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 application No. 19/016,137, filed on 03/05/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-20 have been rejected as follow,
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 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 “ …wherein the GUID and the second identifier are usable by the second computing system to map the GUID to a third identifier, and wherein the third identifier is associated with demographic information for the user;”The “map” 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 associated in association
with the user device; transmitting, …, the GUID associated with the user device and the second identifier,… and receiving demographic information for the user of the user device.” 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: “a user device, the computing system comprising: a processor; thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor, cause and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored performance of a set of operations…other computing system; generating first identifier associated with the user device, wherein the first identifier is a globally unique identifier (GUID);received from a third party”. 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).
The combination of these additional elements can also be considered no more than mere instructions “to apply” the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
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, the computing system comprising: a processor; thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor, cause and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored performance of a set of operations…other computing system; generating first identifier associated with the user device, wherein the first identifier is a globally unique identifier (GUID);received from a third party”, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic hardware and software cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B.
Here, the limitations:
“a user device, the computing system comprising: a processor; thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor, cause and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored performance of a set of operations…other computing system; generating first identifier associated with the user device, wherein the first identifier is a globally unique identifier (GUID);received from a third party”, 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.
Other limitations in the claim, such as:
“receiving a tag request based on the user viewing an advertisement on the user device; storing the GUID and a second identifier associated in association
with the user device; transmitting, …, the GUID associated with the user device and the second identifier,… and receiving demographic information for the user of the user device.” 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, the computing system comprising: a processor; thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor, cause and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored performance of a set of operations…other computing system; generating first identifier associated with the user device, wherein the first identifier is a globally unique identifier (GUID);received from a third party”, 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, the computing system comprising: a processor; thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor, cause and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored performance of a set of operations…other computing system; generating first identifier associated with the user device, wherein the first identifier is a globally unique identifier (GUID);received from a third party”, 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 computer-readable storage medium.
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 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20, the claims recite elements such as “remains
the same when a cookie associated with the user device is deleted or reset.”, 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, 10-11, 13, 15, 16-17 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, 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 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);
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).
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 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).
Claims 2 and 9 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) in view of US. PG. Pub. No. 20080244076 (Shah).
As to claims 2 and 9, Lu does not disclose but Shah discloses
Claim 2:
wherein the GUID remains the same when a cookie associated with the user device is deleted or reset.
(“…Subsequent communication between the first RCD component 125B and the router or network management component sets the stage for operations of generating UIDs as well as inserting UIDs/tags into web-bound requests, as set forth herein. For example, methods of, first, generating global unique identifiers associated with web/network-related requests may comprise, in the context of processing a web-bound request associated with a browsing session, receiving information associated with a device that initiated a web-bound request, extracting non-personal/device information during MAC/network layer processing, wherein 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, and/or any user/input data that is resident on the device, and creating a persistent, anonymous UID based on the non-personal/device information. Further, enablement of a globally persistent UID (GUID) correlates as a function of the extraction of non-personal/device data during MAC/network layer processing….”, paragraph 26.
“…The network based processing of these data and insertion processes makes the identification and classification of the user/user-device anonymous and persistent, especially when compared to cookies implemented at Layer 7/Application Layer, as used by existing web-serving technologies…”, paragraph 59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate Shah’s teaching with the teaching of Lu. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to offer persistence in order to support web-serving (Shah paragraph 59).
Claim 9:
wherein the GUID remains the same when a cookie associated with the
user device is deleted or reset,
(Shah discloses , “…Moreover, with increasing concerns about privacy and data security, a large number of users routinely delete cookies and other tracking information stored on their computers making such targeting decisions difficult, if not impossible….”, paragraph 8.
“…For example, methods of, first, generating global unique identifiers associated with web/network-related requests may comprise, in the context of processing a web-bound request associated with a browsing session, receiving information associated with a device that initiated a web-bound request, extracting non-personal/device information during MAC/network layer processing, wherein 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, and/or any user/input data that is resident on the device, and creating a persistent, anonymous UID based on the non-personal/device information…”, paragraph 26).
and wherein the GUID is not susceptible to cookie security procedures and is passable from a first Internet domain to a second Internet domain outside of the first Internet domain.
(Shah discloses, “…Moreover, with increasing concerns about privacy and data security, a large number of users routinely delete cookies and other tracking information stored on their computers making such targeting decisions difficult, if not impossible….”, paragraph 8; “…During this process, the HTTP requests being made will pass through the carrier NOC 204. Standard HTTP requests include various content fields, such as headers and data fields. ..”, paragraph 37; “… data is then passed back to the destination site in any type of appropriate format accepted by the destination site, that is, zip code, address, text description of user profile, and so on….”, paragraph 47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate Shah’s teaching with the teaching of Lu. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to offer persistence in order to support web-serving (Shah paragraph 59).
Claims 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by 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
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).
Claims 6, 7, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by 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 03/05/2026 have been very carefully considered but are not persuasive.
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment to the specification.
Rejection of claims 1- 20 under 35 USC 112 (second) is withdrawn because applicant’s amendment.
Applicant's remarks are based on the newly amended claims and such arguments are fully addressed in the present Office Action as featured above.
Applicant argues (8-10)
4. 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. Specifically, the Office Action states that the claims "cover[] performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity, advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors." Office Action, p. 4. Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that amended claim I is not directed to an abstract idea, or in the alternative, integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
In response the Examiner asserts that the 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG) dictates that examiners must analyze the entire claim as a whole to evaluate 101 subject matter eligibility. The claims are exclusively used for this analysis because they dictate the scope of the invention's physical or functional limitations. Because the facially sufficient analysis above 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.
Step 2A, Prong One: The Claims Do Not Recite an Abstract Idea
The Office Action alleges that the claims recite an abstract idea, and in particular "covers
performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity, advertising,
marketing or sales activities or behaviors." Office Action, p. 4. According to the MPEP, "[t]he term 'certain' qualifies the 'certain methods of organizing human activity' grouping as a reminder that ... this grouping is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of
fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing
personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people, and is not to be expanded
beyond those enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances." See 2106.04(a)(2)(11). Put simply, claim I does not tell people how to behave, what to buy, or how to interact. Claim I covers a technical process that happens after a human activity (viewing an advertisement) has occurred. Therefore, claim I does not fall under the enumerated categories provided in the Office Action, and therefore is not an abstract idea
In response the Examiner asserts that the facially sufficient analysis above concludes that the claims comprise an abstract idea which is a judicial exception. “The system to determine demographics of a user of a user device”. The abstract idea is not Integrated into a Practical Application because the other elements in the claims beside the abstract idea, only comprise generic recited computer elements and software. The other elements in this case, “a user device, the computing system comprising: a processor; thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor, cause and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored performance of a set of operations…other computing system; generating first identifier associated with the user device, wherein the first identifier is a globally unique identifier (GUID);received from a third party”. These elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea because they merely reflect the use of conventional technology. The instant claims are not patent protection eligible.
II. Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that claim I is directed to an abstract idea, claim I
satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility for the additional reason that the claim as a whole
integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
One way to demonstrate integration into a practical application is by showing the invention
improves another technology or technical field. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2). The specification
discloses that the present invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem, namely,
by improving the field of digital audience measurement by solving the problem of accurate
demographic attribution in a networked environment.
The December 5, 2025 USPTO Memorandum regarding Ex Parte Desjardins reminds
examiners not to dismiss additional elements as mere generic computer components without
considering if they confer a technological improvement. See Deputy Commissioner for Patents,
Charles Kim's Memorandum of December 5, 2025, "Advance notice of change to the MPEP in
In response to overcome 101 rejection the claims must show that they recite a concrete, practical application that integrates an "inventive concept," In this case, it seems that the applicant wants that the Examiner imports limitations from the specification into the claims. The instant claims lacks of enough specific technical detail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The December 5, 2025 USPTO Memorandum regarding Ex Parte Desjardins reminds
examiners not to dismiss additional elements as mere generic computer components without
considering if they confer a technological improvement. See Deputy Commissioner for Patents,
Charles Kim's Memorandum of December 5, 2025, "Advance notice of change to the MPEP in
light of Ex Parte Desjardins," p. 4. In Desjardins, the benefits such as reduced storage, reduced
system complexity, and streamlining were credited as technological improvements. Similar to
the improvements in Desjardins, claim 1 reflects a specific improvement in how demographic data is attributed to media impressions using a multi-identifier mapping system in a multi-domain digital environment. This automated functionality provides a particular solution to a technological problem-not a broad, desired outcome-by streamlining how audience measurement entities sync data with third-party proprietors and ultimately measure who viewed an advertisement without compromising privacy. See Desjardins Memo, p. 2; see also Pending Application, ,i,i [0032]-[0033], and [0125]. Accordingly, Applicant submits that amended claim 1 is eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In Desjandins, were evaluated the claims as a whole in discerning at least the limitation “adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task” reflected the improvement disclosed in the specification. In this case the instant claims do not reflect in detail any improvement disclosed in the specification.
arguments regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 are moot in light of the above new grounds of rejection.
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.”
Applicants’ 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 M-F 8-4 hours from 9:00 AM-4:00 PM ET.
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 5/22/2026
Prosecution Insights