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
The present office action is responsive to communications received on 07/13/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
The first argument is not persuasive, given BRI the claim recites sending an advertisement which results in a response transmitted, wherein the communication is via Bluetooth [beacon]. Rizvi was used to map the entire limitation the only missing part was a beacon/Bluetooth which was not explicitly disclosed. Murphy was brought in to show obviousness of using a beacon.
Second argument is not persuasive, Rizvi discloses sending IP and URL identifiers and receiving modification to advertisements, as mapped in the office action. The only portion that was not explicitly disclosed by Rizvi is using a Bluetooth/beacon and therefore Murphy was used to show that an ID can be sent via Bluetooth. Using a beacon or Bluetooth is common in the art and exists in virtually every mobile device so applicant argument for motivation is not persuasive.
The third/final argument is not persuasive, applicant claims do not show that first and second identification are different in terms of content but could be different in terms of duration because in claim 2 the applicant claims that the first and second identification comprise an IP address which is not necessarily changed and then we see in the prior art that based on first user identification a bidding can be done to target that user so when user identification is received at a later time, different permission(s) would control which advertisement(s) or content is accessed. That being said in claim 20, for example, the claim recites the first and second IP are different so another prior art, Gorodyansky, was brought in that still discloses the limitation and therefore the examiner does not believe the claims are allowable.
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) 1-4, 6-13, 15, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizvi et al. (US 10594767 B1) hereinafter referred to as Rizvi in view of Murphy et al. (US 20240184877 A1) hereinafter referred to as Murphy.
With respect to claim 1, Rizvi discloses: A method comprising: receiving, from a first device, a request for access to a content resource, wherein the request comprises first identification information of the first device; (Rizvi 12: 45-65 teach receiving from Kevin’s device a request comprising IP. Fig. 1B disclose the identification information is stored in the form of a “Short URL Descriptor” comprising mobile device identification information. Also, another embodiment Rizvi 14:20-45 discloses mobile device sending request to access content comprises device identification).
sending, to the first device and based on a permission for the first device to access the content resource, advertisement data comprising an advertisement and instructions to transmit an advertisement response; (Rizvi after receiving the login first identification information in Rizvi 12:65 to 13:25 teach “selection of the link also opens a webview (browser user interface) in the application. The application, via the webview, subsequently, sends an HTTP GET request to “www.t.co/sports”. Upon receipt of the request, the t.co server (i.e., the short URL service in this example) generates a short URL descriptor that stores the following information: the short URL ID, the IP address of Kevin's smartphone, “www.t.co/sports”, and a timestamp, generated by the short URL service. The t.co server subsequently sends the short URL ID to the application executing on Kevin's smartphone. In addition, the t.co server also provides the long URL (e.g., “www.sportsco.com/homepage/basketball”) to the webview.” [advertisement] which comprises Get instructions “which results in the sportswear company webpage being displayed in the webview.”)
receiving, from the first device, an advertisement response comprising second identification information; (Rizvi 13:10-30 teach “Get instructions “which results in the sportswear company webpage being displayed in the webview.”. Rizvi Fig. 1B discloses second “Social Media Descriptor” [advertisement response] comprises mobile device IP address which is a second access comprising second identification of IP address. Summarized in Rizvi’s patent claim 2).
and causing, based on a difference between the first identification information and the second identification information, a modification to the permission for the first device to access the content resource. (Rizvi 15: 20-30 “the mapping, as described above [of a first access comprising an identification information comprising an IP and a second access comprising identification information which also include the IP], may be used for advertisement retargeting [in other words based on matching the first identification information and second received identification information a “retargeting” which is interpreted as the modification to the advertisement permission for the first device to access/view the retargeted advertisements]. That is, being able to reconstruct a relationship between a user's social media ID, and the short URL's accessed by the user, a partner may be interested in bidding for advertisement placements in the third-party advertisement system so as to increase the frequency in which the advertisement appears to the user [modification of permission to view] in the application.” Rizvi’s patented claim 1 also summarizes “receive a social media descriptor from the mobile device, the social media descriptor including a social media identifier (ID) of a user of the application for the social media platform executing on the mobile device; receive a short Uniform Resource Locator (URL) descriptor from the mobile device, the short URL descriptor including a short URL ID” and claim 2 teaches that the short URL and social media description each comprise first and second user mobile device identification).
Rizvi does not explicitly disclose a beacon.
However, Murphy in an analogous art discloses: receiving, from the first device, an advertisement response beacon (Murphy ¶10 operating in a VPN environment as claimed by the other independent claims and Murphy ¶46 discloses receiving from user device advertisement start and end beacons).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rizvi with receiving, from the first device, an advertisement response beacon as disclosed by Murphy to allow advertisements using a low energy consumption technology (see Murphy ¶46).
Claims 12 and 17 recites methods and have slight difference in language. Claim 12 recites VPN which is taught by Murphy as mapped in claim 1 and claim 17 recites the first step is a login which is also mapped in claim 1. Otherwise, the claims recite similar matter as claim 1 and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 2, Rizvi in view of Murphy disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein one or more of the first identification information and the second identification information comprises an Internet Protocol (IP) address. (Rizvi Fig. 1B illustrates the descriptors each comprise the device IP).
Claim 13 recites a method and while it might have slight difference in language it recites similar matter and therefore rejected based on the same rationale as claim 2.
With respect to claim 3, Rizvi in view of Murphy disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein the request for access is received via a virtual private network (VPN), and the advertisement response beacon is received via a communication path external to the VPN. (Murphy ¶10 “IP subnets can span multiple floors or buildings and the use of a virtual private network (VPN) can make a remote computer appear as if it is on the corporate network when working from a remote location.”)
With respect to claim 4, Rizvi in view of Murphy disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein the request for access is received via a network server, (Rizvi 12:65 to Rizvi 13:25 teach the server receives the access request from the user mobile device).
and wherein the advertisement response beacon is received from the first device. (Murphy ¶46 discloses receiving from user device advertisement start and end beacons motivated by the same rationale as the independent claim).
With respect to claim 6, Rizvi in view of Murphy disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein the advertisement response beacon comprises data corresponding to the display of the advertisement. (Rizvi 3:10-25 “embodiments of the invention enable attributing an online conversion to a platform (e.g. a social media platform) that displays an advertisement” with Murphy teaching the response comprises a beacon as mapped in the independent claim).
With respect to claim 7, Rizvi in view of Murphy disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein the causing the modification to the permission for the first device to access the content resource further comprises: sending an authentication request to the first device. (Based on broadest reasonable interpretation, since the sequence is not clear from the claim language, Rizvi 14:20-40 teach authenticating the mobile device as part of the process).
With respect to claim 8, Rizvi in view of Murphy disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein the causing further comprises: terminating access to the content resource for the first device. (Rizvi 12:20-30 “If no match is detected, execution of the method may terminate” which means content to the device would not proceed since there is no match).
With respect to claim 9, Rizvi in view of Murphy disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein the advertisement data comprises one or more of advertisement objects, advertisement video data, advertisement image data, and advertisement audio data. (Rizvi 15: 20-30 “the mapping, as described above, may be used for advertisement retargeting. That is, being able to reconstruct a relationship between a user's social media ID, and the short URL's accessed by the user, a partner may be interested in bidding for advertisement placements in the third-party advertisement system so as to increase the frequency in which the advertisement appears to the user in the application.”).
With respect to claim 10, Rizvi in view of Murphy disclose: The method of claim 1, further comprising: validating, based on the first identification information, the first device; and sending, to the first device, an indication of the validation. (Rizvi 14:20-45 discloses mobile device sending request to access content comprises device identification and based on “identification is authenticated, a cookie [indication of the validation] possessing Kevin's social media ID is sent to the application and associated with the webview.”)
With respect to claim 11, Rizvi in view of Murphy disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein the content resource comprises a webpage. (Rizvi 13:25 discloses content comprises a URL to a website).
With respect to claim 15, Rizvi in view of Murphy disclose: The method of claim 12, wherein the information corresponding to the advertisement data comprises an acknowledgement the advertisement data is received by the first device. (Rizvi 12:65 to 13:25 the “Get” request that followed from the mobile device is interpreted as the acknowledgement).
With respect to claim 19, Rizvi in view of Murphy disclose: The method of claim 17, wherein the third message comprises an advertisement response beacon. (Murphy for the reasoning disclosed in the independent claim teaches the advertisement response could have been using a advertisement response beacon).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng as applied to claims 1-4, 6-13, 15, 17 and 19 above, and further in view of Wiener et al. (US 20160092914 A1) hereinafter referred to as Wiener.
With respect to claim 5, Rizvi in view of Murphy disclose: The method of claim 1,
Rizvi in view of Murphy do not explicitly disclose: wherein the instructions to transmit the advertisement response beacon comprises instructions to transmit the advertisement response beacon via a specified communication port, a specified network layer, a specified transport protocol, a specified application transport layer, or a combination thereof.
However, Wiener in an analogous art discloses: wherein the instructions to transmit the advertisement response beacon comprises instructions to transmit the advertisement response beacon via a specified communication port, a specified network layer, a specified transport protocol, a specified application transport layer, or a combination thereof. (Wiener ¶25 teaches content comprises “advertisements, beacons” then Wiener ¶82 teaches the computing system “performs specific networking operations using one or more instances of communication interface 814. Instances of the communication interface 814 may comprise one or more networking ports that are configurable (e.g., pertaining to speed, protocol, physical layer characteristics, media access characteristics, etc.) and any particular instance of the communication interface 814 or port thereto can be configured differently from any other particular instance.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rizvi in view of Murphy wherein the instructions to transmit the advertisement response beacon comprises instructions to transmit the advertisement response beacon via a specified communication port, a specified network layer, a specified transport protocol, a specified application transport layer, or a combination thereof for additional communication control (see Wiener ¶82).
Claim(s) 14, 16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng as applied to claims 1-4, 6-13, 15, 17 and 19 above, and further in view of Gorodyansky et al. (US 20090276314 A1) hereinafter referred to as Gorodyansky.
With respect to claim 14, Rizvi in view of Murphy disclose: The method of claim 12,
Rizvi in view of Murphy do not explicitly disclose: wherein the second identification information comprises identification information of a VPN server.
However, Gorodyansky in an analogous art discloses: wherein the second identification information comprises identification information of a VPN server. (Gorodyansky ¶21-22 discloses sending request using identified VPN server.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rizvi in view of Murphy wherein the second identification information comprises identification information of a VPN server Gorodyansky to reach the VPN server (see Gorodyansky ¶21-22).
With respect to claim 16, Rizvi in view of Murphy disclose: The method of claim 12,
Rizvi in view of Murphy do not explicitly disclose: wherein the second identification information is different than the first identification information.
However, Gorodyansky in an analogous art discloses: wherein the second identification information is different than the first identification information. (Gorodyansky ¶30 “The client software running on the system 401 chooses the most relevant ad based on, for example, prior online activities of the user and inserts this ad (BMW ad 410) into the content 409 and shows it to the user. In another embodiment, the most relevant ad may be selected using the location of the user which may be determined from user's IP address.” Which means when device changes location a different IP would be sent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rizvi in view of Murphy wherein the second identification information is different than the first identification information Gorodyansky because the IP is location dependent (see Gorodyansky ¶30).
With respect to claim 18, Rizvi in view of Murphy disclose: The method of claim 17,
Rizvi in view of Murphy do not explicitly disclose: wherein the first IP address corresponds to a virtual private network (VPN) server.
However, Gorodyansky in an analogous art discloses: wherein the first IP address corresponds to a virtual private network (VPN) server. (Gorodyansky ¶21-22 discloses sending request using identified VPN server.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rizvi in view of Murphy wherein the first IP address corresponds to a virtual private network (VPN) server Gorodyansky to reach the VPN server (see Gorodyansky ¶21-22).
With respect to claim 20, Rizvi in view of Murphy disclose: The method of claim 17,
Rizvi in view of Murphy do not explicitly disclose: wherein the second IP address is different than the first IP address.
However, Gorodyansky in an analogous art discloses: wherein the second IP address is different than the first IP address. (Gorodyansky ¶30 “The client software running on the system 401 chooses the most relevant ad based on, for example, prior online activities of the user and inserts this ad (BMW ad 410) into the content 409 and shows it to the user. In another embodiment, the most relevant ad may be selected using the location of the user which may be determined from user's IP address.” Which means when device changes location a different IP would be sent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rizvi in view of Murphy wherein the second IP address is different than the first IP address Gorodyansky because the IP is location dependent (see Gorodyansky ¶30).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANY S GADALLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2322. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at (571) 272-3862. 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.
/HANY S. GADALLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights