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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 6/25/2026, and is a Final Office Action. Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 19-21 are pending in the application.
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, 5-6, 8, 12-13, 15, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards a system, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction – i.e. advertising/marketing activities or behaviors, business relations/sales activities, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: obtaining an exposure Bloom filter array representing individuals exposed to media content, the exposure Bloom filter array generated using sketch generation logic and AME identifiers for the individuals exposed to the media content, wherein obtaining the exposure Bloom filter array comprises: conducting a double-blind match with a first exposure source to match exposure identifiers encrypted by the first exposure source with identifiers known by the AME, wherein the first exposure source comprises a first computing system that is separate from the computing system of the AME, wherein the first computing system is managed by a first publisher that does not provide respondent-level data / obtaining the first exposure Bloom filter array from the first exposure source, wherein the first exposure Bloom filter array provides summary information about individual exposed to the media content via the first exposure source without revealing personally identifiable information for the individuals exposed to the media content via the first exposure source / obtaining a second exposure Bloom filter array from a second exposure source that is different from the first exposure source / combining the first exposure Bloom filter array and the second exposure Bloom filter array using a bitwise “or” operation so as to obtain the exposure Bloom filter array / obtaining client audience data comprising identifiers for individuals within an audience segment, wherein the audience segment is a group of individuals identified as being interested in a given product or service / mapping the identifiers for the individuals within the audience segment to AME identifiers for the individuals within the audience segment using an identity graph maintained by the AME, wherein the identity graph links an identifier for an individual with a respective AME identifier for the individual / intersecting the exposure Bloom filter array with the audience Bloom filter array using a bitwise “and” operation directly in sketch-space to generate an intersection Bloom filter array while preserving the privacy of the individuals / based on the intersecting, determining a reach for the audience segment and the media content / reporting the reach for the audience segment and the media content/ determining a reach for the audience segment and the media content by extracting a cardinality estimate of unique individuals directly from the generated intersection Bloom filter array. Applicant’s Spec. provides further context to the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “advertisers want to measure media exposure of more advanced audience definitions than historic age and gender target audiences”, “by using an intersection of an exposure sketch and an audience sketch as a basis for determining an audience reach for an advanced audience segment”, “intersecting the exposure sketch with the audience sketch using a bitwise “and” operation…also includes determining a reach for the audience segment based on the intersecting…reporting the reach for the audience segment. “ Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – I.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP:
obtaining an exposure Bloom filter array representing individuals exposed to media content, the exposure Bloom filter array generated using sketch generation logic and AME identifiers for the individuals exposed to the media content, wherein obtaining the exposure Bloom filter array comprises: conducting a double-blind match with a first exposure source to match exposure identifiers encrypted by the first exposure source with identifiers known by the AME/ obtaining the first exposure Bloom filter array from the first exposure source, wherein the first exposure Bloom filter array provides summary information about individual exposed to the media content via the first exposure source without revealing personally identifiable information for the individuals exposed to the media content via the first exposure source / obtaining a second exposure Bloom filter array from a second exposure source that is different from the first exposure source / combining the first exposure Bloom filter array and the second exposure Bloom filter array using a bitwise “or” operation so as to obtain the exposure Bloom filter array / obtaining client audience data comprising identifiers for individuals within an audience segment, wherein the audience segment is a group of individuals identified as being interested in a given product or service / mapping the identifiers for the individuals within the audience segment to AME identifiers for the individuals within the audience segment using an identity graph maintained by the AME, wherein the identity graph links an identifier for an individual with a respective AME identifier for the individual / determining a reach for the audience segment and the media content by extracting a cardinality estimate of unique individuals directly from the generated intersection Bloom filter array / reporting the reach for the audience segment and the media content. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional elements of a processor/memory/first computing system and AME computing system/a database/an encrypted computing environment that isolates data in a fenced off enclave during processing / generating and using Bloom filter arrays ( “the first exposure source uses a list of AME identifiers matching the exposure identifiers and the sketch generation logic to generate a first exposure Bloom filter array”, “generating an audience Bloom filter array representing the individuals within the audience segment, the audience Bloom filter array generated using the same sketch generation logic utilized by the first exposure source and the AME identifiers for the individuals within the audience segment, wherein generating the audience Bloom filter array comprises: initializing bits of a vector having a desired length to zero, applying a same hash function utilized by the first exposure source to an AME identifier for an individual within the audience segment, wherein a result of the same hash function is indicative of a respective bit of the vector, and wherein the vector has a same vector length as the first exposure Bloom filter array, thereby synchronizing the sketch generation logic across the separate computing systems such that the exposure Bloom filter array and the audience Bloom filter array are comparable and processable directly in sketch-space, and flipping the respective bit from zero to one”). The processor/memory/computing systems/database represent generic computing elements. Performing the claimed limitations within an encrypted computing environment that isolates data in a fenced off enclave does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. Generating and using Bloom filter arrays to store data does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Performing the claimed limitations within an encrypted computing environment that isolates data in a fenced off enclave does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. Generating and using Bloom filter arrays to store data does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 8, 15 are directed to a method and medium ,respectively, for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion; they recite the same abstract idea as Claim 1. Claims 8 , 15 perform the method of claim 1 using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 8, 15 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 5-6, 12-13, 19-21 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims themselves. The claims further recite the additional element of a client computing system; it is recited at a high level of generality. The additional element does not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor does it apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 1, 5-6, 8, 12-13, 15, 19-21. Bruich (20140304061) teaches obtaining data representing individuals exposed to media content, and identifiers for the individuals exposed to media content , as well as gathering the data using software modules, as well as matching the user ID at the ad impression with the user ID of users at the data source and based on the intersecting, determining a reach for the audience segment and reporting the reach for the audience segment to a client device. However, Bruich fails to teach the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims. When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
The specification identifies a technical barrier in conventional data architectures. As explained in paragraph [0019] of the as-filed specification, while sketches (such as probabilistic data structures like Bloom filters) are effective at preserving user privacy, their inherent privacy- preserving nature creates a technical flaw: it becomes impossible to discern advanced demographic segments across platforms. The specification states that "database proprietors have an interest in preserving the privacy of their users and opt to share sketches with an AME to serve that interest. Because sketches preserve privacy, it is difficult for an AME to determine the demographics of the users represented by the sketch." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0019]. This is a data architecture constraint, not merely a business problem. No single database proprietor can provide cross-platform metrics without leaking personally identifiable information. The specification describes a technical solution that moves data processing entirely into a specialized, aligned "sketch space." As explained in paragraph [0061], "[b]y design, the media publishers' computing systems and the AME computing system use the same sketch generation logic (e.g., same hash function(s) and sketch length) such that the sketches are comparable and can be processed in sketch space." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0061]. This alignment allows complex data matching without ever decrypting or reconstructing underlying user data.The claims as amended now explicitly recite this technical architecture. Amended
claim 1 recites generating an audience Bloom filter array using "the same sketch generation logic utilized by the first exposure source" and applying "a same hash function utilized by the first exposure source," wherein "the vector has a same vector length as the first exposure Bloom filter array, thereby synchronizing the sketch generation logic across the separate computing systems such that the exposure Bloom filter array and the audience Bloom filter array are comparable and processable directly in sketch-space." Amended claim 1 further recites that the bitwise "and" operation is performed "directly in sketch-space to generate an intersection Bloom filter array," and that reach is determined "by extracting a cardinality estimate of unique individuals directly from the generated intersection Bloom filter array." Claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations. Under Step 2A Prong Two, the claims as amended integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The claims recite a specific technical architecture requiring coordinated configuration across separate computing systems. Operations occur within a confidential computing environment using hardware-isolated enclaves. And the claims produce a specific technical output-an intersection Bloom filter array-from which cardinality is extracted. This is analogous to USPTO Example 41 (Cryptographic Communications), where mathematical formulas used "in a specific manner that sufficiently limits the use of the mathematical concepts to the practical application" integrated the exception into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Example 41. Here, the claims use synchronized hash functions and vector lengths in a specific manner that sufficiently limits the use of any mathematical concepts to the practical application of privacy- preserving cross-platform audience measurement. The Examiner has alleged that "[t]here is no technical support/technical evidence in the Spec.... that the claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field." Office Action, page 12. Applicant respectfully submits that this characterization overlooks that the specification explicitly identifies a technical barrier in existing sketch-based data exchange systems and provides a technical solution through synchronized sketch generation and sketch-space processing. The improvement is to data privacy architecture itself-enabling cross-platform measurement that was technically impossible with conventional sketch-based systems while maintaining privacy guarantees. The specification explains that "[t]he challenge with current sketch-based data exchanges is that they do not allow for measuring advanced audience segments." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0019]. The claims as amended address this technical challenge through a specific technical architecture.
Accordingly, the claims as amended are not directed to an abstract idea because they
integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the claims are eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection.
The pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as noted above. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “advertisers want to measure media exposure of more advanced audience definitions”, “using an intersection of an exposure sketch and an audience sketch as a basis for determining an audience reach for an advanced audience segment”, “as noted above, advertisers or other interested parties may want to measure media exposure of more advanced audience definitions than historic aggregated age/gender target audiences. For instance, an advertiser may wish to measure how many buyers of a particular product or service were exposed to particular media content, such as an advertisement that is part of an advertisement campaign. Such buyers are an example of an audience segment”, “More generally, an audience segment is a group of individuals with similar interests or behavior. Some examples of these audience segments include repeat shoppers who spend more than a threshold amount with a company; newly acquired customers of a company who haven't made a purchase from the company yet; one-time buyers who are identified as likely to become repeat buyers based on their purchase history; and customers of a company who have not made a purchase during a recent time window”. Determining a reach for the audience segment and media content represents a business practice/goal, not other technology/technical field; thus , improving this practice pertains to a business practice optimization, not an improvement to other technology/technical field. Any benefits that result from storing and using data stored in a Bloom Filter array represent inherent benefits of using a Bloom Filter array as a data storage structure, since Bloom Filter arrays have been used and are commonly used as
a space-efficient probabilistic data structure , as known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention. The pending claimed invention and the Ex Parte Desjardins Memo claimed invention have different fact patterns and different claim sets, and thus the two are not analogous; furthermore, in the Desjardins Memo, the respective specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems. The Desjardins claims as a whole reflected the improvement disclosed in the specification – i.e. the claims recited at least the limitation of “adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task”. Accordingly, the Desjardins claims as a whole integrated what would otherwise be a judicial exception instead into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and therefore the claims were deemed to be outside any specific, enumerated judicial exception (Step 2A: NO). Contrary to the Desjardins claimed invention, the pending claims as a whole do not reflect an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates; the instant pending claims do not recite training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems.
The pending claims and USPTO Example 41 have different fact patterns and different claim sets, and thus the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Example 41, the claim was deemed eligible since the combination of additional elements in the claim integrates the exception into a practical application – i.e. the mathematical concepts are integrated into a process that secures private network communications, so that a ciphertext word signal can be transmitted between computers of people who do not know each other or who have not shared a private key between them in advance of the message being transmitted, wherein the security of the cipher relies on the difficulty of factoring large integers by computers. Contrary to Example 41, the pending claims do not recite any additional elements that, alone or in combination, integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, as noted above. There is no technical support/technical evidence in the Spec., including the paras noted by the Applicant, that the claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
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 extension fee 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 ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
6/30/2026
Prosecution Insights