DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a Final Office Action in response to the arguments and/or amendments filed on 20 March 2026.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims not listed below are rejected for dependency.
Amended claim 1 recites the non-original limitation “generating, by the at least one computer processor, based on a weighted value derived from the confidence value for an attribute of the user device information, an edge between the node for the location and the node of the unidentified or alias user device.” Applicant’s remarks identify [0042], [0048]-[0058], [0061], [0068], and [0080]-[0087] of the specification as support for the amendments at large. Of these disclosures, only [0042], [0050], and [0042] relate to the identified limitation.
[0042] The identity module 132 may use various processing techniques to identify, classify, and/or associate unidentified user devices with deterministic data (e.g., identity graphs, look- up tables, data onboarding information, etc.). According to some aspects of this disclosure, the identity management module 132 may use classifiers that map an attribute vector to a confidence that the attribute belongs to a class. For example, the identity management module 132 may use classifiers that map vectors that represent attributes including, but not limited to both qualitative attributes and quantitative attributes, of user device information received, determined, detected, and/or identified for a user device. For example, an attribute vector, x=(xl, x2, x3, x4, xn) may be mapped to f(x)=confidence(class).
[0050] According to some aspects of this disclosure, identity management model 132 may generate an edge between the node for the location and the node for the user device 103 based on a weighted value for an attribute of the user information. Identity management model 132 may map an identifier (e.g., IP address, service provider and/or business entity identifier, first-part cookie, third-party cookie, IDFA, generic IFA, device-specific identifier, MAC address, a service identifier, IMEI, a session identifier, etc.) for the user device 103 to an identifier of the location 101 based on a distance of the edge being less than a distance threshold that indicates degrees of association between nodes of the identity graph. Identity management model 132 may manage bid stream activity for the user device 103 based on the identifier for the user device being mapped to the identifier of the location. For example, identity management model 132 may cause a content item to be sent to the user device 103 based on the identifier for the user device 103 being mapped to the identifier of the location 101.
[0083] In 540, system server(s) 126 generates an edge between the node for the location and the node for the user device. According to some aspects of this disclosure, system server(s) 126 may generate the edge between the node for the location and the node for the user device based on a weighted value for an attribute of the user information. According to some aspects of this disclosure, the weighted value for the attribute of the user information may be identified and/or determined by inputting the user device information into a predictive model (e.g., the identity management module 132, etc.). According to some aspects of this disclosure, the predictive model may be trained to forecast associations between user devices and locations based on attributes of the user devices and attributes of additional user devices at the locations. The weighted value for the attribute of the user information may be received from the predictive model. The weighted value for the attribute may indicate a forecasted degree of association between the node for the location and the node for the user device.
The disclosure at [0042] describes mapping an attribute vector to a confidence “that the attribute belongs to a class.” It does not identify the confidence as a “weighted value” or associate it with the edge between nodes. The disclosure at [0050] describes generating an edge between nodes “based on a weighted value for an attribute”, but does not associate that weighted value with a confidence. Similarly the disclosure at [0083] describes generating an edge between nodes based on “a weighted value for an attribute” and further states that the value may be found “by inputting the user device information into a predictive model (e.g., the identity management module 132, etc.).” While the identity management module (132) reference is elsewhere disclosed as the model that may generate a confidence “that the attribute belongs to a class”, the disclosure at [0083] does not actually indicate that the confidence specifically is used to generate a weighted value. As such, none of these disclosures support using a generated confidence as the weighted value used to generate an edge. The remainder of the originally filed disclosure similarly fails to support the identified limitation.
Because the claims include a non-original limitation which is not supported by the originally filed disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize applicant as possessing the claimed invention at the time of filing. Therefore the claim is rejected based on the written description requirement. Claims 8 and 15 are similarly rejected.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, which is representative of claims 8 and 15, recites: a
deterministic location at which devices consume content on a permanent basis, wherein the deterministic identity graph is stored
determining,
receiving,
forming,
inputting the attribute vector to a
generating, based on (a) the confidence value satisfying an association threshold indicating whether unidentified user devices are associated with locations and (b) the user device information,
generating,
mapping,
causing,
The preceding recitation of the claim has had strikethroughs applied to the additional elements beyond the abstract idea to more clearly demonstrate the limitations setting forth the abstract ideas. The remaining limitations set forth concepts of receiving and analyzing user information to determine associations between a user and a location and providing content based on such associations. These concepts are plainly marketing or advertising activities or behaviors, and as such the concept falls within the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Claim 8 only sets forth the concept of analyzing user information to determine associations between a user and a location, but still sets forth a marketing or advertising activity or behavior. As such, these limitations set forth a method of organizing human activity and the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106, reflecting the 2019 PEG, directs examiners at Step 2A Prong Two to consider whether the additional elements of the claims integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 describes the method as computer implemented and recites the additional element of a system server and at least one computer processor of the system server. Claim 8 recites the additional element of a system server … comprising: one or more memories … and at least one processor. Claim 15 recites the additional element of a non-transitory computer-readable medium. These additional elements are all recited at a high level of generality, and are interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element that the multimedia environment that is configured to provide devices of the multimedia environment with content items based on instructions from the system server. This additional element does not appear to provide an improvement to a computer or other technology. This additional element does not appear to apply or use the abstract idea in a conjunction with a particular machine. This additional element does not appear to effect any transformation or reduction of a particular article. And this additional element does not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, this additional elements appear to only generally link the abstract idea to an multimedia environment that distributes content to devices. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of electronically stored data. This additional element amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a computing device. As previously noted, such additional elements do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of information received from a device located at the location, and wherein the device located at the location receives information from the unidentified or alias user device. This additional element does not appear to provide an improvement to a computer or other technology. This additional element does not appear to apply or use the abstract idea in a conjunction with a particular machine. This additional element does not appear to effect any transformation or reduction of a particular article. And this additional element does not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, this additional elements appear to only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of a machine-learning-based model which is trained. At the level of generality that the machine learning and training is described, this additional element amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a computing device. As previously noted, such additional elements do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of sending content to the unidentified or alias user device. This additional element does not appear to provide an improvement to a computer or other technology. This additional element does not appear to apply or use the abstract idea in a conjunction with a particular machine. This additional element does not appear to effect any transformation or reduction of a particular article. And this additional element does not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, this additional elements appear to only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
There are no further additional elements. When the additional elements are considered as a combination, the use of a machine learning model by a computing devices which stores, receives, and sends data in a multimedia environment only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of a multimedia content distribution system. The combination does not appear to reflect any improvement to the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. As such, the combination of additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice analysis, examiners are to consider whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite additional elements of computer elements which may be interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. However, per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing does not add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite the additional element of a multimedia environment that is configured to provide devices of the multimedia environment with content items based on instructions from the system server. Zheng et al. (US 2010/0195974 A1) demonstrates (“A video streaming system is capable of delivering live video streams to a large number of users through Internet-based broadcasting-like services. Conventional video streaming systems provide the users with a video player running on a client machine.” [0002]) that such multimedia environments were conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite the additional element of electronically stored data. However, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), storing information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function (See at least Versata Dev. Group, Inc). As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite the additional element of information received from a device located at the location, and wherein the device located at the location receives information from the unidentified or alias user device. However, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), receiving data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function (See at least Symantec). Further, Biacs et al. (US 2003/0210656 A1) demonstrates (The router 42 is a conventional component and operates to receive the reference data addressed to the router and to relay the reference data to the CC 20. See at least [0042]) that receiving data from a device which is relayed from another device was conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite a machine-learning-based model which is trained. Vinyals et al. (US 2015/0356461 A1) demonstrates (“The system trains a cumbersome machine learning model, e.g., the cumbersome machine learning model 110 of FIG. 1, to determine trained values of the parameters of the cumbersome machine learning model using conventional machine learning training techniques (step 202).” [0027]) that such machine learning models were conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more. Additionally, this additional element may be interpreted as an instruction to implement the abstract idea with a generic computing device, which would also indicate that it does not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite the additional element of sending content to the user device. However, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), transmitting data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function (See at least Symantec). As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more.
There are no further additional elements. When the additional elements are considered as a combination, the use of a machine learning model by a computing devices which stores, receives, and sends data in a multimedia environment only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of a multimedia content distribution system. The combination does not appear to reflect any improvement to the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. As such, the combination of additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considered individually and as a combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further describe the abstract idea, but these claims continue to recite abstract ideas, albeit narrowed ones. Claims 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12-14, 16, 19, and 20 recite no further additional elements. At Step 2A, Prong Two, the previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, only generally link the narrowed abstract ideas to a technological environment of a multimedia content distribution system. Thus the additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the narrowed abstract ideas into practical applications of the narrowed abstract ideas. As such, claims 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12-14, 16, 19, and 20 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. As Step 2B, the previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, only generally link the narrowed abstract ideas to a technological environment of a multimedia content distribution system. Thus the additional elements of claims 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12-14, 16, 19, and 20 , individually and as a combination, do not amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract ideas. Claim 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18, recites the additional element of a media device and a content provider device. When considered either individually or in combination with the previously identified additional elements, this additional element only generally links the abstract idea to an multimedia environment that distributes content to devices. As such, dependent claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 remain directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, Zheng et al. (US 2010/0195974 A1) demonstrates that a multimedia systems involving a media device and a content provider device was conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. And when considered in combination with the previously identified additional elements, this additional element only generally links the abstract idea to an multimedia environment that distributes content to devices. As such, the additional elements of claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18, individually and as a combination, do not amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea. Because the dependent claims remain directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 112(b) Rejections of claims 7 and 14: Applicants presently amend claims 7 and 14 consistent with the suggestion of the Examiner.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's amendments filed 20 March 2026 have been fully considered and they resolve the identified issue. The rejection under 112(b) is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 101 Rejections of claims 1-20:
Amended claim 1 recites a particular architecture and ordering of operations in which the edge “device at the location” acts as the location-proximate relay for user-device telemetry in connection with content requests, enabling accurate probabilistic association updates to a deterministic identity graph. This addresses a concrete technical problem emphasized in the specification: unidentified or alias devices are not mapped to deterministic identity-graph data and cannot be reliably associated with deterministic locations without the proximate-device mediated routing and subsequent inferencing.
This problem, as in DDR Holdings, is necessarily rooted in computer technology, and claim 1 thus addresses a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks and that did not exist before the internet and streaming multimedia environments and services.
Amended claim 1 is directed to a technological improvement in a targeting/identity structure, not to an abstract advertising or marketing objective. In particular, claim 1 recites maintaining a deterministic identity graph and enhancing it with probabilistic data. … Taken as a whole, claim 1 recites features that do not merely using a computer as a tool to implement conventional advertising or marketing activities; it is a specific improvement to a computerized identity determination data system.
Amended claim 1 does not recite mere collection and analysis of data and presentation of results. It recites a non-generic distributed arrangement in which a device located at the location serves as a the relay or forwarder of user-device information (received form the use device and sent onward to the system server) in connection with content requests.
Claim 8 does not similarly recite causing a content item to be sent to the user device. Nevertheless, the Office Action states that independent claim 8 “set[s] forth a marketing or advertising activity or behavior even without the final provision of content.” NO reasoned explanation is given for this finding.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 20 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument is understood as asserting that the arrangement of the “device at the location” is a technical improvement. The specification appears to the examiner to suggest that the “subsequent inferencing” is what addresses the asserted technical problem independent of how the necessary data arrives at the system. Further, there does not appear to be meaningful technical details of how the relaying of data is implemented. As such, this feature does not appear to be a technical improvement.
DDR Holdings also noted that “[w]e caution, however, that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patent. For example, in our recently-decided Ultramercial opinion, the patentee argued that its claims were ‘directed to a specific method of advertising and content distribution that was previously unknown and never employed on the Internet before.’ … But this alone could not render its claims patent-eligible.” Here, the arrangement of the abstract idea and additional elements are more analogous to the claims in Ultramercial than to the claims in DDR Holdings.
Per MPEP 2106.05(a), “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification.” Here, the disclosure does not appear to provide meaningful technical details of implementing the asserted improvement. In the absence of such a disclosure, the claim is not understood to provide a technical improvement.
The additional elements do not appear to provide an inventive concept analogous to that in BASCOM. The elements of BASCOM were specifically arranged in a different way than those in the art and that arrangement provided a technical improvement. Using one device to relay device information to a central server is not analogous to that arrangement and does not appear to provide any technical improvement.
As acknowledged by applicant, Claim 1 was articulated as setting forth a concept of “analyzing user information to determine associations between a user and a location and providing content based on such association.” Claim 8, which lacks the provision of content, still includes the analyzing of user information to determine association between a user and a location. That analyzing of user information to determine associations describes a marketing or advertising activity.
Additional Considerations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 of the prior office action dated 22 December 2025.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bion A Shelden whose telephone number is (571)270-0515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12pm-10pm 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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/Bion A Shelden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2026-06-11
Prosecution Insights