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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on December 22, 2025 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 is 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 recites 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 has overcome the nonstatutory Double Patenting rejection raised in the Office Action dated September 22, 2025. Thus, the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
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 network-origin information included in 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 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.
Independent claims 1 and 11 have been amended to recite: “determining, in a computer, and based on network-origin information included in 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”. The examiner has been unable to find support for this limitation in the applicant’s disclosure. Neither the phrase “network-origin information” nor the term “network-origin” is found in the applicant’s disclosure, much less a disclosure of network-origin information included in an HTTP request. The applicant appears to assert, in the Applicant Argument/Remark dated December 22, 2025, that paragraph 65 of the applicant’s specification supports “determining, in a computer, and based on network-origin information included in 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” when it states “For example, if the IP address from which an HTTP request originates is associated with an ISP that provides residential service, a particular IP address may be associated with a household”. However, there is no disclosure in paragraph 65 that the HTTP request includes any information identifying the ISP provider nor whether the ISP provider typically provides residential service. While it certainly would be possible to identify the ISP provider based on the IP address that encapsulates an HTTP request using a WHOIS lookup or an ICANN lookup, the applicant has already indicated that the HTTP requests originated from IP addresses, thus if the applicant expected the IP address encapsulating the HTTP request to be used for such a determination they would have claimed “determining, in a computer, and based on the first IP address encapsulating the first HTTP request and the second IP address encapsulating the second HTTP” instead of introducing the new term “network-origin information”. As such, it is clear the “network-origin information” must be different from the IP address. Given that HTTP requests do not inherently include any information regarding the network-origin of a request, other than an IP address, and the applicant’s disclosure does not use the term “network-origin” of the phrase “network-origin information”, claims 1 and 11 clearly introduce subject matter not supported by the applicant’s disclosure.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 fail to cure all of the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
For the purpose of prosecuting the claims, the examiner is going to interpret the limitation as if it recited “determining, in a computer, and based on the first IP address encapsulating the first HTTP request and the second IP address encapsulating 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”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite: “determining, in a computer, and based on network-origin information included in 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” which is being interpreted as “determining, in a computer, and based on the first IP address encapsulating the first HTTP request and the second IP address encapsulating 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”. One or ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the applicant’s invention is able to perform this step.
First, an ISP provider that issues an IP address may know the street address to which it provides internet service which is associated with the IP address. Thus, it is possible for the first IP address and second IP address may be said to be associated with a first street address and a second street address respectfully. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the applicant’s invention could be made aware of such associated street addresses. One can attempt to perform IP-based geolocation, by sending the IP address location request to an IP-to-geolocation database. However, while these geolocation databases are generally very accurate in determining a user’s country, they usually only identify a general region or city center, rather than a street address. One might also be able to obtain such information by sending a query directly to the ISP provider requesting the street address associated with a received IP address assuming that an ISP provider would be willing to divulge such information. One might also store an IP address associated with a user when the user completes a registration form that includes their street address on a website. However, the examiner has been unable to find support for any of these methods of determining a street address associated with an IP address, or any other disclosure regarding how such street address information might be obtained. Without obtaining a street address associated with an IP address, one of ordinary skill the art would not know how the applicant’s invention could “determining, in a computer, and based on network-origin information included in 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”. The applicant’s specification defines “household” in paragraph 20 under the heading of Definitions as “A household includes all the persons who occupy a housing unit. A housing unit is 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”. As such, it would appear necessary for an identified “household” to occupy “a housing unit”. Given these definitions, one or ordinary skill would not be able to determine how the applicant’s invention can identify such a household without being able to determine the street address of the required housing unit.
Second, there are two different types of IP address, static IP address and dynamic IP addresses. When dealing with dynamic IP address, the DHCP server of the ISP provides assigns the IP address for a set period of time. While many ISPs set a 24-hour, 7-day, or 30-day lease, changes to the IP address often occur upon modem reboots, network outages, or power outages. Given the changing nature of dynamic IP addresses, one or ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the applicant’s invention can perform the step of: “determining, in a computer, and based on the first IP address encapsulating the first HTTP request and the second IP address encapsulating 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”. If dynamic IP addresses were used, it would appear that a first HTTP request from a first dynamic IP address received at a first time from a first housing unit would be determined to be a primary household, and a second HTTP request from a second dynamic IP address received at a second time from the first housing unit would be determined to be an additional household. Without some type of additional information, it would not appear to be possible to ensure that the first household and the second household are different households when dynamic IP addresses are used, unless the applicant’s invention sends a request for information regarding the street address of the currently received IP address to the ISP provider and the ISP provider provides the requested information. However, there is no support for such a communication in the applicant’s disclosure. Thus, it would appear that the applicant’s invention is intended to be performed using only static IP addresses that do not change. However, it is not possible to determine whether an IP address is a static IP address or a dynamic IP address based on the IP address itself. Thus, it would appear possible for the applicant’s invention to ensure that the primary household and the additional household are different households.
Third, if the applicant intends, as indicated in the applicant’s arguments dated December 22, 2025 that the applicant’s invention, determines households based on the IP address from which an HTTP request originates is associated with an ISP that provides residential service, then one of ordinary skill in the would not be able to determine how, given the applicant’s definition of household and housing unit, knowing that the ISP provider provides residential service could be used to “determining, in a computer, and based on the first IP address encapsulating the first HTTP request and the second IP address encapsulating 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”. If a “household” was able to be interpreted as all members that get their IP addresses from one ISP provider, then using the identity of one ISP provider that provides residential services could be used to define such a primary household, and all users that get their IP address from a different ISP provider could be determined to be a second household. However, the applicant’s definition of a household and a housing unit cannot be interpreted this broadly. Furthermore, just because an ISP provider provides residential internet services does not mean that it does not also provide other services such as business internet services to businesses. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could not determine how the applicant’s invention could be used to determine a “household” based on the applicant’s definition of a household and a housing unit.
Finally, even if one of ordinary skill in the art were to be able to figure out how the tackles preceding issues, they would not be able to figure out how the applicants invention can “determining, in a computer, and based on the first IP address encapsulating the first HTTP request and the second IP address encapsulating 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”. The applicant’s specification defines “household” in paragraph 20 under the heading of Definitions as “A household includes all the persons who occupy a housing unit. A housing unit is 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”. Thus, the term “housing unit” is defined broadly enough to encompass a group of rooms such as all of the apartments in an apartment complex and/or narrow enough to encompass an individual bedroom in a house. When a household encompasses all of the apartments in an apartment complex, one of ordinary skill in the art, would expect that each apartment in said apartment complex would have its own IP address, unless perhaps the apartment complex provides internet access to all residents of the apartment complex. In either case, they would all share the same street address (Note: the applicant’s specification does not define the term “street address”, however, Dictionary.com defines street address as: the name or number of a building along with the name of the road or street on which it is located). When a household encompasses individual bedroom in a house, one or ordinary skill in the art would expect that each of these bedrooms would have the same IP address, unless each bedroom was required to obtain its own modem. In either case, they would all share the same street address. One or ordinary skill in the art would expect that only if a household is defined as a single unit dwelling with its own unique street address could the invention determine that two or more households are households comprising a primary household and an additional household that are different households based on receipt of a first HTTP address request from a first device using a first IP address associated with a street address and receipt of a second HTTP address request from a second device using a second IP address associated with a different street address.
As such, it is clear that claims 1 and 11 are indefinite because they fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 fail to cure all of the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claims 1 and 11 also recite: “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 “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”. First, one or ordinary skill in the art not be able to determine how the applicant’s invention can perform such associating. The applicant’s invention has neither received the actual physical first device and second device, nor has it received any information indicative of the first device or second device. It would not appear possible to associate the actual physical first device and second device in the profile, and it would not appear possible to associate information identifying such devices unless said information was received in some manner. Given that HTTP requests do not inherently include device identification information, it would be impossible to determine how the applicant’s invention, given the limitations present in the claims, obtains such identification information. It appears from paragraph 67, that if the claimed computer performing the steps of the invention were a web server and the HTTP request included cookies or user IDs generated when the user registered with the website, and such a registration process required the user to input the device identifiers when registering, the applicant’s invention could associate within the profile the device identifier information. However, the claims do not require the computer to be a web server, the user to register with the web server and input device identifier information when registering, or require that the HTTP requests include the device identifier information itself, or cookies or user IDs with which such device information can be determined. While the claim indicates the receipt of device identification information it does not require that the device identification information be received in the HTTP requests or how the applicant’s invention is able to know that the separately received device identification information is information associated with the first device that issued the first HTTP request or information associated with the second device that issued the second HTTP request. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to figure out how the applicant’s invention performs the steps of “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 “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”.
As such, it is clear that claims 1 and 11 are indefinite because they fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 fail to cure all of the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite: “receiving, in the computer, from the first device over a network interface based on a third HTTP request from the first device, a location of the first device, wherein the location identifies the second street address”. One or ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the applicant’s invention is able to determine the third HTTP request is from the first device. Given, that HTTP request do not inherently include device identification information, if the user is currently at a different location with a different street address, then it would not appear to be possible for the applicant’s invention to determine that the third HTTP request came from the first device. Given, the information currently present in the claims, the only way the applicant’s invention can determine that a third HTTP request came from the first device is if: the third HTTP request came from the same IP address with the same street address as the original request or the third HTTP request includes the first device identification information or originated. Based on the specification, this could also be done based on a cookie or user ID included in the HTTP request if such information had been previously obtained by the user and/or stored on the user device. However, there is no indication in the claim that the applicant’s invention performs such steps. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the location information is obtained or how it identifies a street address. The claims neither require the user device to have GPS services, perform cellular triangulation, or any other method that might be used to obtain current location information, nor require the user device to transmits such information in the HTTP request. Additionally, as indicated in the first 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, it would not appear to be possible for the applicant’s invention to determine such street address location information based on the IP address encapsulating the HTTP request without requesting such information from the ISP provider and the ISP provider providing such information to the applicant’s invention. However, the claim do not recite performing such steps. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the applicant’s invention performs the step of “receiving, in the computer, from the first device over a network interface based on a third HTTP request from the first device, a location of the first device, wherein the location identifies the second street address”.
Thus, it is clear that claims 1 and 11 are indefinite because they fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 fail to cure all of the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite: “connecting, in the computer, the primary household with the additional household of the two or more households based on the recognizing in step (i)”. There does not appear to be a way for such a connection to be made given the information available. The additional household was determined based on an HTTP request associated with a second IP address that was issued by a second device. Thus, the additional household is a household that has the second street address. The invention has recognized that the second street address of the location information is different from the first street address of the primary household (Note: the determined primary and additional household were determined based on the IP addresses and not the street addressed, while the IP addresses were associate with street addresses there is no indication that any type of association has been made between the determined primary household and additional household and any of the street addresses). However, the invention has not determined that the second street address matches the street address of the additional household. Given, that the third HTTP request could have come from any IP address, and that the request itself includes location information identifying the street address rather than the computer determining the street address based on the IP address the third HTTP request came from, it would not appear possible to connect the primary household with the additional household based on receiving location information in an HTTP request from the first device that includes the second street address, without performing some type of additional steps.
As such, it is clear that claims 1 and 11 are indefinite because they fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 fail to cure all of the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite: “determining 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”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the applicant’s invention is able to perform this step. The claimed invention has obtained no information regarding any of the persons in the primary household or the additional household. The only information obtained is an indication that a first device is associated with a primary household; a second device is associated with an additional household, and that there is a connection between the first household and second household. The invention does not know which of the persons living in the first household, if any (e.g., could have been a visitor to the household), used to first device to issue the first request. a first device; which if any of the person living in the second household used the second device to issue the second request; or which person living in the primary household, if any (e.g., someone could have borrowed the first device), issued the third request. The invention has not performed any steps to associate any specific person with either the primary household or the additional household. The invention has not obtained any information about any person that might be associated with either the primary household or the additional household, much less any information regarding specific attributes of such persons. Compared the attributes of all persons associated with the primary household and all persons associated with the additional household, much less how the applicant’s invention performs such a comparison. Determined that there is at least one attribute of at least one person living in the additional household that is different from all of the attributes of the one or more person living in the primary residence, much less how the applicant invention makes such a determination.
As such, it is clear that claims 1 and 11 are indefinite because they fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 fail to cure all of the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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. Paragraph 67 does not require the IP address to be associated with a street address. It merely requires determine that an HTTP request originated from an ISP provider. Paragraph 66 does not support the IP address being associated with a street address it merely associated household using IP address visits. Likewise, nothing in paragraphs 67-88 requires that the IP address be associated with a street address. The applicant’s inferences suggested in the argument might make it obvious that the IP address be associated with a street address but it is not an inherent requirement. 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 not 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.
The applicant’s arguments with regards to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection is not convincing.
The applicant asserts that the specification is clear and provides ample support for households being determined based on and associated with particular IP addresses; support for different devices (regardless of the user using the device) being associated with particular households based on the IP addresses and the HTTP requests; and the concept of primary and additional households are clearly established and described throughout the specification. The examiner disagrees. The applicant appears to misconstrue the requirements under 35 USC 112(b). Under 35 USC 112(b), the question is whether the claims are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter, and not whether there is support for claimed limitation in the applicant’s disclosure. Issues with regard to the claim limitations not being supported by applicant’s disclosure are 112(a) issues. Thus, the argument is moot and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues the 35 USC 112(b) rejections are improper because it is clear that different users can use different devices and the device ID is associate with a particular device and the specification further describes how users may be registered (see paragraph 67) and thereby associated with a particular device/device ID. The examiner disagrees. Limitations of the claims themselves must clearly point out and distinctly claim the applicant’s invention. Examiner cannot read limitations of the specification into the claims during prosecution. Since, HTTP requests do no inherently include any type of device identifier or household identifiers and the claims merely purport to determine, based solely on a first HTTP request and a second HTTP request, to determine households based solely on the HTTP requests, the claim is indefinite. While paragraph 67 does support a manner in which an HTTP request could be used to identify specific devices at specific street addresses, the limitations for doing so are not present in the claims themselves. According to paragraph 67, if the claimed computer was a web server hosting a website that the user has previously registered with and provided device ID information and street address information during registration and HTTP request that included a cookie stored on the device by the website during a previous visit or a user ID for logging into the website, then such an association could be made based on the claimed HTTP requests. However, the claim does not require the computer required to be a web server; does not require the webserver to hosting a website that allows users to register; does not require the users to provide device ID information or street address information; does not generate a user ID associated with the registration information; does not create and store a cookie based on the registration information; and does not require the HTTP requests to include the cookie or a user ID. Based on the disclosure in paragraph 67, all of these additional unclaimed steps would be required to occur before the applicant’s invention could determine that two or more households are household based on the first HTTP request and the second HTTP request. As such, it is clear that the claims are indefinite because they fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention, and the rejections are maintained.
The applicant asserts that the invention is directed towards connecting different households where such households are already determined to be households and, as such, the claims need not claim the determining of the households. The examiner disagrees. In order for the claim to particularly point out and distinctly claim an invention in which such households have previously been determined, the claim would be required to have a database storing such previously determined household profiles wherein household profiles include an identifier of a cookie stored on the user device or an user ID assigned to the devices; and the HTTP request would need to include the cookie of the user ID. However, there is no indication in the claim that the requisite information for the previously determined households is stored, and there is no requirement in the claim that the HTTP requests include the requisite information for making the claimed determination. As such, it is clear that the claims are indefinite because they fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention, and the rejections are maintained.
The applicant’s argument with regard to the 35 USC 103 rejection are not convincing. Until the applicant corrects the Priority issue, the Vanderhook reference is valid prior art. Thus, the rejection has 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” 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 rejections have been maintained.
The applicant 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 human practices 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 rejections have been maintained.
The applicant that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 1 because the claims do not recite advertising strategies, marketing rules, bidding, pricing, or audience segmentation logic and as such cannot be considered advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The examiner strongly disagrees. The applicant appears to be using a much narrower definition of advertising than the dictionary definition. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines advertising as: “the action of calling something to the attention of the public especially by paid announcements”. As the applicant admits that the final step of the claim involves targeting digital media content to a user, the claim is clearly reciting advertising and the steps performed prior to said targeted are for purpose of providing said advertising. Thus, the claims have been properly categorized as “Certain Methods of Managing Human Activity” namely “commercial or legal interactions” because they recite “advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors” and any advancement obtained by practicing the claimed steps is rooted solely in the steps of the abstract idea. Improvements of this nature are improvements to an abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter (see SAP v. Investpic: 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.). Therefore, 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 by operating on network-origin information and computer memory structures. The examiner strongly disagrees. The examiner notes that the claims recite no computer memory structure other than a general-purpose computer memory, unless perhaps the applicant intends the claimed a profile to be the profiles and/or the stored associations which are both merely data used in performing the abstract idea which is merely stored in said computer memory. The applicant’s disclosure has no support for the claimed network-origin information, but such information if it were supported would be merely data used in performing the abstract idea. The device identification information and the location information are both merely data used in performing the abstract idea. The network interface is merely a generic computer component. The networked devices do nothing other than transmit and/or receive data. 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 general-purpose computers. “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 perform the abstract idea are rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computers as tools. Improvements of this nature are improvements to the abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (See SAP v. Investpic). Thus, 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 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 argued steps are all part of the abstract idea and not “additional elements” of the claim. 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 general-purpose computers. “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 perform the abstract idea are rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computers as tools. Improvements of this nature are improvements to the abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (See SAP v. Investpic). Thus, 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 do not recite merely “do it on a computer”. The examiner strongly disagrees. The claims merely recites using general-purpose computer with generic computer components as a tool to apply the abstract idea which MPEP 2106 clearly indicates is insufficient to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2. Thus, the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2 because the examiner’s element-by-element dissection is improper. The examiner strongly disagrees. The examiner has clearly examined the “additional elements” both individually and as whole and concluded that when considered individually the “additional elements” of the claim are each merely general-purpose computers with generic computer components and when considered in combination they amount to no more than one general-purpose computer performing every significant step of the abstract idea and at least two other general-purpose computer which merely perform insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, whether considered individually or as a whole the claim amounts to no more than applying an abstract idea using one or more general-purpose computers with generic computer components as a tool to merely apply the abstract idea. Thus, the method and apparatus claims fall together for 101 and recite no technical solution rooted in the “additional elements” of the claim. Any purported technical improvement is rooted solely in the abstract idea which is merely begin applied by one or more general-purpose computer with generic computer components. Improvements of this nature are improvements to the abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (See SAP v. Investpic). Thus, 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 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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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