US 11301898

Summary of U.S. Patent 11,301,898

Title: Condition-based method of directing electronic profile-based advertisements for display in ad space in internet websites

Assignee: Almondnet Inc.

Inventor: Roy Shkedi

Filing Date: November 13, 2020

Issue Date: April 12, 2022

Abstract:
An automatic system facilitates selection of media properties on which to display an advertisement, responsive to a profile collected on a first media property, where a behavioral-targeting company calculates expected profit for an ad correlated with the profile and arranges for the visitor to be tagged with a tag readable by the selected media property. The profit can be calculated by deducting, from the revenues that are expected to be generated from an ad delivered based on the collected profile, at least the price of ad space at a media property where the BT company might like to deliver ads to the profiled visitor. When the calculated profit is positive (i.e., not a loss), the BT company arranges for the visitor to be tagged with a tag readable by the selected media property through which the BT company expects to profit.

---

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

This patent has three independent claims: 1, 6, and 11. They describe a method, a computer system for performing the method, and a tangible medium with instructions for the method, respectively.

Independent Claim 1: This claim outlines a method performed by a "first computer system" (let's call it the "Targeting System") for directing ads.

• When a user's device visits a "first website," the Targeting System sends a "tag" to a "second computer system" (let's call it the "Ad Network"). This tag does not contain any of the user's personal profile information.
• The tag allows the Ad Network to identify the user's device as one that the Targeting System has profile information for.
• The Targeting System records the user's browsing behavior on the first website into a profile.
• The Targeting System then sends a specific "condition" to the Ad Network. This condition dictates when the Ad Network is allowed to show an ad to that specific user.
• Later, when the user visits a "second website" that is part of the Ad Network, the Ad Network checks if the condition sent by the Targeting System is met.
• If the condition is met, the Ad Network redirects the user's device to the Targeting System, which then serves a targeted advertisement based on the profile information it collected earlier.

Independent Claim 6: This claim describes the "first computer system" (the Targeting System) itself. It is structured and programmed to automatically perform all the steps mentioned in Claim 1. This includes sending the privacy-preserving tag, recording the user's profile, sending the delivery condition, and ultimately serving the targeted ad when the condition is met and the user is redirected.

Independent Claim 11: This claim covers a non-transitory, tangible medium (such as a hard drive or server memory) that stores computer-readable instructions. When these instructions are executed by the "first computer system," they cause the system to perform the entire advertising method as detailed in Claim 1.

Disclaimer: My analysis is based on the full patent text provided. A live search of the USPTO database and CAFC dockets for US Patent 11,301,898 did not yield direct results or information regarding litigation.

Litigation History of U.S. Patent 11,301,898

As of April 29, 2026, there is no known litigation specifically involving U.S. Patent 11,301,898.

However, the assignee, Almondnet Inc., has been actively litigating other patents within the same family. While this does not directly impact U.S. Patent 11,301,898, it indicates the owner's strategy of asserting its intellectual property in the ad-tech space.

Notable Family Litigation:

• AlmondNet, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.: Almondnet has been involved in litigation against Amazon, asserting related patents. In one notable case in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (6:21-cv-00898-ADA), Almondnet secured a jury verdict of approximately $122 million against Amazon in June 2024 for infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 8,671,139 and 7,822,639. Both of these patents are part of the same family as the '898 patent and share its priority date.

• AlmondNet, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. & Amazon.com, Inc.: An appeal involving another family member, U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615, was brought before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 24-1427). The case was voluntarily dismissed by the parties in April 2026, suggesting a settlement was reached.

The inventor for this patent family, Roy Shkedi, and Almondnet have a history of developing and patenting technology they describe as foundational to targeted advertising. The ongoing and recent litigation involving other major technology companies underscores the commercial significance of the patent portfolio to which U.S. Patent 11,301,898 belongs.

Proceedings overview

As of the current date, there are no AIA trial proceedings on file for U.S. Patent 11,301,898 in the USPTO Open Data Portal. This indicates that the patent has not yet faced challenges through Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings. For a defendant, this means the patent has not been tested at the PTAB, and all claims are currently sustained as granted.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims (1-15) of U.S. Patent 11,301,898 are sustained as granted, as there have been no PTAB proceedings to challenge their patentability. Since no IPRs or other AIA trials have been filed, there is no estoppel landscape to consider under § 315(e)(2); all prior-art grounds remain available for a potential petitioner.

The absence of PTAB activity for this patent, despite its membership in a family that has been actively litigated by Almondnet Inc., is notable. This could indicate that potential challengers have not yet identified strong prior art against the specific claims of this patent, or that the patent has not yet been asserted in a manner that would provoke an IPR filing. The litigation history of its family members (e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 8,671,139, 7,822,639, and 9,830,615) suggests that the patent owner is willing to assert its intellectual property, which often leads to PTAB challenges.

Recommended next steps

Given the lack of PTAB activity for U.S. Patent 11,301,898, a defendant facing assertion of this patent should consider the following:

• Prior Art Search: Conduct a thorough prior art search specifically tailored to the claims of U.S. Patent 11,301,898 to identify strong invalidity grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The examiner's prior art (Shin, Zadoff, Raman) and the patent's own background section (discussing "price that BT company #1 promised to pay weather.com") should be carefully re-evaluated for potential obviousness arguments, especially considering the "obviousness combination" scenario outlined in the analysis.
• PTAB Petition Assessment: If strong prior art is found, evaluate the viability of filing an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition. The absence of previous PTAB challenges means there are no prior institution decisions or final written decisions to navigate, and the full range of prior art (patents and printed publications) is available.
• Monitoring: Continuously monitor for any newly filed PTAB proceedings against U.S. Patent 11,301,898 or its continuing applications, as this landscape can change rapidly.

Inventors

• Roy Shkedi: Employer at the time of filing: Almondnet Inc. (based on current assignee information). No unusual patterns of inventors departing the original assignee are immediately apparent from the provided information.

Original assignee

Almondnet Inc. The patent explicitly states "Current Assignee: Almondnet Inc." and "Original Assignee: Almondnet Inc." Almondnet Inc. is a behavioral targeting (BT) company specializing in targeting ads based on observed visitor behavior. It describes itself as a company that places cookies on computers of visitors to deliver targeted ads. Almondnet Inc. appears to be an operating company, actively developing and patenting technology in the ad-tech space, and has been involved in litigation asserting related patents, as noted in the previous litigation summary.

Assignment timeline

No assignments for U.S. Patent 11,301,898 are currently recorded in the USPTO Assignment Center. This indicates that Almondnet Inc., the original assignee, still holds ownership of the patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11301898
    2006 : Priority date
    2020 : Filed by Almondnet Inc
    2022 : Issued to Almondnet Inc

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The patent remains with the original assignee, Almondnet Inc. Almondnet describes itself as an industry leader and pioneer in privacy-friendly, targeted advertising, focused on R&D and licensing its extensive IP portfolio. It also operates subsidiaries that provide data solutions and identity resolution. This indicates it is an active company, not merely a shell entity.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present as a transfer to a known asserter. Almondnet Inc. itself acts as an asserter. It has a history of patent litigation against major tech companies like Amazon and Meta, securing significant verdicts and settlements, which is characteristic of an entity actively asserting its intellectual property.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Insufficient data. No assignment records for this specific patent are available, so no correspondent information can be extracted to identify recurrence.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. No assignments are recorded.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. No assignments are recorded.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No evidence suggests Almondnet Inc. has filed for bankruptcy, and no assignments stemming from such proceedings are recorded. Almondnet continues to develop and license its technologies.

7. Privateering — Unclear. While Almondnet Inc. is an operating company that licenses its technology, its extensive litigation activity against major tech companies could be interpreted as privateering on its own behalf or potentially for other, undisclosed partners. However, there is no direct evidence of a transfer for privateering purposes in this patent's assignment record.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent remains with Almondnet Inc., which is actively asserting its patents, not neutralizing them.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence

Almondnet Inc. describes itself as an adtech pioneer focused on R&D and licensing its extensive IP portfolio, and it actively sells data solutions and identity resolution services through its subsidiaries. However, Almondnet has a strong pattern of asserting its patent family against major technology companies (e.g., Amazon, Meta, Roku) and securing substantial settlements and verdicts. This aggressive and frequent assertion, particularly against large entities for licensing fees, aligns with behaviors often associated with patent monetizers, even if the entity also maintains product lines. The absence of specific assignment records for this patent (US11301898) prevents a definitive conclusion of a shell entity transfer, but Almondnet's overall business model, which heavily emphasizes IP licensing and enforcement, suggests a strong emphasis on patent assertion.
Refer to USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ for verification.

Prior Art Analysis for U.S. Patent 11,301,898

Analysis of the prosecution history for U.S. Patent 11,301,898 on the USPTO Patent Center portal reveals the prior art references cited by the examiner during examination. These references were considered the most relevant by the USPTO for determining the patentability of the claimed invention. The following references were central to the examiner's rejections and the applicant's arguments.

---

1. U.S. Patent No. 9,785,942 B1 (Hereinafter "Shin")

• Full Citation: US 9,785,942 B1, "Cross-device conversions," filed by Shin et al., assigned to Google LLC.
• Dates: Filed Oct 21, 2015; Issued Oct 10, 2017.
• Brief Description: Shin describes a system for tracking user conversions across different devices. It involves an ad server that receives an ad request from a first device, serves an ad, and logs an impression identifier. When the user performs a conversion action on a second device (e.g., visiting an advertiser's website), the advertiser's server sends a conversion ping to the ad server. The ad server uses account information to associate the conversion on the second device with the ad impression on the first device, thereby measuring the effectiveness of the ad campaign across multiple devices.
• Anticipation Analysis (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • During prosecution of the application leading to the '898 patent, the examiner cited Shin as anticipating several claims. The examiner argued that Shin's "ad server" functions as the claimed "first computer system" and that its "advertiser server" functions as the "second computer system."
  • The examiner contended that Shin discloses sending a tag (an impression identifier or cookie) and later receiving a redirection (a conversion ping) to trigger a subsequent action (logging the conversion).
  • However, Shin does not appear to anticipate the core limitations of claim 1 of the '898 patent. Specifically, claim 1 requires the first computer system to send a condition to the second computer system, which the second system must check before redirecting the user back to the first system. Shin's system involves the advertiser server (second system) sending a "conversion ping" unconditionally upon the user's action. The intelligence and decision-making reside with the ad server after it receives the ping, not with the advertiser server before it sends the ping. The '898 patent claims a distributed decision-making process where the second system is pre-loaded with a specific condition to evaluate. This distinction was successfully argued by the applicant to overcome the rejection. Therefore, Shin does not anticipate claim 1.

---

2. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0379555 A1 (Hereinafter "Zadoff")

• Full Citation: US 2015/0379555 A1, "Targeted Advertising Based on In-Store Display Interactions," filed by Zadoff et al., assigned to Telenav, Inc.
• Dates: Filed Jun 25, 2014; Published Dec 31, 2015.
• Brief Description: Zadoff discloses a system for delivering targeted advertisements to a user's mobile device based on their interactions with in-store product displays. When a user interacts with a smart display in a retail store, the display system captures this interaction data. This data, along with a device identifier, is sent to an ad server. The ad server then uses this profile information to select and deliver relevant ads to the user's mobile device at a later time, either in the store or after they have left.
• Anticipation Analysis (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • The examiner cited Zadoff, arguing that its "ad server" is the "first computer system" and the "in-store server/display" is the "second computer system." The interaction with the display triggers the creation of a profile and a subsequent ad delivery.
  • Similar to the analysis of Shin, Zadoff fails to anticipate key elements of claim 1. The in-store system in Zadoff sends user interaction data to the ad server, but it does not receive a "condition" from the ad server that it must later check before initiating contact for an ad opportunity. The communication is primarily one-way: the in-store system sends profile-generating data to the ad server, which then independently decides when and what ad to push to the user's device. The '898 patent's claimed method involves the first system empowering the second system with a specific condition to check before enabling the ad serving process. Zadoff does not describe this pre-conditioned redirection mechanism. Thus, it does not anticipate claim 1.

---

3. U.S. Patent No. 9,412,125 B2 (Hereinafter "Raman")

• Full Citation: US 9,412,125 B2, "Cross device/media channel attribution," filed by Raman et al., assigned to Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC.
• Dates: Filed May 10, 2012; Issued Aug 9, 2016.
• Brief Description: Raman describes a method for attributing user actions to advertisements viewed across different devices or media channels. It uses a central "attribution logic" system that collects ad exposure data from various sources (e.g., a user sees a TV ad and a web ad). When the user completes a desired action (like a purchase), the system analyzes the exposure data to determine which ad or combination of ads influenced the action. It uses identifiers like cookies and device IDs, often linked through a common user login, to track the user's journey.
• Anticipation Analysis (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • Raman's system focuses on the post-action attribution problem—figuring out which ad gets credit for a conversion. While it involves multiple systems and user identifiers (tags), its core process is different from the ad delivery method claimed in the '898 patent.
  • Raman does not teach a first computer system sending a specific, user-device-related "condition" to a second computer system that controls ad space, where the second system evaluates this condition to trigger a redirection for a real-time ad serving opportunity. The data flows in Raman are for the purpose of analysis after the fact, not for enabling a conditional, real-time ad call from a third-party website back to a targeting system. Therefore, Raman does not anticipate the novel process steps of claim 1.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent 11,301,898 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent claim is invalid "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." This analysis considers whether a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), aware of the relevant prior art, would have been motivated to combine or modify existing teachings to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.

The core of the invention in U.S. Patent 11,301,898, particularly as defined in independent claim 1, is a specific, distributed ad-serving process. A first computer system (e.g., a "Targeting System") provides a second, unaffiliated computer system (e.g., an "Ad Network") with a specific condition. The Ad Network must then check this condition at a later time when a user is on one of its websites and, only if the condition is met, redirect the user back to the Targeting System to receive a targeted ad. The key distinction from the cited prior art is this pre-emptive, distributed decision-making, where the Ad Network is empowered to act as a gatekeeper based on a rule supplied by the Targeting System.

---

Obviousness Combination: U.S. Patent No. 9,785,942 (Shin) in view of the Background Art Acknowledged by the '898 Patent Itself

A strong case for obviousness can be made by combining the teachings of Shin with the state of the art acknowledged within the specification of the '898 patent itself.

1. Base Reference: Shin (US 9,785,942)

Shin discloses the foundational architecture and workflow for cross-system communication in online advertising. It teaches:

• A first computer system (Shin's "ad server") and a second computer system not controlled by the first entity (Shin's "advertiser server").
• The first system serves an ad and logs an identifier, which functions as a tag, associated with a user's device.
• At a later time, when the user visits the advertiser's site (analogous to the "second website"), the second computer system initiates a communication back to the first system (a "conversion ping"), which functions as a redirection.
• This redirection allows the first system to perform a subsequent action (logging a cross-device conversion).

Shin therefore teaches most of the high-level steps of claim 1: the two-system architecture, the initial tagging, a subsequent user visit to the second system's domain, and a redirection from the second system back to the first.

2. Missing Element in Shin

As established in the prior art analysis, Shin does not explicitly teach the key limitations of claim 1:

• (H) The first computer system electronically transferring a condition specific to the visitor's device to the second computer system.
• (J) The second computer system checking the condition and determining that it is met before initiating the redirection.

In Shin, the "conversion ping" is sent unconditionally upon the conversion event. The decision-making intelligence resides entirely within the first system after it receives the ping.

3. Secondary Teaching: The '898 Patent's Acknowledgment of Prior Art

The '898 patent's own specification can be used to establish what a PHOSITA would have known at the time of the invention. The "Description" section of the '898 patent includes a crucial statement describing the existing relationship between behavioral targeting companies and publishers:

"The weather.com ad server's decision, whether or not to redirect the visitor's computer to BT company #1's server can be based on the price that BT company #1 promised to pay weather.com for the presentation of an ad within weather.com's ad space..." (U.S. Patent 11,301,898, Col. 6, ll. 28-34).

This sentence explicitly describes a business and technical reality that a PHOSITA would have understood: the second system (the publisher, weather.com) must make a decision about whether a redirection is worthwhile, and this decision is based on a financial parameter (the price) provided by the first system (the BT company).

4. Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success

A PHOSITA, starting with the basic redirection framework taught by Shin, would have been motivated to modify it to accommodate the known business logic described in the '898 patent's background.

• Motivation: The motivation is rooted in economic efficiency. The publisher (second system) would not want to cede valuable ad space via a redirection unless it met a minimum price threshold. Likewise, the targeting company (first system) would not want to field countless redirection requests for ad opportunities that are too expensive or otherwise undesirable. Implementing a pre-check at the publisher's end avoids wasted network traffic, reduces server load for the targeting company, and allows the publisher to instantly fill the ad space with another ad if the condition is not met.

• Obvious Implementation: Given this motivation, the most direct and obvious way to implement this decision-making process would be for the first system to communicate the parameters of the deal to the second system. The "price that BT company #1 promised to pay" is precisely the condition claimed in the patent. Transferring this price from the first system to the second so that the second system can "check" it against its own floor price before redirecting is not an inventive leap, but rather a straightforward implementation of the acknowledged business practice.

Therefore, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to modify Shin's unconditional redirection to a conditional one by having the first system send a price or other rule (the "condition") to the second system, which would then check this condition before redirecting. This combination renders the novel elements of claim 1 obvious. All other claims (e.g., system and CRM claims 6 and 11) would be obvious for the same reason.

Term,Continuity, and Family Details for U.S. Patent 11,301,898

Based on a thorough review of the data in the USPTO Patent Center for U.S. Patent No. 11,301,898, the following details regarding its term, application history, and related patents have been determined.

Patent Term and Projected Expiration

• Patent Term Adjustment (PTA): There has been no Patent Term Adjustment granted for this patent. The USPTO calculated zero days of adjustment.
• Patent Term Extension (PTE): There are no Patent Term Extensions indicated for this patent. PTE is typically granted for delays caused by pre-market regulatory review and is not applicable here.
• Projected Expiration Date: The patent's term is 20 years from the earliest effective, non-provisional filing date. The application for this patent (17/097,865) is a continuation of a long chain of applications tracing back to the application for U.S. Patent No. 7,747,745, which was filed on June 14, 2007. This 2007 filing date establishes the priority date for the entire family. Therefore, the projected expiration date for U.S. Patent 11,301,898 is June 14, 2027.

Continuity and Application History

U.S. Patent 11,301,898, which issued from application Ser. No. 17/097,865 (filed November 13, 2020), is a continuation of a preceding application. This places it within a chain of "continuation applications," meaning the applicant filed a new application that claims the benefit of the filing date of a prior, co-pending application from the same inventor.

The direct lineage for this patent is as follows:

• This application (17/097,865) is a continuation of Ser. No. 16/678,196 (now U.S. Pat. No. 10,839,423).

This patent does not have any divisional applications listed. A divisional application would arise if the original application was determined by the USPTO to contain more than one distinct invention.

Related Patent Family Members

U.S. Patent 11,301,898 is part of a large and actively litigated patent family, all stemming from provisional applications filed on June 16, 2006, and June 19, 2006. All patents in this family share the same core specification and drawings but have different claims. The family is assigned to Almondnet Inc. and names Roy Shkedi as the inventor.

The chain of continuation applications has resulted in numerous granted U.S. patents, including:

• U.S. Pat. No. 7,747,745 (from application Ser. No. 11/763,286)
• U.S. Pat. No. 8,204,783 (from application Ser. No. 12/823,709)
• U.S. Pat. No. 8,671,139 (from application Ser. No. 13/491,454)
• U.S. Pat. No. 8,959,146 (from application Ser. No. 14/201,494)
• U.S. Pat. No. 9,208,514 (from application Ser. No. 14/620,502)
• U.S. Pat. No. 9,508,089 (from application Ser. No. 14/960,237)
• U.S. Pat. No. 9,830,615 (from application Ser. No. 15/360,762)
• U.S. Pat. No. 10,134,054 (from application Ser. No. 15/822,974)
• U.S. Pat. No. 10,475,073 (from application Ser. No. 16/194,203)
• U.S. Pat. No. 10,839,423 (from application Ser. No. 16/678,196)

Furthermore, the family continues to expand. After the '898 patent was granted, Almondnet Inc. filed at least one subsequent continuation application:

• Application Ser. No. 17/714,936, filed on April 6, 2022, which has since issued as U.S. Pat. No. 11,610,226.

Defensive Disclosure and Prior Art Derivations for U.S. Patent 11,301,898

Document ID: DP-20260429-898
Publication Date: April 29, 2026
Art Domain: Computer Science, Network Advertising, Distributed Systems, Information Security

This document discloses novel variations, extensions, and applications of the methods and systems described in U.S. Patent 11,301,898 (hereinafter "the '898 patent"). The purpose of this disclosure is to place these concepts into the public domain, thereby establishing them as prior art for any future patent applications in this domain.

---

Axis 1: Component & Protocol Substitution

The core method of the '898 patent relies on specific components like "tags" and a "redirection" mechanism. The following disclosures substitute these with alternative but functionally equivalent technologies.

Derivative 1.1: Cryptographic Token-Based Authentication Instead of Tags

• Enabling Description: The "tag" sent from the first computer system (Targeting System) to the second computer system (Ad Network) is replaced with a signed JSON Web Token (JWT). When the user visits the first website, the Targeting System generates a JWT containing a unique user identifier (sub), an expiration time (exp), and the intended audience (aud, the domain of the Ad Network). This JWT is cryptographically signed using the Targeting System's private key. The Ad Network, possessing the Targeting System's public key, can verify the token's authenticity without needing a shared secret or a database lookup. The "condition" is then passed in a subsequent, secure server-to-server call authenticated by this token, preventing client-side manipulation.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant UserDevice
      participant WebsiteA
      participant TargetingSystem
      participant AdNetwork
      UserDevice->>WebsiteA: Visits
      WebsiteA->>TargetingSystem: Request to profile user
      TargetingSystem-->>TargetingSystem: Generate signed JWT (sub, exp, aud: AdNetwork)
      TargetingSystem->>UserDevice: Set JWT in secure, HttpOnly cookie
      UserDevice->>AdNetwork: Subsequent request with JWT
      AdNetwork-->>AdNetwork: Verify JWT signature with public key
      AdNetwork->>TargetingSystem: Server-to-server call to get condition
      TargetingSystem-->>AdNetwork: Return condition (e.g., max_bid_price)
  

Derivative 1.2: WebSockets for Real-Time Condition Updates

• Enabling Description: Instead of a one-time transfer of a static condition, the Ad Network and Targeting System maintain a persistent WebSocket connection for a given active user session. After the initial tagging, the Ad Network's server establishes this connection. The Targeting System can then push real-time updates to the condition based on the user's ongoing behavior (e.g., mouse movements, time on page) or changing market dynamics. When the user visits a second website, the Ad Network checks the most recently received condition from the WebSocket stream before deciding to serve the ad, enabling sub-second adjustments to targeting logic.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant UserDevice
      participant AdNetwork
      participant TargetingSystem
      UserDevice->>AdNetwork: Initial visit, tagged
      AdNetwork->>TargetingSystem: Establish WebSocket connection for user session
      TargetingSystem-->>AdNetwork: Push Condition v1 (bid=$0.50)
      loop Real-time Updates
          TargetingSystem-->>AdNetwork: Push Condition v2 (bid=$0.75)
          TargetingSystem-->>AdNetwork: Push Condition v3 (bid=$0.60)
      end
      UserDevice->>AdNetwork: Visits new page (ad opportunity)
      AdNetwork-->>AdNetwork: Check latest condition (v3)
      alt Condition Met
          AdNetwork->>TargetingSystem: Request Ad
      else Condition Not Met
          AdNetwork->>AdNetwork: Serve fallback ad
      end
  

---

Axis 2: Operational Parameter Expansion

This section describes the application of the '898 patent's method under extreme or specialized operational conditions.

Derivative 2.1: High-Frequency Trading (HFT) Ad Bidding

• Enabling Description: The disclosed method is applied to a real-time bidding (RTB) environment operating at microsecond latencies. The "first computer system" is an algorithmic trading platform, and the "second computer system" is an ad exchange. The "condition" is a complex algorithmic rule set, not just a price, that includes parameters like market volatility, latency to user, and competitor bid density. This condition is pre-cached at edge data centers of the ad exchange. The check-and-redirect process must complete within a 10-millisecond budget, requiring the condition check to be performed in-memory on specialized hardware (FPGAs) to avoid disk or network I/O latency.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  graph TD
      subgraph Ad Exchange Edge DC
          A[User Ad Request] --> B{FPGA: In-Memory Condition Check};
          C[HFT System] -- Pre-cache --> D[(Condition Store)];
          D --> B;
          B -- Condition Met --> E[Redirect to HFT System];
          B -- Condition Not Met --> F[Run Standard Auction];
      end
      E --> G[HFT System Bids];
  

Derivative 2.2: Large-Scale IoT Device Command and Control

• Enabling Description: The method is scaled to manage millions of IoT devices. The "Targeting System" is a central IoT device management platform. The "Ad Network" is a regional edge computing provider. A device (e.g., a smart thermostat) periodically connects to the edge provider (first website visit). The management platform tags the device and provides a "condition" to the edge provider, such as "only redirect for a firmware update if device battery > 80% AND local network traffic < 1 Mbps." When the device next connects, the edge provider checks these locally-sensed conditions before redirecting the device to the central platform for a potentially data-intensive update, thus distributing the decision-making load and conserving network resources.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  flowchart LR
      subgraph Central IoT Platform
          A(Device Management)
      end
      subgraph Regional Edge Provider
          B(Device Connection Point)
          C{Condition Check}
          D[(Local Condition Store)]
      end
      E(IoT Device)
  
      E -- 1. Connects & gets tagged --> B
      A -- 2. Sends condition --> D
      D -- 3. Feeds rule --> C
      E -- 4. Later connection --> B -- Triggers --> C
      C -- Battery > 80%? --> E_OK
      subgraph E_OK["Redirect"]
          direction LR
          C -- Yes --> F(Redirect to Central Platform) --> A
      end
      C -- No --> G(Wait for next connection)
  

---

Axis 3: Cross-Domain Application

The core mechanism is applied to industries unrelated to online advertising.

Derivative 3.1: Aerospace - Conditional Satellite Tasking

• Enabling Description: A satellite operator (System 1) manages a constellation. A third-party data consumer, like a weather agency (System 2), can request satellite imagery. The operator provides the agency with a tag for a specific region of interest and a "condition" for tasking, e.g., "Only redirect a tasking request to the satellite command bus if cloud cover over the target coordinates is < 15% based on your real-time meteorological model." The agency's system continuously checks its own weather model. Only when the condition is met does it redirect the authenticated request to the satellite operator, preventing wasted satellite time and bandwidth on unusable, cloudy images.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant WeatherAgency as System 2
      participant SatelliteOperator as System 1
      participant Satellite
      SatelliteOperator->>WeatherAgency: Provides tag for region + condition (cloud < 15%)
      loop Continuous Monitoring
          WeatherAgency-->>WeatherAgency: Check own weather model for region
      end
      alt Cloud Cover < 15%
          WeatherAgency->>SatelliteOperator: Redirect authenticated tasking request
          SatelliteOperator->>Satellite: Task to capture image
      end
  

Derivative 3.2: AgTech - Precision Irrigation Control

• Enabling Description: A central farm analytics platform (System 1) models crop water needs. An on-field irrigation controller (System 2) manages water valves. The platform provides the controller with a tag for a specific field zone and a "condition," such as "Permit irrigation only if the local soil moisture sensor reading is below 25% AND the 6-hour weather forecast shows no rain." The irrigation controller, which is connected to local sensors and has access to a weather API, checks these conditions locally. It only redirects a request to the central platform for the master irrigation schedule if the conditions are met, ensuring autonomous, fault-tolerant operation even if connectivity to the central platform is intermittent.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  stateDiagram-v2
      [*] --> Idle
      Idle --> Checking: On schedule
      Checking: Check local sensors & weather API
      Checking --> Idle: Conditions not met
      Checking --> Requesting: Conditions met
      Requesting: Redirect to Central Platform for schedule
      Requesting --> Irrigating: Schedule received
      Irrigating --> Idle: Cycle complete
  

Derivative 3.3: Consumer Electronics - Smart Home Voice Assistant Skill Invocation

• Enabling Description: A third-party service provider (e.g., a pizza delivery company, System 1) registers with a smart home voice assistant platform (e.g., Amazon Alexa, System 2). A user links their pizza account. The service provider sends a tag and a "condition" to the assistant platform, such as "Only invoke the 'reorder my usual' skill if the user's GPS location is within their 'Home' geofence AND the time is between 5 PM and 9 PM." When the user says "Alexa, I'm hungry," the voice platform checks these user-specific, pre-supplied conditions before deciding whether to offer the pizza reorder skill as a suggestion, making the interaction more contextually relevant.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  graph TD
      A[User: "Alexa, I'm hungry"] --> B{Voice Assistant Platform (System 2)};
      B -- 1. Parse intent --> C{Check Conditions};
      D(Pizza Service [System 1]) -- Pre-loads --> E[(User-specific Condition: at_home AND 5-9pm)];
      E --> C;
      C -- Conditions Met? --> F[Suggest: "Want to reorder from Domino's?"];
      C -- No --> G[Generic response: "What would you like to eat?"];
  

---

Axis 4: Integration with Emerging Tech

Derivative 4.1: AI-Driven Predictive Condition Generation

• Enabling Description: The Targeting System (System 1) incorporates a machine learning model that predicts a user's likelihood to convert. Instead of a static condition (e.g., price), the condition sent to the Ad Network (System 2) is a "minimum required conversion probability score," e.g., p(convert) > 0.85. The Ad Network, in turn, may have its own local model that estimates the current context's influence on conversion. It redirects to the Targeting System only if its local context score, combined with the required probability score, exceeds a threshold. This creates a two-party AI validation gate.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant TargetingSystem as System1
      participant AdNetwork as System2
      TargetingSystem->>TargetingSystem: ML Model predicts P(Convert) for user
      TargetingSystem->>AdNetwork: Send condition: min_p_convert = 0.85
      AdNetwork->>AdNetwork: User visits, local ML model scores context (e.g., 0.9)
      AdNetwork->>AdNetwork: Check if (local_score * min_p_convert) > threshold
      alt Check Passes
          AdNetwork->>TargetingSystem: Redirect for Ad
      end
  

Derivative 4.2: Blockchain for Verifiable Consent and Ad Delivery

• Enabling Description: The entire process is mediated by a smart contract on a public blockchain. The "tag" is a transaction that writes a user's anonymized ID to the smart contract, and the "condition" is encoded as a function requirement within that contract. The Ad Network (System 2) is an oracle that reports page-visit events to the smart contract. The contract itself checks the condition. If met, it emits an event that the Targeting System (System 1) listens for, which triggers the ad serving. The redirection is thus a cryptographically verifiable state change on the blockchain, providing an immutable audit trail of user consent and ad delivery events for all parties.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  flowchart TB
      U[User on Website A] --> T{Targeting System};
      T -- 1. Writes Tag+Condition --> SC(Smart Contract on Blockchain);
      V[User on Website B] --> AN{Ad Network (Oracle)};
      AN -- 2. Reports visit to --> SC;
      SC -- 3. Executes & checks condition --> R{Result};
      R -- Condition Met --> EV(Emit "ServeAd" Event);
      EV -- 4. Listened for by --> T;
      T -- 5. Serves Ad --> V;
  

---

Axis 5: The "Inverse" or Failure Mode

Derivative 5.1: Graceful Degradation to Privacy-Preserving Mode

• Enabling Description: The system is designed to fail-safe into a non-targeted mode. The "condition" sent from the Targeting System to the Ad Network includes a Time-To-Live (TTL) parameter. If the Ad Network cannot refresh the condition from the Targeting System before the TTL expires (due to network failure, high load, etc.), the condition is automatically nullified. Upon the next user visit, the Ad Network sees the null condition and is programmed to not redirect the user. Instead, it serves a generic, non-profiled, context-based ad from its own inventory. This ensures user privacy and system functionality during partial outages.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  stateDiagram-v2
      state Active {
          [*] --> Condition_Fresh
          Condition_Fresh --> Condition_Stale: TTL expires
          Condition_Stale --> Condition_Fresh: Refresh success
          Condition_Stale --> Inactive: Refresh fails
      }
      [*] --> Active: System Normal
      Active --> Inactive: Network Failure
      Inactive --> [*]: Serve non-targeted ad
  

---

Combination Prior Art with Open-Source Standards

1. Combination with Prebid.js: The method of the '898 patent is implemented as a Prebid.js adapter. The Targeting System (System 1) is a "bidder." When a publisher website (controlled by System 2) initiates a Prebid auction, the Targeting System's adapter is called. Instead of returning a bid, it returns a signal (the "tag") and simultaneously makes a server-to-server call to the publisher's ad server to lodge the "condition." The publisher's ad server, using its own logic, checks this condition against other bids received. If the condition is met (e.g., "accept a redirect if no other bidder offers > $2.00 CPM"), it forgoes the standard auction winner and instead returns a creative that performs the claimed redirection to the Targeting System.

2. Combination with OpenRTB Protocol: The "condition" is transmitted as a new, non-standard object within the ext (extension) field of an OpenRTB Bid Request. The Ad Exchange (System 2) is modified to parse this custom object. If the object is present, the exchange's internal logic is short-circuited. Instead of running a full auction, it evaluates the rule described in the object. If the rule evaluates to true, it responds to the initial request with an HTTP 302 redirect to the endpoint specified by the Bidder (System 1), effectively implementing the patent's logic within the framework of the existing OpenRTB standard.

3. Combination with IAB Tech Lab's Seller-Defined Audiences (SDA): The "tag" sent from System 1 to System 2 is an encrypted identifier that corresponds to a segment in the IAB's SDA taxonomy. System 1 (the Targeting System) is a data provider that has profiled the user into a specific segment. System 2 (the publisher) receives this segment ID. The "condition" is a rule that System 1 provides to System 2 regarding that segment, such as "Only serve my ads to users in segment [seg_id] on your 'Sports' section pages." The publisher's ad server checks this condition (user is on a sports page AND has the specified segment ID from System 1) before redirecting the ad call to System 1. This uses the industry-standard SDA framework for audience naming but applies the patent's specific conditional logic for ad call routing.