DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the request for continued examination filed 10 March 2026.
Claims 2, 3, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 2-6, 11, and 13-15 are currently pending.
Claims 2-6, 11, and 13-15 are rejected
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
Regarding 35 USC § 101, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s remarks but does not find them persuasive. Applicant argues that “The Examiner asserts that matching identifiers to target content constitutes a method of organizing human activity related to advertising or marketing. However, when the claim is properly analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, as further clarified by the August 4, 2025 USPTO Memorandum entitled Reminders on Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility of Claims Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception. The memorandum cautions that examiners must not expand the "mental process" or "organizing human activity" groupings to encompass computer-implemented operations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. See 2025 Memo at 2 ("Examiners are reminded not to expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind."). Remarks at 9. As an initial matter, no memos or guidance state that abstract ideas that fall into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping should be analyzed to determine if they can be practically performed in the human mind. That analysis applies only to the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims fall into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping; thus, whether or not the steps can be performed mentally does not apply. Second, matching identifiers to target content IS advertising or marketing activity. Targeted content, which the claims narrow to an advertisement targeting a user, which is targeted based on knowing the user via an identifier, is classic advertising activity. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “In accordance with the 2025 USPTO AI Guidance, claims that "recite algorithmic feature extraction, data normalization, and automated classification" performed by a computer system are directed to a technological process, not a "method of organizing human activity." Thus, the Examiner's characterization of the claim as an advertising or marketing concept is inconsistent with current USPTO policy.” Remarks at 10. It is unclear where this quote comes from as the USPTO released AI guidance in 2024, and even within that guidance, Examiner is unable to find this quote to properly respond.
Applicant argues throughout page 10 of Remarks that multiple steps cannot be performed mentally. As noted above, the claims do not fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas, thus whether the steps can be performed mentally does not apply.
Applicant argues that “The claimed combination achieves concrete technological improvements, including privacy-preserving user matching through one-way hashing, efficient transformation of unstructured social feed text through TF-IDF and machine learning pipelines, and improved accuracy and latency of content recommendations through collaborative filtering. These improvements reflect a "particular solution to a problem in computer technology" and an "improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technical field," consistent with Section II(B) and ("Improvements consideration") of the 2025 Memo. Accordingly, the claim integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application.” Remarks at 10-11. Applicant has not provided any support for this conclusion. For example, the 2025 memo (found here: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-101-20250804.pdf), titled “Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101” notes under II(B) that the Examiner should “consult the specification to determine whether the disclosed invention improves technology or technical field …. The specification … must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Examiner does not find support in the specification, and Applicant has not pointed to any support in the specification, that would lead to the conclusion that “matching through one-way hashing,” “collaborative filtering,” etc. represent a technological improvement. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant agues that “Given that claim 15 recites specific computational techniques that improve computer performance, it is at a minimum a close case that weighs in favour of eligibility.” Remarks at 11. As indicated above, there is not support for a conclusion that an improvement is present in the specification and/or claims. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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 2-6, 11, and 13-15 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.
Step 1
Claims 2-6, 11, and 13-15 recite a method which is considered a process.
Step 2A-Prong One
Under step 2A, Prong One of the Alice framework, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. The determination consists of a) identifying the specific limitations in the claim that recite an abstract idea; and b) determining whether the identified limitations fall within at least one of the three subject matter groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity).
The identified limitations of independent claim 15 recite:
generating, using an identifier generation module of the first backend computer system, a first user identifier for a first user operating a first website;
determining, by the first backend computer system, whether the received second set of identification information matches with the stored first set of user identification information of the first user, wherein the matching of the received second set of identification information of the first user with the stored first set of user identification information of the first user, comprises steps of:
checking, by the first backend computer system, whether the second user identifier satisfactorily matches with the first user identifier of the first user stored in the database, wherein the checking of whether the received second user identifier satisfactorily matches with the stored first user identifier of the first user, comprises:
deciding whether the received second user identifier exactly or partially matches with the stored first user identifier of the first user, using one way hashes for the comparison;
if, by the deciding operation, the received second user identifier is found to be an exact match with the stored first user identifier of the first user, then returning a positive result: otherwise if, by the deciding operation, the received second user identifier is found to be a partial match with the stored first user identifier of the first user, and if the partial match is found to be satisfactory to link the received second user identifier with the partially matched first user identifier of the first user, then returning a positive result: and
otherwise returning a non-positive result
determining, by the first backend computer system, that the received second set of identification information of the first user matches with the stored first user identifier of the first user if the checking operation returns a positive result: and using, one way hash of first name, last name, date of birth, and location;
aggregating, using a data aggregation module of the first backend computer system, the first website activity information and the second website activity information to obtain an online activity information of the first user if the second set of identification information matches with the stored first set of user identification information of the first user;
acquiring, using a targeted content selection module of the first backend computer system, a first targeted digital content for the second user based on the online activity information of the first user, wherein the first targeted digital content is acquired by: performing a feed analysis on a friend feed associated with the first user obtained from the online activity information, wherein the feed analysis comprises: tokenizing feed content and removing stop words from the tokenized feed content; computing term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) scores across social feeds to identify important terms in the friend feed mapping the identified important terms to domain-specific categories using a structured keyword category data store and applying a machine learning-based sentiment classifier to the mapped identified important terms and the associated categories information to determine sentiment polarity, wherein the machine learning-based sentiment classifier is at least one of a naïve Bayes model, a support vector machine, and a decision tree model: and applying a collaborative filtering to one or more digital contents from the feed analysis;
presenting, by the first backend computer system on a second user device associated with the second user, a second content page including the first targeted digital content based on the feed analysis, wherein the first targeted digital content is incorporated into the second content page of the second user, comprises a set of one or more gift recommendations targeting the first user.
The identified limitations recite matching identifiers of a first user associated with online activity in order to target the content that is selected for display to the first and second user visiting a website, which is a method of commercial interactions including advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. The claim limitations fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities groupings of abstract ideas. The performance of the claim limitations using generic computing components (i.e., computer device) does not preclude the claim limitations from being in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2A-Prong Two
Under step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice framework, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claims are evaluated to determine if there are additional elements or a combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (PEG 2019, Pg. 54).
As a whole, the additional elements recite (additional elements underlined):
storing, in a database of the first backend computer system, the first user identifier, a first set of user identification information relating to the first user and a first website activity information relating to the first user;
receiving, by the first backend computer system, from a second website, a second set of identification information and a second website activity information;
acquiring, by the first backend computer system, a second user identifier using the received second set of identification information of the first user, wherein the second user identifier, as acquired by the first backend computer system, is included in the received second set of identification information of the first user;
receiving, by the first backend computer system, from a social networking platform, implementing an online social network of the first user, social networking information of the first user, indicating that a second user is a friend of the fist user.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally apply the concept of storing, receiving, and acquiring digital content, online activity, and social networking information of the user. The database in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-6, 11, and 13-14, when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Under Step 2B, the steps of the claimed invention, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not improve another technology or technical field, do not improve the functioning of the computer itself, and are not enough to qualify as "significantly more". For example, the steps require no more than a conventional computer to perform generic computer functions. Specifically, receiving, storing, and updating data and performing mathematical functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See claim 1: computing device to execute storing, receiving, and acquiring digital content, online activity, and social networking information of the user). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) states that “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)). Therefore, based on the two-part Mayo analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself. Claims 2-6, 11, and 13-15 , when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-6, 11, and 13-14 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional claims do no recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6.
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 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.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622