DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 3/2/2022 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/24/2025 has been entered.
The following is a non-final Office Action on the Merits in response to Applicant’s submission.
Claims 1, 8, 15 are amended
Claims 2, 9 are cancelled
Overall, Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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, 3-8, 10-15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1, 3-7 are directed to a computer implemented method, claims 8, 10-14 are directed to a system, and claims 15 are directed to computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 8, 15) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 8, 15) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A method for determining, without use of a persistent identifier, that execution of a runtime instance of a software application on a terminal device is based on both a first conversion event implemented at the terminal device and a second conversion event that is implemented at the terminal device
[B] delivering to the terminal device,
[C] streaming output data from a cloud implemented instance of a software application that is being executed at a cloud server, and wherein the second conversion event comprises
[D] downloading of the software application from a download repository onto the terminal device, or launching or executing a runtime instance of the software application that has been downloaded onto the terminal device,
the method comprising the steps of:
[E] initiating, at the terminal device, display of an advertisement for the software application on a terminal device web browser implemented on the terminal device;
[F] detecting, at the terminal device, a user click event corresponding to the advertisement;
[G] receiving, at a conversion tracking server, from the referral source that has initiated the display of the advertisement for the software application on the terminal device web browser, traffic parameters associated with the user click event,
[H] wherein the referral source is any of a software application or a webpage that has initiated display of the advertisement on the terminal device web browser;
[I] receiving, at the conversion tracking server, a first user input from the terminal device initiating network based delivery of a cloud implemented instance of the software application;
responsive to the conversion tracking server receiving the first user input from the terminal device:
[J] instantiating execution of the cloud implemented instance of the software application at a cloud server;
[K] initiating, at the cloud server, streaming of output data from the cloud implemented instance of the software application to the terminal device;
subsequent to the step of initiating streaming of output data from the cloud implemented instance of the software application to the terminal device:
[L] generating a unique identifier associated with an ongoing network communication session between the terminal device and the conversion tracking server;
[M] generating a first device fingerprint associated with the terminal device based on a combination of device attributes associated with the terminal device,
[O] wherein the first device fingerprint comprises a probabilistic device fingerprint that enhances user privacy by avoiding persistent identifiers and maintaining conversion event tracking and attribution across platforms despite restrictions on data-sharing;
[P] associating the first device fingerprint with the generated unique identifier;
[Q] retrievably storing the generated first device fingerprint with the generated unique identifier in a device fingerprint database; and
[R] transmitting, to the referral source or to an entity associated with the referral source, a first conversion event confirmation message confirming that delivery of the cloud implemented instance of the software application to the terminal device has been initiated,
[S] wherein the first conversion event confirmation message comprises the unique identifier associated with the ongoing network communication session, and
[T] wherein the first conversion event confirmation message attributes the cloud implemented instance of the software application to the referral source;
subsequent to launch of a runtime instance of the downloaded software application on the terminal device,
[U] wherein the runtime instance has been launched in response to a user received at the terminal device:
[V] receiving, at the conversion tracking server, from the terminal device, a runtime event confirmation message confirming launch of the runtime instance of the downloaded software application on the terminal device;
subsequent to receiving the runtime event confirmation message:
[W] extracting, at the conversion tracking server, device fingerprint data from one or more data messages transmitted from the terminal device to the conversion tracking server;
[X] generating, at the conversion tracking server, a second device fingerprint based on the extracted terminal device fingerprint data;
[Y] comparing, at the conversion tracking server, the second device fingerprint against the first device fingerprint device fingerprint data stored in the device fingerprint database;
[Z] detecting a positive match between the second device fingerprint and the first device fingerprint;
[AA] transmitting, to the referral source or to the entity associated with the referral source, a second conversion event confirmation message verifying launch of the runtime instance of the downloaded software application on the terminal device,
[AB] wherein the second conversion event confirmation message comprises the unique identifier associated with the ongoing network communication session;
[AC] receiving, at the referral source or to the entity associated with the referral source, the second conversion event confirmation message;
responsive to detecting a positive match between the second device fingerprint and the first device fingerprint:
[AD] retrieving the unique identifier stored in the device fingerprint database; and
[AE] correlating the first conversion event confirmation message and the second conversion event confirmation message based on the unique identifier;
[AF] wherein neither the referral source nor the entity associated with the referral source receives a persistent identifier associated with the terminal device during either of the first conversion event or the second conversion event at the terminal device; and
[AG] wherein receipt of the first conversion event message and the second conversion event message, at the referral source or the entity associated with the referral source2 result in a determination, by the referral source or the entity associated with the referral source, that execution of the runtime instance of the downloaded software application on the terminal device is based on both the first conversion event and the second conversion event.
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 8, 15) recites: generating a streaming output of data ([K]); generating a unique session identifier and a first terminal device fingerprint ([L], [M]); associating the device fingerprint with the identifier and storing the device fingerprint along with the identifier ([P], [Q]); transmitting a conversion event confirmation message ([R]); receiving a runtime event confirmation message ([V]); extracting the first device fingerprint data and generating a second device fingerprint data ([W], [X]); comparing the second device fingerprint against the first device fingerprint and detecting a positive match ([Y], [Z]); transmitting the second event confirmation message and receiving that message ([AA], [AC]); retrieving the stored unique identifier ([AD]); and correlating the two conversion messages ([AE]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “tracking and attributing advertisement conversion events”, which is part of ecommerce.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers agreements in the form of advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 8, 15) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – QUALIFIERS]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “at a terminal device,” “at a conversion tracking server,” “at a cloud server”, “at a referral source” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the qualifiers “wherein the referral source is any of a software application or a webpage that has initiated display of the advertisement on the terminal device web browser;”; “wherein the first device fingerprint comprises a probabilistic device fingerprint that enhances user privacy by avoiding persistent identifiers and maintaining conversion event tracking and attribution across platforms despite restrictions on data-sharing;”; “wherein the first conversion event confirmation message comprises the unique identifier associated with the ongoing network communication session”; “wherein the first conversion event confirmation message attributes the cloud implemented instance of the software application to the referral source”; “wherein the runtime instance has been launched in response to a user received at the terminal device:”; “wherein the second conversion event confirmation message comprises the unique identifier associated with the ongoing network communication session;”; “wherein neither the referral source nor the entity associated with the referral source receives a persistent identifier associated with the terminal device during either of the first conversion event or the second conversion event at the terminal device”; “wherein receipt of the first conversion event message and the second conversion event message, at the referral source or the entity associated with the referral source2 result in a determination, by the referral source or the entity associated with the referral source, that execution of the runtime instance of the downloaded software application on the terminal device is based on both the first conversion event and the second conversion event.” as applied to the referral source, the first device fingerprint, the first conversion event confirmation message, the runtime instance, the second conversion event, the referral source and the entity associated with it, and the receipt of the first conversion event message, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These qualifiers of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “tracking and attributing advertisement conversion events”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – ADDITIONAL STEPS]
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: delivering to a terminal device and downloading an application ([C], [D]), initiating the display of an advertisement and detecting user action related with the downloaded advertisement ([E], [F]), receiving user click traffic parameters ([I]), executing the software application ([J]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“tracking and attributing advertisement conversion events”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), as well as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, it is conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“tracking and attributing advertisement conversion events”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Therefore, the additional claim elements of independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 8, 15) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 8, 15) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 8, 15 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 3, which is representative of dependent claims 10, recites: wherein responsive to detecting the positive match between the second device fingerprint and the first device fingerprint, the conversion tracking server
additionally transmits to the referral source or to the entity associated with the referral source, information relating to the network communication session in which the first device fingerprint has been generated.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “tracking and attributing advertisement conversion events”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“tracking and attributing advertisement conversion events”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“tracking and attributing advertisement conversion events”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“tracking and attributing advertisement conversion events”).
Therefore, dependent claim 3 (which is representative of dependent claims 10) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 7, which is representative of dependent claims 14, recites: wherein transmission of the first conversion event confirmation message to the referral source or to the entity associated with the referral source, includes
transmission of data identifying the ongoing network communication session between the terminal device and the conversion tracking server.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “tracking and attributing advertisement conversion events”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“tracking and attributing advertisement conversion events”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“tracking and attributing advertisement conversion events”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“tracking and attributing advertisement conversion events”).
Therefore, dependent claim 7 (which is representative of dependent claims 14) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 4-6, which are representative of dependent claims 11-13, respectively, recite:
wherein the traffic parameters associated with a user click event corresponding to the displayed advertisement include one or more of a campaign ID associated with the displayed advertisement, and a referral source ID associated with the referral source.
wherein the delivery of a cloud implemented instance of the software application to the terminal device is implemented by a cloud services server system.
wherein, the first device fingerprint or the terminal device fingerprint data received by the conversion tracking server from the terminal device, includes any one or more of a terminal device name, terminal device type, terminal device operating system OS) version, terminal device IP information, and network carrier information associated with the terminal device.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements – the traffic parameters; the delivery of a cloud implemented instance; the device fingerprint – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (“tracking and attributing advertisement conversion events”), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 4-6 (which are representative of dependent claims 11-13, respectively) are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Examiner Remarks
No art rejection has been applied to the instant set of claims.
The independent claims of Applicant’s invention recite a method, a computer program product, and a system for tracking and attributing conversion events.
The identified most relevant prior art references are listed here below.
However, neither of the most relevant prior art references discloses: associating the generated first device fingerprint with the generated unique identifier; retrievably storing the generated first device fingerprint with the generated first unique identifier in a device fingerprint database; and transmitting to the referral source or to an entity associated with the referral source, a first conversion event confirmation message confirming that delivery of the cloud implemented instance of the software application to the terminal device has been initiated.
Furthermore, they do not disclose: comparing the second device fingerprint against device fingerprint data stored in the device fingerprint database; retrieving the unique identifier associated with the first device fingerprint; and transmitting to the referral source or to the entity associated with the referral source, a second conversion event confirmation message confirming launch of the runtime instance of the downloaded software application on the terminal device.
The identified pertinent prior art discloses elements of the claimed invention. However, Examiner has determined that it would be impermissible hind-sight reasoning for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the individual elements disclosed in the prior-art in order to achieve Applicant's claimed invention.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 8799458 B2 2014-08-05 15 Barber; Timothy P. Identifying and marketing to a user device involved in an online transaction - An online machine data collection and archiving process generates a machine data profile of a customer computer accessing a transaction form of a merchant web site and links the machine data profile and a transaction record with customer identifying information using a unique transaction identification string. The process may capture parameters typically communicated as a part of web accesses, such as an IP address, an HTTP header, and cookie information. The process additionally causes the customer computer to process self-identification routines by processing coding within the merchant transaction form, the self-identification routines yielding further profile parameters. The process further includes a routine for bypassing an intervening proxy to the merchant web site to reveal the true IP address of the customer computer. Identifying the customer computer is useful for functions such as fraud detection and marketing.
US 20160182474 A1 2016-06-23 13 Stuntebeck; Erich Peter SECONDARY COMMUNICATIONS CHANNEL FACILITATING DOCUMENT SECURITY - Disclosed are various embodiments for facilitating the sharing of files or documents on behalf of a sending user to a recipient user. A secured file is transmitted to a recipient user via a primary communication identifier. A security key that can be utilized to decrypt or unlock the file is transmitted to a secondary communication identifier, which can be automatically identified. In this way, security of the file can be maintained in the event that one of the communications channels corresponding to the primary communication identifier or secondary communication identifier is compromised.
US 20160012399 A1 2016-01-14 17 ETCHEGOYEN; Craig S. SECURE TWO-STAGE TRANSACTIONS - A transaction server authenticates a client device during a fulfillment phase of a transaction as having authorized the transaction using cryptographic data sent to the device during an authorization phase of the transaction. In particular, prior to fulfilling the transaction through point-of-sale equipment, the transaction server requires that the device successfully decrypt a transaction token using a transaction key sent to the device during authorization of the transaction.
US 9807092 B1 2017-10-31 58 Gutzmann; Kurt Systems and methods for classification of internet devices as hostile or benign - A dynamic access pricing and active countermeasure system and method for detecting and protecting against automated Internet attackers that incapacitates or disables the attackers. The dynamic access pricing and active countermeasure generally includes 1) the provision of a device fingerprint by a device at the start of an iteration of the client-puzzle challenge-response protocol; 2) a dynamic access pricing policy associated with a transaction identifier; 3) the determination of the puzzle difficulty level based on the interaction history of the device fingerprint solely with respect to the dynamic access pricing policy; 4) the binding of the device fingerprint to the client puzzle challenge; the generation of transaction authorization codes that the device presents to a protected application, system, interface or device.
US 20220038454 A1 2022-02-03 20 Kuarsingh; Victor et al. NON-INTRUSIVE / AGENTLESS NETWORK DEVICE IDENTIFICATION - Maintaining a database of a plurality of time series data sets, wherein each time series data set is associated to a previously known computer device of a computer network; detecting a connection request from a second computer device of the computer network; collecting one or more new data sets related to the second computer device; comparing the one or more new data sets with one or more time series data sets; calculating one or more value scores related to the plurality of time series data sets based on the comparison; and determining a device association score based on the calculated one or more value scores related to the plurality of time series data sets, wherein the device association score determines an association level between the previously known computer device and the second computer device of the computer network.
US 20170270557 A1 2017-09-21 26 MAENPAA; Pia et al. METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR TOKENIZATION OF REWARD DATA - A method for tokenizing non-payment identifier, comprising storing a plurality of account profiles, wherein each account profile is a structured data set related to a transaction account including at least a non-payment identifier, at least one of a personal account number (PAN), and quantity of points affiliated with the non-payment identifier. Receiving a data signal from a consumer communication device, wherein the data signal may be superimposed with a tokenization request, the tokenization request including at least a non-payment identifier. Provisioning, by a generation module of the processing server, a token linking to the non-payment identifier. Transmitting, by a transmitting device of the processing server, the token linked to the non-payment identifier to the consumer communication device.
US 20170251105 A1 2017-08-31 12 Chatterjee; Manish et al. EMERGENCY CALL BACK FOR REMOTE WORKERS - A fingerprint is received from a communication endpoint. The fingerprint is based on a hardware identifier of the communication endpoint. For example the fingerprint may be based on a Media Access Control (MAC) address of the communication endpoint. A request for an emergency call from the communication endpoint is received that also includes the fingerprint. For instance, a user may initiate a 911 call from the communication endpoint. The emergency call is established. After the emergency call is disconnected, a request for an emergency call back is received. For example, if the emergency call prematurely disconnected, the emergency call back is initiated. The request for the emergency call back is routed to the communication endpoint based on the fingerprint to ensure that the emergency call is properly completed.
US 20110093920 A1 2011-04-21 18 Etchegoyen; Craig S. System and Method for Device Authentication with Built-In Tolerance - A system for building tolerance into authentication of a computing device includes a means for executing, from a computer-readable medium, computer-implementable steps of: (a) receiving and storing a first digital fingerprint of the device during a first boot of an authenticating software on the device, the first digital fingerprint based on a first set of device components, (b) receiving a second digital fingerprint from the device at a subsequent time, (c) comparing the second digital fingerprint with a plurality of stored digital fingerprints of known devices, (d) in response to the comparison indicating a mismatch between the second digital fingerprint and the plurality of stored digital fingerprints, generating a request code comprising instructions for the device to generate a third digital fingerprint using the first set of device components, (e) sending the request code to the remote device, (f) receiving the third digital fingerprint from the remote device in response to the request code, and (g) authenticating the device based on a comparison of the first and third digital fingerprints.
US 20110009092 A1 2011-01-13 16 Etchegoyen; Craig Stephen System and Method for Secured Mobile Communication - A method achieves secure mobile communications by authenticating a mobile device seeking communication with a secure server. The method prescribes steps for generating a code to indicate a plurality of portions of a digital fingerprint to request from the mobile device, each portion representing a different parameter of the mobile device, sending the code to the mobile device, receiving from the mobile device a response code representing the requested plurality of portions of the digital fingerprint, comparing each portion of the received plurality of portions with one or more predetermined codes, and granting the mobile device an access privilege when results of the comparison satisfy a predetermined minimum accuracy.
US 20150106900 A1 2015-04-16 13 PINSKI; David Aaron et al. MOBILE NETWORK-BASED MULTI-FACTOR AUTHENTICATION - Verification of a user login to a secure account from a mobile device occurs when the user provides login credentials and a hardware identifier (ID) corresponding to the mobile device. The provided login credentials and hardware ID are then verified against a registry. Further, the mobile device determines and provides a geographic location of the mobile device using a global positioning system (GPS) component installed therein. The location provided by the mobile devices is then matched with a location of a network element with which the mobile device is currently communicating.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “Initially, regarding the first prong of the Alice decision, claim 1 may be considered to be directed to improvements in determining whether execution of a runtime instance of a software application on a terminal device is attributable to both (i) a cloud-based streaming event and (ii) a local execution event. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2017).”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Based on the claim language (“… receiving, at the referral source or to the entity associated with the referral source, the second conversion event confirmation message; responsive to detecting a positive match between the second device fingerprint and the first device fingerprint; retrieving the unique identifier stored in the device fingerprint database; and correlating the first conversion event confirmation message and the second conversion event confirmation message based on the unique identifier; …) and in light of the application disclosure “tracking and attributing conversion events”), the claims of the instant application are directed to tracking and attributing advertisement conversion events.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The limitations of claim 1 demonstrate that claim 1 is directed to an unconventional method that improves the ability of a system to determine whether execution of a runtime instance of a software application on a terminal device is attributable to both (i) a cloud-based streaming event and (ii) a local execution event.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Further, as seen above, the system of claim 1 provides a practical application of a solution to the technical problem of attributing events while preserving privacy that overcomes platform-level restrictions on persistent identifiers.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action determines at Step 2B:
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 8, 15) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 8, 15 are deemed ineligible.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “In addition, under the second prong of the Alice decision, Applicant submits that the claims recite "an invention that is not merely the routine or conventional use" of computers or the Internet. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action does not make such an allegation.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “However, even in the situation where the individually-viewed elements do not add significantly more or integrate the exception, those additional elements when viewed in combination may render the claim eligible."”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action concludes at Step 2B:
When the independent and dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The rejection is maintained, necessitated by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571.272.7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3698