DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 1/16/2025. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending and are examined.
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 .
Priority/Benefit
Applicant’s priority claim is hereby acknowledged as a of CON of PCT/KR2024/095961 08/01/2024 and PHILIPPINES 1-2023-050459 08/24/2023, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement PTO-1449
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted by applicant on 1/16/2025, 10/31/2025, and 6/11/2026 has/have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is more than 150 words. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Examiner’s Note – Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, and 13-15 overcome the prior art and would otherwise be allowable if incorporated into the base claim along with any intervening claims.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 10-11, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2019/0349451 A1), in view of Dektyarev (US 2024/0012861 A1) in view of Liu (US 2023/0325884 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 19, Wang teaches:
“An electronic apparatus comprising: memory configured to store a first sub model corresponding to a main model and one or more computer programs (Wang, ¶ 40-41 teaches first blocking strategy library which is stored on the client contains descriptions of the system in different aspects. Wang, ¶ 158 memory and code to perform method steps), the main model being stored in a server (Wang, ¶ 66, the second blocking strategy library is more comprehensive than the first blocking strategy stored on the client); communication circuitry configured to communicate with the server including the main model (Wang, ¶ 161 teaches terminal communication circuitry. Wang, ¶ 5 the terminal communicates with the server); a display (Wang, ¶ 46 display); and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the communication circuitry, the display, and the memory (Wang ¶ 160-161, processor, memory, display and wireless communication implementation), wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively (Wang, ¶ 163 teaches processor and memory executing method steps), cause the electronic apparatus to: control the display to display a first screen including an advertisement (Wang, ¶ 60-61, and 140 teaches displaying popup. Wang, ¶ 3 and 48 popup is an advertisement), obtain a first user input for blocking the advertisement (Wang, ¶ 70-73 user blocks the popup), obtain a second screen without the advertisement as inputting the first screen and the first user input into the first sub model (Wang, ¶ 74-79 the user response is added to the blocking strategy which is then added to the first blocking strategy library. Wang, Fig. 4, step 414, subsequent object blocking is performed based on the first blocking strategy with the object added to the library), control the display to display the second screen without the advertisement, based on a first pre-determined event being identified (Wang, ¶ 40 and 49 when a blocked object or block decision of the user is detected the screen is presented without the popup), obtain first user data including the first user input, the first screen and the second screen (Wang, ¶ 70-73 teaches recording the user input. Wang, ¶ 87-94 teaches detecting the screens that occur and extracting information about them)”.
Wang does not, but in related art, Dektyarev teaches:
“and the first sub model being obtained by reducing a size of the main model (Dektyarev, ¶ 26-29, 31-33, 42, and 130 teach generating sub models which are a proportion of the main model based on user interaction data)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wang and Dektyarev, to modify the popup system of Wang to include the method to utilize sub-models as a subset of a total model being smaller than the total model as taught in Dektyarev. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Wang and Dektyarev does not, but in related art, Liu teaches:
“obtain a second sub model by re-training the first sub model based on the first user data (Liu, ¶ 182-190 teaches training the model related to user advertisement preferences based on user input)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wang, Liu, and Dektyarev, to modify the popup system of Wang and Dektyarev to include the method to model retraining as taught in Liu. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Wang, Liu, and Dektyarev teaches:
“The electronic apparatus of claim 1 (Wang, Liu, and Dektyarev teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic apparatus to: through the communication circuitry, receive the first sub model from the server; and store the first sub model in the memory (Wang, ¶ 74-79 the user response is added to the blocking strategy which is then added to the first blocking strategy library. Wang, Fig. 4, step 414, subsequent object blocking is performed based on the first blocking strategy with the object added to the library)”.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Wang, Liu, and Dektyarev teaches:
“The electronic apparatus of claim 1 (Wang, Liu, and Dektyarev teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic apparatus to: obtain the second screen by performing a function for blocking an advertisement through the first sub model (Wang, ¶ 40 and 49 when a blocked object or block decision of the user is detected the screen is presented without the popup)”.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Wang, Liu, and Dektyarev teaches:
“The electronic apparatus of claim 4 (Wang, Liu, and Dektyarev teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the first pre-determined event includes an event for executing a training mode related to the function for blocking the advertisement of the first sub model (Wang, ¶ 40 and 49 when a blocked object or block decision of the user is detected the screen is presented without the popup)”.
Regarding claim 6, Wang, Liu, and Dektyarev teaches:
“The electronic apparatus of claim 1 (Wang, Liu, and Dektyarev teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic apparatus to: based on a second pre-determined event being identified, through the communication circuitry, transmit the second sub model to the server (Wang, ¶ 70-79 the user response is added to the blocking strategy which is then added to the first blocking strategy library. When another popup occurs when the first library doesn’t know what to do with, it will trigger another learning event. Wang, Fig. 4, step 414, subsequent object blocking is performed based on the first blocking strategy with the object added to the library)”.
Regarding claim 10, Wang, Liu, and Dektyarev teaches:
“The electronic apparatus of claim 1 (Wang, Liu, and Dektyarev teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic apparatus to: obtain a hypertext markup language (HTML) element and a network element based on the first screen, and obtain the second screen without the advertisement as inputting the HTML element, the network element and the first user input into the first sub model (Liu, ¶ 46 and 89 teaches storing the HTML address information of the popup for learning about the advertisement)”.
Claim(s) 2, 12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Dektyarev in view of Liu in view of Namgoong (US 2025/0274352 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 20, Wang, Liu, and Dektyarev teaches:
“The electronic apparatus of claim 1 (Wang, Liu, and Dektyarev teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above) wherein the main model is obtained by training on the server, and wherein the first sub model is obtained by training the main model, on the server (Dektyarev, ¶ 42-43 teaches training the model and sub-model on the server)”.
Wang, Liu, and Dektyarev do not, but in related art, Namgoong teaches:
“based on at least one of knowledge distillation or quantization (Namgoong, ¶ 95 teaches training the model on the server side using knowledge distillation)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wang, Liu, Namgoong, and Dektyarev, to modify the popup system of Wang, Liu and Dektyarev to include the method to train a model using knowledge distillation as taught in Namgoong. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Dektyarev in view of Liu in view of Deng (US 2022/0377424 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Wang, Liu, and Dektyarev teaches:
“The electronic apparatus of claim 6 (Wang, Liu, and Dektyarev teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above)”.
Wang, Liu, and Dektyarev do not, but in related art, Deng teaches:
“wherein the second pre-determined event includes an event indicating that a pre-determined period has elapsed (Deng, ¶ 218 teaches having a prompt occur based on a time elapsed)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wang, Liu, Deng, and Dektyarev, to modify the popup system of Wang, Liu and Dektyarev to include the method re-evaluate after a period of time as taught in Degn. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen T Gundry whose telephone number is (571) 270-0507. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM (EST).
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571) 270-3351. 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.
/STEPHEN T GUNDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights