Prior art — US Patent 10984445

As a senior US patent analyst, I have reviewed the prosecution history and relevant documentation for US patent 10,984,445 to identify the most relevant prior art. The patent is a continuation of several earlier applications, with the earliest priority date being June 19, 2006, from provisional application 60/805,114. Therefore, any reference published before this date is considered prior art.

The following analysis details the key prior art references cited by the USPTO examiner during the prosecution of the parent application (U.S. Pat. No. 8,280,758), which are directly relevant to the claims of patent 10,984,445.

Analysis of Prior Art

The core invention claimed in US 10,984,445, particularly in independent claim 1, involves a "profile owner" system that collects user profiles from various "profile suppliers." This system then selects a "media property" (e.g., a website) that has requested a certain type of profile. Upon finding a match between a user's profile and a media property's request, the system arranges for the user to be tagged in a way the media property can read. The media property then uses this tag to access the profile and deliver a targeted advertisement. The key prior art challenges the novelty of this specific workflow.

1. US 2005/0216353 A1 ("Scriffignano")

Full Citation: US Patent Application Publication 2005/0216353 A1, "System and method for identifying consumer interest from online consumer activity".
Assignee: Vertrue Incorporated
Dates: Filed March 25, 2004; Published September 29, 2005.
Brief Description: Scriffignano discloses a system that monitors a consumer's online activities (e.g., sites visited, search terms) across a network of websites to create a "consumer interest profile." This profile is stored in a central data warehouse and associated with a unique identifier (like a cookie). The system explicitly states that this "consumer interest information is provided to online advertisers or merchants" so they can present targeted advertisements. Merchants can subscribe or request to be notified when a consumer shows a particular interest.
Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: This reference is highly relevant and potentially anticipates the key elements of claim 1.
- Claim 1(a): Scriffignano describes a central system that stores consumer profiles linked to a tag (a cookie), which matches the concept of a central database with tagged profile information.
- Claim 1(b): The system functions as a "profile owner," collecting data from a network of websites ("profile suppliers"). Crucially, it allows merchants ("media property entities") to submit requests for specific consumer interests. The system compares a consumer's profile to these stored requests and, upon a match, provides the consumer interest information to the requesting merchant. This directly teaches the claimed steps of selecting a media property based on a comparison and arranging for that property to receive the requested profile linked to the user's tag.
- Claim 1(c): Once the merchant has received the profile information, they can use it to deliver a targeted advertisement when the consumer next visits their site. This directly maps to the final steps of claim 1.
Conclusion: Scriffignano appears to disclose the full workflow of claim 1, including the crucial step of a profile owner providing collected profiles to third-party media properties based on their specific requests.

2. US 2002/0087595 A1 ("Chitkara")

Full Citation: US Patent Application Publication 2002/0087595 A1, "System and method for targeting advertisements".
Assignee: 24/7 Media, Inc.
Dates: Filed December 28, 2000; Published July 4, 2002.
Brief Description: Chitkara describes a centralized "targeting service provider" that collects user behavior data from a network of publisher websites. This data is used to create user profiles, stored in a central database and linked by cookies. Advertisers or publishers provide targeting criteria for their ad campaigns. When a user visits a publisher site, the service provider's system identifies the user via their cookie, retrieves their profile, and serves a targeted ad that matches the campaign criteria.
Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Chitkara discloses many elements of claim 1 but may differ in one key aspect.
- Claims 1(a) and 1(c): The system clearly teaches storing visitor profiles in a central database linked by a tag (claim 1(a)) and later using that tag and profile to deliver a targeted ad (claim 1(c)).
- Claim 1(b): The system compares user profiles against stored requests (ad campaign criteria). However, Chitkara's model appears to be a closed, centralized ad network where the "targeting service provider" uses the profiles to serve ads on behalf of advertisers across its network. It does not explicitly describe selecting a media property and providing the profile to that property for its own independent use. The patent in suit, '445, claims a model where the media property receives the profile itself. This distinction, while subtle, may be sufficient to avert a finding of direct anticipation under § 102.
Conclusion: While highly relevant, Chitkara likely does not anticipate claim 1 because it describes a centralized ad server that retains and uses the profiles, rather than distributing them to the media properties themselves as claimed in '445.

3. US 2002/0128911 A1 ("Sloan")

Full Citation: US Patent Application Publication 2002/0128911 A1, "Consumer profiling and targeting system and method".
Assignee: Coolsavings.com Inc.
Dates: Filed March 8, 2001; Published September 12, 2002.
Brief Description: Sloan details a central "profiling system" that aggregates consumer data from multiple sources into a profile database, with each profile linked to a unique identifier (tag). Marketers can define a target audience by specifying profile attributes. The system then identifies consumers who match the target definition and delivers targeted content to them on partner websites.
Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Sloan's disclosure is similar to Chitkara's and presents a similar challenge to the claims of '445.
- Claims 1(a) and 1(c): Sloan teaches the central storage of tagged profiles (claim 1(a)) and the subsequent use of those profiles to deliver targeted content (claim 1(c)).
- Claim 1(b): The system compares consumer profiles against marketer-defined "target definitions" (stored requests). Like Chitkara, Sloan's system appears to be a centralized service that identifies matching consumers and then delivers ads to them on the marketer's behalf. It does not explicitly teach the step of providing the profile data itself to the marketer or media property for their own use. The "profiling system" retains control of the profiles.
Conclusion: For the same reasons as Chitkara, Sloan is highly relevant but likely does not fully anticipate claim 1. The potential novelty of '445 lies in the specific step of distributing the collected profiles to the interested media properties, a step not clearly disclosed in Sloan.