DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 2, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In light of Applicant's submission filed April 2, 2026, the Examiner has maintained and updated the 35 USC § 101 rejection.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations that are considered to be abstract ideas:
Claims 21, 29, and 36
Continuously receiving, a plurality of requests for content:
Extracting real time events;
Generating a message corresponding to each of the plurality of request for content and the real time events the message comprising event data;
Aggregating the event data for multiple event processing to extract, from each of the plurality of requests, an occurrence, an address, and a unique identifier;
calculating a probability a common user based on a weighted value of the plurality of requests, based on a weighted value of the plurality of requests, the weighting computed based on a time of day determined for each of the plurality of requests, the time of day based on a timestamp of a request from an IP address
prompting the common user to confirm a characteristic of a prior browsing session based on the calculated probability exceeding a first threshold level and, if the calculated probability exceeds a second threshold, requiring the common user to log-in based on the calculated probability exceeding a second threshold;
receiving, from the common user, confirmation of the characteristic or confirmation of the characteristic and data of a successful user log-in; and
identifying with a common user profile based on the user confirming the characteristic or confirming the characteristic and a successful log-in.
The limitations of independent claim 21, 29, 36, as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely “advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors” because the claims disclose performing advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors comprising receiving request for content(e.g. advertising), extracting information from said request, calculating a probability a pair of devices are associated with a common user and identifying the pair of devices based on a calculated probability.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements of using devices, data storage device, processor, non-transitory computer readable medium, server, tracking pixel. The aforementioned additional generic computing elements perform the steps of the claims at a high level of generality (i.e. As a generic medium performing generic computer function of receiving, extracting, calculating, generating, aggregating and identifying such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does 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.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a processor to receiving, extracting, calculating, and identifying amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of devices, data storage device, processor, non-transitory computer readable medium, server, tracking pixel amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to
significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). The dependent claims 22-28,30-35, and 37-40 appear to merely further limit the abstract and as such, the analysis of dependent claims 22-28,30-35, and 37-40 results in the claims “reciting” an abstract idea. The claims the claims do not recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept (significantly more) other than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 21-40 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues in regards to the 101 rejection, that the claims recite a process that a human could not perform mentally nor is it analogous to fundamental economic practices or methods organizing human activity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees the claims are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that claims directed to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying or using the results are considered abstract even when the claims require the use of computers. (See Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);) Although the claims use tracking pixels to obtain event information, the use of the computer as a tool to collect data does not remove the claim from being an abstract idea. (SEE MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (h). The use of tracking pixels merely limits the source of the information being collected and does not improve the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field. The applicant cited paragraph [0053] as support of an improvement to the functioning of the computer, the Examiner respectfully disagrees the cited paragraph merely describes identifying links between internet connected devices to determine likely ownership. The specification describes constructing message for inbound requests and forwarding the messages to a queue for consumption by a user matching platform. However, the specification does not teach, nor suggest how the message generation or queue processing improves the functioning of the computer, or other technology or technical field. Rather these components are used as tools to collect and process event information for the purpose of identifying devices associated with a common user profile. The applicant further argues the 101 rejection that the amended claim improves the functioning of the computer system itself by implementing a continuous event-driven architecture with structured message generation and aggregation for multiple event processing. This is not merely using generic computer components to perform an abstract idea. Rather, it is a specific technical implementation that enhances how distributed server systems process and correlate network traffic from multiple devices. The aggregation of event data for multiple event processing represents an improvement in how servers handle concurrent requests from disparate sources, enabling efficient extraction of temporal, network, and device-specific parameters that would otherwise require separate, inefficient processing operations. The Examiner respectfully disagrees the claims nor the cited specification explains how the server operation is improved. The claims merely receive request, extract events, generate messages, aggregate event data, and process the aggregated information. The applicant’s asserted “architecture” merely serves a tool from implementing device association analysis. Thus the claims merely improve the process of identifying common users, however the claims do not improve computer functionality itself. The applicant further argues that the claims recite a specific feedback look that constitutes a concrete technical improvement to the device association system itself. The Examiner respectfully disagrees the feedback loop merely uses additional information to improve the accuracy of the device association determination. The claims do not recite that the feedback loop changes how the computer functions. Rather the feedback loop merely refines the abstract determination of whether devices are associated to the same user. Improving how a device is classified, does not improve the functioning of the computer or other technology or technical field. MPEP 2106.05(f) - TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
The applicant further argues the 101 rejection by way of Ex parte Desjardins, how the Examiner respectfully disagrees Desjardins involved claims directed to adjusting parameters of probabilistic model itself. The applicant’s claimed probabilities and thresholds are merely used to determine whether devices should be associated with a common user profile. The claims do not recite modification of the probabilistic model, retraining the model, updated model parameters, nor does it improve the operation of the model itself. Thus the applicant’s claims are not analogous to Ex Parte Desjardins. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The applicant’s claims do not have limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application. Thus the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claims 21-40 the closest prior art found by the examiner is the prior art of
Traasdahl et al. (US 20130124309) that discloses receiving, from a plurality of devices, a plurality of requests for content: extracting, from each of the plurality of requests, an occurrence, an address, and a unique identifier associated with a respective device; calculating a probability that a pair of devices are associated with a common user based on a weighted value of the plurality of requests, addresses for the pair of devices, and unique identifiers associated with the pair of devices;. however does not disclose prompting the common user to confirm a characteristic of a prior browsing session based on the calculated probability exceeding a first threshold level and, if the calculated probability exceeds a second threshold, requiring the common user to log-in based on the calculated probability exceeding a second threshold: receiving, from the common user via a user device, confirmation of the characteristic or confirmation of the characteristic and data of a successful user log-in; and identifying the pair of devices with a common user profile based on the user confirming the characteristic or confirming the characteristic and a successful log-in.
If the applicant were to overcome the 35 U.S.C 101 the claims 21-40 would be allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARNELL A POUNCIL whose telephone number is (571)270-3509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 - 6:00.
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 at (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.
/D.A.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights