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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Request for Continued Examination for filed on 8/28/2026 for the application No. 19/016,137. Claims 1 and 3-21 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1 and 3-21 have been rejected as follow,
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/28/2026 has been entered.
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 and 3-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1 and 3-21 are not compliant with 101, according with the last “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), published in the MPEP 2103 through 2106.07(c). Examiner’s analysis is presented below for all the claims.
As to claim 1, Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a system.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim? Yes. The claim recites the limitations of
“generating a first identifier associated with the user … wherein the first identifier is a globally unique identifier (GUID);”
The “generating” limitation, as drafted, is a process and system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The system to determine demographics of a user of a user device. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. The claim recites additional limitations, such as, “receiving a tag request based on the user viewing an advertisement on the user device;…storing the GUID and a second identifier in association with the user …; transmitting, … associated with a first Internet domain, the GUID associated with the user …, “….and receiving the demographic information for the user …”. The Examiner notes that these are limitations toward accessing or receiving data. It is merely gathering data.
The Examiner analyses other supplementary elements in the claim in view of the instant disclosure.
The Examiner notes that using independent claim 1 as an example, the claim language is claimed from the perspective of the “computing system” which is only attributable to these functions: “1) Receive tag request, 2) Generate GUID, 3) Store GUID with second identifier, 4)Transmit GUID to “another” computing system and 5) Receiving demographic information”. The other functions of the “another computer system” that is in a “first Internet domain” do not affect the functions of the “computing system” at all. A possible correction would be, a) include the other computer system as a positively claimed element or b) provide some technological specifics of how the GUID is “accessible” to the various servers including various protocols that are or are not supported by the overall system. It appears that the specification describes that these specifics are generally found within cookie protocols, but the claims themselves have no mention of cookies, much less how certain parts of the information are shareable or not. Thus, it seems that the concept in the claim is eligible but the way the claim language is worded, it makes the claim not to be eligible. The last Office Memorandum on Dec. 5, 2025 (Ex Parte Desjardins) clarifies that the Office evaluates the claims as a whole and claim language should reflect the improvement disclosed in the specification.
Therefore, the additional limitations, “wherein the GUID is usable … to map the GUID to a third identifier received from a third party, and wherein the third identifier is associated with the demographic information for the user, wherein the third identifier is set by the third-party in the first Internet domain and is accessible only to servers within the first Internet domain such that the third identifier is inaccessible to the computing system; wherein the computing system is associated with a second Internet domain outside of the first Internet domain; and wherein the GUID is accessible to servers within the first Internet domain and to servers within the second Internet domain, irrespective of Internet protocols that restrict access to the third identifier to the first Internet domain such that the GUID is passable from the second Internet domain to the first Internet domain and remains the same even if the second identifier associated with the user device is deleted or reset;”, are considered to be merely descriptive material.
The Examiner continues evaluating other supplementary elements in the claim in view of the instant disclosure: “a user device, a computing system to determine demographic information of a user of a user device, the computing system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor, cause performance of a set of operations comprising, another computing system”
These limitations comprise generic recited computer elements and software. The use of a “a globally unique identifier (GUID) ” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea because it merely reflects the use of conventional technology and amounts to only generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h).
“a user device, a computing system to determine demographic information of a user of a user device, the computing system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor, cause performance of a set of operations comprising, another computing system”.
When the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform a process. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The combination of these additional elements can also be considered no more than mere instructions “to apply” the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Also the additional elements:
“receiving a tag request based on the user viewing an advertisement on the user device;…storing the GUID and a second identifier in association with the user …; transmitting, … associated with a first Internet domain, the GUID associated with the user …, “….and receiving the demographic information for the user …”.
These are limitations toward accessing or receiving data. It is merely gathering data can be considered pre-solution and post-solution activity. The Examiner gives the broadest reasonable interpretation to the above elements. They are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Thus, the claim is ineligible because is directed to the recited judicial exception (abstract idea).
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim,
“a user device, a computing system to determine demographic information of a user of a user device, the computing system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor, cause performance of a set of operations comprising, another computing system”, mere instructions to apply an exception using generic hardware, software and data elements cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, additional limitations, such as,
“receiving a tag request based on the user viewing an advertisement on the user device;…storing the GUID and a second identifier in association with the user …; transmitting, … associated with a first Internet domain, the GUID associated with the user …, “….and receiving the demographic information for the user …”, were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Again, these are limitations toward accessing or receiving data (gathering data). Accessing or receiving data is very well understood, routine and conventional computer task activity; It represents insignificant extra solution activity. Mere data-gathering step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstaturory claim statutory In re Grams,888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794 (CCPA 1982)).
Further, the instant specification does not provide any indication that the elements
“a user device, a computing system to determine demographic information of a user of a user device, the computing system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor, cause performance of a set of operations comprising, another computing system”, are anything other than generic software and hardware, and the “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)” and the OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely computer receives and sends information over a network and presenting or displaying information, is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “a user device, a computing system to determine demographic information of a user of a user device, the computing system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor, cause performance of a set of operations comprising, another computing system”,
and also the additional elements:
“receiving a tag request based on the user viewing an advertisement on the user device;…storing the GUID and a second identifier in association with the user …; transmitting, … associated with a first Internet domain, the GUID associated with the user …, “….and receiving the demographic information for the user …”, limitations (pointed above) are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 8: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a method.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 15: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a method.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 3-7, 9-14 and 16-20, the claims recite elements such as “wherein the generating the GUID associated with the user device is based on associating the GUID with a web browser of the user device that displayed the advertisement; and wherein the set of operations further comprises determining whether the GUID associated with the web browser of the user device is stored prior to the generating”, etc. These elements do not integrate the system of organizing human activity into a practical application. The claims are ineligible.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16-17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US. PG. Pub. No. 20090293001 (Lu) in view of US. PG. Pub. No. 20100268573 (Jain).
As to claims 15, 1 and 8, Lu discloses a method to determine demographics of a user of a user device
(see at least “…Visitor information is stored in a database 60 that can then be accessed by the web server 30 operator to see the popularity and demographics of the visitors to his or her web site…”, paragraph 52), the method
a) receiving, at a first computing system, a tag request based on the user viewing an advertisement on the user device;
( “…the browser sends a request to the web site for the page. For example, if one were to type the URL http://www.amazon.com into the browser, the browser will contact Amazon's server and request its home page….”, paragraph 37-38. See also Figs. 1-2 and associated disclosure);
b) generating, at the first computing system, a first identifier associated with the user device, wherein [the first identifier is a globally unique identifier (GUID];
(“[0027] A cookie is a piece of text that a web server can store on a user's hard disk. Cookies allow a web site to store information on a user's machine and later retrieve it. The pieces of information are stored as "name-value pairs" comprised of, for instance, a variable name (e.g. UserID) and a value (e.g. A9A3BECE0563982D) associated with that variable name”, paragraph 27. See also
“[0029] The cookie above is typical of the type stored on a visitor's computer (hereinafter the client node) when visiting the web site located at the domain goto.com. The name of the name-value pair is UserID, and the value is A9A3BECE0563982D. Both the name and value of the pair are generated according to an algorithm programmed in the cookie server associated with the domain web site. The first time the client node browses the goto.com web site, software on that web site assigns a unique ID number for each visitor and instructs the browser on the client node to store the name-value pair as a cookie in a designated folder where it can be retrieved later. The same name-value pair data is stored on the goto.com cookie server along with other information so that the visitor can be identified later”, paragraph 29.
“…The computer stores the name-value pairs on its hard disk drive according to the Cookie RFC protocol…”, paragraph 38);
c) storing, at the first computing system, the GUID and a second identifier in association with the user device;
(“[0029] The cookie above is typical of the type stored on a visitor's computer (hereinafter the client node) when visiting the web site located at the domain goto.com. The name of the name-value pair is UserID, and the value is A9A3BECE0563982D. Both the name and value of the pair are generated according to an algorithm programmed in the cookie server associated with the domain web site. The first time the client node browses the goto.com web site, software on that web site assigns a unique ID number for each visitor and instructs the browser on the client node to store the name-value pair as a cookie in a designated folder where it can be retrieved later. The same name-value pair data is stored on the goto.com cookie server along with other information so that the visitor can be identified later”, paragraph 29.
“… A new cookie is generated and sent to the client node. Visitor information [second identifier ] is stored in a database 60 that can then be accessed by the web server 30 operator to see the popularity and demographics of the visitors to his or her web site…”, paragraph 52 and Fig. 3.
“..the cookies contain state information identifying that visitor (such as a unique visitor ID) [Examiner interprets as a first identifier] and other information associated with that visitor…”, paragraph 14. See also paragraphs 38-40);
d) transmitting, to a second computing system, associated with a first Internet domain (See Fig. 3 and associated disclosure), the [GUID] associated with the user device wherein the [GUID] is usable by the second computing system to map the GUID to a third identifier received from a third-party, and wherein the third identifier is associated with demographic information for the user;
(“… A new cookie is generated and sent to the client node. Visitor information [second identifier ] is stored in a database 60 that can then be accessed by the web server 30 operator to see the popularity and demographics of the visitors to his or her web site…”, paragraph 52 and Figs. 3-4.
“..the cookies contain state information identifying that visitor (such as a unique visitor ID) [Examiner interprets as a first identifier] and other information associated with that visitor…”, paragraph 14. See also paragraphs 38-40);
wherein the third identifier is set by the third-party in the first Internet domain and is accessible only to servers within the first Internet domain such that the third identifier is inaccessible to the first computing system;
(“… Visitor information is stored in a database 60 that can then be accessed by the web server 30 operator to see the popularity and demographics of the visitors to his or her web site….”, paragraph 52 and Fig. 4);
[wherein the first computing system is associated with a second Internet domain outside of the first Internet domain; and
wherein the GUID is accessible to servers within the first Internet domain and to servers within the second Internet domain, irrespective of Internet protocols that restrict access to the third identifier to the first Internet domain such that the GUID is passable from the second Internet domain to the first Internet domain and remains the same even if the second identifier associated with the user device is deleted or reset;]
e) and receiving, at the first computing system, the demographic information for the user of the user device.
(“… A new cookie is generated and sent to the client node. Visitor information [second identifier ] is stored in a database 60 that can then be accessed by the web server 30 operator to see the popularity and demographics of the visitors to his or her web site…”, paragraph 52 and Fig. 3).
Lu does not disclose but Jain discloses
the first identifier is a globally unique identifier (GUID);
(Jain that is in the business of “…a method for collecting information on a panelist's exposure to media…”, abstract. Jain’s system teaches “[0029] The web activity monitoring application collects web activities data from the user device 130 (e.g., site ID, video page URL, video file URL, start and end timestamp and any additional metadata about videosite information, URL information, time, etc.) and additionally assigns a unique ID, such as a globally unique identifier or "GUID", to each device. For the beacon 131, a unique composite ID may be assigned including a household ID ("HHID") and a unique user device ID for each device in the household (e.g., up to 10 devices for a family), as well as a portable device ID (PPMID). Panelist demographic data may be included for each web activity on the device.
[0031] The web activity monitoring and beacon applications may pass information to each other as needed. Both can upload information to a designated server for additional processing. A directory of panelists' devices is built to contain the GUID, HHID, and device ID for panel, and the directory could be used to correlate panelist demographic data and web measurement data”, paragraphs 29 and 31).
wherein the first computing system is associated with a second Internet domain outside of the first Internet domain; and
(“[0029] The web activity monitoring application collects web activities data from the user device 130 (e.g., site ID, video page URL, video file URL, start and end timestamp and any additional metadata … information, URL information, time, etc.) and additionally assigns a unique ID, such as a globally unique identifier or "GUID", to each device….”, paragraph 29)
wherein the GUID is accessible to servers within the first Internet domain and to servers within the second Internet domain, irrespective of Internet protocols that restrict access to the third identifier to the first Internet domain such that the GUID is passable from the second Internet domain to the first Internet domain and remains the same even if the second identifier associated with the user device is deleted or reset
(“[0031] The web activity monitoring and beacon applications may pass information to each other as needed. Both can upload information to a designated server for additional processing. A directory of panelists' devices is built to contain the GUID [Examiner interprets as GUID is accessible to servers within the first Internet domain and to servers within the second Internet domain], HHID, and device ID for panel, and the directory could be used to correlate panelist demographic data and web measurement data”, paragraph 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Jain’s teaching with the teaching of Lu. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to use as a first identifier a GUID in order to assign a globally unique identifier to each device in a directory of panelists’ devices (see Jain paragraphs 29-30).
The Examiner notes that per independent claim language, the claimed method is performed by a “first computing system”. In limitation d) the first computing system transmit to a second computing system the GUID. Claim language continues describing context of the “second computing system”. The “second computing system” is not positively recited in the independent claim, therefore limitations “…wherein the GUID is usable by the second computing system to map the GUID to a third identifier received from a third-party, and wherein the third identifier is associated with demographic information for the user, wherein the third identifier is set by the third-party in the first Internet domain and is accessible only to servers within the first Internet domain such that the third identifier is inaccessible to the first computing system; wherein the first computing system is associated with a second Internet domain outside of the first Internet domain; and wherein the GUID is accessible to servers within the first Internet domain and to servers within the second Internet domain, irrespective of Internet protocols that restrict access to the third identifier to the first Internet domain such that the GUID is passable from the second Internet domain to the first Internet domain and remains the same even if the second identifier associated with the user device is deleted or reset;” are considered but given no patentable weight, because it seems they are happening outside of the “first computer system”. Also, the recitation includes intended use “for” and “to” clauses. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (MPEP 2111.04). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
As to claims 16, Lu discloses comprising:
determining, prior to the generating, that the [GUID] a is not stored at the first computing system.
(LU’s system comprises “[0017] Cookie values such as the unique UserID values assigned to name-value pairs [Examiner interprets as GUID a is not stored at the first computing ] have traditionally been generated according to an algorithm stored at a cookie server and then transmitted to the client node for storage on the visitor's computer hard drive…”, paragraph 17.
“…The first time a visitor arrives, the site creates a new ID in the database and sends the ID as a cookie [Examiner interprets as GUID a is not stored at the first computing ] . The next time the user comes back, the site can increment a counter associated with that ID in the database and know how many times that visitor returns…”, paragraph 42);
Lu does not disclose but Jain discloses
the first identifier is a globally unique identifier (GUID);
(Jain that is in the business of “…a method for collecting information on a panelist's exposure to media…”, abstract. Jain’s system teaches “[0029] The web activity monitoring application collects web activities data from the user device 130 (e.g., site ID, video page URL, video file URL, start and end timestamp and any additional metadata about videosite information, URL information, time, etc.) and additionally assigns a unique ID, such as a globally unique identifier or "GUID", to each device. For the beacon 131, a unique composite ID may be assigned including a household ID ("HHID") and a unique user device ID for each device in the household (e.g., up to 10 devices for a family), as well as a portable device ID (PPMID). Panelist demographic data may be included for each web activity on the device.
[0031] The web activity monitoring and beacon applications may pass information to each other as needed. Both can upload information to a designated server for additional processing. A directory of panelists' devices is built to contain the GUID, HHID, and device ID for panel, and the directory could be used to correlate panelist demographic data and web measurement data”, paragraphs 29 and 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Jain’s teaching with the teaching of Lu. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to use as a first identifier a GUID in order to assign a globally unique identifier to each device (see Jain paragraph 29).
As to claims 17, 4 and 11, Lu discloses comprising:
Claims 17 and 4:
further comprising: transmitting to the second computing system the second identifier,. and wherein the second identifier is at least one of:
an identifier associated with an advertisement campaign, a creative identifier, a creative type identifier, a placement identifier, or an identifier associated with a publisher website.
(“[0022] FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating the interaction between a web
page server, a client node, and a third party advertisement server during web
page request transactions according to methods known in the art...”, paragraph 22.
“…FIG. 3 illustrates how a client node receives web pages from a visited
web site such as amazon.com but sends requests for and receives advertising
images from a third party such as doubleclick.com…”, paragraph 51);
Claim 11:
wherein the second identifier is a cookie set by an audience measurement entity,
(“A method and apparatus for tracking and reporting traffic activity on a web site whereby cookie data is compiled at the visitor computer using cookie processing script embedded within the web page downloaded over the Internet and operable on the visitor computer. …”, abstract).
As to claim 3, Lu discloses
wherein the generating the GUID associated with the user device is based on associating the GUID with a web browser of the user device that displayed the advertisement;(“…the browser will send all of the name-value pairs in the file to Amazon's server along with the URL. …Amazon's web server receives the cookie data and the request for a page. If name-value pairs are received, Amazon can use them”, paragraph 37).
and wherein the set of operations further comprises determining whether the GUID associated with the web browser of the user device is stored prior to the generating.
(“…The first time a visitor arrives, the site creates a new ID in the database and sends the ID as a cookie [Examiner interprets as GUID a is not stored at the first computing ] . The next time the user comes back, the site can increment a counter associated with that ID in the database and know how many times that visitor returns…”, paragraph 42);
As to claim 10, Lu discloses
wherein the transmitting occurs from a first computing system to the user device, wherein the user device is configured to transmit the[ GUID] and the second identifier to a second computing system.
(“037] The data moves in the following manner. If one were to type the URL of a web site into a computer browser, the browser sends a request to the web site for the page. For example, if one were to type the URL http://www.amazon.com into the browser, the browser will contact Amazon's server and request its home page. When the browser does this, it will look on the requesting machine for a cookie file that Amazon has set. If it finds an Amazon cookie file, the browser will send all of the name-value pairs in the file to Amazon's server along with the URL. ... Amazon's web server receives the cookie data and the request for a page. If name-value pairs are received, Amazon can use them”, paragraph 37).
Lu does not disclose but Jain discloses
the first identifier is a globally unique identifier (GUID);
(Jain that is in the business of “…a method for collecting information on a panelist's exposure to media…”, abstract. Jain’s system teaches “[0029] The web activity monitoring application collects web activities data from the user device 130 (e.g., site ID, video page URL, video file URL, start and end timestamp and any additional metadata about videosite information, URL information, time, etc.) and additionally assigns a unique ID, such as a globally unique identifier or "GUID", to each device. For the beacon 131, a unique composite ID may be assigned including a household ID ("HHID") and a unique user device ID for each device in the household (e.g., up to 10 devices for a family), as well as a portable device ID (PPMID). Panelist demographic data may be included for each web activity on the device.
[0031] The web activity monitoring and beacon applications may pass information to each other as needed. Both can upload information to a designated server for additional processing. A directory of panelists' devices is built to contain the GUID, HHID, and device ID for panel, and the directory could be used to correlate panelist demographic data and web measurement data”, paragraphs 29 and 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Jain’s teaching with the teaching of Lu. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to use as a first identifier a GUID in order to assign a globally unique identifier to each device (see Jain paragraph 29).
As to claim 13, Lu discloses
wherein the transmitting occurs from a first computing system to a second computing system.
(see element 3, “ad request + cookie” in Fig. 3 and associated disclosure).
As to claim 9, Lu does not disclose but Jain discloses
wherein the GUID is stored in association with the second identifier such that the GUID is identifiable from subsequent tag requests received from the user device.
(“… A directory of panelists' devices is built to contain the GUID, HHID, and device ID for panel, and the directory could be used to correlate panelist demographic data and web measurement data.”, paragraph 31.
“…While the techniques described above would encode and forward … data received, ….would also transmit ID information to portable device 140, which, in conjunction with PC meter 132, would subsequently merge panelist data into a common database…”, paragraph 63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Jain’s teaching with the teaching of Lu and the results would have been predictable.
As to claim 21, Lu does not disclose but Jain discloses,
wherein the set of operations further comprises transmitting, to the user device, a response to the tag request; wherein the response comprises the GUID and a uniform resource locator (URL) of the other computing system; and wherein the response further comprises instructions that cause a web browser of the user device to initiate a second communication that sends the GUID to the other computing system at the URL.
(“[0029] …. from the user device 130 (e.g., site ID, video page URL, video file URL, start and end timestamp and any additional metadata … information, URL information, time, etc.) and additionally assigns a unique ID, such as a globally unique identifier or "GUID", to each device….”, paragraph 29 and abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Jain’s teaching with the teaching of Lu. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to use as a first identifier a GUID in order to assign a globally unique identifier to each device in a directory of panelists’ devices .
The Examiner notes that per claim language, the limitation “wherein the response further comprises instructions that cause a web browser of the user device ….;” is considered but given no patentable weight because the user device is not positively recited in the independent claim 1. It is merely considered descriptive material. It seems that this limitation is performed by the user device, but the method claimed is performed by a computing system that does not comprise the user device.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US. PG. Pub. No. 20090293001 (Lu) in view of US. PG. Pub. No. 20100268573 (Jain) and in view of 20080228808 (KOBARA).
As to claims 18, 5 and 12, Lu does not disclose but KOBARA discloses
Claims 5, 18:
wherein the second identifier comprises a hash value to obscure information transmitted to a second computing system from a first computing system.
(“…identifiers corresponding to the plural fragmentary data, hash values of the plural fragmentary data by using a hash function… The identifier generation unit 33 outputs the generated identifiers (hash values)…”, paragraph 40.
Further, “[0126] In this embodiment, by virtue of the structure in which hash values are used as identifiers, there is no need to memorize (store) all deployed data patterns in order to generate, e.g. individual identifiers…”, paragraph 126).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate KOBARA’s teaching with the teaching of Lu. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to deliver hash values associated to a unique identifier in order to ensure that identifiers are not identical (see KOBARA paragraph 16 and abstract).
Claim 12:
wherein the second identifier comprises a hash value of at least one of campaign information or publisher information to obscure the campaign information or the publisher information from other entities. (KOBARA paragraph 126).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate KOBARA’s teaching with the teaching of Lu. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to deliver hash values associated to a unique identifier in order to ensure that identifiers are not identical (see KOBARA paragraph 16 and abstract).
Claims 6, 7, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US. PG. Pub. No. 20090293001 (Lu) in view of US. PG. Pub. No. 20100268573 (Jain) and in view of US PG. Pub. No. 20120072469 (Perez).
As to claims 19, 6 and 14, Lu does not disclose but Perez discloses
wherein the second computing system is associated with a third-party database proprietor, and wherein the third identifier is a cookie associated with the third-party database proprietor
“0019] In some examples, the second model is applied to third demographic data at the database proprietor and a statistical analysis is performed on the output of the second model to determine whether to adjust at least some of the third demographic data based on the statistical analysis. In some examples, the third demographic data corresponds to registered users of the database proprietor. In some examples, some of the registered users include non-panelists. In some examples, the third demographic data corresponds to users for which impressions to advertisements are logged when the advertisements are rendered on computers of the users”, paragraph 19. See also paragraph 55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate Perez’s teaching with the teaching of Lu. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to use cookie-logging to tracked media content (Perez paragraph 55).
As to claims 20 and 7, Lu discloses
wherein the generating the GUID associated with the user device is based on associating the GUID with a web browser of the user device that displayed the advertisement;
(“[0022] FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating the interaction between a web page server, a client node, and a third party advertisement server during web page request transactions according to methods known in the art”, paragraph 22 and Fig. 3);
wherein the web browser is associated with a uniform resource locator (URL); and wherein the transmitting, to the second computing system, is based on the URL.
(“037] The data moves in the following manner. If one were to type the URL of a web site into a computer browser, the browser sends a request to the web site for the page. For example, if one were to type the URL http://www.amazon.com into the browser, the browser will contact Amazon's server and request its home page. When the browser does this, it will look on the requesting machine for a cookie file that Amazon has set. If it finds an Amazon cookie file, the browser will send all of the name-value pairs in the file to Amazon's server along with the URL. If it finds no cookie file, it will send no cookie data. Amazon's web server receives the cookie data and the request for a page. If name-value pairs are received, Amazon can use them”, paragraph 37).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 8/28/2026 have been very carefully considered but are not persuasive.
Rejection under 35 USC 101 is withdrawn because the prima facie of unpatentability established in this case.
Applicant argues (remarks 8-11)
2. Response to the § 101 Rejections
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to a judicial
exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly
more. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
A. Step 2A, Prong One:
The Office Action has alleged that the claims recite an abstract idea in the form of certain
"methods of organizing human activity, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors."
Office Action, p. 3. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The mapping recited by claim 1 as amended
is a machine-to-machine operation on identifiers, occurring after the user has viewed the
advertisement, that organizes no human behavior: it is not a fundamental economic practice,
involves no commercial or legal interaction between parties, and directs no person to do anything.
Moreover, the language the Examiner quoted when identifying the alleged exception does not
correspond to previously presented claims 1, 8, or 15. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the
claims do not recite an abstract idea.
In response the Examiner asserts that the claims as a whole, were analyzed to evaluate 101 subject matter eligibility. Because the facially sufficient analysis above, to determine patent eligibility, the claims cover performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity, the system to determine demographics of a user of a user device. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea, which is a judicial exception.
B. Step 2A, Prong Two:
Even assuming for the sake of argument that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, amended
claim 1 integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. As amended, claim 1
now recites:….
These limitations reflect the technical problem and solution described in the specification.
The specification explains that "[t]he protocols of the Internet make cookies inaccessible outside
of the domain (e.g., Internet domain, domain name, etc.) on which they were set. Thus, a cookie
set in the HFZlaw.com domain is accessible to servers in the HFZlaw.com domain, but not to
servers outside that domain." As-Filed Specification, ,i [0032]. The specification further explains
that "a problem is presented as to how to access the data of the database proprietors" given "the
technical restrictions imposed by the Internet protocols that prevent the audience measurement
entity from accessing cookies set by the database proprietor." Id at ,i [0033]. The specification
discloses that "a GUID is an identifier that is not susceptible to the Internet cookie security
procedures and, thus, can be passed from domain to domain" and that "an advantage of using the
GUID 1702 is that it stays the same even if the AME cookie 208 is deleted or reset." Id at ,i [0125]
and ,i [0127].
The amended claims recite this specific technical solution: a GUID that is accessible to
servers in both the first and second Internet domains "irrespective oflnternet protocols that restrict
access to the third identifier to the first Internet domain," such that the GUID is passable across
domains and remains stable even if the second identifier is deleted or reset. This is not a generic
recitation of computer components or mere data gathering. Rather, it is a specific technical
mechanism that overcomes the domain-based access restrictions inherent in Internet cookie
protocols.
In response the Examiner asserts that using independent claim 1 as an example, the claim language is claimed from the perspective of the “computing system” which is only attributable to these functions: “1) Receive tag request, 2) Generate GUID, 3) Store GUID with second identifier, 4)Transmit GUID to “another” computing system and 5) Receiving demographic information”. The other functions of the “another computer system” that is in a “first Internet domain” do not affect the functions of the “computing system” at all. A possible correction would be, a) include the other computer system as a positively claimed element or b) provide some technological specifics of how the GUID is “accessible” to the various servers including various protocols that are or are not supported by the overall system. It appears that the specification describes that these specifics are generally found within cookie protocols, but the claims themselves have no mention of cookies, much less how certain parts of the information are shareable or not. Thus, it seems that the concept in the claim is eligible but the way the claim language is worded, it makes the claim not to be eligible. The last Office Memorandum on Dec. 5, 2025 (Ex Parte Desjardins) clarifies that the Office evaluates the claims as a whole and claim language should reflect the improvement disclosed in the specification.
Therefore, the additional limitations, “wherein the GUID is usable … to map the GUID to a third identifier received from a third party, and wherein the third identifier is associated with the demographic information for the user, wherein the third identifier is set by the third-party in the first Internet domain and is accessible only to servers within the first Internet domain such that the third identifier is inaccessible to the computing system; wherein the computing system is associated with a second Internet domain outside of the first Internet domain; and wherein the GUID is accessible to servers within the first Internet domain and to servers within the second Internet domain, irrespective of Internet protocols that restrict access to the third identifier to the first Internet domain such that the GUID is passable from the second Internet domain to the first Internet domain and remains the same even if the second identifier associated with the user device is deleted or reset;”, are considered to be merely descriptive material.
The MPEP recognizes that claims may integrate a judicial exception into a practical
application when they recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other
technology or technical field. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(l). Here, the amended claims recite a
technology-based solution to the Internet-centric problem of cross-domain cookie inaccessibility
by using a GUID that operates "irrespective of the Internet protocols that restrict access to the third
identifier to the first Internet domain." This is not merely applying an abstract idea to a generic
computer; it is a specific technical solution to a specific technical problem rooted in Internet
architecture.
The Office Action's analysis characterizes the additional elements as "generic recited
computer elements and software" and "insignificant extra-solution activity." Office Action, pp. 3-
4. However, amended claim 1 specifies a particular technical architecture in which the GUID
bridges two Internet domains despite the protocol-based restrictions that confine the third identifier
to a single domain. Considering the claim as a whole, this combination of elements reflects the
improvement described in the specification. Accordingly, Applicant submits that claim 1 as
amended integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application and is patent eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two.
c. Step 2B:
Even assuming for the sake of argument that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, the
claim as amended recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged
abstract idea. The Office Action has alleged that the additional elements amount to no more than
mere instructions to apply the exception using generic hardware and software and are well understood, routine, and conventional activity. Office Action, pp. 5-6. A conclusion that an
additional element is well-understood, routine, conventional activity requires a factual
determination. See Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed.
Cir. 2018); MPEP § 2106.05(d). An additional element that is known in the art can still be
unconventional or non-routine. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I). The Office Action's Berkheimer
Option 2 finding rests on the MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) decisions concerning a computer generically receiving and sending information over a network, but those decisions do not address a GUID that crosses Internet domains despite the protocols confining the third identifier to one domain. The cross-domain limitations therefore represent an unconventional, non-generic combination of elements amounting to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Accordingly, Applicant submits that amended claim 1 recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea and is patent eligible under Step 2B.
See answer to above allegation. It seems that the concept in the claim is eligible but the way the claim language is worded, it makes the claim not to be eligible. The last Office Memorandum on Dec. 5, 2025 (Ex Parte Desjardins) clarifies that the Office evaluates the claims as a whole and claim language should reflect the improvement disclosed in the specification.
Applicant argues (remarks 11-12)
3. Response to the § 103 Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly
being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0293001 to Lu et al. ("Lu") in view of U.S. Pub. No.
… Claims 2 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
allegedly being unpatentable over Lu in view of Jain and in further view of U.S. Pub. No.
2008/0244076 to Shah et al. ("Shah"). Claim 2 is canceled by the present paper; accordingly, the
rejection is moot as to claim 2. Claims 5, 12, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
allegedly being anticipated by Lu in view of Jain and in further view of U.S. Pub. No.
2008/0228808 to Kobara et al. ("Kobara"). 1 Claims 6, 7, 14, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being anticipated by Lu in view of Jain and in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0072469 to Perez et al
Without acquiescing in the Examiner's position, and for the purposes of expediting
prosecution, Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 to further articulate the
distinction between the pending application and the cited references, obviating the rejections.
When evaluating a claim to determine obviousness, the subject matter of the claim as a
whole must be evaluated. See 35 U.S.C. § 103. Thus, when evaluating a claim for determining
obviousness, all limitations of the claim must be evaluated. Further, MPEP § 2143.03 states that
…. words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the
prior art." Quoting In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970).
In response the Examiner asserts that all the limitations have been considered . Using Independent claim 15 as example, the Examiner notes that per claim language, the claimed method is performed by a “first computing system”. In limitation d) the first computing system transmit to a second computing system the GUID. Claim language continues describing context of the “second computing system”. The “second computing system” is not positively recited in the independent claim, therefore limitations “…wherein the GUID is usable by the second computing system to map the GUID to a third identifier received from a third-party, and wherein the third identifier is associated with demographic information for the user, wherein the third identifier is set by the third-party in the first Internet domain and is accessible only to servers within the first Internet domain such that the third identifier is inaccessible to the first computing system; wherein the first computing system is associated with a second Internet domain outside of the first Internet domain; and wherein the GUID is accessible to servers within the first Internet domain and to servers within the second Internet domain, irrespective of Internet protocols that restrict access to the third identifier to the first Internet domain such that the GUID is passable from the second Internet domain to the first Internet domain and remains the same even if the second identifier associated with the user device is deleted or reset;” are considered but given no patentable weight, because it seems they are happening outside of the “first computer system”. Also, the recitation includes intended use “for” and “to” clauses. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (MPEP 2111.04). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
In the way the independent claim is worded, it is disclosed by the prior art of record. There is not novelty in the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG. PUB. No. 20090168995 Systems and Methods of Information/Network Processing Consistent with Creation, Encryption and/or Insertion of UIDs/Tag.
This publication discloses “Embodiments are directed to a system and method of generating a global unique identifier (GUID) associated with web/network-related requests. In the context of processing a web-bound request associated with a browsing session, the method comprises receiving information associated with a device that initiated a web-bound request, extracting non-personal/device information during MAC/network layer processing, and creating an anonymous GUID based on the non-personal/device information. The GUID may be implemented as an alphanumeric string that is least partially encrypted and inserted in an extensible location of the HTTP data. The non-personal/device information includes one or more of data associated with a device/user, data related to the device, software on the device, or any user/input data that is resident on the device. The global persistence of the GUID is enabled as a function of extraction of non-personal/device data during MAC/network layer processing.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA VICTORIA VANDERHORST whose telephone number is (571)270-3604. The examiner can normally be reached on business hours from Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashraf Waseem can be reached on 571-270-3948. 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.
/MARIA V VANDERHORST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621 9/5/2026
Prosecution Insights