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 11/7/2025.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The “checking, by the server system, whether the new user registration request is associated with an existing user” makes the claims indefinite. In the case that a new user registration is not associated with an existing user from the plurality of users then the transmission is not sent to the DSP.
Correction is required.
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.
Step 1: Claims 1-11 recite a series of steps, thus falling within one of the four statutory, i.e., a process; claims 12-19 describe system describe tangible system components, thus failing within the four statutory classes, i.e. machine, claim 20 recites computer readable medium which is a statutory category of a t. Thus, each independent manufacture. However, the claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites at least the following
Limitations:
receiving, a user registration request from a Demand Side Platform (DSP), the user registration request comprising a first user identifier (ID) and advertisement-linked transaction information; accessing, a historical transaction dataset associated with the, the historical transaction dataset comprising transaction-related information associated with a plurality of transactions performed by a plurality of users; identifying, by the a user from the plurality of users based, at least in part, on the advertisement-linked transaction information and the historical transaction dataset, wherein the identifying the user comprises comparing the advertisement linked transaction information with the transaction related-information to select the user from the plurality of users; linking, the user with the first user ID; receiving a new user registration request from the DSP, the new user registration request comprising a second user ID and advertisement-linked second transaction information; checking, if the new user registration request is associated with an existing user from the plurality of users based, at least in part, on the advertisement-linked second transaction information and the historical transaction dataset; based on the checking, determining the existing user is the user that is already linked with the first user ID; and upon determining that the existing user is the user, facilitating, transmission of an existing user response message to the DSP, the existing user response message comprising the first user ID of the user.
The above limitations recite concepts of determining if existing user being the user that is already linked with the first user ID based in part on advertisement linked transaction information and historical transaction data set , which are concepts related to managing personal behavior or interactions between people.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the 2019 PEG, in that they recite a fundamental economic practice and
commercial interactions. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the
Alice/Mayo test, claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One:
YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, returning to representative claim 1, the claim recites the additional elements of a server for receiving, accessing, identifying, checking, linking, and determining and a database. The server and database are described at a high level on Applicant’s specification as filed on paragraphs 0008 and 0058. Claim 1 generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. 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, although additional computer-related elements are recited on claim 1 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 1 the abstract idea of determining if existing user being the user that is already linked with the first user ID based in part on advertisement linked transaction information and historical transaction data set 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 1 does 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 1 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 1 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 2-11 as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recite a specific manner of a relational database indexes and imposes a meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Independent system claim 12 and medium claim 20 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as method 1. The claims recite the additional elements of an interface, memory and a processor, Applicant’s specification discloses on paragraphs 0078, 0079 general processor and memory functions. There are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 13-19 as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recite a specific manner of a relational database indexes and imposes a meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art of record.
The closest prior art of record, Krausz (11,501,310) teaches receiving authentication requests in an e-commerce context, such as from a user device or merchant system. Further, user identification data in Krausz is generic e-commerce data (e.g. login credentials, payment info) associated with merchants. Additionally, Krausz discloses receiving a request to authenticate an existing user with a first merchant in step 502 and establishing a second user commerce account in step 506. These steps in in Krauz, involve merchant to platform interactions for account management, rather than “a user registration request from a Demand Side Platform (DSP) the user registration request comprising a first user identifier (ID) and advertisement-linked transaction information”, as claimed. In addition, the present application solves the problem of conventional DSP which cannot identify existing users, when the cookies are deleted or reset or when the IP address associated with the user changes and Krausz discloses authenticating a user from a cookie from a mobile device and comparing this cookie with the user in the data store, if the cookies in Krausz are deleted, therefore Krausz cannot identify an existing user after cookies are deleted and therefore there is no disclosure in Krausz about “the advertisement-linked second transaction information”, to check “whether the new user registration request is associated with an existing user”
References of record but not applied in the current rejections:
WO 2023/027325 A1 teaches an advertisement-linked e-commerce method, comprising the steps of: outputting a product purchase page that displays information on a product to be purchased, a list of popularity rankings of advertisement producers providing advertisement content for the product to be purchased, and information of advertisement producers selected according to viewing of advertisement content; and granting points to the selected advertisement producers according to a purchase event on the product purchase page and updating the list of popularity ranking.
Article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia titled “Psychographic” teaches psychographic profiles that are used in market segmentation as well as in advertising. Some categories of psychographic factors used in market segmentation include: activity, interest, opinion (AIOs), attitudes, and lifestyles.
Response to Arguments
The 101 rejections have been maintained. The claims pertain to determining if existing user being the user that is already linked with the first user ID based in part on advertisement linked transaction information and historical transaction data set , which are concepts related to managing personal behavior or interactions between people. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The additional elements of elements of a server for receiving, accessing, identifying, checking, linking, and determining and a database. The server and database are described at a high level on Applicant’s specification as filed on paragraphs 0008 and 0058. Claim 1 generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and do not impose a meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Point of contact
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