Prior art

Analysis of Prior Art Cited in U.S. Patent 8,671,139

This analysis details the most relevant prior art references cited during the examination of U.S. Patent 8,671,139 ("the '139 patent"). Each reference is evaluated for its potential to anticipate the independent claims (1, 19, and 37) of the '139 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The independent claims of the '139 patent generally cover a method, device, and system for directing electronic ads by:

1. Automatically directing, to a third-party server controlling ad space on a second media property, indicia of a condition for displaying an ad to a visitor.
2. Automatically authorizing the server to display the ad to that visitor when they later visit the second media property, subject to determining that the condition has been met.
3. Basing this authorization on the visitor's profile attribute(s) received as a result of the visitor's activity on a first media property.

The following references were cited by the USPTO examiner during the patent's prosecution.

---

1. U.S. Patent No. 7,668,745 (to Kudo, et al.)

• Full Citation: US 7,668,745 B2, Kudo, et al., "Advertisement distribution system, advertisement distribution method, and advertisement distribution program."
• Publication/Filing Dates: Filed Aug 1, 2003; Issued Feb 23, 2010. This qualifies as prior art.
• Brief Description: The Kudo patent describes an advertisement distribution system that selects ads based on user profiles. A central ad server collects user information (e.g., browsing history) and stores it in a database. When a user visits a partner website, the site sends a request to the ad server. The ad server then matches the user's profile with advertiser criteria to select and deliver a targeted advertisement. It focuses on matching user attributes to ad campaign requirements.
• Potential Anticipation Analysis:
  • Kudo discloses collecting profile attributes from a visitor's activity on one property and using it to serve an ad on another property. It also describes a system where an ad server authorizes the display of an ad.
  • Anticipation of Claim 1: Kudo's system appears to meet several elements of claim 1, such as basing ad delivery on profile attributes gathered from a visitor's activity. However, it is arguable whether Kudo explicitly teaches sending indicia of a condition for display to a third-party server and making the ad display subject to determining that the condition has been met in the manner claimed by the '139 patent. The '139 patent focuses on pre-authorizing a third-party server based on a future condition (like a price cap), whereas Kudo seems to describe a more direct ad selection and serving process based on existing user data. Therefore, Kudo likely does not fully anticipate claim 1.

2. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0161633 (to Speaker, et al.)

• Full Citation: US 2002/0161633 A1, Speaker, et al., "Targeted advertising using a personal data service."
• Publication/Filing Dates: Filed Apr 26, 2001; Published Oct 31, 2002. This qualifies as prior art.
• Brief Description: Speaker discloses a system for delivering targeted advertising while maintaining user privacy. A "personal data service" stores user profiles. When a user visits a website, the site requests an ad from an ad network. The ad network queries the personal data service, which provides non-personally-identifiable profile attributes. The ad network then selects an ad based on these attributes and any advertiser-specified conditions (e.g., demographics, interests).
• Potential Anticipation Analysis:
  • Speaker describes using profile attributes to select targeted ads for a user on a "second media property" (the website hosting the ad) based on data gathered previously. It also involves an intermediary (the ad network) authorizing the ad display.
  • Anticipation of Claim 1: Similar to Kudo, Speaker teaches many core concepts of targeted advertising. The system considers advertiser-specified conditions for displaying an ad. However, the '139 patent's claims are specific about the system directing indicia of a condition to the third-party server and then authorizing the ad display subject to that condition being met later. Speaker's disclosure is more focused on a real-time request-and-response model for ad selection based on matching profiles to existing campaign rules, rather than setting a future condition for display with a third party. It is unlikely that Speaker fully anticipates the specific conditional authorization process of claim 1.

3. U.S. Patent No. 7,716,104 (to Horvitz, et al.)

• Full Citation: US 7,716,104 B2, Horvitz, et al., "Models of attention, intention, and information value for notification and display."
• Publication/Filing Dates: Filed Dec 30, 2002; Issued May 11, 2010. This qualifies as prior art.
• Brief Description: The Horvitz patent describes a system that determines the value of displaying information (including ads or alerts) to a user by calculating an expected utility. It models the user's context, attention, and the potential value or cost of an interruption. The system decides whether and when to display a piece of information based on whether the expected value exceeds a certain threshold or cost.
• Potential Anticipation Analysis:
  • Horvitz is highly relevant to the '139 patent's concept of making decisions based on economic calculations. It explicitly discusses calculating the value of an ad and comparing it against a cost or threshold to make a display decision. The '139 patent's profit calculation is a form of this utility calculation.
  • Anticipation of Claim 1: Horvitz discloses a system that authorizes the display of information (an ad) subject to a condition being met (the utility/value exceeding a cost). This aligns closely with the core mechanism claimed in the '139 patent. The primary distinction may lie in the architecture. The '139 patent claims directing these conditions to a third-party server that controls ad space on a second property. Horvitz's system could be interpreted as a more integrated system where the decision logic resides within a single entity's control. If Horvitz does not clearly disclose the specific interaction between a first system sending conditions and a distinct third-party server evaluating those conditions later, it would not fully anticipate the claim. However, this reference presents a strong challenge, particularly for obviousness if not direct anticipation.

4. U.S. Patent No. 8,204,783 (to Shkedi)

• Full Citation: US 8,204,783 B2, Shkedi, "Media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery."
• Publication/Filing Dates: Filed Jun 25, 2010; Issued Jun 19, 2012.
• Potential Anticipation Analysis: This patent is part of the same patent family as the '139 patent; specifically, the '139 patent is a continuation of the application that led to this patent. As such, it does not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 against the '139 patent but is cited for informational purposes to show the lineage of the invention.

---

In summary, while several prior art references, particularly Kudo '745 and Speaker '633, teach the foundational elements of profile-based targeted advertising across different media properties, they arguably fail to disclose the specific two-step process of (1) directing a future condition for ad display to a third-party server and (2) having that server later authorize the display only if the condition is met. The Horvitz '104 patent comes closest to teaching the conditional, value-based authorization central to the '139 patent's claims, but its potential to anticipate hinges on whether its disclosed system architecture maps directly onto the multi-party system described in the claims of the '139 patent.