DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to the correspondence filed on 05/19/25. Claims 1-20 are still pending and have been considered below.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that the claimed term “computer storage media” has been interpreted in view of paragraph [00166] of the Specification filed on 05/19/25, which defines the term to not comprise signals per se.
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first displayed first value" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first web or app page" throughout the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that the preceding claim language appears to establish at least two separate and distinct instances of “a first web or app page” (see claims 1 and 2); thus, renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear as to which one the limitation in question should be in reference to.
Claims 4, 5, 7 and 9 recite the limitation "the first displayed value" throughout the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mazouchi et al. (2019/0124082).
Claim 1: Mazouchi et al. discloses a system comprising:
at least one computer processor [page 7, paragraph 0089]; and
one or more computer storage media storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by the at least one computer processor, cause the at least one computer processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving an indication that a user has accessed a first web or app page of a first computer application, the first web or app page displaying a first value within a first field, the access of the first web or app page occurring during a first computer session(browser activity/requests) [page 2, paragraphs 0020-0021 & 0025];
in response to receiving the indication that the user has accessed the first web or app page of the first computer application, extracting, from the first web or app page, the displayed first value of the first field during the first computer session(create a BUID vector that includes some or all of the various data) [page 2, paragraph 0026];
at least partially responsive to the extraction, from the first web or app page, of the first displayed first value, causing a first hash to be computed, the first hash at least partially represents the first value(generating one or more hashes of the vector) [page 3, paragraphs 0036-0037];
receiving another indication that at least a second web or app page of the first computer application or another computer application has been accessed, the second web or app page displaying a second value within a second field, the access of the second web or app page occurring during a second computer session [page 2, paragraphs 0020-0021 & 0025];
extracting, from the second web or app page, the displayed second value during the second computer session [page 2, paragraph 0026];
at least partially responsive to the extraction of the second value, causing a second hash to be computed, the second hash at least partially represents the second value [page 3, paragraphs 0036-0037]; and
based at least in part on a comparison between the first hash and the second hash(based on comparison of the hashes) [page 3, paragraphs 0038-0039], generating a score indicating a probability that a same user accessed both the first web or app page and the second web or app page(probability may be maintained the same or adjusted based on consistency values) [page 2, paragraph 0032].
Claim 2: Mazouchi et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprising: based at least in part on the receiving of the indication that the user has accessed a first web or app page and receiving another indication that the user has performed computer user activity at the first web or app page, storing, in computer storage, a visual representation of the first web or app page and each input, of the computer user activity, that the user performed at the first web or app page, and wherein the extraction, from the first web or app page, of the first displayed first value is based on the storing of the visual representation of each input that the user performed at the first web or app page(browser activities include webpage requests and rendering webpages…browser data includes various history data, which is included in the BUID vector) [page 1, paragraphs 0013 & 0015 | page 2, paragraphs 0020-0021 & 0025-0026].
Claim 4: Mazouchi et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the extracting of the first displayed value is based at least in part on performing a computer search at the first web page and detecting the first displayed value [page 5, paragraphs 0066-0067].
Claim 5: Mazouchi et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the extracting of the first displayed value is based on running code in response to the user accessing the first web or app page, and wherein the code captures a Document Object Model (DOM) representative of a logical structure and content of the web or app page(create a BUID vector that includes some or all of global data, device data and browser data, where the data includes all or some of the described values of each data type) [page 2, paragraphs 0020-0026].
Claim 6: Mazouchi et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: detecting an indication of a file attachment at the first web or app page; in response to the detection, converting the file attachment into a machine-readable bitmap image; and at least partially in response to the conversion, detecting, at the machine-readable bitmap image, the first value, and wherein the first value is included in the file attachment, and wherein the extracting of the displayed first value is based at least in part on the detecting(browser activities include webpage requests and rendering webpages…browser data includes various history data, which is included in the BUID vector) [page 1, paragraphs 0013 & 0015 | page 2, paragraphs 0020-0021 & 0025-0026].
Claim 7: Mazouchi et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: extracting a third displayed value of a second field from the first web or app page [page 2, paragraph 0026]; responsive to the extraction of the third displayed value, causing the first hash to be computed by combining a first sub-hash representing the first displayed value and a second sub- hash representing the third displayed value(generating hash of entire subject, labeled hashes and/or unlabeled hashes) [page 3, paragraphs 0036-0037]; extracting a fourth displayed value from the second web or app page [page 2, paragraph 0026]; and responsive to the extraction of the fourth displayed value, causing the second hash to be computed by combining a third sub-hash representing the second displayed value and a fourth sub-hash representing the fourth displayed value [page 3, paragraphs 0036-0037].
Claim 8: Mazouchi et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first hash represents one of a concatenation of each value of a plurality of fields of the first web or app page or only the first displayed value [page 1, paragraphs 0013 & 0015 | page 2, paragraphs 0020-0021].
Claim 9: Mazouchi et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the extraction of the first displayed value of the first field from the first web or app page is based on training a machine learning model to learn that each value, of a plurality of values, is indicative of being a constituent of a respective field, of a plurality of fields [page 6, paragraph 0071].
Claim 10: Mazouchi et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: in response to the receiving of the indication that the user has accessed the first web or app page of the first computer application, causing the computer user activity to be recorded in a data record for the first computer session, the data record excluding a cookie [page 2, paragraph 0026].
Claim 11: Mazouchi et al. discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise: based on retrieving the record and the generating of the score, causing at least one of a targeted advertisement to be transmitted to a user device associated with the user, a fraud detection report to be generated, and store, in computer storage, user preferences [pages 2-3, paragraphs 0033-0034].
Claim 12: Mazouchi et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein each of the first hash and the second hash is a one-way hash, and wherein each of the one-way hashes is computed at a user device associated with the user [page 6, paragraph 0074].
Claim 13: Mazouchi et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the generating of the score is based on at least one of: computing a confidence interval by using an overlap algorithm that indicates a difference between the first hash and second hash, or using one or more machine learning models [page 7, paragraph 0085].
Claim 14: Mazouchi et al. discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving an indication that a user has accessed a first web or app page of a first computer application and has performed computer user activity at the first web or app page, the access of the first web or app page occurring during a first computer session [page 2, paragraphs 0020-0021 & 0025];
based at least in part on the receiving of the indication that the user has accessed the first web or app page of the first computer application and has performed the computer user activity at the first web or app page, storing, in computer storage, a visual representation of the first web or app page and each input, of the computer user activity, that the user performed at the first web or app page [page 1, paragraphs 0013 & 0015 | page 2, paragraphs 0020-0021 & 0025-0026];
based at least in part on the storing, in the computer storage, of the visual representation of the first web or app page and each input, of the computer user activity, extracting a first value of a first field from the visual representation of the first web or app page, the first value having been input by the user as part of the computer user activity [page 2, paragraph 0026];
at least partially responsive to the extraction of the first value from the visual representation, causing a first hash to be computed, the first hash at least partially represents the first value [page 3, paragraphs 0036-0037];
receiving another indication that at least a second web or app page of the first computer application or another computer application has been accessed, the access of the second web or app_page occurring during a second computer session [page 2, paragraphs 0020-0021 & 0025];
extracting a second value from the second web or app page or a visual representation of the second web or app page [page 2, paragraph 0026];
at least partially responsive to the extraction of the second value, causing a second hash to be computed, the second hash at least partially represents the second value [page 3, paragraphs 0036-0037]; and
based at least in part on a comparison between the first hash and the second hash [page 3, paragraphs 0038-0039], generating a score indicating a probability that a same user accessed both the first web or app page and the second web or app page [page 2, paragraph 0032].
Claim 16: Mazouchi et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein the extracting of the first value is based at least in part on performing a computer search at the visual representation of first web page and detecting the first value at the visual representation [page 5, paragraphs 0066-0067].
Claim 17: Mazouchi et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein the extracting of the first displayed value is based on running code in response to the user accessing the first web or app page, and wherein the code captures a Document Object Model (DOM) representative of a logical structure and content of the web or app page [page 2, paragraphs 0020-0026].
Claim 18: Mazouchi et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein each of the first hash and the second hash is a one-way hash, and wherein each of the one-way hashes is computed at a user device associated with the user [page 6, paragraph 0074].
Claim 19: Mazouchi et al. discloses one or more computer storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that, when executed, by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving an indication that a user has accessed a first web or app page of a first computer application and has performed computer user activity at the first web or app page, the access of the first web or app page occurring during a first computer session [page 2, paragraphs 0020-0021 & 0025];
based at least in part on the receiving of the indication that the user has accessed the first web or app page of the first computer application and has performed the computer user activity at the first web or app page, storing, in computer storage, a visual representation of the first web or app page and each input, of the computer user activity, that the user performed at the first web or app page [page 1, paragraphs 0013 & 0015 | page 2, paragraphs 0020-0021 & 0025-0026];
based at least in part on the storing, in the computer storage, of the visual representation of the first web or app page and each input, of the computer user activity, extracting a first value of a first field from the visual representation of the first web or app page, the first value having been input by the user as part of the computer user activity [page 2, paragraph 0026];
at least partially responsive to the extraction of the first value from the visual representation, anonymizing the first value to form a first anonymized value [page 3, paragraphs 0036-0037];
receiving another indication that at least a second web or app page of the first computer application or another computer application has been accessed, the access of the second web or app page occurring during a second computer session [page 2, paragraphs 0020-0021 & 0025];
extracting a second value from the second web or app page or a visual representation of the second web or app page [page 2, paragraph 0026];
at least partially responsive to the extraction of the second value, anonymizing the second value to form a second anonymized value [page 3, paragraphs 0036-0037]; and
based at least in part on a comparison between the first anonymized value and the second anonymized value [page 3, paragraphs 0038-0039], generating a score indicating a probability that a same user accessed both the first web or app page and the second web or app page [page 2, paragraph 0032].
Claim 20: Mazouchi et al. discloses the one or more computer storage media of claim 19, wherein each of the first anonymized value and the second anonymized value represents one of: a hash, an obfuscated value, an encrypted value, or a vector [page 6, paragraph 0074].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,348,497.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions are directed to a substantially similar technique of generating a score indicating a probability that a same user accessed both a first and second web or app page, which specifically extracts values from the web or app pages and calculates hashes and/or anonymized values based at least partially on the extracted values.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that each and every limitation of the instant claims appear to be substantially anticipated by the corresponding patented claims.
Therefore, Examiner respectfully submits that the instant claims and the patented claims are not directed to patentably distinct inventions; thus, properly rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mak et al. (2008/0162206).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD ZEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1686. 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.
/EDWARD ZEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights