Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/643,047

Linking A Receiver Rendered Broadcast Advertisement To A Transaction Between a Merchant and An Account Holder Corresponding To the Receiver

Non-Final OA §101§102
Filed
Apr 23, 2024
Examiner
MACASIANO, MARILYN G
Art Unit
3622
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Edatanetworks Inc.
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
4-5
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allow Rate
313 granted / 549 resolved
+5.0% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
590
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
38.3%
-1.7% vs TC avg
§103
31.6%
-8.4% vs TC avg
§102
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
§112
4.5%
-35.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 549 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102
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 . Status of Claims This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 12/29/2025. Claims 1, 8 and 14 have been amended. 4.. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are considered below. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 5.. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/29/2025 has been entered. Information Disclosure Statement 6. The Applicant is respectfully reminded that each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 7. 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. 8. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 1, recites a method, which is a statutory class (process), for each of a plurality of account holders, comprising: gathering account holder data for the account holder over a network through paging based on the gathered account holder data, wherein: account holder user data for the account holder includes a physical address corresponding to a broadcast receiver; and an account holder profile that includes an account number; broadcasting, over the network, content interleaved with an advertisement corresponding to a merchant having a physical address, wherein: the broadcasting: is operated in an extensible mode of communication in an intelligent heterogeneous resources; uses an extensibility tool to provide an extensible framing structure; and combines a centralized radio access network topology with an intelligent IP core network to enable sharing of spectrum resources: and provides a supplemental return channel to facilitate paging; the advertisement interleaved within the broadcast content is addressed for broadcast delivery exclusively to a logical address of the broadcast receiver; the merchant has a corresponding merchant profile that includes a physical address; and the respective physical addresses of the merchant and the broadcast receiver are determined to be within the same vicinity as the merchant when: the respective physical addresses of the merchant and the broadcast receiver have a navigation time therebetween; the navigation time is determined by a navigation algorithm for at least one predetermined transportation mode; the navigation time is within a predetermined minimum time and a predetermined maximum time; and the navigation algorithm determines the navigation time for the at least one predetermined transportation mode; receiving or accessing data associated with a transaction; determining from the data associated with the transaction that: the transaction was conducted by the merchant; and the transaction was conducted on the account number of the account holder; determining a length of elapsed time between: the time of the transaction; and the time of the broadcast of the advertisement interleaved within the broadcast content; and triggering, as a result of detecting the occurrence of the transaction associated with the account number, a determination of whether: the transaction is linked to the broadcast of the advertisement interleaved within the broadcast content; and the respective physical addresses of the merchant and the broadcast receiver are in the same vicinity. The steps of gathering account holder data for the account holder over a network through paging based on the gathered account holder data, wherein: account holder user data for the account holder includes a physical address corresponding to a broadcast receiver; and an account holder profile that includes an account number; broadcasting, over the network, content interleaved with an advertisement corresponding to a merchant having a physical address, wherein: the broadcasting: is operated in an extensible mode of communication in an intelligent heterogeneous resources; uses an extensibility tool to provide an extensible framing structure; and combines a centralized radio access network topology with an intelligent IP core network to enable sharing of spectrum resources: and provides a supplemental return channel to facilitate paging; the advertisement interleaved within the broadcast content is addressed for broadcast delivery exclusively to a logical address of the broadcast receiver; the merchant has a corresponding merchant profile that includes a physical address; and the respective physical addresses of the merchant and the broadcast receiver are determined to be within the same vicinity as the merchant when: the respective physical addresses of the merchant and the broadcast receiver have a navigation time therebetween; the navigation time is determined by a navigation algorithm for at least one predetermined transportation mode; the navigation time is within a predetermined minimum time and a predetermined maximum time; and the navigation algorithm determines the navigation time for the at least one predetermined transportation mode; receiving or accessing data associated with a transaction; determining from the data associated with the transaction that: the transaction was conducted by the merchant; and the transaction was conducted on the account number of the account holder; determining a length of elapsed time between: the time of the transaction; and the time of the broadcast of the advertisement interleaved within the broadcast content; and triggering, as a result of detecting the occurrence of the transaction associated with the account number, a determination of whether: the transaction is linked to the broadcast of the advertisement interleaved within the broadcast content; and the respective physical addresses of the merchant and the broadcast receiver are in the same vicinity, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a method for a plurality of merchants conducting transactions on respective accounts issued to respective consumer account holders. The above identified method steps recite commercial interactions such as sales activities and/or tailored personalized marketing relating to linking transactions to the broadcast of the advertisement interleaved within the broadcast content. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interaction such as tailored personalized marketing (advertising), then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a broadcast receiver and a mobile computing device. The mobile computing device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of gathering account data, broadcasting content interleaved with an advertisement, rendering the map, receiving or accessing data, determining that the transaction was conducted, determining a length of elapsed time and triggering a determination is linked to the broadcast of the advertisement interleaved within the broadcast content) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do 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 elements of a broadcast receiver and a mobile computing device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements are similar to the additional elements found by courts to be mere instructions to apply an exception because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery to perform an existing process such as: a common business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 US 208, 223; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334); providing a user with tailored information like advertisements based on information known about the user such as a location, address, or personal characteristics and a time of day is a fundamental practice long prevalent in our system); In re Morsa, 809 F. App’x 913, 917 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. That is, a broadcast receiver and a mobile computing device, performing commercial interactions including: gathering account data, broadcasting content interleaved with an advertisement, receiving or accessing data, determining that the transaction was conducted, determining a length of elapsed time and triggering a determination is linked to the broadcast of the advertisement interleaved within the broadcast content, amount to mere instructions to apply the steps to a computer comprising of a processor. Thus, claims 1- 7 are not eligible. As for dependent claims 2-6 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 1. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claims 1-7 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Possible Allowable Subject Matter 9. Claims 8-20 would be allowable if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-7 identified above. Response to Arguments 10. Applicant's arguments filed on 12/29/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See new rejection of claims 1-7. The examiner maintains rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 101. Conclusion 11. The claims are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102/103(a): See Notice of Allowance in parent application #17/230076 mailed on 01/18/2024. 12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARILYN G MACASIANO whose telephone number is (571)270-5205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12:00-9:00 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, llana 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 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. /MARILYN G MACASIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622 02/21/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 23, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 14, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102
Mar 11, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102
Sep 10, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 29, 2025
Final Rejection — §101, §102
Dec 29, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 05, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602706
USER RECOGNITION BASED USER EXPERIENCE PLATFORM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12567500
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT AND IMAGE REVIEW
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12555136
GEOSPATIALLY INFORMED RESOURCE UTILIZATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12450626
AUTOMATED ACTIONABLE INSIGHT RECOMMENDATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 21, 2025
Patent 12434150
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MONETIZING ADVERTISING IN A GAMING OR VIRTUAL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 07, 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

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
57%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+17.3%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 549 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