DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the request for continued examination filed 30 June 2026.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 30 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
Regarding 35 USC § 101, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s remarks but does not find them persuasive. Applicant argues that “any alleged abstract idea is integrated into the practical application of "connecting data across different content delivery channels, to improve data quality and to provide consistent experiences to users across the various channels." (Specification, ¶7.) Further, the claims can be applied to when "a user navigates off a webpage and comes back to the webpage" to prevent inconsistent content presentations. (Specification, ¶5.) This connection of data occurs via an architecture which improves data mapping across channel delivery. First, channel IDs and channel ID data are unique to content delivery channels. (Specification, ¶9.) Second, a master ID that links these multiple channel IDs and their associated data to provide a consolidated user identity across otherwise disconnected channels. (Specification, ¶10.) Further, the associated master ID data allows channels to know what previous content has been shown to the user by tracking channel data. (Specification, ¶¶ 63-65, 70, 71.).” Remarks at 9. Applicant further argues that these “aspects of the technological solution are implemented directly in the claims” and recite the limitations of claim 1. Remarks at 9-10. Subject matter eligibility cannot be furnished by the unpatentable abstract idea. The steps of the claims wherein data is being linked are all considered abstract and thus they cannot provide the inventive concept. It is the additional elements that are analyzed at the “significantly more” step. In the present claims, the additional elements merely implement the abstract idea and thus do not provide significantly more. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Additionally, not all of the argued “technological solution[s]” are found in the claims. For example, providing a user with consistent content presentations or allowing channels to know what previous content was shown is not found in the claims.
Applicant argues that “disconnected content delivery channels creates a technical problem of disconnected and inconsistent offer/promotional experiences to user devices across the different channels that user devices visit.” Remarks. at 11. Subject matter eligibility cannot be furnished by the unpatentable abstract idea. The steps of the claims wherein data is being linked are all considered abstract and thus they cannot provide the inventive concept. It is the additional elements that are analyzed at the “significantly more” step. In the present claims, the additional elements merely implement the abstract idea and thus do not provide significantly more. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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
Claims 1-7 recite a method which is considered a process. Claims 8-14 recite a non-transitory computer readable medium which is considered a machine or manufacture. Claims 15-20 recite a system which is considered a machine or manufacture.
Step 2A-Prong One
Claims 1-20 recite the concept of tracking promotions provided to a user across different channels in order to link the user across the channels (see, for example, “(a) receiving, […] from a browser, a first channel ID and a second channel ID, wherein the first channel ID is unique to a content delivery channel accessed by the browser and the second channel ID is unique to a second content delivery channel; (b) determining […] whether the first channel ID and the second channel ID are linked to a master ID and master ID data stored in a database, wherein the master ID is implemented as a unique persistent identifier configured to identify the browser across the first content delivery channel and the second content delivery channel, and wherein the determination is based on a probability calculation whether the first channel ID and the second channel ID are linked to the master ID; (c) if the first channel ID and the second channel ID are determined to be linked to the master ID, updating […] a database to append the master ID with the first channel ID and the second channel ID, wherein the updating causes the database to execute a database operation that modifies the master ID data to reflect consolidated cross-channel data from the first content delivery channel and the second content delivery channel; (d) if the first channel ID and the second channel ID are determined to not be linked to the master ID, creating a new master ID in the database and updating the database to append the new master ID and associated new master ID data, wherein the associated new mater ID data is the first channel ID and the second channel ID; and (e) transmitting […] the consolidated cross-channel data to the first content delivery channel and the second content delivery channel” in claim 8, “the first channel ID is associated with channel ID data, wherein the associated channel ID data includes a promotional offer and a timestamp that the promotional offer was shown to a browser linked with the channel ID” in claim 10, and “the operations further comprise: repeating (a)-(d) for further content delivery channels; and transmitting the master ID and the associated master ID data to the further content delivery channels for further processing” in claim 11). The concept falls into the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas including commercial and advertising activities. Thus, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, the independent claims recite a step “wherein the determination is based on a probability calculation whether the first channel ID and the second channel ID are linked to the master ID” which is considered to fall into the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, claims 1-20 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 one or more computing devices, a database, and a telecommunications network (claims 1-7), a cloud computing environment (claims 7 and 14), a non-transitory computer readable medium, a database, and a telecommunications network (claims 8-14), or a computing system comprising a memory storing instructions, one or more processors, and a database (claims 15-20) and includes no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The computing device, network, database, computer readable medium, cloud environment, or system 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 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.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights