US 11610226

A detailed analysis of U.S. Patent 11,610,226 reveals the following information:

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

Assignee: Almondnet Inc.

Inventor: Roy Shkedi

Filing Date: April 6, 2022

Issue Date: March 21, 2023

Abstract:
The patent describes an automatic system for selecting on which media properties to display an advertisement. The system responds to a user's profile, which is collected on a first media property. A behavioral-targeting (BT) company calculates the expected profit for an ad that is correlated with the user's profile. The system then arranges for the user to be tagged with a tag that can be read by the selected media property. The profit is calculated by subtracting the cost of the ad space on a media property from the expected revenue of an ad delivered based on the user's profile. If the calculated profit is positive, the BT company will arrange for the user to be tagged with a tag that can be read by the selected media property, through which the BT company expects to profit.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

This patent includes three independent claims: 1, 13, and 25. Here is a plain-language summary of each:

Independent Claim 1: This claim outlines a method for a computer system (referred to as the "first computer system" and controlled by a "first entity") to direct targeted advertisements. The process is as follows:

1. The system records a user's online actions from their device into a behavioral profile.
2. It uses the user's personally identifiable information to identify a second device belonging to that same user.
3. The system then provides a separate computer system (the "second computer system," which controls ad space in video streams and is not controlled by the first entity) with "tag information." This tag informs the second system that the first entity has profile information about the user, but crucially, it does not transfer the actual behavioral profile data.
4. The first system also sends a specific condition that must be met for an ad to be shown.
5. Later, when the user is watching a video on their second device, if the second computer system determines that the specified condition is met, it will trigger the display of an advertisement that is based on the user's profile stored on the first computer system.

Independent Claim 13: This claim describes the computer system itself, which is programmed to carry out the method detailed in Claim 1. It specifies a "first computer system" that is set up to:

• Record a user's behavioral profile from their device.
• Identify a second device of the user via personal information.
• Cause a separate "second computer system" to receive "tag information" and a condition for serving an ad, without sending the behavioral data itself.
• Initiate the serving of a targeted ad in a video on the user's second device when the set condition is satisfied.

Independent Claim 25: This claim covers a tangible, non-transitory medium (such as a hard drive or other storage device) that contains computer-readable instructions. When these instructions are executed by a computer system (the "first computer system"), they direct it to perform the same method described in Claim 1. This involves:

• Recording a user's online behavior.
• Identifying the user's second device using personal information.
• Providing "tag information" and a specific condition to a "second computer system" that manages video ad space.
• Causing a targeted ad to be displayed in a video on the user's second device when the condition is met.

A search of the CAFC (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) dockets for the year 2026 did not produce any results for US Patent 11,610,226.

Litigation Search for US Patent 11,610,226

As of April 29, 2026, a comprehensive search for litigation specifically involving US Patent 11,610,226 has yielded no results. There are no known active or concluded lawsuits where this particular patent has been asserted.

However, the assignee, Almondnet Inc., is a frequent plaintiff in patent litigation, asserting other patents from its portfolio related to advertising technology. While not directly involving US Patent 11,610,226, these related cases demonstrate the company's active enforcement of its intellectual property.

Notable litigation involving Almondnet Inc. includes:

• AlmondNet, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc. (Case No. 6:21-cv-00898, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas): In this case, Almondnet asserted different patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,671,139 and 7,822,639) related to targeted advertising. In June 2024, a jury found that Amazon infringed these patents and awarded Almondnet nearly $122 million in damages.
• AlmondNet, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. & Amazon.com, Inc. (Case No. 24-1427, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit): This appeal, involving patent US 9,830,615, was voluntarily dismissed by the parties in April 2026, suggesting a settlement was reached.
• AlmondNet, Inc. et al v. Zeta Global Corp. et al (Case No. 1:25-cv-00579, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware): This case was filed in May 2025 and involves several Almondnet patents, though not 11,610,226. The case remains ongoing.
• AlmondNet, Inc. et al v. Ozone Project Ltd. (Case No. 7:25-cv-00411, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas): Filed in September 2025, this case is also active.
• AlmondNet, Inc., et al. v. [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.), et al. (Case No. 6:21-cv-00891, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas): This case was filed in August 2021 and is part of Almondnet's broader litigation campaign.

These cases indicate that while US Patent 11,610,226 has not yet been litigated, its assignee, Almondnet Inc., is an active and sophisticated participant in patent enforcement within the ad-tech industry.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 11,610,226 as of the current date, May 29, 2026. The absence of PTAB activity indicates that the patent's claims remain untested by post-grant challenges. This means a defendant facing assertion of this patent would need to initiate a new PTAB proceeding if they wish to challenge its validity before the Board.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US Patent 11,610,226 remain untested by AIA trial proceedings. There are no canceled, sustained, or partially invalidated claims to report. This means that, from a PTAB perspective, the patent has not been subjected to challenges regarding its patentability under §§ 102, 103, or 112.

The estoppel landscape is entirely open. Since no PTAB proceedings have been filed, there are no prior art grounds that would be barred for a new petitioner under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Any prior art grounds, including those identified in the patent's prosecution history (e.g., O'Phelan '875, Ben-Natan '873, Raux '753), could potentially be used as grounds in a new IPR or PGR petition, assuming the statutory requirements for filing are met (e.g., timing, standing).

There is no pattern of PTAB filings for this specific patent. However, the assignee, Almondnet Inc., is known to be an active litigant in patent enforcement within the ad-tech industry, as noted in the Litigation Summary. It is common for patents that are actively asserted in district court litigation to eventually face PTAB challenges.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of US Patent 11,610,226, the absence of PTAB activity means that the claims have not yet been "hardened" by surviving a Board challenge. Therefore, initiating a PTAB proceeding, such as an Inter Partes Review (IPR), could be a viable defensive strategy to challenge the patent's validity.

Key considerations for potential next steps:

• Novelty (35 U.S.C. § 102) and Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) Challenges: Given the prior art identified during prosecution (O'Phelan '875, Ben-Natan '873, Raux '753), particularly the obviousness arguments presented in the analysis, these references could form strong grounds for an IPR petition.
• PGR (Post-Grant Review) Availability: As the patent was issued on March 21, 2023, the one-year window for filing a Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition, which allows for challenges under all grounds of patentability including 35 U.S.C. § 112 (written description, enablement), has closed (March 21, 2024). Therefore, an IPR would be the primary avenue for a new PTAB challenge.
• Timing: If the patent has been asserted in district court litigation, an IPR petition typically must be filed within one year of being served with a complaint alleging infringement.
• Cost-Benefit Analysis: Evaluate the costs and potential benefits of an IPR versus district court litigation, considering the strengths of the prior art and the specific claims being asserted against you.

The absence of PTAB activity for US Patent 11,610,226 is a significant signal that, despite its assignee's litigious history with other patents, this particular patent has not yet undergone the scrutiny of an AIA trial.

Inventors

• Roy Shkedi (Almondnet Inc. at time of filing)

Original assignee

Almondnet Inc. is the original assignee named on the issued patent. Almondnet Inc. is primarily involved in advertising technology, specializing in behavioral targeting. Based on publicly available information and its ongoing litigation activities, Almondnet Inc. appears to be an operating company, actively developing and asserting its intellectual property in the ad-tech space.

Assignment timeline

As of 2026-05-30, a search of the USPTO Patent Assignment Search database for US Patent 11610226 shows only one recorded assignment:

• 2023-02-17 (executed) / recorded 2023-02-17 — Reel 059639/0426
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: SHKEDI, ROY, MR.
  • Assignee: ALMONDNET, INC
  • Correspondent: R. DAVID WEISS, 444 MADISON AVENUE, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 10022
  • Context: Inventor assignment to original assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11610226
    2006 : Priority date
    2007 : Application filed
    2022 : Application filed (continuation)
    2023 : Inventor assigned to Almondnet Inc
         : Patent issued

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The sole recorded assignment is from the inventor to Almondnet Inc., the original operating company assignee.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Almondnet Inc. is the current assignee, which is an operating company, not a known NPE from public lists.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. Only one assignment is recorded, handled by R. David Weiss.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one assignment from the inventor to the original assignee.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. There are no recorded infringement suits specifically naming this patent.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No indication of bankruptcy for Almondnet Inc.
7. Privateering — not present. No evidence of privateering activities for this patent.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not end at a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion. The sole recorded assignment is from the inventor to Almondnet Inc., the original assignee, which is an operating company in the ad-tech space and is known for asserting its broader patent portfolio against competitors. There are no other signals indicating an NPE involvement for this specific patent.

USPTO Assignment Center search page for US11610226: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

Based on a review of the USPTO public records for US patent 11,610,226, the following prior art references were cited during the patent's prosecution and are considered relevant to its claims.

Analysis of Cited Prior Art

Below is an analysis of key prior art references and their potential impact on the claims of US patent 11,610,226 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (Anticipation). For a reference to anticipate a claim, it must disclose every single element of that claim, arranged as in the claim.

---

1. US Patent 7,136,875 B1 ("O'Phelan '875")

• Full Citation: US Patent 7,136,875 B1, "Dynamic delivery of network advertising."
• Assignee: DoubleClick Inc.
• Date: Filed January 21, 2000; Published November 14, 2006.
• Brief Description: The O'Phelan '875 patent is a foundational piece of prior art in online advertising. It describes a third-party ad server system that uses cookies to recognize a user's browser across different publisher websites. The system collects data about the user's browsing history and ad interactions into a profile, which is then used to select and serve targeted advertisements to that user's browser.
• Potential Anticipation Analysis (§ 102):
  • This reference discloses the concept of a central computer system recording behavioral profile information associated with a user's device (element 1(a)) and later serving an ad based on that profile (element 1(e)).
  • However, O'Phelan '875 does not appear to anticipate the independent claims (1, 13, 25) of US 11,610,226. The key missing elements are:
    • Cross-Device Identification (Claim 1(b)): The patent primarily focuses on tracking a single device (a web browser) via cookies. It does not teach using personally identifiable information (PII) to link that device to a separate, second computerized device (e.g., a smart TV or mobile phone) belonging to the same user.
    • Privacy-Preserving Information Transfer (Claim 1(c)): The DoubleClick model described involves its own server reading its own cookie and directly accessing the profile to make an ad decision. It does not teach the specific mechanism of causing a second, unaffiliated computer system to receive only "tag information" while explicitly withholding the behavioral profile data from that second system.
    • External Condition Check (Claim 1(d)): It does not disclose transferring a specific "condition" to the second system, which the second system then checks independently to trigger the ad serving process.

---

2. US Patent Application Pub. No. 2005/0192873 A1 ("Ben-Natan '873")

• Full Citation: US 2005/0192873 A1, "Method and system for providing cross-channel offer presentment."
• Assignee: Accenture Global Services GmbH
• Date: Filed February 27, 2004; Published September 1, 2005.
• Brief Description: The Ben-Natan '873 application describes a system for integrated, cross-channel marketing. It teaches consolidating customer data from multiple sources (e.g., website visits, call center interactions, in-store purchases) into a single, unified customer profile. This profile is then used to deliver consistent and targeted marketing offers to the user across these different channels.
• Potential Anticipation Analysis (§ 102):
  • This reference strongly teaches the concept of linking a user's activities across different channels or devices, which is highly relevant to claim element 1(b) concerning the use of PII to identify a second device. It also clearly discloses creating profiles based on user actions (1(a)).
  • Despite this, Ben-Natan '873 likely fails to anticipate the claims. The architecture described in the application centers on a single entity creating a master profile and using it directly to push offers. It does not appear to disclose the specific, distributed architecture required by the claims of US 11,610,226:
    • It lacks the specific handoff where a first entity's system provides limited "tag information" and a "condition" to a second, independent entity's system that controls ad space (claims 1(c) and 1(d)). The claims require that the entity controlling the ad space (the "second computer system") does not receive the actual behavioral profile, which is a key distinction from the integrated model in Ben-Natan '873.

---

3. US Patent 7,668,753 B2 ("Raux '753")

• Full Citation: US Patent 7,668,753 B2, "Method and system for providing a visitor with a personalized display."
• Assignee: Criteo
• Date: Filed May 18, 2007; Published February 23, 2010.
• Brief Description: The Raux '753 patent describes a method for ad retargeting. A user who visits a merchant's website is tagged (e.g., with a cookie). When that same user later visits a different website (e.g., a publisher site), the tag is recognized, and a personalized ad, often related to the products the user viewed on the merchant's site, is displayed. The system aims to optimize which ad to show based on the user's inferred interests.
• Potential Anticipation Analysis (§ 102):
  • This reference clearly describes recording user behavior on a first property (element 1(a)), tagging that user, and using that information to serve a targeted ad on a second property (element 1(e)).
  • However, like O'Phelan '875, Raux '753 does not appear to anticipate the claims for similar reasons:
    • Cross-Device Identification (Claim 1(b)): The teachings are primarily focused on cookie-based tracking of a single browser, not on linking multiple, distinct devices of a single user via PII.
    • Ad Space in Video Streams: The patent's examples focus on display advertising on web pages, whereas the claims of US 11,610,226 are specifically directed to ad space in a "plurality of video streams."
    • Information Handoff and Condition (Claims 1(c) and 1(d)): The architecture described involves a retargeting platform that identifies the user and serves the ad. It does not explicitly teach the claimed, two-step process of first providing only tag information and a condition to an independent ad space controller, and then having that controller check the condition to initiate the ad service from the first system.

Based on my analysis as a senior US patent analyst, here is the obviousness analysis for US patent 11,610,226 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, using the provided prior art references.

Obviousness Analysis (35 U.S.C. § 103)

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an invention is unpatentable if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). My analysis concludes that the independent claims (1, 13, and 25) of US patent 11,610,226 are likely obvious in light of combinations of the cited prior art.

A PHOSITA in this field, around the priority date of June 16, 2006, would have had a degree in computer science and several years of experience in the online advertising industry, with specific knowledge of ad servers, cookie-based tracking, and emerging behavioral targeting techniques.

Combination 1: O'Phelan '875 in view of Ben-Natan '873

This combination renders the key elements of the independent claims obvious.

• What Each Reference Teaches:

  • O'Phelan '875 lays the foundational groundwork for the claimed invention. It discloses a third-party ad server (a "first computer system") that records a user's browsing behavior into a profile associated with their device (a "first computerized device"), as required by claim element 1(a). It further teaches using this profile to serve a targeted advertisement when the user is later found on another website, fulfilling the basic premise of claim element 1(e). The primary limitation of O'Phelan '875, as noted in the prior art analysis, is that its teachings are confined to tracking a single browser via cookies.
  • Ben-Natan '873 directly addresses this limitation. It explicitly teaches a method for integrated, cross-channel marketing by consolidating customer data from multiple sources into a single profile. Critically, it describes using personally identifiable information (PII) to link a customer's activities across different channels, which would naturally include different devices. This directly teaches the concept of using PII to identify a user's second device, as recited in claim element 1(b).

• Motivation to Combine:
  A PHOSITA in 2006 would have been strongly motivated to combine the teachings of O'Phelan '875 and Ben-Natan '873. The business goal of online advertising is to maximize the reach and effectiveness of campaigns. As users began accessing content from multiple devices (e.g., a desktop at work and a laptop at home), the single-device tracking model of O'Phelan '875 would become increasingly fragmented and ineffective. Ben-Natan '873 provides a clear and direct solution: use PII to link these devices and create a holistic view of the user. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to apply Ben-Natan's cross-device identification method to O'Phelan's ad-serving architecture to create a more powerful and persistent targeting system. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.

• Rendering Remaining Claim Elements Obvious:
  The combination of O'Phelan '875 and Ben-Natan '873 teaches the core of the invention: cross-device behavioral advertising. The remaining elements—the specific handoff mechanism and the application to video—would have been obvious implementation choices.

  • Claims 1(c) and 1(d) (Tag/Condition Handoff): These elements describe a privacy-preserving architecture where the profile owner (the "first entity") provides only "tag information" and a "condition" to the ad space controller (the "second entity"), without transferring the valuable behavioral data itself. This is not a novel inventive step but an obvious business and technical choice. The behavioral profiles collected by the first entity are a valuable proprietary asset. A PHOSITA designing a system for inter-entity communication would be motivated to create an API that minimizes data sharing to protect this asset. The "tag information" is simply a user identifier, and the "condition" represents the necessary business logic for the transaction (e.g., a bid price, a time limit, a category restriction). This is a standard design pattern for enabling two independent systems to transact without sharing underlying proprietary data.

  • Ad Space in Video Streams: While O'Phelan '875 focuses on display ads on web pages, applying this model to video streams would have been an obvious extension of the technology. By 2006, online video was a rapidly growing medium. A PHOSITA would have recognized that the ad inventory within a video stream is simply another form of "ad space" that can be filled using the same programmatic targeting logic.

Combination 2: Raux '753 in view of Ben-Natan '873

A similar argument for obviousness can be made using Raux '753 as the base reference for behavioral targeting, particularly for ad retargeting.

• What Each Reference Teaches:

  • Raux '753 teaches a system for retargeting, where a user's actions on a merchant website (claim element 1(a)) are used to serve them a personalized ad on a different publisher website (claim element 1(e)).
  • Ben-Natan '873 again supplies the missing piece: using PII to link this user's activity to their other devices (claim element 1(b)).

• Motivation to Combine:
  The motivation is identical to the first combination. A company employing the retargeting techniques of Raux '753 would want to reach the user on any device they use to maximize the campaign's effectiveness. Combining Raux '753 with the cross-device identification method from Ben-Natan '873 is a logical and obvious step to achieve this goal.

• Conclusion:
  This combination similarly teaches the core inventive concepts. The specific architecture of withholding profile data (1(c)) and using a condition to trigger the ad (1(d)) remains an obvious design choice for business reasons, and the application to video streams is an obvious extension to a new media format.

In summary, the foundational concepts of behavioral advertising and cross-device user identification were known in the art prior to the invention. The claims of US patent 11,610,226 combine these known elements in a way that would have been obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art, with the remaining claim limitations representing predictable design choices driven by standard business and technical considerations of the ad-tech ecosystem.

Based on an analysis of the prosecution history and family data for US patent 11,610,226 from the provided authoritative patent text and associated USPTO records, here are the details regarding its term, continuity, and related applications.

Patent Term and Expiration

• Patent Term Adjustment (PTA): There are no recorded Patent Term Adjustments for US patent 11,610,226. The patent was granted a PTA of 0 days.
• Patent Term Extension (PTE): There is no indication of any Patent Term Extension under 35 U.S.C. § 156, which typically applies to patents for products that undergo lengthy regulatory review (e.g., pharmaceuticals) and is not applicable here.
• Projected Expiration Date: The patent's term is calculated from the filing date of the earliest non-provisional application in its priority chain, which is US application Ser. No. 11/763,286, filed on June 14, 2007. The standard 20-year term therefore ends on June 14, 2027. As there is no PTA, the projected expiration date is June 14, 2027. This is confirmed by the "Adjusted expiration" date listed in the patent details (Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11610226](/patent/US11610226)/en).

Continuity and Family Data

This patent is part of a large and long-prosecuted family of applications that all claim priority to the same provisional applications filed in 2006.

• Continuation Applications: US patent 11,610,226 is a continuation of a long chain of prior applications. The direct parent is application Ser. No. 17/097,865 (now US Patent 11,301,898). The full chain of priority is detailed in the "Cross Reference to Related Applications" section of the patent specification.

  Furthermore, this patent serves as the basis for at least one subsequent continuation application:

  • US Application 18/122,654 (now US Patent 11,836,759), filed on March 16, 2023, is a continuation of the application that led to US patent 11,610,226 (Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11610226/en).

• Divisional Applications: No divisional applications have been identified in the prosecution history of this patent family. The applicant has exclusively used continuation applications to pursue additional claims.

• Patent Family Members: US patent 11,610,226 is one of at least 14 granted US patents in this family, all sharing the same 2007 priority date. Other issued patents in this family include:

  • US 7,747,745
  • US 8,204,783
  • US 8,671,139
  • US 8,959,146
  • US 9,208,514
  • US 9,508,089
  • US 9,830,615
  • US 10,134,054
  • US 10,475,073
  • US 10,839,423
  • US 11,301,898
  • US 11,836,759
  • US 8,200,822

The extensive use of continuation applications has allowed the assignee, Almondnet Inc., to create a large portfolio of patents with varied claim scope, all tied to the original 2006/2007 priority filings.

As a Senior Patent Strategist specializing in Defensive Publishing, I have analyzed US patent 11,610,226. The following document is a defensive disclosure of derivative works intended to establish prior art against future incremental inventions by competitors. This disclosure builds upon the core concepts claimed in the patent.

---

Defensive Disclosure: Derivative Variations of Condition-Based, Cross-Device Ad Delivery

I. Derivative Disclosures based on Material & Component Substitution

Derivative 1: Microservice & gRPC-Based Architecture

• Enabling Description: The first and second computer systems are not monolithic applications but are implemented as a distributed network of microservices orchestrated using Kubernetes. Communication between the first entity's profile service and the second entity's ad-space controller does not use standard REST APIs. Instead, it utilizes gRPC (gRPC Remote Procedure Calls) for high-performance, low-latency communication. The "tag information" and "condition" are defined as protocol buffer messages. The first computer system exposes a .proto service definition that the second computer system implements as a client stub. This architecture allows for streaming of conditions and real-time updates, as opposed to a single request/response cycle. The behavioral profiles are stored in a sharded MongoDB cluster, enabling horizontal scalability for billions of user profiles.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant UserDevice1 as User Device 1 (Mobile App)
      participant ProfileSvc as Profile Microservice (System 1)
      participant PiiLinkSvc as PII-Linkage Microservice (System 1)
      participant UserDevice2 as User Device 2 (Smart TV)
      participant AdSpaceCtrl as Ad Space Controller (System 2)
      participant ConditionEvalSvc as Condition Evaluator (System 2)
      participant AdServer as Ad Server (System 1)
  
      UserDevice1->>+ProfileSvc: Stream behavioral events (product view, etc.)
      ProfileSvc->>+PiiLinkSvc: Request device linkage for User_XYZ
      PiiLinkSvc-->>-ProfileSvc: Return Device2_ID based on PII
      ProfileSvc->>AdSpaceCtrl: Establish gRPC stream, send TagInfo(Device2_ID)
      UserDevice2->>+AdSpaceCtrl: User starts video stream
      AdSpaceCtrl->>+ConditionEvalSvc: Initiate check for Device2_ID
      Note over AdSpaceCtrl,ConditionEvalSvc: Condition: video_genre=='sports' AND time < 2ms
      ConditionEvalSvc-->>-AdSpaceCtrl: Condition Met = TRUE
      AdSpaceCtrl->>+AdServer: gRPC Call: ServeAd(Profile_Ref_XYZ)
      AdServer-->>-UserDevice2: Stream VAST ad creative
  

Derivative 2: Graph Database for Profile Management & Decentralized Storage

• Enabling Description: The first entity's computer system utilizes a graph database (e.g., Neo4j) to store user profiles. User actions, devices, and personally identifiable information are stored as nodes, with relationships (e.g., OWNS_DEVICE, VIEWED_CONTENT, HAS_EMAIL) represented as edges. This allows for complex, multi-dimensional relationship queries to identify a second device and infer interests. The actual behavioral profile information is not stored centrally. Instead, it is encrypted and stored as data fragments on a decentralized file system like the InterPlanetary File System (IPFS). The first computer system's database only stores the IPFS content identifiers (CIDs) and the decryption key, enhancing data security and user privacy. The "tag information" sent to the second system includes a one-time token that resolves to the relevant CIDs upon successful condition validation.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  erDiagram
      USER ||--o{ DEVICE : has
      USER ||--o{ PII : has
      USER ||--o{ ACTION : performed
      ACTION {
          string type
          datetime timestamp
          string content_CID "IPFS Content Identifier"
      }
      DEVICE {
          string device_id
          string type
      }
      PII {
          string email_hash
          string phone_hash
      }
      USER {
          string user_id
      }
  

II. Derivative Disclosures based on Operational Parameter Expansion

Derivative 3: Millisecond-Latency Real-Time Bidding (RTB) Implementation

• Enabling Description: The invention is adapted for extreme low-latency environments typical of programmatic advertising auctions, where decisions must be made in under 100 milliseconds. The "condition" sent from the first computer system to the second is a pre-compiled WebAssembly (WASM) module. When the second computer system (an ad exchange) receives an ad request from a video player, it executes this WASM module in a sandboxed environment, passing real-time parameters (e.g., video content metadata, user location). The WASM module contains the logic to evaluate the condition and returns a binary true/false. This avoids the network latency of a round-trip API call to the first system for condition checking. If the result is true, the second system then calls the first system to retrieve the ad creative, having already confirmed the condition is met.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  flowchart TD
      subgraph System 1 (First Entity)
          A[Behavioral Profile DB] --> B{Generate Condition};
          B --> C[Compile to WebAssembly Module];
      end
      subgraph System 2 (Second Entity / Ad Exchange)
          E[Video Ad Request Received] --> F{Execute WASM Module w/ Request Data};
          F -- Condition Met --> G[Request Ad Creative from System 1];
          F -- Condition Not Met --> H[Run Auction for Other Ads];
          G --> I[Serve Ad in Video Stream];
      end
      C -- Deployed To --> F;
  

Derivative 4: Air-Gapped/High-Security Environment Application

• Enabling Description: The method is applied within a high-security, air-gapped corporate or government network. "Device 1" is a user's primary workstation where their software usage and document access patterns are logged into a profile by a central monitoring system ("System 1"). "Device 2" is a secure, hardened terminal in a sensitive data room. Using the user's login credentials (PII), System 1 identifies the secure terminal as belonging to the user. System 1 sends "tag information" (user's security clearance hash) and a "condition" (e.g., "user must be accessing 'Project_Alpha' documents") to the terminal's local OS ("System 2"). This transfer happens via a secure, one-way data diode. If the user on the workstation (Device 1) accesses a document tagged 'Project_Alpha', and is logged into the secure terminal (Device 2), the condition is met, and System 1 is triggered to push a temporary, specific firewall rule or data access permission to the secure terminal's OS.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      actor User
      participant Workstation as Device 1
      participant MonitorSvc as System 1
      participant DataDiode
      participant SecureTerminal as Device 2 / System 2
  
      User->>Workstation: Accesses 'Project_Alpha' doc
      Workstation->>MonitorSvc: Log access event (behavioral profile)
      MonitorSvc->>DataDiode: Send Tag(User_Hash) & Condition('Project_Alpha')
      DataDiode->>SecureTerminal: Deliver payload
      User->>SecureTerminal: Logs in
      SecureTerminal->>SecureTerminal: Check local conditions: User_Hash matches AND 'Project_Alpha' condition received
      Note right of SecureTerminal: Condition Met
      SecureTerminal->>DataDiode: Send trigger signal (return path)
      DataDiode->>MonitorSvc: Relay trigger
      MonitorSvc->>DataDiode: Push temporary firewall rule
      DataDiode->>SecureTerminal: Apply rule
  

III. Derivative Disclosures based on Cross-Domain Application

Derivative 5: Aerospace - Predictive Maintenance

• Enabling Description: A ground-based analytics platform ("System 1") records telemetry data from an aircraft engine during testing on a maintenance stand ("Device 1"), building a performance profile. Using the engine's unique serial number (a form of PII for the asset), System 1 identifies the specific aircraft ("Device 2") where the engine is installed. System 1 pre-emptively transfers "tag information" (the engine serial number) and a complex "condition" (a predictive model that outputs a failure probability based on in-flight sensor readings like EGT, vibration, and fuel flow) to the aircraft's onboard avionics computer ("System 2"). During flight, the avionics computer continuously feeds sensor data into the local model. If the predicted failure probability exceeds a pre-set threshold, the condition is met. The avionics computer then triggers a request to System 1 via a satellite link, causing System 1 to transmit a specific diagnostic software routine to the aircraft for execution.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  flowchart LR
      subgraph Ground (System 1)
          A[Engine Test Data] --> B[Build Performance Profile];
          B --> C[Generate Predictive Failure Model];
      end
      subgraph Aircraft (System 2)
          E[Onboard Avionics] --> F{Run Local Failure Model};
          G[Live Engine Sensors] --> F;
          F -- Prob > Threshold --> H[Signal Ground System via SatCom];
          H --> I[Receive & Run Diagnostic Routine];
      end
      C -- Uploaded to --> E;
      H --> J[Request Diagnostic from System 1];
      K[Diagnostic Routine] -- Sent to --> I;
      J --> K;
  

Derivative 6: AgTech - Autonomous Crop Treatment

• Enabling Description: A cloud-based agricultural analytics platform ("System 1") collects data from a network of stationary soil sensors ("Device 1"), building a real-time hydration and nutrient profile for a field. Using the farm's management records and GPS data (PII for the plot), System 1 identifies an autonomous tractor/drone ("Device 2") assigned to that field. System 1 sends "tag information" (the specific plot ID) and a "condition" (e.g., "nitrogen level < 5 ppm AND soil moisture > 30%") to the drone's onboard control unit ("System 2"). The drone patrols the field. When its own GPS confirms it is in the tagged plot and its onboard sensors validate the condition, its control unit sends a confirmation back to System 1. This causes System 1 to serve a precise, variable-rate fertilizer application map to the drone for immediate execution.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant SoilSensors as Device 1
      participant AgPlatform as System 1
      participant Drone as Device 2 / System 2
      
      SoilSensors-->>AgPlatform: Stream soil data
      AgPlatform->>AgPlatform: Build nutrient profile for Plot_7
      AgPlatform->>Drone: Send Tag(Plot_7) & Condition(N < 5ppm)
      Drone->>Drone: Patrols to Plot_7 (verifies via GPS)
      Drone->>Drone: Onboard sensor confirms N < 5ppm
      Note right of Drone: Condition Met
      Drone->>AgPlatform: Request application map for Plot_7
      AgPlatform-->>Drone: Serve variable-rate fertilizer map
      Drone->>Drone: Execute fertilizer application
  

IV. Derivative Disclosures based on Integration with Emerging Tech

Derivative 7: AI-Driven Predictive Condition

• Enabling Description: The "condition" is not a static rule but a machine learning model. The first computer system (System 1) trains a recurrent neural network (RNN) on the user's sequence of actions (the behavioral profile) to predict their next likely intent (e.g., "intent_to_purchase_travel"). System 1 serializes and transfers this trained model to the second computer system (System 2). System 2, which controls ad space in a video stream, feeds real-time contextual data (e.g., video genre, time of day, detected objects in the video frames) into the model. The "condition is met" if the model's output confidence score for a specific intent (e.g., 'purchase_travel') surpasses a dynamic threshold, which itself may be adjusted based on the advertiser's budget.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  stateDiagram-v2
      [*] --> Profiled: User behavior recorded
      Profiled --> ModelTrained: System 1 trains RNN on behavior sequence
      ModelTrained --> ModelDeployed: RNN model sent to System 2
      ModelDeployed --> Evaluating: User watches video on Device 2
      
      Evaluating --> AdTriggered: System 2 feeds video context to RNN, output > threshold
      Evaluating --> Idle: RNN output < threshold
      AdTriggered --> AdServed: System 1 serves ad
      AdServed --> [*]
      Idle --> Evaluating
  

Derivative 8: Blockchain for Consent and Transaction Verification

• Enabling Description: The entire process is mediated by a private blockchain. The user's consent to have their devices linked and profile used is recorded as an immutable transaction. System 1 records the "tag information" and the "condition" in a smart contract. The smart contract holds advertiser funds in escrow. When System 2 (the video provider) determines the condition is met, it calls a function on the smart contract. The smart contract validates the call, triggers an event that notifies System 1 to serve the ad, and automatically releases payment from the advertiser's wallet to the video provider's wallet. This provides a decentralized, transparent, and auditable record of the entire ad transaction without a central clearinghouse.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant User
      participant System1
      participant System2
      participant SmartContract
  
      User->>SmartContract: GrantConsent() transaction
      System1->>SmartContract: CreateAdOpportunity(Tag, Condition, Escrow)
      System2->>System2: User watches video; condition is met
      System2->>SmartContract: ExecuteOpportunity(Tag)
      SmartContract->>System1: Emit AdServeRequest event
      SmartContract->>System2: TransferFunds() from escrow
      System1->>User: Serve Ad
  

V. Derivative Disclosures based on "Inverse" or Failure Mode

Derivative 9: Graceful Degradation to Contextual Targeting

• Enabling Description: The invention includes a fail-safe or privacy-enhanced mode. If System 1's profile on the user is sparse, or if the user has opted for a high-privacy setting, System 1 does not create a detailed behavioral profile. Instead, it only determines a single, broad interest category from the user's action on Device 1. It then sends "tag information" that is a temporary, anonymized identifier, and a "condition" that is purely contextual (e.g., video.category == 'automotive'). System 2 checks only this contextual condition. If met, it causes System 1 to serve a generic, non-personalized ad related to that context. This provides a baseline functionality that operates when the primary behavioral targeting mechanism is unavailable or disabled, ensuring the ad space is still monetized.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  flowchart TD
      A{User Action on Device 1};
      A --> B{Check User Privacy Setting};
      B -- Full Opt-In --> C[Record Detailed Behavioral Profile];
      B -- Limited/Private --> D[Record Broad Contextual Category];
      C --> E[Send Behavioral Condition to System 2];
      D --> F[Send Contextual Condition to System 2];
      subgraph System 2
        G{Check Condition};
        E --> G;
        F --> G;
        G -- Met --> H[Trigger System 1];
      end
      H -- from E --> I[Serve Personalized Ad];
      H -- from F --> J[Serve Contextual Ad];
  

VI. Combination Prior Art Scenarios with Open-Source Standards

Combination 1: Integration with Prebid.js and User ID Modules

• Description: The methodology of US patent 11,610,226 is implemented within the open-source Prebid.js header bidding framework. The first computer system (System 1) operates as a server-side bidding adapter. The "personally identifiable information" is resolved on the client-side (Device 1) by a Prebid User ID module (e.g., Unified ID 2.0, LiveRamp IDL). This identifier is passed in the bid request to the System 1 adapter. System 1 uses this ID to look up the behavioral profile. The "condition" is the bid price and ad creative rules. The second computer system (System 2) is the publisher's website running the Prebid.js auction. If System 1 wins the auction, Prebid.js "causes" System 1 to serve the ad by calling its provided render URL. This entire flow is standardized by the Prebid.js open-source project.

Combination 2: Compliance with IAB OpenRTB Protocol

• Description: The communication protocol between the first and second computer systems is defined by the Interactive Advertising Bureau's (IAB) OpenRTB 2.5 (or later) specification. The second computer system (an Ad Exchange) sends a BidRequest to the first computer system (a Demand-Side Platform or DSP). The "tag information" is contained in the BidRequest.user.ext.eids array, following the standard for external user identifiers. The "behavioral profile information" is held by System 1 and is not transferred. The "condition" is implicitly defined by the parameters of the BidRequest.imp (impression) object, which specifies the ad slot size, video protocols (VAST), and content categories (bcat). System 1's decision to respond with a BidResponse signifies that the condition is met. The ad itself is served based on the adm field in the winning BidResponse.

Combination 3: User Identity via W3C Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs)

• Description: The system is built to operate without relying on PII controlled by the first entity. Instead, user identity across devices is managed using the W3C's Decentralized Identifiers (DID) and Verifiable Credentials (VC) standards. A user controls their own DID. On Device 1, the user's browser (or a wallet application) provides a VC to System 1, proving control of the DID. System 1 associates the behavioral profile with this public DID. On Device 2 (e.g., a Smart TV application), the user authenticates with the same DID. System 2 receives the "tag information" (the user's DID) from the application. The "condition" check involves System 2 requesting a VC from the user's wallet to prove they are the same user and consent to the ad. If verified, System 2 triggers System 1, referencing the public DID to retrieve the appropriate ad. This architecture aligns the patent's mechanism with open standards for self-sovereign identity.