DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Amendment filed on 03/17/2026. Claims 1 and 2 are amended, claims 3-13 are canceled, and claims 14-31 are newly added. Claims 1, 2, and 14-31 are pending.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, “to enable to user to” should be -- to enable the user to -- (line 3).
Appropriate 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.
Claims 1, 2, and 14-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being unpatentable subject matter.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 14-24, the claims are determined to be directed to software per se based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole because each system claim appears to lack sufficient structure. Software per se is not directed to one of the four statutory categories, i.e. non-statutory and not patentable, as established in Gottschalk v. Benson. Refer to MPEP 2106(I).
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, 2, and 14-31 are rejected 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.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claims 18 and 25), the claim recites “a first party cookie associated with the user and a third party cookie associated with the user” which renders the claim indefinite. Without further context or clarification, it is unclear as to whether the first party cookie and the third party cookie are functionally different or simply nominally different, as both cookies are associated with the user and collected by a tag. Examiner suggests Applicant to consider further defining and/or clarifying the differences in usage or functionality in order to clearly overcome the rejection.
Regarding claims 2, 14-17, 19-24, and 26-31, which claim dependency from claims 1, 18, and 25, they are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 1, 18, and 25 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Parameswar (US 2023/0140020 A1: Systems and Methods for Privacy Conscious Market Collaboration), Wysocki et al. (US 2023/0121419 A1: Facilitating Inter-System Data Transfer with Serialized Data Objects), Burckart et al. (US 2009/0083134 A1: Adaptive Advertising Based on Social Networking Preferences), and Robinson et al. (US 2023/0186327 A1: User Identification and Activity Monitoring Service).
In the case of amendments, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIL H. LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3408. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 9am-6pm EST.
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, Brian J. Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952. 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.
/GIL H. LEE/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights