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 .
Response to Amendment
In light of Applicant's submission filed October 15, 2025, the Examiner has maintained and updated the 35 USC § 101 rejection. The 35 USC § 112 first paragraph has been updated. The 35 USC § 103 was previously withdrawn.
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 21-40 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. Specifically, in regards to claims 21, 28, and 35 the applicant’s specification appears to be silent to the added limitation that states, “same user, each calculated confidence level being calculated based on one or more algorithms dynamically configured based on a number of look back days of interactions between the first user device and the second user device” The applicant’s specification at [0072] and [0080] does not teach or suggest that the number of look back days of interactions between the first user device and the second user device is calculated. There does not appear to be any language that determines that the first user device and the second user devices interact with each other.
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, 28, and 35
receiving, requests for electronic content;
using multiple routes of an algorithm to calculate, in parallel for each possible plurality of users, a confidence level that a first user and a second user of the plurality of users are the same, each calculated confidence level being calculated dynamically configured based on a number of look back days of interactions between the first user and the second user
identifying a common user for a first user and a second user based on the confidence level;
monitoring browser activity of the common user by setting a cookie on the first and second user of the common user
grouping the common user with a larger set of users based on the monitored browsing activity of the common user and users of the larger set of users:
extracting, demographics information for the common user;
determining, based on the demographics information and the larger set of users, electronic content to transmit to the second user.
The limitations of independent claim 21, 28, and 35 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 information, detecting users devices, identifying common users of devices, extracting demographic information, sending content to a user, based on said demographic information. 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 user device, electronic devices, network, server database, processor, machine learning algorithm, storage device, non-transitory computer readable medium. 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 calculating, receiving, detecting, identifying, grouping, extracting, and determining) 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 user device, electronic devices, network, machine learning algorithm, server database, processor, storage device, non-transitory computer readable medium to calculating, receiving, detecting, identifying, grouping, extracting, and determining 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. 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). (i.e. “PEG”
Step 2B=No) The dependent claims 22-27, 29-34, and 36-41 appear to merely further limit the abstract and as such, the analysis of dependent claims 22-27, 29-34, and 36-41 results in the claims “reciting” an abstract idea. The claims do not recite 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.
Examiner’s Note
In regards to claims 21-40, because the claims are presently rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112(a), references Tengler (US 2013/0124329) and Doughty et al. (US 2013/0124327) have not been applied in the instant Office action. However, these references may be potentially applied in a subsequent Office, upon correction of the 35 U.S.C § 112(a) rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection that that the claims are not directed to methods of organizing human activity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, the claims are directed to managing personal behavior, advertising, marketing, relationships, or interactions between people and/or commercial interactions. The claim element of receiving request from multiple devices, is considered as observing user behavior. Calculating confidence levels that devices belong to the same user, is considered as determining identity relationships. The claim element of lookback days(e.g. user interaction history) is considered as analyzing behavior over time. The claim element of identifying a common user, is considered as establishing a relationship. The claim element of monitoring browsing via cookies, is considered as tracking behavior. The claim element of grouping users with others, is considered at organizing people based on behavior. The claim element of transmitting content to users, is considered as advertising, marketing, or business relations. Thus, for the reasons stated above was considered “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(c), also see Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One and also Electric Power Group. The applicant further argues the 101 rejection by stating that due to the amendment claim 21 recites a technical means to do so and that the claim now recites features that solve a technical problem and is discussed in the specification at [0104]. The Examine respectfully disagrees, it is not enough to recite a technical means, nor is this a technical problem. The question asked during the 101 analysis, do the claims have limitations that are indications of integration into a practical application. The claims do not appear to have such indications. The claims do not appear to have Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
The claims do not appear to solve a technical problem. The claims appear to try to solve a user identity problem, a behavioral correlation problem and/or a data analysis problem. For example, the claims are not directed to solving such technical problems as networking, hardware, memory, processor or a machine learning problem. The claimed machine learning in the applicant’s claims is merely used as a tool to perform calculations. Furthermore, on September 26, 2025, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued an Appeals Review Panel decision in Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) vacating the Board’s new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The decision was designated precedential on November 4, 2025. (SEE USPTO memorandum dated December 5, 2025) Specifically, Ex Parte Desjardins explained the following:
Enfish ranks among the Federal Circuit's leading cases on the eligibility of technological improvements. In particular, Enfish recognized that “[m]uch of the advancement made in computer technology consists of improvements to software that, by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes.” 822 F.3d at 1339. Moreover, because “[s]oftware can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology, just as hardware improvements can,” the Federal Circuit held that the eligibility determinations should turn on whether “the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea.” Id. at 1336. (Desjardins, page 8).
Thus, based on the above and also in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(a) the applicant’s paragraph [0104] in the applicant's specification does not appear to identify a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The applicant's claims do not appear to provide an improvement to the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to technology or a technical field. The claims must include components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. (which [0104] of the specification does not provide) The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification, however the claims must reflect the improvement identified in the specification. [0104] merely discloses the use/configuring of an algorithm without any details of how or why the algorithm would improve the functioning of a computer, other technology or technical field. 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
It does not appear that the applicant’s claims have limitations that indicative of integration into a practical application. Thus the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shoshitaishvili et al. (US 2014/0136333) - Systems and methods for providing effective and targeted advertisements to consumers through the generations and use of personas and family identities. A persona relates to a user and a contextual environment associated with the user. The personas allow advertisers to provide advertisements related to the contextual environment of a persona. A family identity relates to a set of users associated with at least one device. The family identities allow advertisers to provide advertisements applicable to a set of users.
Knab et al. (US 2015/0051979) - Personalized electronic content is generated for display on a user computer. The content is generated by first matching a targeted user online identifier to one of a plurality of user online identifiers associated with a master ID in a database. Using online user behavior associated with the user online identifiers of the master ID, a preliminary set of personalized electronic content is generated. A set of content usage parameters is applied to the preliminary set of personalized electronic content to define the personalized electronic content, which is then transmitted and displayed on a user computer. The personalized electronic content may comprise targeted advertisement utilized to populate a webpage or an email template defined by an online marketing campaign. Tengler (US 2013/0124329) - A system for validating user identifications is configured to perform the steps of: (a) receiving at a data management platform a plurality of first user identifications associated with a first communication device accessed by a first user, wherein the data management platform includes data relating to the first user; (b) receiving at the data management platform a plurality of second user identifications associated with a second communication device accessed by a second user; and (c) determining at the data management platform via a predetermined number of the plurality of receipts of the first and second user identifications that the first user accessing the first communication device is the second user accessing the second communication device.
Doughty et al. (US 2013/0124327) - A system for identifying a same user of multiple communication devices is configured to perform the steps of: (a) receiving first data relating to a first device operated by a user; (b) receiving second data relating to a second device operated by a user; (c) determining that the user of the first device is the user of the second device based on identifying that the first data is substantially the same as the second data; and (d) selecting and transmitting a sponsored content to the second device for display thereon, wherein the sponsored content has a relevance to the first and second data and/or a user characteristic datum associated with the user.
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 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