providing a first portion of the webpage; providing the browser identifier, wherein a data element distribution entity determines a data element based on the browser identifier; receiving the data element; providing the data element as a second portion of the webpage; and resetting the browser identifier at a predetermined time interval (see claim 1).
US patent 12,190,357 is directed to receiving a request from a browser for a webpage and a unique browser identifier; replacing identification data with the browser identifier; transmitting a first portion of the webpage; transmitting the unique browser identifier; determining a data element based on the browser identifier; receiving the data element; transmitting the data element as a second portion of the webpage; transmitting display information corresponding to the data element and an IP address; and performing fraud prevention analysis based on the display information and IP address (see claim 1).
The instant application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of US patent 10,049,392, US patent 11,468,482, and US patent 12,190,357 because they all encompass receiving a request from a browser for a webpage and a unique browser identifier; replacing identification data with the browser identifier; transmitting the browser identifier; determining a data element based on the browser identifier; receiving the data element; transmitting the data element; and transmitting display information (see claim 1 of US patent 10,049,392, claim 1 of US patent 11,468,482, and claim 1 of US patent 12,190,357). Furthermore, US patent 12,190,357 discloses performing fraud prevention analysis, which is ad verification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from Examiner should be directed to Chrystina Zelaskiewicz whose telephone number is 571-270-3940. Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair <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).
/CHRYSTINA E ZELASKIEWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699