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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/4/2026 has been entered.
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 to estimate a total number of unique individuals represented by the intersection 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. 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 / intersecting the exposure Bloom filter array with the audience Bloom filter array using a bitwise “and” operation to estimate a total number of unique individuals represented by the intersection 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. 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 sketch generation logic 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 hash function to an AME identifier for an individual within the audience segment, wherein a result of the hash function is indicative of a respective bit of the vector, 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 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 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, 19-20 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:
Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner has oversimplified the claim limitations by characterizing them generally as a "commercial interaction" without accounting for the specific technical requirements of the claims. Amended claim 1 recites a specific computational architecture for an audience measurement entity that executes an intersection of high-cardinality media exposure and audience segment datasets. This technical framework applies bitwise "AND" operations to probabilistic sketches derived from synchronized sketch generation logic and persistent identifiers. Specifically, amended claim 1 recites conducting a cryptographic "double- blind match" with a separate computing system to match encrypted identifiers. This feature cannot practically be performed in the human mind. As such, amended claim 1 does not fall within the mental processing grouping.
B. Amended Claim 1 Integrates Any Alleged Judicial Exception into a Practical Application (Step 2A, Prong Two)
Even assuming that amended claim 1 recites an abstract idea, the claims integrate any such exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. The December 5, 2025 USPTO Memorandum regarding Ex Parte Desjardins instructs that examiners "should not dismiss additional elements as mere 'generic computer components' without considering whether such elements confer a technological improvement to a technical problem." See p. 3. Amended claim 1 provides a novel, specific, technical solution to a technical problem. The specification explains that as people access more media through digital means, database proprietors (such as online publishers) can track exposure, but no single proprietor can provide metrics across the entire population when media is delivered via multiple different platforms. Furthermore, these proprietors have an interest in preserving the privacy of their users and opt to share sketches, making it difficult for an AME to discern demographics or identify individuals within advanced audience segments. This creates a technical barrier: current sketch-based data exchanges do not allow for the measurement of advanced audience segments across disparate platforms. See par. 19. The disclosed system addresses this technical problem with a specific architecture that executes an intersection of high-cardinality media exposure and audience segment datasets while
optimizing for reduced computational overhead and data-exchange security. See par. 20. Amended claim 1 reflects this disclosed improvement by reciting:
" generating an audience Bloom filter array by initializing bits of a vector, applying
a hash function to AME identifiers, and flipping respective bits from zero to one in
a memory; and
" intersecting the Bloom filter arrays within a "confidential computing environment"
that provides encrypted computation and isolates data in a "fenced off enclave"
during processing.
As such, amended claim includes an ordered combination of technical steps that provides a particular solution to a technical problem. To be clear, the problem addressed by the computing system of amended claim 1 is that current sketch-based data exchanges do not allow for the measurement of advanced audience segments across disparate platforms. The failure of current sketch-based data exchanges to measure advanced audience segments across disparate platforms is an inherently technical problem because it arises from the fundamental limitations of existing data structures and the technical barriers created by privacy-preserving architectures. Under the guidance provided in the Desjardins Memo, this constitutes a "technological problem" requiring a "technological solution" for the following reasons. First, existing sketch-based exchanges utilize probabilistic data structures to preserve privacy, but these structures are so effective at anonymization that they prevent the technical discernment of demographic or behavioral attributes. Because sketches provide summary information without revealing PII, a computing system cannot technically correlate a specific sketch with external "advanced" definitions, such as buyer behavior or specific product interests. The current technical state of sketch-based exchange creates a "data silo" effect where no single database proprietor can provide exposure metrics across the entire population to which media was made accessible. Second, the problem is rooted in the technical fragmentation of digital media delivery. Media is delivered via multiple different platforms operated by multiple different database proprietors. Database proprietors are typically only able to track exposure pertaining to online activity associated with their own specific platforms. The technical challenge lies in creating a unified measurement framework that can aggregate these disparate, privacy-siloed datasets without a centralized, non-private database. Third, as noted in the specification, the use of sketches is itself a response to technical resource limitations. Sketches serve as a "memory saving construct" required to represent the contents of relatively large databases using relatively small amounts of data. A sketch reduces demands on processor capacity to analyze and process data. The technical problem involves engineering a system that maintains these efficiencies (reduced storage and complexity) while simultaneously enabling complex bitwise operations to extract advanced segment data-a capability that standard sketches currently lack. And fourth, similar to the "catastrophic forgetting" issue in machine learning identified in Ex Parte Desjardins, the current state of audience measurement faces a technical "loss of detail" when data is compressed into sketches. The claimed invention provides a specific technical improvement by utilizing synchronized sketch generation logic and bitwise "and" operations within a hardware-isolated confidential computing environment. This architecture overcomes the problem of "disparate platforms" by allowing computation to occur in a fenced-off enclave, providing a specific technological solution that transcends mere business practices.
Should the Examiner reach Step 2B, Applicant submits the claims recite an inventive concept that is "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea. The ordered combination of (i) conducting a double-blind cryptographic match, (ii) generating synchronized Bloom filter arrays via bit-flipping logic, and (iii) executing bitwise intersection within a hardware-isolated confidential computing environment is not a "well-understood, routine, or conventional" activity in the field. The claim transcends generic computer functionality by providing measurement of digital media impressions for advanced audience segments in a way that was previously unachievable without revealing personally identifiable information.
For at least these reasons, amended claim 1 is directed to eligible subject matter. And for largely the same reasons, amended claims 8 and 15 are also directed to eligible subject matter.
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. 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
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 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 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 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).
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
3/23/2026