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
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 9/4/2026, and is a Final Office Action.
Claims 1-3, 5-19 are pending in the application.
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 1-3, 5-19 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.
Claim 1 is directed towards a system, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a method of organizing human activity – commercial interaction and fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: acquire a plurality of first logs including at least an IP address and a date and time from a first user terminal to which a unique ID is set; retrieve group information by using the unique ID of the first user terminal as a key; estimate the IP address for a target period based on a regularity of a fluctuation in the IP address if there is the fluctuation in the IP address within a predetermined period in the plurality of the acquired first logs, the fluctuation indicating that the IP address is a dynamic IP address, wherein the regularity is determined based on at least one of a number of appearances of same IP address within the predetermined period ; and store, information that associates at least the estimated IP address for the target period with the retrieved group information to identify a correspondence between the group and the dynamic IP address for the target period. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “Furthermore, the information processing apparatus 10 for Embodiment 2 performs an access analysis for each group based on the site logs of when the second user terminals 30-A, 30-B access the advertiser's website and the above correspondence. The information processing apparatus 10 then provides the analysis results to the advertiser's apparatus 50.” , “The first user terminals 20-A, 20-B are specific examples of the first user terminals 20 according to Embodiment 1. The first user terminals 20-A, 20-B are multifunctional printers with signage installed at different groups "A" and "B", respectively. The first user terminal 20-A, 20-B is set with a unique ID according to the group. The first user terminals 20-A, 20-B have a function to deliver advertisements. For example, the first user terminals 20-A, 20-B acquire, from the information processing apparatus 10 or the advertiser's device 50, advertisement data for the group in which they are installed, and display the advertisement data. The first user terminals 20-A, 20-B transmit measurement logs to the information processing apparatus 10 at regular or irregular intervals, respectively. “, “The second acquisition unit 115 acquires a site log from the log collection server 40 of when the second user terminal 30 accesses a predetermined website. The predetermined website is, for example, the advertiser's website, but it can be any website that contains content related to the advertiser.”, “According to Embodiment 2, since the correspondence between a group and a global IP address can be easily identified, it is easy to analyze access to an advertiser's website per group. Also, since the accuracy of the correspondence between a group and a global IP address is enhanced according to Embodiment 2, the accuracy of access analysis to advertisers' websites per group is enhanced.”, “The predetermined group may be advertisers. When the comparison results satisfy the predetermined conditions, the comparison unit 119 determines that the delivery is effective. For example, the predetermined condition may be that the delivery date and time is before the access date and time. For example, the predetermined condition may include, in addition to the above conditions, at least one of the following: the period between the delivery date and time and the access date and time is within the predetermined period, and a conversion has occurred. This makes it easy to measure the effectiveness of advertisement delivery based on the relationship between advertisement delivery and access. [0114] The comparison unit 119 also compares the log information in the site log when the second user terminal 30-A in group "A" accesses the advertiser's website with the log information in the site log when the second user terminal 30-C in group "C" accesses the advertiser's website. This makes it easy to measure the effectiveness of advertisement delivery based on the presence or absence of advertisement delivery. The site log when the second user terminal 30-C accesses the advertiser's website is also referred to as the fourth log. The step in which the second acquisition unit 115 acquires the fourth log is also referred to as the fourth acquisition step.
[0115] The comparison unit 119 then transmits the various comparison results to the advertiser's apparatus 50. This make it possible to provide feedback on the effectiveness of advertisement delivery to the advertiser. “, “Next, the comparison unit 119 determines whether the delivered contents included in the advertisement data are related to the content of the advertiser's website (S43). Specifically, the comparison unit 119 makes the above determination based on whether the degree of relation between the attribute information of the delivered contents and the attribute information of the advertiser's website contents is greater than a predetermined value. If the delivered contents and the advertiser's website contents are not related (NO in S43), the control unit 11a proceeds with the process to S46.”, “The control unit 11a of the information processing apparatus l0a determines that the delivery is effective when the delivery contents corresponding to the delivery log are related to the advertiser's website contents and were accessed after delivery. This makes it easy to measure the effectiveness of advertisement delivery based on the relationship between advertisement delivery and access.”, “The information processing system according to Appendix 5, wherein the log information on the web browsing includes information indicating a referrer and a conversion, and the control unit further performing identifying effective media or access routes as advertisements for the group based on the log information associated with group information for the group in the data for analysis.“.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a processor / memory / program / program is stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors / first user terminal / first database that stores the unique ID and the group information / second database, which represent generic computing elements. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 9, 10 are directed to a method and medium for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1. Claims 9, 10 perform the claimed limitations using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 9, 10 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 2-3, 5-8, 11-19 further recite and narrow the abstract idea of claims 1/9/10. The claims further recite the abstract concept of a mathematical concept, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: estimate the IP address for the target period by generating a regression equation between the IP address and a date and time within the target period. The claims further recite the additional element of a second user terminal , which represents a generic computing element; it is recited at a high level of generality. The additional element does not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 1-3, 5-19. Cheng (20160323239) teaches identifying multiple devices belonging to the same group, including:
receiving, from network accessing applications of a plurality of electronic devices, internet protocol (IP) trajectory information about the network accessing applications via a network, wherein the IP trajectory information includes a user identifier, a list of IP addresses associated with each of the network accessing applications, and timestamps specifying times each of the network accessing applications accesses the network; identifying commercial IP addresses among the list of IP addresses; removing the commercial IP addresses from the list of IP addresses to produce revised IP trajectory information; analyzing the revised IP trajectory information to retrieve a most commonly used IP address for each of the network accessing applications during a certain period; and determining that different network accessing applications belong to the same group if the most commonly used IP addresses for the different network accessing applications are the same. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claims 1/9/10.
When taken as a whole, the claim is not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not
suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or
otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would
require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be
obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
The Office objected to the title as not being descriptive. By this Amendment, the title is amended for clarity and to correct informalities. These amendments obviate the asserted objections. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the objection to the title are respectfully requested.
The Title Objection has been overcome and has been withdrawn.
The Office asserted that claim 1 recites a fundamental economic practice and a commercial interaction, and has also alleged that claim 1 recites a mental process. Applicant respectfully traverses this assertion. None of the features identified by the Office recites any commercial or economic activity. The acquiring features recite acquiring a plurality of first logs including at least an IP address and a date and time from a first user terminal to which a unique ID is set. The retrieving features recite retrieving group information from a first database that stores the unique ID and the group information by using the unique ID of the first user terminal as a key. The estimating features recite estimating the IP address for a target period based on a regularity of a fluctuation in the IP address if there is the fluctuation in the IP address within a predetermined period in the plurality of the acquired first logs. The storing features recite storing, in a second database, information that associates at least the estimated IP address with the retrieved group information. Claim 1 recites no advertising, no transaction, and no business practice. The "fundamental economic practice" and "commercial interaction" characterization is therefore untethered to any limitation recited by the claim language of claim 1.
A claim does not recite a mental process when it contains features that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). See SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 9309 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (declining to identify the claimed collection and analysis of network data as abstract because "the human mind is not equipped to detect suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets as recited by the claims"); SiRF Technology, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1331-33 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that calculating a GPS position by estimating pseudoranges could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human's mind). Claim 1 recites "estimate the IP address for a target period based on a regularity of a fluctuation in the IP address if there is the fluctuation in the IP address within a predetermined period in the plurality of the acquired first logs, the fluctuation indicating that the IP address is a dynamic IP address, wherein the regularity is determined based on at least one of a number of appearances of a same IP address within the predetermined period, a periodicity of appearance of the same IP address, a range of the fluctuation in the IP address, and an Internet service provider identified based on the IP address." Identifying an Internet service provider based on an IP address and estimating an IP address for a target period from a regularity of fluctuation across a plurality of the acquired first logs are operations the human mind is not equipped to perform. Claim 1 therefore does not recite a mental process, analogous to SRI International and SiRF Technology.
Claim 1, as amended, is directed to an improvement in computer and network technology and therefore integrates any recited exception into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two. The technical problem addressed is that a dynamic IP address changes over time, so a single observed association between an IP address and a group becomes unreliable for later dates and times. The specification describes this problem and solution. Paragraph [0076] explains that the estimation unit determines whether there is a fluctuation in the IP address within the measurement period, and if there is a fluctuation in the IP address, it determines that it is a dynamic IP address. Paragraph [0083] explains that the estimation unit estimates the IP address for the target period based on the regularity of the dynamic IP address fluctuation, and may estimate the IP address based on at least one of the number of appearances of the same IP address, the period of appearance of the same IP address, and the dynamic address range of the IP address, or based on the regularity according to the identified ISPs. Paragraph [0084] explains that the registration unit stores, in the second database, information that associates the estimated IP address, the group information, and the target period, and that by implementing such a method, the information processing apparatus can easily identify the correspondence between the group and the dynamic IP address. As-Filed Specification, paragraphs [0076], [0083], [0084]. Claim 1 recites the components that effectuate this improvement. The estimating limitation recites "estimate the IP address for a target period based on a regularity of a fluctuation in the IP address if there is the fluctuation in the IP address within a predetermined period in the plurality of the acquired first logs, the fluctuation indicating that the IP address is a dynamic IP address, wherein the regularity is determined based on at least one of a number of appearances of a same IP address within the predetermined period, a periodicity of appearance of the same IP address, a range of the fluctuation in the IP address, and an Internet service provider identified based on the IP address." The storing limitation recites "store, in a second database, information that associates at least the estimated IP address for the target period with the retrieved group information to identify a correspondence between the group and the dynamic IP address for the target period." These limitations recited by the claim language provide a specific technical mechanism that enables the system to identify the correspondence between the group and the dynamic IP address for the target period, including for dates and times for which the acquired first logs contain no record. As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0084]. The Office Action has alleged that the additional elements do no more than generally link use of the exception to a particular technological environment. Applicant respectfully traverses. The estimating and storing limitations recited by the claim language do not merely invoke generic computer components or confine an abstract idea to a field of use; rather, these limitations recite a specific technical mechanism for resolving a dynamic IP address for a target period, comparable to the specific rules found eligible in McRO and the network data analysis found eligible in SRI International, and going beyond the field of use limitations found insufficient in Bilski and Flook. MPEP § 2106.05(a); contrast MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.05(h). Claim 1 is further directed to a solution necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. The dynamic reassignment of an IP address by an Internet service provider is a problem that arises specifically in computer networks and would not exist absent networked computers that use dynamic IP addressing. The estimating and storing limitations recited by the claim language address that problem by estimating the IP address for a target period based on a regularity of a fluctuation in the IP address, wherein the regularity is determined based on at least one of a number of appearances of a same IP address, a periodicity of appearance of the same IP address, a range of the fluctuation, and an Internet service provider identified based on the IP address, and by storing an association that identifies a correspondence between the group and the dynamic IP address for the target period. As the USPTO recognized in Subject Matter Eligibility Example 2 (Generating a Composite Webpage), drawn from DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), a claim is not directed to an abstract idea when "the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." MPEP § 2106.05(a). The same reasoning supports eligibility at Step 2B, as illustrated in Subject Matter Eligibility Example 21 (Transmission of Stock Quote Data), where limitations that "solve an Internet-centric problem with a claimed solution that is necessarily rooted in computer technology, similar to the additional elements in DDR Holdings" amounted to significantly more. Claim 1 does not recite a business practice known before computer networks and merely performed on a computer, but recites a solution to a problem that exists only because an Internet service provider dynamically reassigns an IP address in a computer network.Even if claim 1 were considered directed to a judicial exception, the specific ordered combination recited by the claim language amounts to significantly more under Step 2B. Estimating the dynamic IP address for the target period based on the regularity determined from the recited criteria, and storing the association to identify the correspondence between the group and the dynamic IP address for the target period, is not well understood, routine, or conventional activity. This specific ordered combination constitutes an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(a) and (d); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that a non conventional and non generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces can amount to an inventive concept). Because claim 1 recites the components that provide the improvement described in the specification, claim 1 reflects the improvement consistent with MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). Claim 1 is directed to an improvement in computer and network technology analogous to Enfish and SRI International, and is therefore not directed to an abstract idea. Even assuming arguendo that claim 1 were directed to a judicial exception, claim 1 recites significantly more under Step 2B. Claim 1 is therefore patent eligible under both Step 2A and Step 2B. For at least the reasons set forth above, claim 1 is directed to patent eligible subject matter. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1, as being directed to non- statutory subject matter, are respectfully requested. Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1, recite additional features and are directed to patent eligible subject matter for reasons analogous to those set forth above with respect to claim 1 and/or for the additional features recited. Claim 9 recites similar language as claim 1 and is directed to patent eligible subject matter for reasons analogous to those set forth above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 9, as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, are respectfully requested.
Claim 10 recites similar language as claim 1 and is directed to patent eligible subject matter for reasons analogous to those set forth above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 10, as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, are respectfully requested.
The pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as noted above.
Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “Furthermore, the information processing apparatus 10 for Embodiment 2 performs an access analysis for each group based on the site logs of when the second user terminals 30-A, 30-B access the advertiser's website and the above correspondence. The information processing apparatus 10 then provides the analysis results to the advertiser's apparatus 50.” , “The first user terminals 20-A, 20-B are specific examples of the first user terminals 20 according to Embodiment 1. The first user terminals 20-A, 20-B are multifunctional printers with signage installed at different groups "A" and "B", respectively. The first user terminal 20-A, 20-B is set with a unique ID according to the group. The first user terminals 20-A, 20-B have a function to deliver advertisements. For example, the first user terminals 20-A, 20-B acquire, from the information processing apparatus 10 or the advertiser's device 50, advertisement data for the group in which they are installed, and display the advertisement data. The first user terminals 20-A, 20-B transmit measurement logs to the information processing apparatus 10 at regular or irregular intervals, respectively. “, “The second acquisition unit 115 acquires a site log from the log collection server 40 of when the second user terminal 30 accesses a predetermined website. The predetermined website is, for example, the advertiser's website, but it can be any website that contains content related to the advertiser.”, “According to Embodiment 2, since the correspondence between a group and a global IP address can be easily identified, it is easy to analyze access to an advertiser's website per group. Also, since the accuracy of the correspondence between a group and a global IP address is enhanced according to Embodiment 2, the accuracy of access analysis to advertisers' websites per group is enhanced.”, “The predetermined group may be advertisers. When the comparison results satisfy the predetermined conditions, the comparison unit 119 determines that the delivery is effective. For example, the predetermined condition may be that the delivery date and time is before the access date and time. For example, the predetermined condition may include, in addition to the above conditions, at least one of the following: the period between the delivery date and time and the access date and time is within the predetermined period, and a conversion has occurred. This makes it easy to measure the effectiveness of advertisement delivery based on the relationship between advertisement delivery and access. [0114] The comparison unit 119 also compares the log information in the site log when the second user terminal 30-A in group "A" accesses the advertiser's website with the log information in the site log when the second user terminal 30-C in group "C" accesses the advertiser's website. This makes it easy to measure the effectiveness of advertisement delivery based on the presence or absence of advertisement delivery. The site log when the second user terminal 30-C accesses the advertiser's website is also referred to as the fourth log. The step in which the second acquisition unit 115 acquires the fourth log is also referred to as the fourth acquisition step.
[0115] The comparison unit 119 then transmits the various comparison results to the advertiser's apparatus 50. This make it possible to provide feedback on the effectiveness of advertisement delivery to the advertiser. “, “Next, the comparison unit 119 determines whether the delivered contents included in the advertisement data are related to the content of the advertiser's website (S43). Specifically, the comparison unit 119 makes the above determination based on whether the degree of relation between the attribute information of the delivered contents and the attribute information of the advertiser's website contents is greater than a predetermined value. If the delivered contents and the advertiser's website contents are not related (NO in S43), the control unit 11a proceeds with the process to S46.”, “The control unit 11a of the information processing apparatus l0a determines that the delivery is effective when the delivery contents corresponding to the delivery log are related to the advertiser's website contents and were accessed after delivery. This makes it easy to measure the effectiveness of advertisement delivery based on the relationship between advertisement delivery and access.”, “The information processing system according to Appendix 5, wherein the log information on the web browsing includes information indicating a referrer and a conversion, and the control unit further performing identifying effective media or access routes as advertisements for the group based on the log information associated with group information for the group in the data for analysis.“.
The instant claimed invention and Enfish have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Enfish, the Courts found that no abstract idea was present, that the claims were directed to a self-referential table for a computer database, and that the claims were directed to an improvement of an existing technology. The Courts further emphasized that the specification taught specific technical benefits over conventional databases. Contrary to Enfish, the instant claimed invention includes an abstract idea (see the 35 USC 101 analysis above), and the claim-set does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The instant claimed invention and Bascom have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Bascom, the Courts concluded that the claim limitation takes as an “ordered combination” under step two are an inventive concept, sufficient for patent eligibility under 35 USC 101. When considered as an ordered combination, the Federal Circuit concluded the claims provided "an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces." Id. Because of the ordered combination elements, the claims in Bascom were considered to improve the functionality of the computer, and thus amounted to significantly more under step two of the Alice analysis. Contrary to Bascom, the instant claimed invention, when implemented, does not improve the functionality of the computer nor does it improve a technology/technical field. The present claims recite an abstract idea using additional elements that are generic computing components as discussed supra, or at best, improving an abstract idea - not an inventive concept. There is no technical evidence/technical support in the Applicant's Specification of technical improvements or of a technical solution to a technical problem.
The instant claimed invention and McRO have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in McRO the Courts concluded that the claimed invention was not directed to an abstract idea under prong one of Alice. The Court concluded the subject claims did not recite an abstract idea because the computer animation improved the prior art through the use of rules, rather than artists, to set morph weights and transitions between phonemes. Id. at 1308. Thus, the claimed invention in McRO allowed for computer performance of animation steps that previously had to be performed by human animators. Id. at 1313. Notably, the Court in McRO determined that the process required by the claims was not a process previously used by human animators. Id. at 1314. Therefore, the claims in McRO used "limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result" over "existing, manual 3-D animation techniques." Id. at 1316. Contrary to McRO, the instant claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea - see the detailed 35 USC 101 analysis above- and the claims do not recite a computer-automated process that uses rules for animators unlike those previously employed by humans or a similar type of improvement. Rather, the present claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea as discussed supra).
The subject claim considered by the DDR Court pertained to a visitor of a host's website clicking on an advertisement for a third-party product displayed on the host's website, whereby the visitor is no longer being transported to the third party's website. In DDR, instead of losing visitors to the third-party's website, the host website can send its visitors to a web page on an outsource provider's server that incorporates "look and feel" elements from the host website, and provides visitors with the opportunity to purchase products from the third-party merchant without actually entering that merchant's website. Id. at 1257-58. Here, in contrast to the claims of DDR Holdings, the present claims are not necessarily rooted in computer technology to solve Internet-centric problems. See DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. Unlike DDR Holdings, Applicant's device is not claimed as solving or otherwise addressing an Internet-centric problem, but rather is directed to an abstract idea as discussed supra.
The pending claims and USPTO Example 2 have different fact patterns and claimed limitations, and thus the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Example 2, the claim was deemed eligible since it recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Contrary to Example 2, the pending instant claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Additionally, in contrast to the claims of DDR Holdings, the present claims are not necessarily rooted in computer technology to solve Internet-centric problems. See DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. Unlike DDR Holdings, Applicant's device is not claimed as solving or otherwise addressing an Internet-centric problem, but rather is directed to an abstract idea as discussed supra.
The pending claims and SRI International have different fact patterns and claimed limitations, and thus the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in SRI International, the claimed were deemed patent eligible since they recited a specific technique for improving computer network security, rather than generic data analysis, and thus effect a technological improvement – i.e. technical problem in computer networks. Contrary to SRI International, the pending instant claims do not recite a specific technique for improving computer network security; they do not effect a technological improvement, and they do not solve a technical problem in computer networks. The pending instant claims recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
There is no technical support/technical evidence in the Spec. paras noted by the Applicant that the pending claims, when implemented, improve the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field.
See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
The Office rejected claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Applicants respectfully traverse this rejection. By this Amendment, several claims are amended for clarity and to correct informalities. These amendments obviate the asserted indefiniteness rejection. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 5-8, as being indefinite, are respectfully requested.
The 35 USC 112 rejections have been overcome and have been withdrawn.
Claim 1 recites "retrieve group information from a first database that stores the unique ID and the group information by using the unique ID of the first user terminal as a key." Claim 1 further recites "estimate the IP address for a target period based on a regularity of a fluctuation in the IP address if there is the fluctuation in the IP address within a predetermined period in the plurality of the acquired first logs, the fluctuation indicating that the IP address is a dynamic IP address, wherein the regularity is determined based on at least one of a number of appearances of a same IP address within the predetermined period, a periodicity of appearance of the same IP address, a range of the fluctuation in the IP address, and an Internet service provider identified based on the IP address." Applicant respectfully submits that the applied references, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the recited claim language. The Office asserted that Williams includes retrieving group information using the unique ID as a key at paragraphs [0058], [0074], [0078], and [0083], and that Cheng includes the estimating limitation at paragraphs [0089] through [0093]. Cheng does not teach or suggest "estimate the IP address for a target period based on a regularity of a fluctuation in the IP address" as recited by claim 1. As described in paragraph [0089] of Cheng, a computer system "analyzes patterns of changes of the revised IP addresses for two different network accessing applications with reference to the timestamps." As further described in paragraph [0090] of Cheng, the computer system "determines that different network accessing applications belong to the same person or household based on similarity of the patterns of changes." The processing described in Cheng therefore compares the timing of IP address changes across two different network accessing applications and treats group membership as an unknown result determined from the similarity of those changes across different terminals.
Claim 1 recites a fundamentally different operation. Claim 1 begins from a first user terminal "to which a unique ID is set," retrieves group information "by using the unique ID of the first user terminal as a key," and then estimates the IP address for a target period "based on a regularity of a fluctuation in the IP address" within the plurality of first logs. The estimation recited by the claim language of claim 1 extracts a regularity from the time series of a single terminal whose group is already identified by the unique ID, whereas the analysis described in Cheng compares plural different terminals whose group is unknown. The analysis described in Cheng identifies a group by synchronicity of changes across different terminals, while the estimation recited by claim 1 estimates an IP address for a target period from the regularity of the fluctuation of a single already identified group.The estimation described in paragraph [0092] of Cheng does not use any regularity of a fluctuation. As described in paragraph [0092] of Cheng, "[a]n IP address received during a time interval between two consecutive timestamps is estimated to be either an IP address at the first one of the two timestamps or an IP address at the second one of the two timestamps." That operation merely assigns an IP address within an interval to one of two bounding timestamps, and neither extracts nor uses "a regularity of a fluctuation in the IP address," nor estimates an IP address "for a target period," as recited by the claim language of claim 1.Cheng also fails to teach or suggest that "the regularity is determined based on at least one of a number of appearances of a same IP address within the predetermined period, a periodicity of appearance of the same IP address, a range of the fluctuation in the IP address, and an Internet service provider identified based on the IP address," as recited by claim 1. Although paragraph [0089] of Cheng refers to "the same router to which a dynamic IP address is assigned," recognition of a dynamic IP address does not disclose determining a regularity based on any of the criteria recited by the claim language of claim 1. The processing described in paragraphs [0089] and [0092] of Cheng compares patterns of changes across two different network accessing applications and assigns an IP address within an interval to one of two bounding timestamps, and does not determine a regularity based on a number of appearances of a same IP address, a periodicity of appearance of the same IP address, a range of the fluctuation, or an Internet service provider identified based on the IP address.Williams, the primary reference, also does not teach or suggest the retrieving features of claim 1. Williams is directed to evaluating the authenticity of geographic data associated with media requests, as described in paragraph [0058] of Williams, and does not disclose "retrieve group information from a first database that stores the unique ID and the group information by using the unique ID of the first user terminal as a key," as recited by claim 1. Although Williams refers to "groups," the groups described in Williams are classifications of media requests. As described in paragraph [0011] of Williams, "[e]valuating the authenticity of the geographic data may involve classifying the media requests into one or more groups," and as described in paragraph [0026] of Williams, the classification groups media requests "based on kinematic characteristics, spatial distribution, or a combination thereof." The groups described in Williams are therefore clusters of media requests formed to evaluate the authenticity of geographic data, and are not group information retrieved by using a unique ID as a key. Williams matches user activity to an individual user rather than retrieving group information by a key. As described in paragraph [0047] of Williams, a user activity analysis component matches user activity data with media request records "by using the media request's entity data (e.g., user or mobile device identification)," and as described in paragraph [0048] of Williams, the matching associates activity "to a user (e.g., a user identifier)." The remaining paragraphs of Williams on which the Examiner relies do not supply the recited limitation, because paragraph [0074] of Williams describes generic computer hardware, paragraph [0078] of Williams describes a generic computer readable storage medium, and paragraph [0083] of Williams states that "[t]he above description is intended to be illustrative, and not restrictive." Williams in view of Cheng therefore fails to disclose or suggest the integrated structure recited by claim 1 of retrieving group information using the unique ID as a key and then estimating the IP address for a target period based on the regularity of the fluctuation in the IP address. For at least the reasons set forth above, the applied references, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the recited claim language. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1, as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Cheng, are respectfully requested. Claims 2 and 3 depend from claim 1, recite additional features and distinguish over the applied references for reasons analogous to those set forth above with respect to claim 1 and/or for the additional features recited. Claim 9 recites similar language as claim 1 and distinguishes over the applied references for reasons analogous to those set forth above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 9, as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Cheng, are respectfully requested. Claim 10 recites similar language as claim 1 and distinguish over the applied references for reasons analogous to those set forth above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 10, as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Cheng, are respectfully requested.
The Office rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 2017/0324818) in view of Cheng (US 2016/0323239) and further in view of Kahn (US 2024/0163308). Applicants respectfully traverse this rejection.The Office conceded that Williams fails to teach or suggest the recited determination. (Office Action at page 8). The Office asserted that Kahn includes the recited determination. (Office Action at page 8). Assuming arguendo that the combination of Williams and Kahn is proper, the Office failed to apply Kahn in a manner sufficient to cure the deficiencies of Williams. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 4, as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Cheng and Kahn, are respectfully requested.The Office rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 2017/0324818) in view of Cheng (US 2016/0323239) and further in view of Kaidi (US 2023/0199002). Applicants respectfully traverse this rejection.The Office conceded that Williams fails to teach or suggest the recited second log. (Office Action at page 9). The Office asserted that Kaidi includes the recited second log. (Office Action at page 9). Assuming arguendo that the combination of Williams and Kaidi is proper, the Office failed to apply Kaidi in a manner sufficient to cure the deficiencies of Williams. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 5, as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Cheng and Kaidi, are respectfully requested.The Office rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 2017/0324818) in view of Cheng (US 2016/0323239) and Kaidi (US 2023/0199002) and further in view of Dua (US 2021/0150548). Applicants respectfully traverse this rejection.
The Office conceded that Williams fails to teach or suggest the recited log information. (Office Action at page 10). The Office asserted that Dua includes the recited log information. (Office Action at page 10). Assuming arguendo that the combination of Williams and Dua is proper, the Office failed to apply Dua in a manner sufficient to cure the deficiencies of Williams. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 6, as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Cheng, Kaidi and Dua, are respectfully requested.The Office rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 2017/0324818) in view of Cheng (US 2016/0323239) and further in view of Cole (US 2017/0091806). Applicants respectfully traverse this rejection.The Office conceded that Williams fails to teach or suggest the recited second log. (Office Action at page 11). The Office asserted that Cole includes the recited second log. (Office Action at page 11). Assuming arguendo that the combination of Williams and Cole is proper, the Office failed to apply Cole in a manner sufficient to cure the deficiencies of Williams. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 8, as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Cheng and Cole, are respectfully requested.
The prior art rejection of the pending claims has been overcome and has been withdrawn.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 1-3, 5-19. Cheng (20160323239) teaches identifying multiple devices belonging to the same group, including:
receiving, from network accessing applications of a plurality of electronic devices, internet protocol (IP) trajectory information about the network accessing applications via a network, wherein the IP trajectory information includes a user identifier, a list of IP addresses associated with each of the network accessing applications, and timestamps specifying times each of the network accessing applications accesses the network; identifying commercial IP addresses among the list of IP addresses; removing the commercial IP addresses from the list of IP addresses to produce revised IP trajectory information; analyzing the revised IP trajectory information to retrieve a most commonly used IP address for each of the network accessing applications during a certain period; and determining that different network accessing applications belong to the same group if the most commonly used IP addresses for the different network accessing applications are the same. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claims 1/9/10. When taken as a whole, the claim is not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. 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.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
10/1/2026
Prosecution Insights