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
Claims 1-10 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Logging and grouping website access data to allow for advertising delivery”.
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 1-10 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; and store, information that associates at least the estimated IP address with the retrieved group information. Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: 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 claimed limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements, thus still being in the mental process category.
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 2-8 further recite and narrow the abstract idea of claim 1. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5-8 recite the limitation "the web browsing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitations "each group” (claims 1, 5, 6 only reference one group, not multiple groups) and “each media”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Williams (20170324818) in further view of Cheng (20160323239).
As per Claims 1, 9, 10, Williams in view of Cheng teach a system, method and CRM comprising:
One or more processors; one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors to cause the information processing system to: (the processor/memory represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. At least: para 58, 74)
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 (the terminal represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. (at least: para 24, 49,50)
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 (the database represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 78- storing data in a database, data includes logs of activity data [group data] including the unique ID data - at least para 58, 74; Williams teaches storing data in a database, including the terminal ID data, as well as “The above description is intended to be illustrative, and not restrictive. Although the present disclosure has been described with references to specific illustrative examples and implementations, it will be recognized that the present disclosure is not limited to the examples and implementations described. The scope of the disclosure should be determined with reference to the following claims, along with the full scope of equivalents to which the claims are entitled.” – at least para 83, thus teaching using stored database data as a key to retrieve the database data)
Williams teaches the plurality of acquired first logs, as noted above, and Cheng further teaches:
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; (at least para 89-93)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Williams’s existing features, with Cheng’s feature of 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, to identify electronic devices belonging to the same group – Cheng, abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a
combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the
same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
results of the combination were predictable.
Williams in view of Cheng teach:
Store, in a second database, information that associates at least the estimated IP address with the retrieved group information. (the database represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. Williams teaches storing data in a database, as noted above; Cheng teaches storing data in a server [database]- at least para 31, and storing estimated IP address data with group data – at least para 89-93)
As per Claim 2, Williams in view of Cheng teach:
to store the information that associates at least the IP address with the retrieved group information as a single record in the second database if the IP address has not fluctuated within a predetermined period in the plurality of acquired first logs. (Cheng: tracking IP address data over a certain time period – at least: abstract, para 54, and the remaining claimed limitations- at least para 89-93, 31- storing data on a server ]database])
As per Claim 3, Williams in view of Cheng teach:
to store, if there is the fluctuation in the IP address within the predetermined period of time in the plurality of the acquired first logs, in the second database at least the information that associates the IP address in the first log in the predetermined period in which the fluctuation in the IP address is occurred with the retrieved group information. (Cheng: tracking IP address data over a certain time period – at least: abstract, para 54, and the remaining claimed limitations- at least para 89-93, 31- storing data on a server [database])
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Williams (20170324818) in further view of Cheng (20160323239), in even further view of Kahn (20240163308).
As per Claim 4, Kahn teaches:
to determine, in the estimating, whether there is the regularity of the fluctuation based on at least one of the following: the number of times the same IP address appears within the predetermined period, a periodicity of appearance of the same IP address (at least para 83)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Williams’s existing features, combined with Cheng’s existing features, with Kahn’s feature of to determine, in the estimating, whether there is the regularity of the fluctuation based on at least one of the following: the number of times the same IP address appears within the predetermined period, a periodicity of appearance of the same IP address , to defend against volumetric attacks – Kahn, abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a
combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the
same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Williams (20170324818) in further view of Cheng (20160323239), in even further view of Kaidi (20230199002).
As per Claim 5, Kaidi teaches:
acquire a second log including at least an IP address of a second user terminal to which no unique ID is set of when the second user terminal accesses a website, and log information on the web browsing, and an access date and time; identify, from the second database, group information associated with the IP address included in the second log and corresponding to the access date and time; and generate, as data for analysis, information that associates at least the log information on the web browsing, the access date and time, and the identified group information. (the second user terminal represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 22: “Other metadata parameters and attributes may include a degree of impossible travel (e.g., the two distances are too great to be traveled using standard travel means) or distance between a known or established location for the email address (e.g., a home location or location/IP address normally associated with login or use of the email address account) and a location of a last login or use of the email address account, anomalous concurrent sessions (e.g., multiple logins including logins at the same time where one or more are from unknown devices and/or locations/IP addresses), whether the time since last login is inactivity (no attempted logins) or inaccessibility (logins that were unsuccessful and therefore the account may be compromised), suspicious and/or unusual activity or actions using the account, and/or time patterns of logins. Metadata for accounts may also include valid and/or invalid IP addresses, MAC addresses, geo-locations, and/or other device data, as well as main and associated email addresses, account identifiers, and the like.”, analyzing the data – at least para 62, 66)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Williams’s existing features, combined with Cheng’s existing features, with Kaidi’s feature of acquire a second log including at least an IP address of a second user terminal to which no unique ID is set of when the second user terminal accesses a website, and log information on the web browsing, and an access date and time; identify, from the second database, group information associated with the IP address included in the second log and corresponding to the access date and time; and generate, as data for analysis, information that associates at least the log information on the web browsing, the access date and time, and the identified group information, to detect malicious accounts using metadata indicators – Kaidi, abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a
combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the
same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Williams (20170324818) in further view of Cheng (20160323239), in further view of Kaidi (20230199002), in even further view of Dua (20210150548).
As per Claim 6, Dua teaches:
the log information on the web browsing includes information indicating a referrer and a conversion, and the one or more programs further comprising instructions to estimate, for each group, a level of the conversion when delivered as an advertisement for the group, for each media or access route, based on the log information associated with the group information for the group in the data for analysis. (at least: abstract, para 81)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Williams’s existing features, combined with Cheng’s existing features, combined with Kaidi’s existing feature, with Dua’s feature of the log information on the web browsing includes information indicating a referrer and a conversion, and the one or more programs further comprising instructions to estimate, for each group, a level of the conversion when delivered as an advertisement for the group, for each media or access route, based on the log information associated with the group information for the group in the data for analysis, to segment and rank leads and referrals – Dua, abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a
combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the
same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Williams (20170324818) in further view of Cheng (20160323239), in further view of Cole (20170091806).
As per Claim 8, Williams in view of Cheng teach a user terminal with no set unique ID, as noted above, and Cole teaches:
acquire a second log including an IP address of when a second user terminal accesses a website, log information on the web browsing, and an access date and time; acquire a fourth log including an IP address of when a fourth user terminal accesses a website, log information on the web browsing, and an access date and time; compare the log information included in the second log with the log information included in the fourth log; and output the comparison results, wherein the second user terminal is a terminal used by a user belonging to a group to which the first user terminal belongs, and to which no unique ID is set, and the fourth user terminal is a terminal used by a user belonging to a group different from the group to which the first user terminal belongs, and to which no unique ID is set. (at least: abstract, para 10, 40, 46)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Williams’s existing features, combined with Cheng’s existing features, with Cole’s features of acquire a second log including an IP address of when a second user terminal accesses a website, log information on the web browsing, and an access date and time; acquire a fourth log including an IP address of when a fourth user terminal accesses a website, log information on the web browsing, and an access date and time; compare the log information included in the second log with the log information included in the fourth log; and output the comparison results, wherein the second user terminal is a terminal used by a user belonging to a group to which the first user terminal belongs, and to which no unique ID is set, and the fourth user terminal is a terminal used by a user belonging to a group different from the group to which the first user terminal belongs, and to which no unique ID is set , since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claim 7.
Williams (20170324818) in view of Cheng (20160323239) teach: One or more processors; one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors to cause the information processing system to: 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 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 ; 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; Store, in a second database, information that associates at least the estimated IP address with the retrieved group information. However, they lack the combination of claimed elements of pending claim 7.
Conclusion
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 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 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, 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).
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
6/3/2026
Prosecution Insights