Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/598,750

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ACCESSING FIRST PARTY COOKIES

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Mar 07, 2024
Examiner
LONG, MEREDITH A
Art Unit
3622
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Yahoo Ad Tech LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
43%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
65%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 43% of resolved cases
43%
Career Allow Rate
173 granted / 403 resolved
-9.1% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
440
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
38.1%
-1.9% vs TC avg
§103
30.0%
-10.0% vs TC avg
§102
11.8%
-28.2% vs TC avg
§112
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 403 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
DETAILED ACTION This communication is in response to the request for continued examination filed 19 February 2026. Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 22 January 2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment/Remarks Regarding 35 USC § 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “the actual performance of commercial interactions is not recited in the claims and the claims do not actually recite the performance of sales activities or behaviors.” Remarks at 9. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1, for example, recites requesting website content, receiving an ad call in response to that request, performing a number of intermediate steps which ultimately results in transmitting content for display on a user device. According to the specification, the electronic content is an web and/or ad content. Recitation of an ad call indicates that the claims do recite advertising and marketing activities. The requesting of a website that triggers an ad call indicates the claims do recite advertising and marketing activities, which falls under the commercial interactions subgrouping within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant argues that “if a claim is based on or involves an abstract idea, but does not recite it, then the claim is not directed to an abstract idea.” Remarks at 9. As indicated above, advertising activities, including an ad call are recited in the claims. The ad call is not merely involved, it is recited. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant argue that the “claims recite a technical solution to a technical problem,” said solution being described in paragraph [024] of the specification. Remarks at 10. While is appears that a technical solution to a technical problem is present in the specification, this is not yet reflected in the claims. There are a number of steps that are present in the solution found in [024] that are not in the claims. These include, but are not limited to: “an advertiser … may update its DNS record to include a subdomain that redirects to a server associated with an ad network,” “the ad pixel tag may be redirected by the advertiser’s DNS update to an ad network server for receipt of a cookie that matches the subdomain,” “an ad call that checks for the presence of any first party domain cookies set via the second stage.” These are example limitations and Examiner is not indicating that inclusion of these limitations alone would make the claims allowable. At present, the claims do not recite a technical solution to a technical problem and Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Also note that the claims at this time contain a significant OR clause wherein “sending … a pixel image and a leadback cookie” is an optional step wherein the other option is “receiving a broken image.” 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 1-20 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. Step 1 The claims recite a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. Step 2A-Prong One (Claims 1, 9, and 17) These claims recite the concept of providing targeted advertisements to users via the use of cookies (see “requesting […] website content from an online publisher server; receiving an ad call in response to the request for website content, the ad call including instructions for the user device to request a subdomain; requesting, […] from a content network server, a subdomain based on the request for website content and the ad call; sending […] a pixel image and a leadback cookie defining the requested subdomain based on the user device storing an Internet cookie of the requested subdomain, the pixel image granting the ad network pixel server access to the internet cookie of the requested subdomain, or receiving a broken image based on the user device not storing the Internet cookie for the requested subdomain; and transmitting […] an electronic content for display on the user device based on the user device receiving the leadback cookie” in claim 1, for example). This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas including advertising activities. Thus, claims 1, 9, and 17 recite an abstract idea. The dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 have been analyzed and they further limit the abstract idea recited in the independent claims but do not recite limitations that take these claims out of the identified abstract idea grouping. Thus, claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 also recite an abstract idea that falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer component does not take the claim limitations out of the abstract idea grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea Step 2A-Prong Two This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of a content network server and user device (claims 1-8), a system including at least one data storage device, a processor, a content network server, and user device (claims 9-16), or a non-transitory computer readable medium, a content network server, and user device (claims 17-20) and includes no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The content network server, user device, system, or computer readable medium does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Step 2B The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A-Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claims are ineligible. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6. 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. /MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 07, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Jul 11, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 11, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 11, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 19, 2025
Final Rejection — §101
Dec 03, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 03, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 22, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 19, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 09, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Apr 10, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 10, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12482019
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR POST TRANSACTION SEASONAL ITEM RECOMMENDATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Patent 12450635
SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR A UNIVERSAL INTEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR DATA ANALYTICS PIPELINES
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 21, 2025
Patent 12443949
DATA SECURITY FOR TRANSACTIONS WITH SECURE OFFER SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 14, 2025
Patent 12424331
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANAGING HEALTH TREATMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 23, 2025
Patent 12417848
PREDICTION TOOL FOR PATIENT IMMUNE RESPONSE TO A THERAPY
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 16, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
43%
Grant Probability
65%
With Interview (+21.8%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 403 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month