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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 3, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on June 3, 2026 cancelled no claims. Claims 1 and 11 were amended and no new claims were added. Thus, the currently pending claims addressed below are claims 1-20.
Claim Interpretation
The following claim term has required claim interpretation:
Network interface: Any generic computer component used for communicating over a network (The applicant’s disclosure does not include the term “network interface”. However, the applicant’s disclosure does indicate the various computers can communicate over a network. Since such communication must inherently have some component capable of performing such communications, they inherently have what the applicant considers a network interface.).
Household: all the persons who occupy a housing unit (Defined by the applicant in paragraph 20 of the specification).
Housing unit: a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters (Defined by the applicant in paragraph 20 of the specification).
Separate living quarters: those in which the occupants live and eat separately from any other persons in the building and which have direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall (Defined by the applicant in paragraph 20 of the specification).
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications (i.e., Application 62/014,601; Application No. 14/743,034; and Application No. 17/825,891) fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Applicant states that this application is a continuation or divisional application of the prior-filed application. A continuation or divisional application cannot include new matter. Applicant is required to delete the benefit claim or change the relationship (continuation or divisional application) to continuation-in-part because this application contains the following matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application:
Claims 1 and 11 of the instant application as originally filed recited the following terms and/or phrases which are not supported by applications 62/014,601, 14/743,034, and/or 17/825,891: “wherein the first IP address is associated with a first street address”; and “wherein the second IP address is associated with a second street address”. The only mention of a “street address” being associated with anything is found, for example in paragraph 70 of Application 17/825,891 where it is disclosed that a mobile device may be commonly associated with a particular street address. Additionally, it might be said that the applicant’s definition of a housing unit might inherently be said to support a particular address to be associated with the building in which the housing unit resides. However, the is no disclosure of an IP address being associated with a street address, much less a first IP address being associated with a first street address and a second IP address is associated with a second street address. The closest support appears to be found in paragraph 65 of Application 17/825,891 where it is disclosed “a particular IP address may be associated with a household”. However, we know from the definition of household in paragraph 20, that a household is all the persons who occupy a housing unit. Thus, a household is a group of people, wherein the people all occupy a housing unit and not the housing unit itself. Thus, while it might be said that it would be obvious for a household to be associated with a street address, such an association cannot be said to be inherently required by the applicant’s disclosure. As such, it is clear that the applicant’s disclosure (i.e., originally filed claims), includes subject matter that was not supported by the disclosures in applications 62/014,601, 14/743,034, and/or 17/825,891.
Please note that neither cancelling claims 1 and/or 11, nor amending claims 1, and/or 11 can correct this issue. The instant application must be changed to a continuation-in-part. As per MPEP 211.05(I)(B):
“The disclosure of a continuation application must be the same as the disclosure of the prior-filed application; i.e., the continuation must not include anything which would constitute new matter if inserted in the original application. See MPEP § 201.07.”
“The disclosure of a continuation or divisional application cannot include anything which would constitute new matter if inserted in the prior-filed application.”
and, as per MPEP 2163:
“The claims as filed in the original specification are part of the disclosure and, therefore, if an application as originally filed contains a claim disclosing material not found in the remainder of the specification, the applicant may amend the specification to include the claimed subject matter. In re Benno, 768 F.2d 1340, 226 USPQ 683 (Fed. Cir. 1985).”
Thus, if Priority as a Continuation were to be granted by merely cancelling the claims as originally filed to overcome the lack of support issue, then the applicant could later amend the specification to include the cancelled subject matter as per MPEP 2163(I)(B) because the subject matter was found in the claims as originally filed. This would result in the application maintaining the status as a Continuation and given the priority date of the original application, yet still require the entry of New Matter. As such, merely cancelling the claimed subject matter is not sufficient.
As the instant application cannot be a Continuation of Application No. 17/825,891 and is currently not a Continuation-in-part of Application No. 17/825,891, the priority date for the instant application is it filing date of October 21, 2024.
Double Patenting
The Terminal Disclaimer filed on December 22, 2025 overcame the nonstatutory Double Patenting rejection raised in the Office Action dated September 22, 2025, and the rejection was withdrawn in the Final Rejection dated March 3, 2026.
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 directed to a method and an apparatus which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim(s) 1 and 11 recite(s) the following abstract idea:
issuing, by a first person, a first hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) request from a first internet protocol (IP) address, wherein the first IP address is associated with a first street address;
issuing, by a second person, a second HTTP request from a second IP address, and wherein the second IP address is associated with a second street address;
receiving the issued first HTTP request and the second HTTP request;
determining, based on the first HTTP request and the second HTTP request, that two or more households are households comprising a primary household and an additional household that are different households, wherein the primary household is determined based on the first IP address and the additional household is determined based on the second IP address;
receiving first identification information that identifies a first person;
associating, within a maintained primary household profile, the person device with the primary household of the two or more households, wherein each of the two or more households includes all persons that occupy a physical housing unit, and wherein the associating is based on the first HTTP request and the first identification information;
receiving second identification information that identifies the second person;
associating, within a maintained additional household profile, the second person with the additional household of the two or more households, wherein the associating is based on the second HTTP request and the second identification information;
receiving from the first user over a network interface and based on a third HTTP request a location of the first person, wherein the location identifies the second street address;
recognizing that the location of the first person is originating from a different street address compared to the first street address of the primary household;
connecting the primary household with the additional household of the two or more households based on the recognizing that the location of the first person is originating from a different street address compared to the first street address of the primary household, by creating a stored association between the primary household profile and the additional household profile;
creating the store association by electronically storing within the primary household profile, household identification information for the additional household that is connected to the primary household;
determining, from the household identification information stored in the additional household profile, one or more attributes of the one or more persons that occupy the connected additional household, wherein the one or more attributes are not attributes of the one or more persons that occupy the primary household; and
targeting digital media content to the first person using the household identification information stored in the primary household profile and based on the one or more attributes of the one or more persons that occupy the connected additional household identified in the primary household profile.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of a first device that is an internet enable electronic device (i.e., a general-purpose computer), a second device that is an internet enabled electronic device (i.e., a general-purpose computer), and a computer comprising a processor, memory, network interface and software (i.e., a general-purpose computer with generic computer components).
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
issuing, by a first device, a first hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) request from a first internet protocol (IP) address, wherein the first IP address is associated with a first street address (e.g., transmitting data);
issuing, by a second device, a second HTTP request from a second IP address, and wherein the second IP address is associated with a second street address (e.g., transmitting data);
receiving, in the computer, the issued first HTTP request and the second HTTP request (e.g., receiving data);
receiving, in the computer, first identification information that identifies the first device (e.g., receiving data);
receiving, in the computer, second identification information that identifies the second device (e.g., receiving data);
receiving, in the computer, from the first device over a network interface and based on a third HTTP request a location of the first device, wherein the location identifies the second street address (e.g., receiving data);
creating the stored association by electronically storing, in the computer, within a primary household profile, household identification information for the additional household that is connected to the primary household (e.g., storing data).
When considered individually, the additional elements amount to a first general-purpose computer (i.e., first device) that is capable of transmitting and/or receiving data; a second general-purpose computer (i.e., second device) capable of transmitting and/or receiving data; and a third-general purpose computer (i.e., a computer having a processor) that merely applies an abstract idea.
When considered in combination, the additional elements amount to applying an abstract idea using three general-purpose computers, two of which (i.e., first device and second device) perform only insignificant extra-solution activities of transmitting and/or receiving data.
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as one or more generic processors and generic computer components performing generic computers function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on one or more computers, or merely uses computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a first device that is an internet enable electronic device (i.e., a general-purpose computer), a second device that is an internet enabled electronic device (i.e., a general-purpose computer), and a computer comprising a processor, memory, network interface and software (i.e., a general-purpose computer with generic computer components) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and one or more generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on one or more computers, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires one or more general-purpose computer and generic computer components (as evidenced from paragraphs 33, 40-41 and 53 of the applicant’s specification); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
issuing, by a first device, a first hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) request from a first internet protocol (IP) address, wherein the first IP address is associated with a first street address (e.g., transmitting data);
issuing, by a second device, a second HTTP request from a second IP address, and wherein the second IP address is associated with a second street address (e.g., transmitting data);
receiving, in the computer, the issued first HTTP request and the second HTTP request (e.g., receiving data);
receiving, in the computer, first identification information that identifies the first device (e.g., receiving data);
receiving, in the computer, second identification information that identifies the second device (e.g., receiving data);
receiving, in the computer, from the first device over a network interface and based on a third HTTP request a location of the first device, wherein the location identifies the second street address (e.g., receiving data);
creating the stored association by electronically storing, in the computer, within a primary household profile, household identification information for the additional household that is connected to the primary household (e.g., storing data).
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e., “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by further limiting the connecting of the primary household with the additional household which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 2 and 12); further limiting the location of the first device which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 3-4 and 13-14); further limiting the storing of the household identification information for the connected additional household which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 5 and 15); adding an additional step of removing the household identification information for the connected additional household which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 6 and 16); further limiting the media content which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 7 and 17); adding an additional step of providing metrics which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 8, and 18); further limiting the determining of the one or more attributes which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 9 and 19); and further limiting the connecting of the primary household with the additional household which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 10 and 20), and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No)..
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendment filed on June 3, 2026 has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claims 1-20. The applicant’s removal of the phrase “network-origin information” is sufficient to overcome the rejection. Thus, the rejections are hereby withdrawn.
The applicant’s arguments filed on May 4, 2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or claims 1-20. The applicant argues that rather than being indefinite, the claims are intentionally broad and encompass any way in which one of ordinary skill might perform the steps identified in the 112(b) rejection. Thus, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection have been withdrawn. However, such a broad interpretation of the identified claim limitations has resulted in a new 35 USC 112(a) rejection of the claims as detailed below.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per the “Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications” issued on January 21, 2011 and MPEP 2161.01, the first paragraph of § 112 contains a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. The written description requirement of § 112(a) applies to all claims including original claims that are part of the disclosure as filed. Claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function.
Independent claims 1 and 11, as currently amended, are recited using functional claim language and encompass a broad genus. The examiner has been unable to find support for such a broad genus in the applicant’s disclosure.
First, independent claims 1 and 11 recite “(a) a first device issuing a first hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) request from a first internet protocol (IP) address, wherein the first IP address is associated with a first street address; (b) a second device issuing a second HTTP request from a second IP address, wherein the first device and the second device comprise internet enabled electronic devices, and wherein the second IP address is associated with a second street address”. These limitations are so broad that they encompass any means by which an IP address might become associated with a street address. Thus, there must be a sufficient number of species of associating an IP address with a street address to prove that the applicant possessed such a genus of invention. While the applicant specification has support for both the first device and the second device issuing different HTTP request and for each of the requests to be associated with different IP addresses, the examiner has been unable to find sufficient species of the first IP address being associated with a first street address and the second IP address being associated with a second street address to prove that the applicant has invented an invention in which such an association can be made in any way possible. The examiner has been unable to find a single species of an IP address being associated with a street address, much less sufficient species to prove that the inventor actually invented the claimed genus in which such an association can be made in any way possible. The only mention of a “street address” in the applicant’s specification is found in paragraph 70, where household connections can be established based on the location of the mobile device. If/when the mobile device, associated with a particular street address, is located within/adjacent/nearby another household (e.g., based on GPS [global positioning satellite], cellular triangulation, or other method for identifying the location of the device), that device's/user's home household may be deemed "connected" with the new household. However, paragraph 70 is directed to making connections based on location information. The only mention of making connections in the claims is with regards to the third HTTP request. As such, the disclosure in paragraph 70 does not support the first IP address being associated with a first street address or the second IP address being associated with a second street address. does not require that the location information be included in an HTTP request much less be associated with an IP address. Nor does it require that the street address be included in an HTTP request much less be associated with an IP address. Instead, it merely supports a connection being able to be formed between households based on the current location of a device being near another household instead of being near the street address associated with the mobile device. At best, paragraph 70 can be said to support “(a) a first device with an associated first street address issuing a first hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) request from a first internet protocol (IP) address; (b) a second device with an associated second street address issuing a second HTTP request from a second IP address, wherein the first device and the second device comprise internet enabled electronic devices”. Given that there are no species in the applicant’s disclosure of the claimed genus, it is clear that the specification does not describe the claimed genus in a manner which proves, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, that the inventor actually invented the claimed genus of invention.
Second, independent claims 1 and 11 recite “(d) receiving, in the computer, from the first device, first device identification information that identifies the first device;” and “(f) receiving in the computer, from the second device, second device identification information that identifies the second device;”. These limitations are so broad that they encompass receiving first device identification information and second device identification information in any way possible, as well as any type of device identification information. Thus, there must be a sufficient number of species of receiving such identification information to prove that the applicant possessed such a genus of invention The applicant specification has support, in paragraph 67, for receiving, by a web server that is hosting a website, an HTTP request, and recognizing by analyzing the request to recognize the device itself based on cookies or user IDs (e.g., for websites that require registration/login) and for using an IP address as a device identifier in paragraphs 23 and 67. The examiner can find no other species in which device identification information is received from the devices. According to paragraphs 23 and 67, the device identification information is included within an HTTP request. Thus, paragraphs 23 and 67 describe a species in which the first HTTP request from the first device includes first identification information comprising a first cookie, a first user ID, or a first IP address; and a second HTTP request from the second device includes second identification information comprising a second cookie, a second user ID, or a second IP address. The examiner has been unable to find any other species of receiving from the claimed devices the claimed identification information. However, the species disclosed in paragraphs 23 and 67 cannot be considered a species of the genus being claimed. According to the claims, the first device issues the first HTTP request, then the computer later receives the first identification information. Likewise, the claim requires the second device to issue the second HTTP request, then for the computer to receive from the second device the second identification information. As such, the claims require the first identification information and the second identification information to be received separately from the first HTTP request and the second HTTP request. Thus, the examiner has been unable to find any species of the claimed genus in the applicant’s specification. Given that there are no species in the applicant’s disclosure of the claimed genus, it is clear that the specification does not describe the claimed genus in a manner which proves, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, that the inventor actually invented the claimed genus of invention.
Third, independent claims 1 and 11 recite “(e) associating, within a primary household profile maintained in computer memory, the first device with the primary household of the two or more households, wherein each of the two or more households includes all persons that occupy a physical housing unit, and wherein the associating is based on the first HTTP request originating from the first device and the first device identification information;” and “(g) associating, within an additional household profile maintained in the computer memory, the second device with the additional household of the two or more households, wherein the associating is based on the second HTTP request originating from the second device and the second device identification information;”. These limitations are so broad that they encompass performing the claimed associating in any means possible based on the HTTP request originating from the device and the received device identification information. Thus, there must be a sufficient number of species of associating based on the HTTP request originating from the device and the received device identification information to prove that the applicant possessed such a genus of invention. However, as indicated with regard to the receiving steps, the applicant’s specification does not disclose receiving an HTTP request originating from the device and also receiving device identification information. Based on the applicant’s disclosure the HTTP request originating from the device must also include the identification information. As such, none of the associating disclosed in the applicant’s specification is based on a received HTTP request originating from the device and additionally based on receiving device identification information at a different time. Thus, the examiner has been unable to find any species of the claimed genus in the applicant’s specification. Given that there are no species in the applicant’s disclosure of the claimed genus, it is clear that the specification does not describe the claimed genus in a manner which proves, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, that the inventor actually invented the claimed genus of invention.
Fourth, independent claims 1 and 11 recite “(h) receiving, in the computer, from the first device over a network interface and based on a third HTTP request from the first device, a location of the first device, wherein the location identifies the second street address;” and “(i) recognizing, by the computer, that the location of the first device is originating from a different street address compared to the first street address of the primary household;”. These limitations describe a specific species of the claimed invention in which the first device issues an additional HTTP request, called a third HTTP request, and requires this additional HTTP request to include a location of the first device, wherein the location identifies a street address; and then comparing a different street address to a first street address. The specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. The examiner has been unable to find a description of this species in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. The only disclosure in the applicant’s specification of a location of a client device being used to make a connection is found in paragraph 70. However, according to paragraph 70 a mobile device may be associated with a street address. If/when a mobile device is located within/adjacent/nearby another household based on GPS, cellular triangulation, or other method for identifying location of the device, the device’s/user’s home household may be deemed connected to the another household. First, nothing in paragraph 70 indicates that the location information is received in an HTTP request and the client device transmitting such location information is not inherently required to be done within an HTTP request as other means of transmitting such location information could be used such as such as WebSocket (which were standardized in December 2011 in RFC 6455). Second, nothing in paragraph 70 requires that the location information used to determine that the user is within/adjacent/nearby another household includes a street address. In fact, it appears to require that the location information not be a street address because it is GPS or cellular triangulation data such as longitude and latitude. This location data is compared with location data of the another household and the street address associated with the mobile device to determined that the user is not currently at the particular street address associated with the mobile device and instead is within/adjacent/nearby another household. As such, paragraph 70 does not have any support for comparing two street addressed. Instead, the GPS or cellular triangulation location data is compared to the location information of the second household and compared to the street address associated with the first device, to determine that the user device is not at the street address associated with the first device and instead is within/adjacent/nearby the additional household. Thus, it is clear that the applicant’s specification does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention.
Fifth, independent claims 1 and 11 recite: “(j) connecting, in the computer, the primary household with the additional household of the two or more households based on the recognizing in step (i), by creating a stored association between the primary household profile and the additional household profile;” and “(k) creating the stored association by electronically storing, in the computer, within the primary household profile maintained in the computer memory, household identification information for the additional household that is connected to the primary household;”. These limitations describe a specific species of the claimed invention in which the connecting and creating are based on the specific recognizing described in step (i). As such, the specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. The examiner has been unable to find a description of this species in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. The only disclosure in the applicant’s specification of a species of connecting based on the location information is found in paragraph 70. However, according to paragraph 70 the connecting is based on determining from the received location information (i.e., GPS data or cellular triangulation data) that the mobile device is located within/adjacent/nearby another household and not at a particular street address associated with the mobile device. As such, there is no species of connecting the households based on the recognizing in step (i), by creating a stored association and storing it within the primary household profile. may be associated with a street address. Paragraph 70 does not have any support for comparing two street addresses as required in step (i). Thus, the specification does not disclose any species of connecting the primary household with the additional household based on the recognizing in step (i), by creating a stored association between the primary household profile and the additional household profile, and electronically storing within the primary household profile, household identification information for the additional household. Thus, it is clear that the applicant’s specification does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention.
Sixth, independent claims 1 and 11 recite: “(l) determining, from the household identification information stored in the additional household profile, one or more attributes of the one or more persons that occupy the connected additional household, wherein the one or more attributes are not attributes of the one or more persons that occupy the primary household; and (m) targeting, via the computer, digital media content to the first device using the household identification information stored in the primary household profile and based on the one or more attributes of the one or more persons that occupy the connected additional household identified in the primary household profile.”. These limitations describe a specific species of the claimed invention in which the determining of attributes and the targeting of digital media content are based on the stored association created from the specific recognizing described in step (i). As such, the specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. The examiner has been unable to find a description of this species in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. As described above, the specification does not describe any species of connecting the households and created a stored association based on comparing two addresses. As such, there is no species of determining attributes based on connecting the households in the manner required by the claims, nor a disclosure of a species of targeting digital media content based on such attributes. Thus, it is clear that the applicant’s specification does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. These limitations of claims 1 and 11 also recite a genus using the terms one or more attributes. This part of the limitations are so broad that they encompass any possible type of attribute. As such, the applicant’s specification must disclose a sufficient genus of attributes to prove that they had possession of determining any type of attribute in the additional household profile that are not an attribute of the one or more persons that occupy the primary household, and targeting the digital media content based on such an attribute. The examiner has been unable to find sufficient species of determining one or more attribute stored in the additional household profile that is not an attribute of the one or more persons that occupy the primary household and targeting the digital median content in the manner claimed to prove that the applicant invented the genus being claimed. According to paragraph 65, if the invention is performed by an ISP server that is providing residential service to both households, the invention could store attributes in the household profile of each household such as the number/type/time of HTTP requests that originate from each household. Paragraph 66-67 disclose that the manner and type of attributes obtained is different for different devices. For example, an ISP server can recognize a new device connecting from a household. Thus, if the computer is an ISP server it can determine IP address visits based on such a new connection. If said ISP server only provides residential service to the household being visited the only attributes it could have would be the number/type/time of HTTP requests that originate from the visited household and that an IP address visit has occurred. If said ISP server provides residential service to the both households, the attributes it would have would include the number/type/time of HTTP requests that originate from both households and that an IP address visit has occurred. The same analysis holds true if the computer being claimed were a local network router/application, except that said router/application would be only capable of obtaining attributes that occur on the local network of the visited household. Therefore, the attributes it obtains can be the number/type/time of HTTP requests that originate from the visited household and that an IP address visit has occurred. Additionally, according to paragraphs 66-67, the claimed computer might be a web server that receives HTTP requests for content it hosts. If this were the case, it could arguably obtain attributes including the number/type/time of HTTP requests for the website content hosted by the web server that originate from both households and that an IP address visit has occurred if the HTTP request for website content included device identifying information such as cookies and/or a user ID if it required registration/login to access the website. According to paragraphs 55-69, the web server could either be a social network web server or have access to information from a social network site and thereby obtain attributes such as social network connections/relationships. According to paragraph 70, if the computer was an ISP server that is providing residential service to both households, the invention could obtain location information and arguably use this location information to determine a street address associated with mobile device. Thus, location information and street addresses of mobile devices from both households could be attributes. Note however, that according to paragraph 70 only mobile devices are commonly associated with a street address and the location information received can only be received from mobile devices. Likewise, if the computer were a web server, and if the web server were to receive location information from the mobile devices then location information and street addresses of the mobile devices from both households could be attributes. Given, the disclosure so far, and the requirements of the claims, the computer claimed must be either an ISP server that provides residential service to both households or a web server that provides website content. Neither, a local network router/application nor an ISP server that provides residential service to only one household would have access to the household information associated with the other household. Paragraphs 71-72 disclose that the attributes obtainable are limited to the type of website hosted by the web server; the information it gathers in a user account associated with a user registration/login process; and other information that it is granted access to. According to paragraphs 71-72, a user may also issue HTTP request for the website hosted by the web server by using a public computer and providing a user ID for logging in. If the website provides airline ticketing capabilities, then attributes include travel destination, hometown, number of kids, etc.). If the website provides movie rentals, then the types of movies rented is an attribute. If the web server is able to obtain information from other websites that the user has an account, or such data is stored on the device of the user and the web server is provided such stored information then this information could be attributes. According to paragraphs 73-77, table 1, and figure 4, the household IP profile which is created for each household include an identifier of all the connected households and an indication of the degree of separation between each household. While paragraphs 73-77 do not indicate that the household IP profile stores any additional information regarding the user, for the sake of argument let’s assume that information stored in the website account of the user in the primary household and/or profile information of a social network for the primary user are stored in the household IP profile as well. Paragraphs 78-93 disclose the targeting of content and its logical flow. According to paragraphs 78-79, targeting may be done based on degree of separation from the primary household and data/preferences/attributes of the primary household. When considering the degree of separation, the data in the household IP profile of the second household can be used. As such, the specification supports using enough species of attributes to prove that the applicant had support a genus that merely targeted digital media content based on attributes. However, this is not what the applicant is claiming. According to the claim, what is determined is one or more attributes of the one or more persons that occupy the connected additional household, wherein the one or more attributes are not attributes of the one or more persons that occupy the primary household. The targeting claimed is targets the first device (i.e., the device of the user of the primary household and the device that is visiting the additional household) based on an attribute in the household IP profile of the additional household that is not an attribute in the household IP profile of the primary household. Thus, the question becomes does the applicant’s specification have enough species of targeting digital media content to a device of a user that is part of a primary household, based on an attribute in a connected household’s household IP profile, wherein the attribute must not also be in the primary household’s household IP profile? and it is the first device that is targeted or targeting based on using the connected household ID and its degree of separation as attributes. According to paragraphs 80-85, the invention is able to gather, store, and display a significant amount of data regarding the advertisements displayed to various users and the results of such advertisements. However, no where is it disclosed that the advertisements displayed or their results are stored in the household IP profiles, and the examiner can find no species of targeting digital media content to a device of a user that is part of a primary household, based on an attribute in a connected household’s household IP profile, wherein the attribute must not also be in the primary household’s household IP profile in the applicant’s specification. The closest support is found in paragraphs 91-92 of the applicant’s disclosure. Paragraph 91 discloses a first user of a mobile phone associated with a primary household is exposed to advertisements based on attributes in the primary household’s household IP profile, when the user visits a connected home, the users in the connected home are targeted with similar advertisements. This type of advertising across household boundaries does not require that any attributes in the connected household be considered. It merely requires an advertisement to be targeted to the first user device based on the one or more attributes in the primary household’s household IP profile, and then merely targeting a user device of the connected household with a similar advertisement. As such, it does not support targeting an advertisement based on an attribute in one household IP profile that is not an attribute in a different household IP profile. Paragraph 92 discloses an embodiment in which an primary household of first user and additional household of a friend are connected. An attribute in friend’s household IP profile indicates that purchase of a bicycle has occurred. A determination is made that the first user has not previously been presented/targeted with an advertisement for the bicycle. Based on this determination an advertisement for the bicycle is presented/targeted to the first user. As such, the targeting of the advertisement to the first user is not based on an attribute in the friends household IP profile that is not in the first users household IP, it is based on an attribute in the friends IP profile and advertising information regarding advertisements transmitted and/or presented to the first user. First, there is no disclosure in the specification of storing such advertisement presented/targeted information in a household IP profile. Second, even if the examiner were to assume that such information is included in a household IP profile, it would not be a species of the claimed one or more attributes. Assuming, in arguendo, that an attribute is store in the primary household’s household IP profile which state “first user has never been presented with an advertisement for a SCHWINN bicycle”, and an attribute in the friend’s household IP profile indicated “purchased a SCHWINN bicycle”. The claim requires that the one or more attribute of in the friend’s household IP profile (i.e., purchased a SCHWINN bicycle) not be an attribute in the primary household’s household IP profile. Thus, it would require that the primary household’s household IP profile not have an attribute that states “purchased a SCHWINN bicycle”. However, the specification in paragraph 92 does not require that an attribute of “purchased a SCHWINN bicycle” not be in the primary household’s profile. Instead, it would require the attribute of “first user has never been presented with an advertisement for a SCHWINN bicycle” which is a completely different attribute than the one required by the claim. Given that there are no species in the applicant’s disclosure of the claimed genus, it is clear that the specification does not describe the claimed genus in a manner which proves, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, that the inventor actually invented the claimed genus of invention.
Finally, the genus of independent claims 1 and 11, when considered in combination is so broad that it would be impossible for the applicant’s specification to prove to one of ordinary skill in the art the applicant possessed such a genus of invention. The first device and second device issuing the request from a first IP address and second IP address does not require that each of such addresses be acquired by each of said devices connecting to residential wireless network routers or modems, or other residential networks and being issued an IP address with which to make the claimed HTTP requests. However, in order for the claims to operate as claimed, this is precisely what must occur and this is supported by the applicant’s specification in at least paragraphs 22-27, 65, 67. First, as claimed both the first device and second device may be mobile device such as mobile phones and be obtaining their IP address directly from their individual cellular providers. First, such IP addresses change as your mobile device moves from one geographic zone to another or to different cell tower coverage pools. Thus, generating a primary household and/or additional household based on an HTTP request from such changing IP addresses would mean that the households would be good for only the period of time that the mobile devices remain within a narrow geographic range. Second, each household would be limited to the mobile device itself and only for the limited time the mobile device is in the same location. Yes, the mobile phone can act as a hotspot and allow other devices to connect through it, but in such a case the mobile phone issues IP addresses to these additional devices. Therefore, not all persons that occupy the physical housing unit would not necessarily be part of this short-term household. Third, if the first device is not required to access a wireless network of the additional household, then the third HTTP request made by the first device has a IP address assigned by its mobile carrier. As such, the connecting that is claimed means that the first device is being connected with every single device that is within/nearby/adjacent to it when it issues the third HTTP request. Such, connections and targeting advertisements based on these type of connection does not result in useful data for degrees of separation determinations and benefit the targeting of advertisements as the invention purports to do. In order for the invention to work in the manner disclosed in the specification, a first device, which is a mobile device with GPS and/or cellular capabilities, must connect of a network of a first housing unit to obtain an IP address and then issues an HTTP request for a website using this IP address. The second device, need not be a mobile device or have GSP or cellular capabilities, must connect of a network of a second housing unit to obtain an IP address and issues an HTTP request for the same website using this IP address. These steps are required to associate the first device with the primary household and the second device with the additional household if the households are expected to include all persons that occupy a housing unit, because it is the network associated with the housing unit is providing the IP addresses for persons within the housing unit to issue HTTP requests. When the first device (i.e., mobile device) visits the housing unit network associated with the additional household, it must access this network to obtain an IP address before it can issue the third HTTP request to visit the website. This is the only way connections based on IP address visits described in the specification can occur. While the claims are broad enough to make the connections based on location data of the first device and location data of the second device, such connections could not be performed without the first device obtaining an IP address from the network of the second housing unit. This is because the IP address the first device would have would not be associated with the IP address it had when connecting through the first housing unit network because the IP address of the mobile device changes as it move across geographic zones or different cell tower coverage pools. Thus, the current IP address of the mobile device would not be associated with the first household. While this issue could be overcome if the first device were required to provide the device identifying information in the third HTTP request, but the claims do not require this to occur. Additionally, based on the applicant’s disclosure the device identifying information is limited to an IP address (which would be different now), a cookie (which can only be read by the website domain that stored the cookie when the user visiting the website), and a user ID associated with the visited website and obtained during registration/login to said website). As such, including such a limitation would require that the computer performing the steps of the claimed invention be a web server hosting a website, the first HTTP request, second HTTP request, and third HTTP request all be requests for accessing the website. The determination of households and devices associated with them would need to be limited to all persons that occupy a physical housing unit and accessed and/or registered (depending on whether or not cookies or user IDs are being using as device identifying information) with said website. The location information received from the first device (which is GPS or cellular triangulation information) would need to be provided to the web server that hosts the website. Any associating of the mobile device with a street address would need to occur via the registration process with the website. Any location data associated with the second device would need to occur through a registration process with the web site. The connections could only be made based on accesses to the website, actions taken by household members on the website, location information from the first device comprising GPS or cellular triangulation data provided to the website, and social media profile information obtained by the website. Finally, the targeting of digital media content would need to be performed by the web server while the device is accessing the web site. The specification discloses the ability to gather, track, and report a significant amount of information regarding the targeting and displaying of advertisements, but does not disclose how the web server is able to gather, track, and report such advertising results. As such, it would appear that the only way it would have access to such results is if the advertisements are displayed to the device on the website which the web server is hosting. As such, it is clear that the applicant’s specification does not describe the claimed genus in a manner which proves, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, that the inventor actually invented the claimed genus of invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderhook et al. (PGPUB: 2015/0371272) in view of Patel et al. (PGPUB: 2009/0037602).
Vanderhook et al. (PGPUB: 2015/0371272) is the pre-grant publication of application 14/743,034. The applicant has asserted that the instant application is a Continuation of application 17/825,891 which is a Continuation of application 14/743,034. However, the examiner has identified that the instant application contains subject matter not found in application 17/825,891 and, as such, cannot be granted priority as a Continuation to the earlier filed applications. Thus, the instant application has an effective filing date of October 21, 2024. Since Vanderhook et al. (PGPUB: 2015/0371272) was published more than a year before October 21, 2024 it is valid prior art until the applicant changes the priority claim to a Continuation-in-Part and removes any limitations from the claim that is not supported in the earlier filed applications.
The limitations not found Vanderhook et al. (PGPUB: 2015/0371272) have been identified as “wherein the first IP address is associated with the first street address” and “wherein the second IP address is associated with a second street address”. Thus, Vanderhook has been used to reject all limitations found claims 1-20, except those identified above, and discloses it in the same manner as it is disclosed by the instant applications.
Patel et al. (PGPUB: 2009/0037602) discloses in at least paragraph 53 that it is known to associate IP addresses with home addresses or business address.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Vanderhook to include the use of IP addresses associated with street addresses as disclosed by Patel.
The rationale for doing so is that it merely requires combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It can be seen that each element claimed is taught in either Vanderhook or Patel. Associating the IP address with a street address (taught by Patel) does not change nor effect the normal functions disclosed by Vanderhook as they would still be performed in the same way even with the additional of IP addresses associated with street addresses. Since the functionalities of the elements in Vanderhook and Patel do not interfere with each other the results of the combination would be predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the definition of household being used by the examiner. The applicant’s argument is not convincing. The definition being used by the examiner is the specific definition use by the applicant in paragraph 20. As such, the applicant cannot assert that a different definition should be applied to the claims.
The applicant’s arguments with regards to the Priority issue are not convincing. The disclosure of paragraph 7 merely states consumers are categorized and identified based on their geographic location. This is not an indication that an IP address is associated with a street address. It does not even inherently require that the consumer be categorized with respect to a street address, as they may be categorized based on country, state, county, zip code or some other geographic criteria associated with GPS coordinates. Paragraph 65 makes no mention of an IP address associated with a street address. Instead, it merely indicates that connecting households requires recognizing or determining whether a device or user is at or part of a household. Likewise, paragraph 66 makes no reference to an IP address being associated with a street address. Paragraph 66 merely discloses that when determining when or if to connect two households together attributes or features such as IP address visits (by devices) and social network connections/relationships can be used. Paragraph 67 does not require the IP address to be associated with a street address. It merely discloses that an IP address visit refers to a user/device issuing an HTTP request associated with a second IP address when such HTTP requests are normally issued from a first household/IP address. Such IP address visits can be recognized by an application installed on an ISP’s server or a local network router/application receiving an HTTP request, or the web server receiving an IP request. Likewise, paragraph 68 makes no mention of an IP address being associated with a street address. Paragraph 68 discloses that once an IP address visit has been identified, the two households can be connected based on this IP address visit. According to the definition of IP address in paragraphs 23-26, an IP address is much different from a street address, as it is uniquely identifies a computer on a TCP/IP network in the manner of the IPv4 standard or the IPv6 standard, rather than the street address of a housing unit. Thus, it is clear that paragraphs 65-68 are disclosing connecting households based on IP address visits identified from the devices used, by members of said households, to issue HTTP requests. Nowhere in paragraphs 65-68 is there support for an IP address to be associated with a first street address. While paragraph 70 discloses that a mobile device may be associated with a particular street address, it does not support an IP address associated with a street address. No where in paragraph 70 is an IP address even mentioned. Paragraph 70 discloses that in addition to connecting households based on IP address and social network connections/relationships as described in paragraphs 65-69, such connections can be made based on location data obtained by GPS, cellular triangulation, or other methods for identifying the location of devices. For example, a mobile phone may be associated with a particular street address and when location data indicates they are located within/adjacent/nearby another household a connection may be formed. Since, this form of connecting is not based on an HTTP request or and IP address, the fact that the mobile phone might have a street address associated with it does not mean that said street address is in any way associated with an IP address. Likewise, there is no disclosure in paragraph 71 of a street address. Additionally, there is no disclosure in paragraph 71 of IP addresses being used to make a connection. According to paragraph 71, when users log in to public computers their households may be connected based on common attributes found in their user accounts such as similar hometowns, number of kids, movie rentals, television subscriptions, travel destinations, etc. The connections formed in paragraph 71 have nothing to do with IP address or street address. Instead, the connections in paragraph 71 are made based on common attributes in user accounts, wherein said user accounts require users to login. As such, nothing in paragraph 71 can be said to support IP addresses associated with street addresses. Paragraph 73 does not mention IP addresses associated with a street address. According to paragraph 73, a central database or a local device of a home household may store a Household IP Profile that stores all of the households connected to that household, as well as the degrees of separation from the home household. Thus, nothing in paragraph 73 can be said to support an IP address associated with a street address. Paragraph 74 makes not mention of an IP address being associated with an IP address. Instead, paragraph 74 merely describe that timings can be established for establishing connections or removing connections or storing connections and that connections may be established based on an indexing operation or procedure where social network connections/friends are examined and/or IP connections/browsing history are reviewed. As such, paragraph 74 cannot be said to support an IP address associated with a street address. Likewise, paragraph 75 makes no mention of an IP address being associated with a street address. Paragraph 75 discloses that different eviction policies can be implemented for removing a household connection and none of the disclosed eviction policies is based on a street address or an IP address associated with a street address. As such, paragraph 75 cannot be said to support an IP address associated with a street address. Finally, paragraph 88 makes no mention of an IP address associated with a street address. Paragraph 88 is directed to connecting households based on IP address visits and social media connections as disclose in paragraphs 65-69. Paragraph 88 makes no mention of location-based connections as disclosed in paragraph 70. As such, paragraph 88 cannot be said to support an IP address associated with a street address. The applicant’s summary of the disclosure of the preceding paragraphs has one glaringly incorrect statement. The applicant asserts that paragraph 70 indicates that the locations of the devices can be ascertained based on the HTTP request from the devices. However, nowhere in paragraph 70 is it disclosed that an HTTP request is used to determine the location of the devices. Instead, paragraph 70 discloses that location of the device can be obtained based on GPS, cellular triangulation, or other methods of identifying the location of the device. The ability of a device to provide location information of this nature does not inherently require the device to issue an HTTP request, as it may provide such information using other means such as WebSocket (which was standardized in December 2011 in RFC 6455). As such, it might obvious for an HTTP request to be issued from the client device to provide location information but it is not inherent. As the criterion for support is inherency, paragraph 70 does not support “the locations of the devices can be ascertained based on the HTTP request from the devices”. Furthermore, even if such location information were to be provided via an HTTP request it would be location information such as GPS coordinates and/or latitude and longitude if it were obtained via GPS or cellular triangulation. As such, the HTTP request would not include the street address. Furthermore, it would be the location information that is associated with such an HTTP request and not the street address. Likewise, the IP address might be associated with the HTTP request. However, the location information would not be associated with the IP address, because based on the applicant’s disclosure connections based on IP address visits are based on IP addresses. There is no disclosure of a connection made based on an IP address visit including location information. Likewise, the connections made by location information are based on the current location being within/adjacent/nearby another household instead of the street address associated with the mobile device. There is no disclosure of the IP address being used to made a connection based on location information. As such, the disclosure of application 17/825,891 cannot be said to support an IP address associated with a street address and the applicant’s arguments are not convincing. Therefore, the Priority issue is maintained. The only way in which the applicant can overcome the Priority issue is to change the instant application to a Continuation-in-Part.
The applicant’s response to the example provided by the examiner does not change the fact that the disclosure of application 17/825,891 does not have support for an IP address associated with a street address. Contrary to the applicant’s assertion otherwise, when dealing with support based on inherency of the disclosure, a single outlier is sufficient to proves that the disclosure does not inherently support a limitation. Thus, the examiner’s example still holds true and proves that the disclosure in application 17/825,891 cannot be said to inherently support an IP address associated with a street address as recited in the originally filed claims of the instant application. An IP address included in an HTTP request does not inherently require a street address to be associated with it. My adult children both have smartphone associated with my home address because we purchased the phones and pay for the service. When my son, who lives in a different state, uses his phone to access a web page, the dynamic IP address issued to his phone may be from the closest DHCP server of the same ISP provider, but is neither associated with my street address nor his street address. Instead, it is based on the DHCP server closest to his location when the dynamic IP address lease is renewed. As such, a user device being associated with a street address does not inherently require an IP address to be associated with a street address. Thus, the recitation requiring the IP address to be associated with a street address in the originally filed claims of the instant application represents new matter that was not supported in the previous applications. The only way in which the instant application can obtain the earlier priority date is if the instant application is changed to a Continuation-in-Part of the previous application and the identified limitations directed to said new matter are removed from the claims. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the Priority issue has been maintained.
The applicant’s arguments with regards to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection are moot as the applicant’s arguments have overcome the rejections. The applicant’s argument amount to an indication that the claims are intentionally broad and encompass any way in which one of ordinary skill in the art might implement the identified steps. By indicating that the limitations recite breadth rather than indefinite issues, the applicant has successfully overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection. However, the fact that these claims are intentionally supposed to have such breadth has resulted in the new 35 USC 112(a) rejections as detailed in the rejection above.
The applicant’s arguments with regards to the 103 rejections are not convincing. Until the applicant changes the instant application to a Continuation-in-Part and removes the limitations from the claims not supported in the earlier patent, the priority date of the instant application will remain October 21, 2024. This means that the Vanderhook reference (i.e., Vanderhook et al. - PGPUB: 2015/0371272) which was published more than a year prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention is valid prior art. Thus, the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant’s arguments with regards to the 35 USC 101 rejection are not convincing.
The applicant argues that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 1 because the claims recite a computer-network data management technique and not a human activity. The examiner disagrees. The examiner has not indicated that the applicant’s invention is directed to a human activity. Instead, the examiner has indicated that the applicant’s invention recites an abstract idea that fall within the “Certain Methods of Managing Human Activity” category namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Thus, the claims as amended clearly recite an abstract idea under Step 2a, Prong 1 and, as such, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues that the claims are directed to the computerized construction, linking, and utilization of household profile data structures based on network-origin information derived from HTTP/IP communications and device-reported location data which his evident from the following core limitations: receiving multiple HTTP requests from different IP addresses; associating devices with household profiles maintained in computer memory; receiving device location information over a network interface; and creating and storing a persistent association between household profiles. The examiner strongly disagrees. It appears that the applicant believes that gathering data (i.e., receiving multiple HTTP requests from different IP addresses; and receiving device location information); analyzing the data to make determinations (i.e., determining different households based on network-origin information; associating devices with household profiles; and creating a persistent association between household profiles); and storing data (i.e., storing a persistent association), for the claimed purpose of targeting content and doing so using a general-purpose computer with generic computer components (i.e., a computer memory and a network interface) is somehow not a claim that is directed an abstract idea. However, the courts have found that gathering data, analyzing data, determining results, storing data, and transmitting tailored content are all part of an abstract idea when the abstract idea falls in the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” category (see at least the Electric Power Group decision; the Int. Ventures v. Erie Indemnity decision; the Digitech decision; the Two-Way Media decision; and the Int. Ventures v. Cap One Bank decision). It is clear that what the applicant argues is a computerized construction, linking, and utilization of household profile data structures based on network-origin information derived from HTTP/IP communications and device-reported location data is merely using a general-purpose computer to apply an abstract idea by gathering data, analyzing the data, determining result, storing data, and targeting an advertisement based on the determined results and stored data. As such, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing.
The applicant argues that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 1 because the claimed steps arise sole from the operation of networked computer system and cannot be performed mentally or as a fundamental human practice. The examiner notes that whether the claims can be performed mentally or as a fundamental human practice are immaterial to whether an abstract idea recites “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” namely “commercial or legal interactions” because the recite “advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors”. Only abstract idea that fall within the “Mental Process” category must be able to be performed mentally because they are reciting a mental process. Likewise, none of the Abstract Idea groupings require that the steps must be a fundamental human practice. The closes subgrouping would be the subgrouping of fundamental economic principles or practices under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. However, such practices are not required to be performed by a human in order to be categorized as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity namely fundamental economic principles or practices. There is no requirement that a claim which recites “Certain Methods of Managing Human Activity” namely “commercial or legal interactions” because they recite “advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors” must be able to be performed mentally or be a fundamental human practice. As such, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues that advertising is not the claimed advance because the advance lies in how household data is derived, structured, linked, and stored. However, there is no indication in the applicant’s disclosure that the deriving, structuring, linking, and storing involves any technology other than merely using general-purpose computer to perform these steps. As each of these step are describing the gathering of data, analyzing of the data, determining results based on the analysis, and store data based on the gathering, analyzing and/or determining, and the end result of the claim is the targeting of content based on these steps, any advancement obtained by the deriving, structuring, linking, and storing is an advancement rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using a general-purpose computer with generic computer components. Advancements of this nature, irrespective of how groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, they may be are improvements to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (see MPEP 2106.05(a) - “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”; and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) - “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology”; and the SAP v Investpic decision - Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). As such, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2 because the claims are integrated into a practical application because they recite determining households based on received first HTTP requests and received second HTTP requests. The examiner strongly disagrees. The receiving of such data and making determinations based on such data are part of the abstract idea itself. This mean these steps are incapable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. In order to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2, it is the “additional elements” of the claim that must integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in a manner other than merely applying the abstract idea using a general-purpose computer with generic computer components as tools. “Additional elements” are defined as those elements outside the identified abstract idea itself. The only additional elements in the claims are a general-purpose computer with generic computer components (i.e., a processor, a memory, and a network interface) upon which every significant step of the abstract idea is merely applied and at least two other general-purpose computers (i.e., networked devices) which merely perform the insignificant extra-solution activities of transmitting and/or receiving data which amounts to no more than using general-purpose computers as tools to merely apply the abstract idea and, as such, is insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. Any purport improvement obtained by using the different types of data to determine households is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computers as tools. Improvements of this nature are incapable of overcoming a 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2 as they are improvements rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computers as tools (see MPEP 2106.05(a) - “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”; and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) - “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology”; and the SAP v Investpic decision - Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2 because the claims improve the computer functionality and lists a series of steps that are part of the abstract idea or merely computer memory that stores data as proof of such an improvement. The examiner strongly disagrees. First, the computer itself is not changed by argued steps. It still operates in the same manner it always did. The processor is not changed it still executes requested programming steps in the same manner it always has. The memory has not changed it still store data in the same manner it always has. The network interface has not change it still transmits and receives data in the same manner it always has. Thus, it is clear that the computer itself is not changed. Second, the manner in which the abstract idea determines data, arranges the data, and stores the data does not change the functioning of the computer itself. Instead, any improvement obtained by performing such steps in an improvement to the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the additional elements of the claim as a tool. Improvements of this nature are improvements to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues that a practical application is recited in the claims and as such should overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 1. The applicant argues that the claims recite a computer with a processor, an application executing on that computer; and a specific configuration of the application to perform the claimed steps. The examiner strongly disagrees. The application recited in claim 11, is nothing more than software instructions executed by the general-purpose computer. This amounts to no more than applying an abstract idea using a general-purpose computer executing software as a tool. Even if the applicant were to amend the claims to recite specific software modules for performing each of the claimed steps, the application would still be merely software executed by the general-purpose computer because an arrangement of software modules is not considered an “arrangement of devices”. As such, applications of this nature are incapable of overcoming a 101 rejection based on an arrangement of devices in a manner similar to the claims of the Bascom decision. MPEP 2106 clearly states that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a) - “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”; and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) - “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology”). Any improvement obtained by the software application executing on the general-purpose computer is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself. As such, it is not an improvement in technology. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues that the examiner element by element dissection is improper. The examiner strongly disagrees. The examiner has analyzed the claims in the manner required by MPEP 2106 and follows all USPTO guidelines. The applicant appears to misconstrue the meaning of the term “additional elements” as used in MPEP 2106. First, an examiner must determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea. Then the examiner must determine the elements of the claim that are part of the abstract idea. Any limitations which are not part of the abstract idea itself are “additional elements” of the claim. Under Step 2a, Prong 2, an examiner must determine whether the claims recite an improvement rooted in the additional elements of claim, by considering the additional elements both individually and as a whole. If a claim recites an improvement rooted in the additional elements of the claim in a manner other than merely applying the abstract idea using the additional elements as a tool, then the claim overcomes the 101 rejections under Step 2a, Prong 2. If not, then the claim fails to overcome the rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2, and the examiner proceeds to Step 2b, where the additional elements of the claims are considered both individually and as a whole to determine whether the additional elements were well-understood, routine, or conventional. Under neither Step 2a, Prong 2 nor Step 2b is consideration given to whether an order combination of steps that make up the abstract idea itself which are merely applied using a general-purpose computer as a tool results in an improvement. The argued deriving, associating, receiving, recognizing, creating, and storing steps are all part of the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer as a tool. Thus, any improvement obtained by performing these steps is an improvement to an abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter and incapable of overcome a 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2 or Step 2b. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2b because they recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner disagrees. The applicant appears to be misconstruing the meaning of “additional elements”. “Additional elements” are defined as those elements outside of the abstract idea itself. None of the argued limitations are “additional elements” of the claimed invention because they are all part of the abstract idea itself. Receiving and using data in HTTP requests and IP addresses; obtaining and using device-level identification information and location reporting information; manipulating profiles; and creating inter-profile associations have all been identified as part of the abstract idea. In order to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2b, it is the “additional elements” that must be considered significantly more. In the instant case the only additional elements in the claims are general-purpose computers with generic computer components which are merely used as a tool to apply the abstract idea which is insufficient to be considered significantly more under Step 2b. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Massoudi (PGPUB: 2014/0344057) which discloses building household profiles based on http requests from devices and their associated with IP address, wherein multiple user devices are associated with said household profiles based on HTTP request from said user device using the IP address associated with the household profiles.
Bruich et al. (PGPUB: 2013/0151527) which discloses assigning users of a social networking system to households, determining connections between the households, and determining user attributes for users in each of the households. the computer from a social media network computer, analyzing one or more persons that occupy a household and a social media relationship with one or more persons that occupy a different household; and connecting them based on the social media relationship.
Maquire et al. (U.S. Patent: 9,674,751) which discloses targeting digital media content to a first device based on the one or more attributes of the one or more persons that occupy a connected household.
Amaro et al. (PGPUB: 2012/0215610) – discloses determining that a first user and a second user are friends based upon an interaction between a first device of the first user and a second device of the second user; including transaction data of the first user in the profile of the second user; and targeting advertisements based on this transaction data.
Markey et al. (PGPUB: 2014/0046777) – disclose generating a circle set by linking profiles associated with self, household, and friends each of which can have different IP addresses and device identifiers; then targeting advertisements based on the circle set.
Pharn (PGPUB: 2009/0106785) – discloses generating household profile that include members of the household and username-IP pairs for each of said members to transmit targeted advertisements.
Kodialam et al. (PGPUB: 2013/0060601) – discloses creating a single user profile for a household based on an IP address of a home network.
Massoudi (PGPUB: 2014/0279075) – discloses associating an IP address with a household profile.
Fears et al. (US Patent: 9,215,123) – discloses generating profiles based on one or more user profiles and/or devices associated with an IP address and aggregating profiles associated with different IP addresses.
Baluja et al. (PGPUB: 2008/0275861) – discloses inferring attributes in a first profile based on attributes in a second profile that has an association with the first profile and targeting advertisements to a user associated with the first profile based on the inferred attributes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 4 pm 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, Spar Ilana 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.
/John Van Bramer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights