DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Introduction
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on February 3, 2025. Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended.
Currently claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on February 12, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 8 and 15 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1-20 has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on February 3, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 11, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that even if, arguendo, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application such that the claims are patent eligible.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for a claim to integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claimed elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See Revised 2019 Guidance.
Here, beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a computing device of a cloud computing system” and “a web server”. The Specification discloses these additional elements at a high level of generality, for example, “The computing device can transmit a data schema to a first client application executing on a first web server; The computing device can receive a first event data instance and a second event data instance from the first client application” (see Abstract; ¶ 39), and “as illustrated in Fig. 1, the network environment includes a console, a web server, and a cloud infrastructure system (including corresponding computing devices). The console can include a computer, including, by way of example, a personal computer and/or laptop computer, a network-connected point-of-sale system that processes a purchase by the user; The web server can include a computing device (e.g., a server or a series of computing devices” (see ¶ 37-38). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components for performing generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. Thus, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014); and Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and none of the limitations reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, or another technology or technical field.
In the Remarks on page 13, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the limitations of amended claim 1 individually, or collectively, “impose… a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.”
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 amended to include limitations of: “the data schema comprising at least one of a customer ID, a request ID, or a device ID; create a linked list of associated event; and storing, by the attribution generator, the linked list of associated events in a memory queue”. The Specification describes that “The data schema can provide a formal definition of an event data instance and one or more basis for relating one or more data instance. The data schema can include, for example, a customer ID, a request ID, and a device ID” (see ¶ 55); “The link can be one or more data structures that join on or more events. The link is created by adding a data field to the email even and/or the installation event…therefore, joint two or more events creates a linked list (e.g., the attributed record) in the collection of events representing a sequence events.” (see ¶ 45). Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the Specification, requires anything other than a generic computer for performing generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, storing, and transmitting information over a network. The Specification in paragraph [0069] admits that “the service operators may be using one or more client computing devices…the client computing devices can be general purpose personal computers including, by way of example, personal computers and/or laptop computers running various versions of MS Windows, Apple Macintosh, and/or Linus operating system.” Thus, implementing an abstract idea with a generic computing device and used in a conventional manner, and the type of data being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (a computer “employed only for its most basic function…does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims”).
Further, Applicant’s preemption argument, that claim 1, as amended, “is not drafted in such a way as to monopolize any potential judicial exception as there are many ways in which to manipulate data” (see Page 13), is not persuasive. However, lack of monopolization — i.e., lack of preemption — does not make the claims any less abstract. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting cases); Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1345; Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility”).
In the Remarks on page 15, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that even if, arguendo, the claims are abstract, the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and thus qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, storing and transmitting information over a network. However, these functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computer. Therefore, generic computers performing generic computer functions to apply an abstract idea do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Therefore, simply implementing the abstract idea with a generic computers for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
With respect to the DDR case, the court has held that the claimed invention in DDR did not simply use computers to serve a conventional business purpose; instead, the invention was “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer network.” See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Which the network itself operated was changed to improve network operations.
With respect to the non-precedential “Trading Technologies” case, the Examiner points to a memorandum stating that Examiners should avoid relying upon or citing non-precedential decisions unless the facts of the application under examination uniquely match the facts at issue in the non-precedential decision. However, in Trading Technologies, the court held that, rather than reciting “a mathematical algorithm,” “a fundamental economic or longstanding commercial practice,” or “a challenge in business,” the challenged patents “solve problems of prior graphical user interface devices…in the context of computerized trading[] relating to speed, accuracy and usability.” Thus, the court found that these patents are directed to improvements in existing graphical user interface devices that have no “pre-electronic trading analog,” and recite more than “setting, displaying, and selecting data or information that is visible on the [graphical user interface] device.” Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., N.D. Ill., (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Affirming Case No. 05-cv-4811 (Feb. 24, 2015)).
With respect to the Bascom case, in Bascom, the claims were directed to the inventive concept of providing customizable Internet-content filtering which was found to transform the abstract idea of filtering content into a patent-eligible invention. Although the underlying idea of filtering Internet content was deemed abstract, the claims carved out a specific location for the filtering system, namely a remote Internet service provider (ISP) server, and required the filtering system to give users the ability to customize filtering for their individual network accounts. BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-52, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In contrast, none of the rejected claims adhere to the same fact pattern seen in DDR holdings, Trading Technologies, and BASCOM as discussed above. The claims neither improve the computer network operating in its normal manner by sending the website visitor to the thirty-party website that appears to be connected with the clicked advertisement as in DDR Holdings; nor improve the existing graphical user interface devices that have no “pre-electronic trading analog”; nor perform the abstract steps in a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content.
Instead, Applicant’s invention is related to a method for calculating an attribution score between the first event data instance and the second event data instance, and transmitting the attribution score between the first event data instance and the second event data instance to the third party. More specifically, the Specification describes that “Computer systems configured to collect explicit feedback from users regarding a product or a service. These computing systems come with high upfront investment costs and have practical problems. These computing systems also have practical problems that diminish the quality of the explicit feedback. For example, many online recommendation systems ask a user to provide an annotation describing the quality of a recommended product or service.” (see ¶ 34). Thus, receiving, transmitting, storing, and maintaining records in a secure, verifiable, and auditable manner using a generic computer as a tool to do what was previously done manually. See, e.g., Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology”).
In the Remarks on page 18, Applicant argues that neither Alspaugh, Badger nor Palay, alone or in combination, teaches or suggest all of the claimed features. For example, claim 1 recites, among other things, “the data schema comprising at least one of a customer ID, a request ID, or a device ID,” and “storing a memory address for the second event data instance in the data field of the table associated with the first event data instance.”
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Alspaugh clearly discloses a customer ID (see Fig. 7A; and col. 34, lines 1-15).
Palay discloses storing a memory address for the second event data instance in the data field of the table associated with the first event data instance (see col. 15, lines 1-6: stores the address of such memory in the appropriate field of the associated entry in the symbol table).
Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation to one of ordinary skill in the art, Alspaugh and in view of Palay teaches the limitation in the form of Applicant claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1-7 are directed to a method for estimating a downstream impact, which falls within the statutory category of a process; claims 8-14 are directed to an apparatus comprising a processor and computer-readable medium, which falls within the statutory category of a machine; and Claims 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, which falls within the statutory category of a product.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking the method as representative, claim 1 recites steps of “transmitting a data schema, receiving a first event data instance and a second event data instance, formatting the first event data instance and the second event data instance to conform to a uniform format as described by the data schema, identifying a common characteristic between the first and second event data instance characteristics, linking the first data event data instance and the second event data instance based at least in part on a third event data instance characteristic of the plurality of event data instance characteristic of the data schema, adding a data field to a table associated with the first event data instance, storing a memory address for the second event data instance in the data field of the table, storing the linked list of associated events, calculating an attribution score between the first event data instance and the second event data instance, receiving call from a third party requesting the attribution score, and transmitting attribution score to the third party”. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are methods that allow user to manipulate data requested by a thirty-party, manage commercial interactions including marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and manage personal behavior or interactions between people including social activities, teaching and following rules or instruction, which fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Further, the claim recites a concept similar to the claims as discussed in Electric Power Group (e.g., collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain result of the collection and analysis, see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Dependent claims 2-7 further narrow the limitations of claim 1 which also cover subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
The mere nominal recitation of “by a computing device”, “a web server”, and “an application programming interface” do not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping because these elements are recited at a high level of generality amounted to no more than generic computer components for generic computer functions. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Further, the “memory address”, in this case, is directed to data per se. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite the additional elements of “by a computing device”, “a web server”, and “an application programming interface”. The Specification discloses these additional elements at a high level of generality, for example, “The computing device can transmit a data schema to an application executing on a web server; The computing device can receive a first event data instance and a second event data instance from the first client application” (see Abstract; ¶ 39). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components. Thus, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014); and Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and does not reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “by a computing device”, “a web server”, and “an application programming interface”. The Specification discloses these additional elements at a high level of generality, for example, “The computing device can transmit a data schema to a first client application executing on a first web server; The computing device can receive a first event data instance and a second event data instance from the first client application” (see Abstract; ¶ 39). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components. At best, these generic computer components may perform the generic computer functions including receiving, storing, and transmitting information over a network. However, generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Storing a memory address in an appropriate field of the associated entry in the table (see Palay et al., US_5813120, col. 15, lines 1-6)). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-7 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, the other claims, system claims 8-14 and medium claims 15-20 parallel claims 1-7—similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alspaugh et al., (US 10936643 B1, hereinafter: Alspaugh), and in view of Badger et al., (US 2021/0209637, hereinafter: Badger), and further in view of Palay et al., (US 5613120, hereinafter: Palay).
Regarding claim 1, Alspaugh discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
transmitting, by a computing device of a cloud computing system, a data schema to a first client application executing on a first web server, the data schema describing a plurality of event data instance characteristics (see col. 4, lines 20-52, col. 8, lines 43-67, claim 1, claim 2);
receiving, by the computing device, a first event data instance and a second event data instance from the first client application, the first event data instance comprising a first event data instance characteristic of the plurality of event data instance characteristics, and the second event data instance comprising a second event data instance characteristic of the plurality of event data instance characteristics (see col. 6, lines 43-67, col. 64, line 61 to col. 65, line 62, claim 21, and claim 24);
formatting, by the computing device, the first event data instance and the second event data instance to conform to a uniform format as described by the data schema (see col. 4, line 53 to col. 5, line 9, col. 5, line 57 to col. 6, line 21, col. 15, lines 43-55), the data schema comprising at least one of a customer ID (see Fig. 7A; col. 33, lines 54 to col. 34, line 15), a request ID, or a device ID;
receiving, by the computing device, an application programming interface call from a third party requesting the attribution score between the first event data instance and the second event data instance (see col. 8, lines 26-42, col. 9, lines 20-34, col. 13, lines 35-64, col. 17, lines 39-55); and
transmitting, by the computing device, the attribution score between the first event data instance and the second event data instance to the third party based at least in part on the application programming interface call (see col. 30, lines 4-43, claims 13-15).
Alspaugh discloses generating a score for each of the lower level instances associated with a cluster that represents the probability, or the confidence that the lower level instance properly belongs in the associated higher level cluster. Such score may indicate some measure of the strength of the association between the lower and higher instances (see col. 66, lines 48-60, and col. 75, lines 21-40).
Alspaugh does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Badger in an analogous art for attributing purchase events between online and offline activity discloses
a request ID or a device ID (see ¶ 28);
identifying, by the computing device, a common characteristic between the first event data instance characteristic and the second event data instance characteristic based at least in part on the data schema (see ¶ 18, ¶ 27-28, ¶ 52-53);
linking, by the computing device and based at least in part on the identified common characteristic, the first event data instance and the second event data instance to create a linked list of associated event (see ¶ 28-29, ¶ 35, ¶ 38, ¶ 42, ¶ 53-54) by at least:
calculating, by the computing device, an attribution score between the first event data instance and the second event data instance based at least in part on the linking between the first event data instance and the second event data instance (see ¶ 42, ¶ 60, claim 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Alspaugh to include teaching of Badger in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing the score computation efficiency, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Alspaugh and Badger do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Palay in an analogous art for linking source files discloses
adding a data field to a table associated with the first event data instance (see col. 4, lines 7-39; col. 15, line 56 to col. 16, line 6); and
storing a memory address for the second event data instance in the data field of the table associated with the first event data in instance (see col. 15, lines 1-6, and lines 46-55);
storing, by the attribution generator, the linked list of associated events in a memory queue (see col. 6, lines 15-21; col. 8, lines 16-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Alspaugh and in view of Badger to include teaching of Palay in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for data management, which improves the efficiency of object-oriented computation. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Alspaugh discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first event data instance corresponds to a first request by a first client application to the web server, and the second event data instance corresponds to a second request from a second client application to the web server (see col. 4, lines 20-52, col. 7, lines 17-31; col. 12, lines 3-36, claim 9).
Regarding claim 3, Alspaugh discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first event data instance is received by the computing device in a first format and the second event data instance is received by the computing device in a second format (see col. 4, line 45 to col. 5, line 9, col. 15, lines 53-55).
Regarding claim 4, Alspaugh discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the memory address comprises a pointer (see col. 20, lines 5-15, col. 34, lines 37-52).
Regarding claim 5, Alspaugh does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however Badger discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises transmitting the linked first event data instance and second event data instance to a memory queue prior to calculating the attribution score (see ¶ 29-30, ¶ 52-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Alspaugh to include teaching of Badger in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing the score computation efficiency, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 6, Alspaugh discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises, upon the calculation of the attribution score, formatting the linked first event data instance and second event data instance for use as training data for a machine learning algorithm (see col. 52, lines 35-63, col. 64, lines 42-60).
Regarding claim 7, Alspaugh discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the linked first event data instance and second event data instance comprise a linked list (see Fig. 8A; col. 23, lines 34-52, col. 38, lines 9-21, col. 40, line 65 to col. 41, line 3).
Regarding claim 8, Alspaugh discloses a cloud infrastructure node, comprising:
a processor (see col. 6, lines 31-42); and
a computer-readable medium including instructions that (see col. 78, lines 54-67), when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
transmit a data schema to a first client application executing on a first web server, the data schema describing a plurality of event data instance characteristics (see col. 4, lines 20-52, col. 8, lines 43-67, claim 1, claim 2);
receive a first event data instance and a second event data instance from the first client application, the first event data instance comprising a first event data instance characteristic of the plurality of event data instance characteristics, and the second event data instance comprising a second event data instance characteristic of the plurality of event data instance characteristics (see col. 6, lines 43-67, col. 64, line 61 to col. 65, line 62, claim 21, and claim 24);
format the first event data instance and the second event data instance to conform to a uniform format as described by the data schema (see col. 4, line 53 to col. 5, line 9, col. 5, line 57 to col. 6, line 21, col. 15, lines 43-55), the data schema comprising at least one of a customer ID (see Fig. 7A; col. 33, lines 54 to col. 34, line 15), a request ID, or a device ID;
receive an application programming interface call from a third party requesting the attribution score between the first event data instance and the second event data instance (see col. 8, lines 26-42, col. 9, lines 20-34, col. 13, lines 35-64, col. 17, lines 39-55); and
transmit the attribution score between the first event data instance and the second event data instance to the third party based at least in part on the application programming interface call (see col. 30, lines 4-43, claims 13-15).
Alspaugh discloses generating a score for each of the lower level instances associated with a cluster that represents the probability, or the confidence that the lower level instance properly belongs in the associated higher level cluster. Such score may indicate some measure of the strength of the association between the lower and higher instances (see col. 66, lines 48-60, and col. 75, lines 21-40).
Alspaugh does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Badger in an analogous art for attributing purchase events between online and offline activity discloses
a request ID or a device ID (see ¶ 28);
identify a common characteristic between the first event data instance characteristic and the second event data instance characteristic based at least in part on the data schema (see ¶ 18, ¶ 27-28, ¶ 52-53);
link, based at least in part on the identified common characteristic, the first event data instance and the second event data instance to create a linked list of associated event (see ¶ 28-29, ¶ 35, ¶ 38, ¶ 42, ¶ 53-54) by at least:
calculate an attribution score between the first event data instance and the second event data instance based at least in part on the linking between the first event data instance and the second event data instance (see ¶ 42, ¶ 60, claim 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Alspaugh to include teaching of Badger in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing the score computation efficiency, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Alspaugh and Badger do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Palay in an analogous art for linking source files discloses
adding a data field to a table associated with the first event data instance (see col. 4, lines 7-39; col. 15, line 56 to col. 16, line 6); and
storing a memory address for the second event data instance in the data field of the table associated with the first event data in instance (see col. 15, lines 1-6, and lines 46-55);
storing, by the attribution generator, the linked list of associated events in a memory queue (see col. 6, lines 15-21; col. 8, lines 16-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Alspaugh and in view of Badger to include teaching of Palay in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for data management, which improves the efficiency of object-oriented computation. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 9, Alspaugh discloses the cloud infrastructure node of claim 8, wherein the first event data instance corresponds to a first request by a first client application to the web server, and the second event data instance corresponds to a second request from a second client application to the web server (see col. 4, lines 20-52, col. 7, lines 17-31, col. 12, lines 3-36 and claim 9).
Regarding claim 10, Alspaugh discloses the cloud infrastructure node of claim 8, wherein the first event data instance is received in a first format and the second event data instance is received in a second format (see col. 4, line 45 to col. 5, line 9, col. 15, lines 53-55).
Regarding claim 11, Alspaugh discloses the cloud infrastructure node of claim 8, wherein the memory address comprises a pointer (see col. 20, lines 5-15, col. 34, lines 37-52).
Regarding claim 12, Alspaugh does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however Badger discloses the cloud infrastructure node of claim 8, wherein the processor further 78 transmits the linked first event data instance and second event data instance to a memory queue prior to calculating the attribution score (see ¶ 29-30, ¶ 52-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Alspaugh to include teaching of Badger in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing the score computation efficiency, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 13, Alspaugh discloses the cloud infrastructure node of claim 8, wherein the processor further, upon the calculation of the attribution score, formats the linked first event data instance and second event data instance for use as training data for a machine learning algorithm (see col. 52, lines 35-63, col. 64, lines 42-60).
Regarding claim 14, Alspaugh discloses the cloud infrastructure node of claim 8, wherein the linked first event data instance and second event data instance comprise a linked list (see Fig. 8A; col. 23, lines 34-52, col. 38, lines 9-21, col. 40, line 65 to col. 41, line 3).
Regarding claim 15, Alspaugh discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform operations comprising:
transmitting a data schema to a first client application executing on a first web server, the data schema describing a plurality of event data instance characteristics (see col. 4, lines 20-52, col. 8, lines 43-67, claim 1, claim 2);
receiving a first event data instance and a second event data instance from the first client application, the first event data instance comprising a first event data instance characteristic of the plurality of event data instance characteristics, and the second event data instance comprising a second event data instance characteristic of the plurality of event data instance characteristics (see col. 6, lines 43-67, col. 64, line 61 to col. 65, line 62, claim 21, and claim 24);
formatting the first event data instance and the second event data instance to conform to a uniform format as described by the data schema (see col. 4, line 53 to col. 5, line 9, col. 5, line 57 to col. 6, line 21, col. 15, lines 43-55), the data schema comprising at least one of a customer ID (see Fig. 7A; col. 33, lines 54 to col. 34, line 15), a request ID, or a device ID;
receiving an application programming interface call from a third party requesting the attribution score between the first event data instance and the second event data instance(see col. 8, lines 26-42, col. 9, lines 20-34, col. 13, lines 35-64, col. 17, lines 39-55); and
transmitting the attribution score between the first event data instance and the second event data instance to the third party based at least in part on the application programming interface call (see col. 30, lines 4-43, claims 13-15).
Alspaugh discloses generating a score for each of the lower level instances associated with a cluster that represents the probability, or the confidence that the lower level instance properly belongs in the associated higher level cluster. Such score may indicate some measure of the strength of the association between the lower and higher instances (see col. 66, lines 48-60, and col. 75, lines 21-40).
Alspaugh does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Badger in an analogous art for attributing purchase events between online and offline activity discloses
a request ID or a device ID (see ¶ 28);
identifying a common characteristic between the first event data instance characteristic and the second event data instance characteristic based at least in part on the data schema (see ¶ 18, ¶ 27-28, ¶ 52-53);
linking, based at least in part on the identified common characteristic, the first event data instance and the second event data instance to create a linked list of associated event (see ¶ 28-29, ¶ 35, ¶ 38, ¶ 42, ¶ 53-54) by at least:
calculating an attribution score between the first event data instance and the second event data instance based at least in part on the linking between the first event data instance and the second event data instance (see ¶ 42, ¶ 60, claim 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Alspaugh to include teaching of Badger in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing the score computation efficiency, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Alspaugh and Badger do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Palay in an analogous art for linking source files discloses
adding a data field to a table associated with the first event data instance (see col. 4, lines 7-39; col. 15, line 56 to col. 16, line 6); and
storing a memory address for the second event data instance in the data field of the table associated with the first event data in instance (see col. 15, lines 1-6, and lines 46-55);
storing, by the attribution generator, the linked list of associated events in a memory queue (see col. 6, lines 15-21; col. 8, lines 16-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Alspaugh and in view of Badger to include teaching of Palay in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for data management, which improves the efficiency of object-oriented computation. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 16, Alspaugh discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the first event data instance corresponds to a first request by a first client application to the web server, and the second event data instance corresponds to a second request from a second client application to the web server (see col. 4, lines 20-52, col. 7, lines 17-31; col. 12, lines 3-36, and claim 9).
Regarding claim 17, Alspaugh discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the first event data instance is received in a first format and the second event data instance is received in a second format (see col. 4, line 45 to col. 5, line 9, col. 15, lines 53-55).
Regarding claim 18, Alspaugh discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the memory address comprises a pointer (see col. 20, lines 5-15, col. 34, lines 37-52).
Regarding claim 19, Alspaugh does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however Badger discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise transmitting the linked first event data instance and second event data instance to a memory queue prior to calculating the attribution score (see ¶ 29-30, ¶ 52-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Alspaugh to include teaching of Badger in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing the score computation efficiency, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 20, Alspaugh discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise, upon the calculation of the attribution score, formatting the linked first event data instance and second event data instance for use as training data for a machine learning algorithm (see col. 52, lines 35-63, col. 64, lines 42-60).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu (CN 101963990) discloses a digitalized modeling and searching method for personal relationship and event based on the structure of a feature ternary tree.
Yan et al., (US 20180260715) discloses a method for determining attribution scores for each interaction used in the conversion paths.
Saxena et al., (US 2017/0091811) discloses a system for generating attribution metrics based on a sequential data structure characterizes a sequential representation of at least some of a plurality of data events during a time period.
Sharma (US 2018/0157699) discloses a method for determining schema change in events received by a data stream processing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624