DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to correspondence filed 2 February 2026 in regard to application no. 18/784,629. Claims 2 and 11-20 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-10 and 21-29 are pending and are considered below.
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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 2 February 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 12,079,842 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 8 and 27 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 use of “and/or” in the particular context of these claims renders the claims indefinite. The Examiner is aware, as the applicant points out, that and/or is not per se indefinite; so for example “A and/or B” is interpreted as “A alone, or B alone, or A and B together”. The difficulty here is the overall structure of the claims, that the first part of the claims before the and/or contains an “or” itself, and the second part has both an “or” and a Markush grouping, so the claim structure is more like “A or B and/or C or D includes one or more of E-H”, and, as the Examiner pointed out before, it is impossible to determine what is actually required. Consistent with the applicant’s construction of “and/or”, and as pointed out previously, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “and/or” is “or”, and that is the interpretation the Examiner adopted previously and maintains.
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, 3-10 and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims lie within statutory categories of invention, as each is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (manufacture) or a device (machine). Claim 1 will serve as exemplary.
The claims recite a data gathering step (receiving segment definition data and user attribute values), sending the data to an external device in no particular manner but simply for a particular purpose, another data gathering step (receiving a list of identifiers), sending additional data to an external device in no particular manner, and sending more, additional data to an entity in no particular manner but simply for a particular purpose. In other words, the claim does nothing at all but send and receive data.
As the data pertain to delivery of targeted content to people, it recites an advertising behavior, one of the “certain methods of organizing human activity” deemed abstract. Further, in the absence of computers, this is a process that can be performed mentally; a person can communicate information to other people, e.g. verbally, and the other people can interpret or process the information mentally and communicate information back to the original sender. None of this presents a practical difficulty, in fact it is quite routine, and none requires any technology at all.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of generic, networked computers, discussed below, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond generally linking the abstract idea to the technological environment of networked computers. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As the claims only share information about targeted consumers, content and the like, they do not improve the "functioning of a computer" or of "any other technology or technical field". See MPEP § 2106.05(a). They do not apply the abstract idea "with, or by use of a particular machine", MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that generic computers are not the particular machines envisioned.
They do not effect a "transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing", MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such information, being intangible, is not a particular article at all. Second, the claimed manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
They do not apply the abstract idea "in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment", MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of technical and algorithmic detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim. The claim includes a computerized device, a network which includes an entity, and a database external to the network. These elements are recited at a high degree of generality, encompass, at most, a pair of generic, networked computers, and the specification does not meaningfully limit them.
They only perform the generic computer function of transmitting and receiving information. Generic computers performing a generic computer function, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The other independent claim is simply a different embodiment but is likewise directed to a generic computer performing, essentially, the same process.
The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 3, 6-8, 22 and 25-27 are merely further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated. Claim 4 consists of a mere duplication of parts, of no patentable significance and which in any case does not make the invention less abstract. Claim 5 simply recites additional communication of data. Claims 9, 10, 23, 24, 28 and 29 purport to limit objects outside the scope of the claimed invention.
The claims are not patent eligible. For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 - 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance", 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 9, 10, 21-24, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maugans, III et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0364767) in view of Biswas et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0083941).
In-line citations are to Maugans.
With regard to Claim 1:
Maugans teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer readable instructions stored thereon, the computer- readable instructions being executable by a computerized device [0140, generally describing the arrangement of computer components such as these] to cause the computerized device to perform a method of facilitating targeted content delivery in a network, [0028; Sheet 4, Fig. 4] the network comprising at least a first service provider network [Sheet 1, Fig. 1; e.g. ad exchange] and a user profile data database located externally to the at least a first service provider network, [0142; the "database applications" are on the host computer] wherein the user profile database comprises user profile data comprising a plurality of user entries, each user entry comprising one or more user attributes, each user attribute having a user attribute value, [Sheet 4, Fig. 4; note that this gives attributes of a "single person" selected from a "group"] the method comprising:
receiving, from a demand side platform via the network, segment definition data comprising a list of user attributes and corresponding user attribute values associated with a given targeted content delivery process; [abstract; an "audience list" is divided into a "sub-audience list'; Sheets 6-7, Figs. 6A-B; primary and secondary filtering criteria are used; 0086; one criterion might be a "contextual variable" whose value is a "domain" browsed by a user; 0104; a user behavior might be another criterion and various specific behaviors, such as identifying a user looking at such lists, are used]
communicating, to a first server via the network, the segment definition data, wherein the first server has access to the user profile data database, for the first server to identify one or more candidate users to be targeted in the given targeted content delivery process based on matching the user attribute values of the segment definition data with user attribute values of respective user entries in the user profile database… [0088; the ad exchange receives the criteria and "advertisements selected" by a marketing user "may be presented to one or more users, such as those in the audience list and/or the sub-audience list"]
Maugans does not explicitly teach receiving, from the first server via the network, a list of identifiers, wherein each identifier is usable to identify one or more candidate users to be targeted in the given targeted content delivery process, communicating the list of identifiers to an entity in a first service provider network which is responsible for facilitating the delivery of targeted content for the given targeted content delivery process in the first service provider network, or communicating further segment definition data comprising a list of one or more further user attributes and corresponding user attribute values to the entity in the first server provider network responsible for delivering targeted content, wherein at least one user attribute in the further segment definition data is different from the user attributes of the segment definition data, though he does disclose lists of users as cited above, but it is known in the art.
Biswas teaches a media planning tool [title] in which "targeting advertisements to a particular user" includes "providing [a] publisher with ad content to display" and "an identifier of the user". [0003] This may be done by using a "cookie" which is "stored by the advertising system" on a user's browser. [0024] This "helps advertisers target users to whom to display their advertisements". [id.] Included in the transmitted characteristics are “device attributes” of a user’s device such as “screen size”. [0027] Biswas and Maugans are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for providing targeted advertisements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Biswas with that of Maugans in order to increase the likelihood of a targeted user actually seeing an advertisement, as taught by Biswas; [0003] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using Biswas' identifier to determine a targeted user in place of, or in addition to, the audience lists of Maugans; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
In this and the subsequent claims, unless noted otherwise, as neither the network, first service provider network, demand side platform, user profile data database nor the first server are within the scope of the claim - the computerized device which executes the instructions on the claimed medium - limitations ascribed to them are considered but given no patentable weight. References, where provided, are for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 3:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the corresponding user attribute values for the further segment definition data are available to the entity in the first service provider network. [Biswas, as cited above in regard to claim 1]
With regard to Claim 4:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the network comprises a second, different service provider network and wherein communicating the list of identifiers further comprises communicating the list of identifiers to an entity in the second service provider network which is responsible for facilitating the delivery of targeted content for the given targeted content delivery process in the second service provider network.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 as it consists entirely of a mere duplication of parts, simply providing two networks rather than one and communication with both rather than a single network. This is of no patentable significance as no new and unexpected result is inherent or disclosed. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
With regard to Claim 5:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the network comprises a second, different service provider network and wherein communicating the list of identifiers further comprises communicating the list of identifiers to an entity in the second service provider network which is responsible for facilitating the delivery of targeted content for the given targeted content delivery process in the second service provider network; and wherein the method comprises communicating the further segment definition data to the entity in the second server provider network responsible for facilitating the delivery of targeted content.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 as it consists entirely of a mere duplication of parts, simply providing two networks rather than one and communication with both rather than a single network. This is of no patentable significance as no new and unexpected result is inherent or disclosed. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
With regard to Claim 9:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the method is performed at a network device located externally to the at least a first service provider network. [0142, as cited above in regard to claim 1]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1, as it purports to limit an external, unclaimed object. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 10:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the method is performed at a network device located externally to the at least a first service provider network, [0142, as cited above in regard to claim 1] and wherein the corresponding user attribute values for the further segment definition data are not available to the network device located externally to the first service provider network.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1, as it purports to limit an external, unclaimed object. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 21:
Maugans teaches: A computerized device [0140] configured to perform a method of facilitating targeted content delivery in a network, [0028; Sheet 4, Fig. 4] the network comprising at least a first service provider network [Sheet 1, Fig. 1; e.g. ad exchange] and a user profile data database located externally to the at least a first service provider network, [0142; the "database applications" are on the host computer] wherein the user profile database comprises user profile data comprising a plurality of user entries, each user entry comprising one or more user attributes, each user attribute having a user attribute value, [Sheet 4, Fig. 4; note that this gives attributes of a "single person" selected from a "group"] the method comprising:
receiving, from a demand side platform via the network, segment definition data comprising a list of user attributes and corresponding user attribute values associated with a given targeted content delivery process; [abstract; an "audience list" is divided into a "sub-audience list'; Sheets 6-7, Figs. 6A-B; primary and secondary filtering criteria are used; 0086; one criterion might be a "contextual variable" whose value is a "domain" browsed by a user; 0104; a user behavior might be another criterion and various specific behaviors, such as identifying a user looking at such lists, are used]
communicating, to a first server via the network, the segment definition data, wherein the first server has access to the user profile data database, for the first server to identify one or more candidate users to be targeted in the given targeted content delivery process based on matching the user attribute values of the segment definition data with user attribute values of respective user entries in the user profile database… [0088; the ad exchange receives the criteria and "advertisements selected" by a marketing user "may be presented to one or more users, such as those in the audience list and/or the sub-audience list"]
Maugans does not explicitly teach receiving, from the first server via the network, a list of identifiers, wherein each identifier is usable to identify one or more candidate users to be targeted in the given targeted content delivery process, communicating the list of identifiers to an entity in a first service provider network which is responsible for facilitating the delivery of targeted content for the given targeted content delivery process in the first service provider network, or communicating further segment definition data comprising a list of one or more further user attributes and corresponding user attribute values to the entity in the first server provider network responsible for delivering targeted content, wherein at least one user attribute in the further segment definition data is different from the user attributes of the segment definition data, though he does disclose lists of users as cited above, but it is known in the art.
Biswas teaches a media planning tool [title] in which "targeting advertisements to a particular user" includes "providing [a] publisher with ad content to display" and "an identifier of the user". [0003] This may be done by using a "cookie" which is "stored by the advertising system" on a user's browser. [0024] This "helps advertisers target users to whom to display their advertisements". [id.] Included in the transmitted characteristics are “device attributes” of a user’s device such as “screen size”. [0027] Biswas and Maugans are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for providing targeted advertisements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Biswas with that of Maugans in order to increase the likelihood of a targeted user actually seeing an advertisement, as taught by Biswas; [0003] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using Biswas' identifier to determine a targeted user in place of, or in addition to, the audience lists of Maugans; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 22:
The computerized device according to claim 21, wherein the corresponding user attribute values for the further segment definition data are available to the entity in the first service provider network. [Biswas, as cited above in regard to claim 21]
With regard to Claim 23:
The computerized device according to claim 21, wherein the network comprises a second, different service provider network and wherein communicating the list of identifiers further comprises communicating the list of identifiers to an entity in the second service provider network which is responsible for facilitating the delivery of targeted content for the given targeted content delivery process in the second service provider network.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 21 as it consists entirely of a mere duplication of parts, simply providing two networks rather than one and communication with both rather than a single network. This is of no patentable significance as no new and unexpected result is inherent or disclosed. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). Further, this claim purports to limit objects entirely outside the scope of the claimed invention.
With regard to Claim 24:
The computerized device according to claim 21, wherein the network comprises a second, different service provider network and wherein communicating the list of identifiers further comprises communicating the list of identifiers to an entity in the second service provider network which is responsible for facilitating the delivery of targeted content for the given targeted content delivery process in the second service provider network; and wherein the method comprises communicating the further segment definition data to the entity in the second server provider network responsible for facilitating the delivery of targeted content.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 as it consists entirely of a mere duplication of parts, simply providing two networks rather than one and communication with both rather than a single network. This is of no patentable significance as no new and unexpected result is inherent or disclosed. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). Further, this claim purports to limit objects entirely outside the scope of the claimed invention.
With regard to Claim 28:
The computerized device according to claim 21, wherein the method is performed at a network device located externally to the at least a first service provider network. [0142, as cited above in regard to claim 21]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 21, as it purports to limit an external, unclaimed object. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 29:
The computerized device according to claim 21, wherein the method is performed at a network device located externally to the at least a first service provider network, [0142, as cited above in regard to claim 21] and wherein the corresponding user attribute values for the further segment definition data are not available to the network device located externally to the first service provider network.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 21, as it purports to limit an external, unclaimed object. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maugans, III in view of Biswas et al. further in view of Murphy (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0358698).
Claims 6 and 25 are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 6:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 4, wherein at least a portion of the received segment definition data is specific to a country associated to a service provider network, and wherein at least one determined candidate user to be targeted in the first service provider network is different from at least one determined user to be targeted in the second service provider network.
With regard to Claim 25:
The computerized device according to claim 23, wherein at least a portion of the received segment definition data is specific to a country associated to a service provider network, and wherein at least one determined candidate user to be targeted in the first service provider network is different from at least one determined user to be targeted in the second service provider network.
Maugans and Biswas teach the medium of claim 4 and device of claim 23, and at least suggest the selection of multiple targeted users as cited above, but do not explicitly teach targeting to people in multiple nations, but in addition to being of no patentable significance - none of the limitations here alter in the least the claimed medium or the computer executing its instructions or the claimed device - it is known in the art. Murphy teaches an advertising opportunity system [title] which uses a "target audience" in which an "advertiser" may select "geographic areas" for the target audience, such as "regions or areas" within the "United States" and regions or areas within "Canada". [0059] Murphy and Maugans are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for targeting advertisements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Murphy with that of Maugans and Biswas in order to provide advertising opportunities based on the idea of a social-media influencer, as taught by Murphy; [0003] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using Murphy's multi-country segmenting in place of, or in addition to, that of Maugans; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 7:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 6, wherein at least a portion of the received segment definition data relates to a geographical location of the entity in the first service provider network or the entity in the second service provider network. [Murphy, as cited above in regard to claim 6]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 6 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed medium. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 8:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein one or more of the user attributes in the accessed user profile data or in the received segment definition data specifies a geographical location of one or more users; and/or
wherein one or more of the user attributes in the accessed user profile data or in the received segment definition data comprise one or more of:
age,
gender,
geographical location,
language,
financial data relating to the user,
data relating to subscriber devices of the user, and
user interests. [Murphy, as cited above in regard to claim 6]
With regard to Claim 26:
The computerized device according to claim 25, wherein at least a portion of the received segment definition data relates to a geographical location of the entity in the first service provider network or the entity in the second service provider network. [Murphy, as cited above in regard to claim 25]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 25 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed device. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 27:
The computerized device according to claim 21, wherein one or more of the user attributes in the accessed user profile data or in the received segment definition data specifies a geographical location of one or more users; and/or
wherein one or more of the user attributes in the accessed user profile data or in the received segment definition data comprise one or more of:
age,
gender,
geographical location,
language,
financial data relating to the user,
data relating to subscriber devices of the user, and
user interests. [Murphy, as cited above in regard to claim 25]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The argument in regard to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) was addressed above. The terminal disclaimer renders moot the rejection based on the principle of nonstatutory double patenting, and that is withdrawn. In regard to § 101, the network device is not within the scope of the claim, so limitations ascribed to it are of no patentable significance; even if it were otherwise, the Examiner fails to see how the mere location of a computer is supposed to play any part in the analysis, and the rejection is maintained.
In regard to § 103, the network device is not within the scope of any claim. Claim 1 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium that causes a computerized device to perform a method, and claim 2 is directed to the device itself. Claim language that purports to limit external, unclaimed devices are outside the scope of the invention and so are considered but not given patentable weight. The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694