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 .
This office action is in response to communication filed on 2/18/2026.
Claims 21-23, 25-33 and 35-42 are presented for examination.
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 21-23, 25-33 and 35-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Taking claim 31 as representative, claim 31 recites at least the following
Limitations:
Receiving client-provided data; identifying at least one consumer as a targeted consumer based on the received client-provided data; purging personal identifying information from the client-provided data for the identified at least one consumer; generating a target audience pool including the purged client-provided data for the identified at least one consumer; and delivering the generated target audience pool to facilitate targeted advertising to specific consumers; wherein purging the personal identifying information from the client provided data for the identified at least one consumer further comprises; assigning at least one pseudonymous identified to the identified at least one consumer, wherein the at least one pseudonymous identifier does not include personal identifiable information of the at least one consumer.
The above limitations recite the concept of generating a target audience pool and delivering targeted advertising to specific consumers. These concepts are related to managing personal; behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover advertising, marketing or sales activities and fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, in that they recite a fundamental economic practice and commercial interactions. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claim 31 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, returning to representative claim 31, the claim recites network, memory and processor that do not have any additional elements that amount to significantly more to transform the abstract idea of targeting advertisements to specific consumers. Any general purpose computer available at the time the application was filed would have been able to perform the functions of the claims. The specification as published supports that view. See Application as filed on paragraphs 0026, 0027, 0050 and 0079. The introduction of a computer to implement an abstract idea is not a patentable application of the abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357—58. The computer implementation here is purely conventional and performs basic functions. Taking the limitations of the claims alone and in combination, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.
The courts have identified various examples of limitations as merely indicating a field of use/technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea, such as specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, specifying that the abstract idea of sending and receiving content executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field and to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of the claim is not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for at least the following reasons.
As discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, The additional computer-related elements recited on claim 31 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)()). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claim 31 the abstract idea of receiving, sending and selecting content executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 31 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually . In Alice Corp., the Court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” an determined that “the computer components...‘[a]dd nothing. ..that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, viewed as a whole, claim 31 simply convey the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 13 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 32-33, 35-40, 42 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements do not recite a specific manner or impose a meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent system claim 21 also is rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as method claim 31.
Dependent claims 22-23, 25-30 and 41 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements do not recite a specific manner or impose a meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-23, 25-33 and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagheri et al (2017/0148051 hereinafter Bagheri) in view of St Lawrence (20016/0364743).
With respect to claims 21, 31 Bagheri teaches systems and methods for identifying targeted customers (Abstract).
A memory, at least processor configured and a network (see Figure) to execute the instruction of:
Receiving, over the network, client-provided data from a client device (i.e. see client input data 302);
identifying at least one consumer as a targeted consumer based on the received client-provided data (at step 302 and paragraph 029 for an instruction may cause the system 100 to request and/or receive input data from the data warehouse 116 that includes event-level data related to the currently active users)
Generating a target audience pool including the purged client provided data for the identifies at least one consumer and delivering the generated target audience pool to facilitate targeted advertising to specific consumers (i.e. targeted advertisements along a plurality of customizable dimensions. For example, the method may determine user attributes based on user data corresponding to a plurality of users, the user data from interactions with one or more of online media and offline media of the plurality of users. The method may also determine a plurality of population segments based on the user attributes, wherein each of the plurality of population segments corresponds to at least one of the user attributes for each user of the plurality of users and analyze each population segment separately from the plurality of population segments. Further, the method may select an advertising hyper-placement for each of the plurality of users based on the population segment analysis)(paragraph 0011).
With respect to purging personal identifying information from the client provided data for the identified at least one consumer and assigning at least one pseudonymous identifier to the identified at least consumer, wherein the at least one pseudonymous identifier does not include personable identifier information of the at least one consumer. Bagheri teaches on paragraph 0029 “At step 304, the system 100 may execute an instruction to extract user identification data from input data feed. A form of input data may be users' profile database for those who are registered with the vendor. This identification can be completely accurate when a registered user is logged in to a website. Alternatively, the step 304 may use anonymous user identifier data”. Bagheri is silent as to purging personal information and assigning at least one pseudonymous identifier to the identified at least consumer, wherein the at least one pseudonymous identifier does not include personable identifier information of the at least one consumer. On the other hand, St Lawrence teaches on paragraph 0019 “de-identified data” or “de-identified data sets” are used to refer to data or data sets which have been processed or filtered to remove any PII. The de-identification may be performed in any of a number of ways, although in some embodiments, the de-identified data may be generated using a filtering process which removes PII and associates a de-identified unique identifier (or de-identified unique “ID”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included, the teachings of St Lawrence of purging personal information and assigning at least one pseudonymous identifier to the identified at least consumer, wherein the at least one pseudonymous identifier does not include personable identifier information of the at least one consumer, to the identification data of Bagheri because such a modification would secure the identification data of Bagheri by removing any PII identifying data and replacing it with a de-identified unique ID.
With respect to claims 22 and 32, Bagheri further teaches identifying the at least one consumer as the targeted consumer further comprises :comparing the received client-provided data against consumer data recorded in an electronic consumer database; and determining the targeted consumer based on a matching between the received client-provided data and the consumer data recorded in the electronic consumer database (i.e A form of input data may be users' profile database for those who are registered with the vendor. This identification can be completely accurate when a registered user is logged in to a website. Alternatively, the step 304 may use anonymous user identifier data);
With respect to claims 23 and 33 Bagheri further teaches matching the pseudonymous identifiers associated with the received client- provided data against pseudonymous identifiers associated with the consumer data recorded in an electronic consumer database; assigning at least one pseudonymous identifier to the identified at least one consumer, wherein the at least one pseudonymous identifier does not include personal identifiable information of the at least one consumer; merging the at least one pseudonymous identifier with non-personal identifiable information in the at least one consumer to produce pseudonymous consumer data (see Figure 3 and paragraph 0029 for a form of input data may be users' profile database for those who are registered with the vendor. This identification can be completely accurate when a registered user is logged in to a website. Alternatively, the step 304 may use anonymous user identifier data).
With respect to claims 26 and 36, the personal identifiable information comprises at least one of a name, an email address, a phone number, a street address, and a social security number (see user’s demographic data 202).
With respect to claims 27 and 37, Bagheri further teaches converting the at least one pseudonymous identifier contained in the target audience pool to a publisher-specific identifier according to a publisher-specific conversion protocol prior to the delivery of the target audience pool (i.e. instruction to extract user identification data from input data feed, prior to profile database/web cookie for those who are registered with the vendor/publisher)(paragraph 0029).
With respect to claims 28 and 38, Bagheri further teaches receiving, over the network, a target audience pool modification request from the client device; and modifying the target audience pool based on the target audience pool modification request (i.e. future user targeting/request, the population group of each user may be estimated and a corresponding highest attributed advertising hyper-placement may be delivered)(paragraph 0009).
With respect to claims 29 and 39, Bagheri further teaches analyzing performance data to determine at least one performance metric of the targeted advertising (i.e. For each group of users, the method may perform attribution modeling to determine the efficacy of an advertisement or advertising campaign (e.g., the rate at which users purchase the good or service depicted by the advertisement or campaign, the share of credit that should be assigned to each advertising hyper-placement, or other measures of efficacy). The method may then store a list of top-attributed channel/site/content for each population segment or the users. Then, for future user targeting, the population group of each user may be estimated and a corresponding highest attributed advertising hyper-placement may be delivered)(paragraph 0009).
With respect to claim 30, Bagheri further teaches store the plurality of target audience pools physically or logically separately to mitigate mixing (see Figure 3).
With respect to claim 40, Bagheri further teaches delivering the generated target audience pool for targeted ad serving via a network (i.e. determining a plurality of population segments based on the user attributes, wherein each of the plurality of population segments corresponds to at least one of the user attributes for each user of the plurality of users and analyze each population segment separately from the plurality of population segments. Further, the method may select an advertising hyper-placement for each of the plurality of users based on the population segment analysis over network 106 (paragraph 0011, Figures 1 and 3).
Claims 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagheri in view of St Lawrence further in view of Jensen (2014/0046966).
Claims 41-42, recites delivering the generated target audience pool further comprises delivering the generated target audience pool to at least one of a client device or publisher device. Bagheri teaches generated audience pool on Figure 3. Bagheri is silent as to delivering the target audience pool to a client device or publisher device. Jensen teaches on paragraph 0043 “A publisher's audience typically shares one or more characteristics with the publisher. For example, a young mother may write a blog on parenting. It can be accurately assumed that most of the audience of the blog is also mothers. Consequently, by defining characteristics of a target audience, the marketer can select publishers that fall into the target audience and assume that a substantial portion of the publisher's audience also falls into the target audience. In other cases, the publisher module (325) may have collected at least some data directly quantifying the characteristics of the publisher's audience. This information can then be used in addition to, or in the place of, the individual characteristics of the publisher”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included to provide the generated audience pool of Bagheri to a publisher device in order to better customize the content/ads to the consumers.
Prior art of record but not applied in the current rejection are:
BUYYA ET AL. “Cloudbus Toolkit for Market-Oriented Computing” teaches: Cloud Exchange (CEx) acts as a market maker for bringing together service producers and consumers. It aggregates the infrastructure demands from the application brokers and evaluates them against the available supply currently published by the Cloud Coordinators. It aims to support trading of Cloud services based on competitive economic models such as commodity markets and auctions. CEx allows the participants (Cloud Coordinators and Cloud Brokers) to locate providers and consumers with fitting offers. Such markets enable services to be commoditized and thus, can pave the way for the creation of dynamic market infrastructure for trading based on SLAs. The availability of a banking system within the market ensures that financial transactions pertaining to SLAs between participants are carried out in a secure and dependable environment. Every client in the Cloud platform will need to instantiate a Cloud brokering service that can dynamically establish service contracts with Cloud Coordinators via the trading functions exposed by the Cloud Exchange.
Votmer et al. (2007/0112631) is directed to matching a retailer item identifier SKU with a corresponding manufacturer identifier UPC to facilitate 3 different levels of points, retailers offers a first set of points, the manufacturer offers a second set of points and merchant grouping (i.e. shopping mall) offers a third set of points.
Iannacci (2002/0062249) teaches on Figure 4 one account access mechanism gives the customers convenient access to all their payment, award and loyalty accounts.
WO 02/08880 A2 teaches providing location-based services to a remote terminal that is connected to various types of communication systems. A tailored request for information is generated with the remote terminal. In addition, a geographic indicator associated with the remote terminal is also generated in the preferred embodiment. The tailored request for information and the geographic indicator are transmitted to a location-based application server. A structured response to the tailored request for information is generated with the location-based application server, wherein the structured response is based on the geographic indicator of the remote terminal.
Response to Arguments
The 101 rejections have been maintained. Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a judicial exception under step 2A, prong one. The Examiner disagrees with Applicant because the claims recite “delivering generated target audience pool to facilitate targeted advertising to specific consumers”. The generated target audience under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover managing personal behavior and the target advertising covers advertising, marketing or sales activities and therefore fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Applicant argues that “the claims provide a practical application with a technical solution to the recognized technical problem of existing segmentation techniques privacy and security concerns”. The Examiner wants to point out that segmentation techniques for privacy and security concerns is not solving a technical problem per se, segmentation of consumers for privacy and security concerns, as stated above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers managing personal behavior and fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing human activity” grouping.
Applicant argues that the “claims impose meaningful limits on the alleged abstract idea, do not merely recite the abstract idea, do not state “apply it” and amount to more than the extra-solution activity….. independent claims 21 and 31 recite “receiving, identifying and purging steps used for generating and delivering targeted audience pool that does not include any personal identifiable information….each step, whether considered singly or in combination with the other steps, meaningfully limit any alleged judicial exception into a practical application”. The Examiner disagrees with Applicant because according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) “ A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and thus transforms a claim into patent-eligible subject matter”. In this case, the claim limitations of “receiving, identifying and purging steps used for generating and delivering targeted audience pool” by removing(purging) personal identifying information from client provided data using generic network, memory and processor computer components, do not improve the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner do not meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment field, as per Prong two of Step 2A. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not integrate the exception into a practical application, as per Step 2B.
Applicant further argues that “Pseudonymous identifiers can …provide improved security, fidelity and accuracy” and Improves the efficiency of a processor. The Examiner wants to point out that assigning Pseudonymous identifiers, improves security of the data, the data is improved but it doesn’t improve the functioning of the processor, computer, or any other technology or technical field, see MPEP 2106.05 (a).
The instant claims are not similar to the claims in McRO. The instant claims are directed to delivering generated target audience pool to facilitate targeted advertising to specific consumers, which are examples of abstract ideas as explained above. The instant claims are unlike the claims in McRO which were directed to synchronizing 3D animated facial expressions and were not directed to an abstract idea, under step 2A prong one.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-23, 25-33 and 35-42 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6715. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays thru Thursdays 8:30-6:30.
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.
/RAQUEL ALVAREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622