Status of Claims
1. This is a Final office action in response to communication received on November 03, 2025. Claims 1, 8, and 5 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined herein.
Priority
2. Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 3 5 U.S. C. 119( e) or under 35 U.S. C. 120, 121, 365( c ), or 386( c) is acknowledged.
Reason(s) for Withdrawal of Double Patenting
3. The Applicant has resolved this rejection by filing a proper terminal disclaimer of record 05/27/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Next using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidances (hereinafter 2019 PEG) the rejection as follows has been applied.
Under step 1, analysis is based on MPEP 2106.03, Claims 1-7 are a method; claims 7-14 are a system; and claims 15-20 are interpreted as a non-transitory CRM storing a computer program product which is executed by a processor. Thus, each claim 1-17, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories (i.e., useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) of 35 U.S.C. §101.
Under Step 2A Prong One, per MPEP 2106.04, prong one asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement."
Next, per 2019 PEG, to determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: (I) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and (II) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG. If the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I, analysis should proceed to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
(I) An abstract idea as recited per abstract recitation of claims 1-20 [i.e. recitation with the exception of additional elements as noted and analyzed under step 2A prong two and step 2B inquiries below, i.e. under step 2A prong one the Examiner considered claim recitation other than the additional elements (which once again are expressly noted below) to be the abstract recitation] (II) is that of ascertaining one or more performance metrics related to an ad or commercial causing unique visitor to visit an entity, i.e. iteratively performing calculating, subtracting, constructing, computing, and comparing until estimated lift and newly calculated lift are within arbitrarily set range and then using the new lift as final lift to determine performance caused by the ad or commercial in an offline medium which is certain methods of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts.
The phrase "Certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
The phrase "Mathematical concepts" applies to mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. Further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. A-C. The instant application determines an estimated lift and iteratively adjusts, fits, computes, compares until the previously calculated and the calculated lift are within a range, which is similar to findings, of performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.)"
Therefore, the identified limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of 2019 PEG, thus analysis now proceeds to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, per MPEP 2106.04, prong two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’).
Next, per 2019 PEG, Prong Two represents a change from prior guidance. The analysis under Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (I) Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (II) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.
Accordingly, the examiner will evaluate whether the claims recite one or more additional element(s) that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception by considering them both individually and as a whole.
The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea, i.e. additional elements, as recited in claims 1-20 at least are a computer receiving data from a spot airing data provider, the visitors are on websites, the television spot is airing in an offline media, and that the performance metric visualizations are generated by visualizers and displayed on an interface (per claim 1); A system, comprising: a processor; a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and stored instructions translatable by the processor for: (per claim 8 remaining additional elements as noted per claim 1); computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions translatable by a processor (per claim 15 remaining additional elements as noted per claim 1). Remaining claims, namely 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, either recite the same additional element(s) as already noted above or simply lack recitation of an additional element, in which case note prong one as set forth above.
As would be readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter PHOSITA), the additional elements are generic computing device and/or components. The additional elements are simply utilized as generic tools to implement the abstract idea or plan as "apply it" instructions (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are generic as they are described at a high level of generality, see at least as-filed Figs. 1-2, 10, and their associated disclosure. The processor executing the "apply it" instruction is further connected to one or more device merely sending/receiving data over a network, note 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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Received data is considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the processor analyzes received data to ascertain one or more performance metrics by iteratively performing calculations. Thus, the process is similar to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group) – analysis here is again performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.)". The abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment such as collecting data via a network and analyzing data via a generic processor to ascertain performance metric(s), however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception as explained above.
Thus, the abstract idea of ascertaining one or more performance metrics related to an ad or commercial causing unique visitor to visit an entity, i.e. iteratively performing calculating, subtracting, constructing, computing, and comparing until estimated lift and newly calculated lift are within arbitrarily set range and then using the new lift as final lift to determine performance caused by the ad or commercial in an offline medium which is certain methods of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts is not integrated into a practical application upon consideration of the additional element(s) both individually and as a combination (prong two).
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.
Under step 2B, per MPEP 2106.05, as it applies to claims 1-20, the Examiner will evaluate whether the foregoing additional elements analyzed under prong two, when considered both individually and as a whole provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). The abstract idea of ascertaining one or more performance metrics related to an ad or commercial causing unique visitor to visit an entity, i.e. iteratively performing calculating, subtracting, constructing, computing, and comparing until estimated lift and newly calculated lift are within arbitrarily set range and then using the new lift as final lift to determine performance caused by the ad or commercial in an offline medium which is certain methods of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts - has not been applied in an eligible manner. The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea are simply being utilized as generic tools to execute "apply it" instructions as they are described at a high level of generality. Additionally, the abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Id. or note step 2A prong two).
Regarding, insignificant solution activity such as data gathering or post solution activity such as displaying on interface, the Examiner relies on court cases and publications that demonstrate that such a way to gather data and display information is indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry or art, at least note as follows:
(i) 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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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) [similarly here offline promotion data at a particular time and online user activity data at the particular time is sent/received/transmitted over a network]; and
(ii) Affinity v DirecTV - "The court rejected the argument that the computer components recited in the claims constituted an “inventive concept.” It held that the claims added “only generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database,’” and that “recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” Id. at 1324-25 (citations omitted). The court noted that nothing in the asserted claims purported to improve the functioning of the computer itself or “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.” Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359)." [similarly here as a post solution promotion performance metric or their impact on lift is communicated or displayed to user on an interface].
Therefore the claims here fail to contain any additional element(s) or combination of additional elements that can be considered as significantly more and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lacking eligible subject matter.
Reasons for Non-applicability Prior Art
5. The newly discovered pertinent prior art references are noted in the Conclusion section, however similar to closest prior art references and reasons of non-applicability of prior art noted in the Non-Final Rejection of record 06/12/2024 still holds true as a prima facie case of obviousness could not be established using one or more of these prior art references.
Remarks
6. As per 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments in their entirety however finds them unpersuasive for the reasons noted below.
The Examiner respectfully maintains his analysis is proper and based on a proper evaluation of the claims under prong one, prong two, and step 2B it was determined that the claims are ineligible. Thus, contrary to the Applicant’s assertion in view of Koninklijke KPN N. V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d1143 (2019) "recite a specific means or method that solves a problem in an existing technological process" the Examiner maintains that (1) facts of Koninklijke KPN N. V. v. Gema/to M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d1143 (2019) do not uniquely match the ones in the instant application which the Applicant does not deny, and (2) determination of eligibility is based on 2019 PEG based analysis which is carried out on a case-by-case basis and evaluation of “recite a specific means or method that solves a problem in an existing technological process” is inherent in 2019 PEG based analysis. Thus, in the instant application, as ascertained by the Examiner, the claims in the instant application fail to set forth patent eligible claims, again, as the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Next, the Applicant argues that the Examiner has interpreted claims improperly as the interpretation is somehow divorced from the as-filed specification or not in light of the as-filed specification and produced erroneous arguments because the Applicant's arguments are contradicting on pages 10-12 of the remarks filed 11/03/2025. This is because on one hand the Applicant alleges that the Examiner imported limitations which would improperly narrow the scope and interpretation of the claims, see page 10 of the response filed 11/03/2025, note "Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that the Examiner has improperly imported limitations from the as-filed specification into the claim limitations and then interpreted the claims as such"; and on the other hand the Applicant argues "Judge Lourie explained the familiar refrain that the broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean an interpretation so broad that it would encompass an unreasonable construction under claim construction principles (citing Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)), nor does broadest reasonable interpretation allow for a legally incorrect interpretation that is divorced from the specification and record evidence (citing PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 751-53 (Fed. Cir. 2016))." Further, the Applicant then argues that the Examiner interpretation is inconsistent with the as-filed specification somehow without clearly stating on the record what claim language is being interpreted inconsistently? The rejection has been updated in view of filed claim amendments.
Thus, the Examiner respectfully maintains that the Applicant's arguments are unpersuasive because under prong one analysis, based on a proper BRI in light of the as-filed specification without importing limitations from the as-filed specification and consistent with how a PHOSITA would interpret the abstract idea as set forth based on abstract recitation under prong one analysis was properly determined and noted by the Examiner. Once again, per MPEP 2106.04, prong one asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement." Therefore, the Applicant argues that appear to attempt to argue against prong one in view of improper BRI in light of the as-filed specification are unpersuasive.
Next, the Applicant’s analysis of additional elements on the record is erroneous, note Applicant’s remarks on pages 13-14 of the response filed 11/03/2025. The Applicant is directed to note MPEP 2106.04 which now incorporated 2019 PEG based analysis, prong two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’). Thus, as an example, the Applicant noting abstract recitation, namely “determining, using the final calculated lift, one or more performance metrics relating to the TV spot airing on the offline medium” as additional element is clearly erroneous. Therefore, based on the properly identified additional elements by the Examiner, it is clear that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because “viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception as explained above.
Thus, the abstract idea of ascertaining one or more performance metrics related to an ad or commercial causing unique visitor to visit an entity, i.e. iteratively performing calculating, subtracting, constructing, computing, and comparing until estimated lift and newly calculated lift are within arbitrarily set range and then using the new lift as final lift to determine performance caused by the ad or commercial in an offline medium which is certain methods of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts is not integrated into a practical application upon consideration of the additional element(s) both individually and as a combination (prong two). Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.”
Contrary to the Applicant’s assertion and as noted above with a proper prong one analysis the Examiner described the claimed invention entails consistent with the manner in which the Supreme Court described the invention as “intermediated” “settlement” despite those words never being recited in the claims. Furthermore, a PHOSITA would clearly understand the claimed invention as ascertaining a performance metric for ads thorough iterative mathematical computations, which is consistent with findings “And, lastly note SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 – “Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract” SAP Am., Inc. v. Investpic, LLC 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2018), i.e. a self-consistent inception (SCI), mathematical concepts, executed by a computer as “apply it” instructions executes (using additional element prong two) one or more computations to ascertain accurate baseline, mathematical concepts fails to integrate the abstract idea into practical application and the claims were determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
Therefore the Examiner finds the Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive and respectfully maintain the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, as neither the arguments nor amendments are sufficient to overcome the proper 2019 PEG 35 U.S.C. 101 based rejection as set forth by the Examiner.
Examiner’s Note
7. For the clarity of record, the Examiner notes that a telephonic interview took place between the Examiner and the Applicant’s representative on 11/04/2025 the details of which are encompassed in Examiner Interview Summary Record (PTOL - 413) of record 11/06/2025. The interview took place day after the response was already filed by the Applicant on 11/03/2025.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and all the references on PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited should be duly noted by the Applicant as they can be subsequently used during prosecution, at least note as follows:
*Being noted initially
- Patent No.: US12,363,366 see Abstract “measure web activity bursts after ad broadcasts that may be sent to multiple persons. One system uses a cookie-less/cookie-optional, anonymous/personal-identification-not-required, method for web-based conversion tracking that will work on broadcast media systems such as television, and could also be applied to measuring spikes from email, radio, and other forms of advertising where an episodic ad event is broadcast to multiple parties, and where responses occur in a batch after the broadcast”
*Previously noted
- Pub. No.: US2018/0204224 see [0037] note “The plurality of null lift values may be iteratively calculated by the analytics server 106 by entering values of the randomly selected null time period, the randomly selected null test location, the randomly selected null item, and at least one of the plurality of null baselines into a computer program that executes a lift model.”; [0039]; [0057] note “At step 310, the analytics server may evaluate lift for each baseline algorithm. In an embodiment, the analytics server iteratively calculates a plurality of null lift values using the randomly selected null time period, the randomly selected null test location, the randomly selected null item, and a plurality of null baselines determined by a plurality of null baseline algorithms. The plurality of null baselines correspond to at least one of the null test location's prior year's sales value, prior week's sales value, and prior week's category share value. It is to be noted that any other suitable null baseline algorithms may be utilized to calculate baseline known in the art may be employed in order to calculate the plurality of null baselines for the randomly selected null item(s) without moving out from the scope of the disclosed embodiments. The plurality of null lift values may be iteratively calculated by the analytics server by entering values of the randomly selected null time period, the randomly selected null test location, the randomly selected null item, and at least one of the plurality of null baselines into a computer program that runs a lift model for the items of concern. Upon the calculation of the plurality of null baselines, the analytics server may rank the plurality of null baseline algorithms corresponding to the plurality of null lift values. The rank of the plurality of null baseline algorithms may be associated with each of the plurality of null baseline algorithms being adjusted upward when the corresponding null lift value for each of the plurality of null baselines is closer to zero.”
-US 20110119126
[0006] note "By comparing a number of visits to the website during the advertisement campaign to a number of visits before or after the campaign or both, and using a number of visits to the website by consumers in markets other than the market in which the advertisement campaign was run, the monitoring system develops a correlation between the collected information and the advertisement campaign. Using the correlation, the number of visits in the targeted market in the absence of the advertising can be determined, which indicates an effectiveness of the advertisement campaign. Thus, the monitoring system determines an effectiveness of an offline advertising campaign by performing on-line monitoring of consumer activity. Other examples by which the monitoring system determines effectiveness of offline advertisement campaigns are also described."
-US 20150341684
[0082] "Robust algorithms may attribute web activity to television airings without the need for training and/or parametric assumptions. This “model-less” may allow the system and method to work in a robust manner and capture complex effects from the ads being tracked. Performance analyses may use the attributed web activity to identify the best performing ads. The attributed web response may then be used to create a feedback loop which will enable an ad targeting system to automatically target ads to the most responsive media."; [0260]
An aggregated control W(T, Gj,CON) was selected and matched to this treatment and not running media as follows. The control areas were actually subjected to approximately 20 GRPs of advertising weight due to some national advertising that was unavoidable, so the comparison was 281 GRPs in treatment versus 20 GRPs in control [...]; [0261]
Where wi were trained using data from times To that were prior to the start of television, selected using stepwise regression to avoid over-fitting, and the model was validated against a test set that was held out in time. The parameters are shown in Table 16 [...]; [0262] "[0262]
Difference of differences can now be used to calculate the activity due to the treatment in this kind of design. The method measures the change in treatment area minus change in control area [...]"; "[0263] Because an explicit, time-varying control which minimizes difference between W(T0, Gj,CON) and W(T0, Gj) is used, the treatment and control starting terms cancel, and the difference of difference formula becomes the formula below. The results are shown in Table 15 and FIGS. 31 a-31 f below"; [0264] "The result shows that web spike lift readings appear to predict total TV effect. Web Spike analysis reported 30.7% lift for Homepage, 14.8% for new visitors, and 10.2% for visits. Experimental measurement exhibits the same relationship: 58%, 27%, and 18% (see Table 15; FIGS. 31A-31F)."; [0264]-[0269]
-US 20200027121 [10467653]
[0009] Another embodiment provides a computer readable medium containing instructions which, when executed perform the steps of: determining a baseline number of unique network location visitors during a baseline measurement time period prior to an ad spot air time; counting a measurement number of unique visitors to the network location during a measurement time period beginning, at the ad spot air time; calculating a lift quantity by subtracting the baseline number from the measurement number, and attributing a number of visitors equal to the lift quantity to the ad spot in a database.
[0010] In another aspect, the computer readable medium may further include instructions for writing to a database of unique users, and attributing visitors to the ad spot by associating selected unique visitor records in the database, with an identifier uniquely representing the ad spot in the database. The computer readable medium may further comprise instructions for randomly selecting visitor records to be associated with the ad spot identifier from a group of unique visitors arriving during the measurement period. Alternatively, visitor records to be associated with the ad spot identifier may be selected based at least in part on one or more demographic details associated with the visitor records. Alternatively, visitor records to be associated with the ad spot identifier may be selected based at least in part on a geographic location associated with the visitor records.
[0011] In another aspect, the computer readable medium may further comprise instructions for tracking conversion activities of a visitor attributed to the ad spot, where the conversion activities occur after a first-time visit by the visitor. The computer readable medium may also include instructions for associating the conversion activities with the ad spot, and to use the purchasing activities associated with the ad spot to determine a return on investment for the ad spot.
[0012] In one aspect, the baseline time period used by the computer readable medium may be the same length as the measurement time period. Alternatively, the baseline time period may be a different length (e.g., longer or shorter) than the measurement time period. The baseline or measurement time period may be less than one hour, less than one week, less than one day, or a different length of time.
[0013] The unique visitors may arrive at the network location via a direct channel without a referrer, or via a channel selected from the group consisting of organic brand search, organic non-brand search, brand-based pay-per-click ads, non-brand-based pay-per-click ads, affiliates, display ads, social networking sites, re-targeting display banners, online video sites, mobile device apps, and mobile devices browsers.
[0014] Another embodiment provides a computer readable medium containing instructions which, when executed perform the steps of: determining a baseline number of unique visitors arriving at a network location via a first channel during a baseline time period; measuring a total number of unique visitors arriving at the network location via the first channel during a measurement time period; calculating a first channel lift quantity by subtracting the baseline number from the total number, determining a number of unique visitors to associate with advertisements for the first channel; determining a distribution of visitors to be associated with ad spots; from a set of visitor records of unique visitors that arrived via the first channel, selecting visitor records to be associated with a plurality of ad spots; and associating the selected visitor records with the plurality of ad spots.
[0065]-[0158] which teach baselining,
[0162] An example of a lead determination measurement is provided below, illustrating some embodiments of the systems and methods described herein. These examples are provided for illustration and are not intended to be limiting.
[0163] In the following example of lead attribution for a single ad spot, a lead is defined as including all visits to the monitored network location, whether those visitors are first-time visitors or returning visitors. In the following example, a conversion is defined to include only sales events, the pre-spot window is defined as 30 minutes, and the post-spot window is defined as 90 minutes. In this example, the network location received a total of 150 leads, 13 of which were received during the baseline (pre-spot) window and 137 of which were received during the measurement (post-spot) window. Using a window normalization factor of 3 (90 minutes/30 minutes), a lift value of 98 may be calculated (137?3*13). In this example, a daily normalization trend (e.g., based on a historical analysis of similar time periods) indicates that a typical increase of seven leads may be expected over the pre and post windows. As a result, the lift value may be reduced by 7 to account for the daily trend, yielding a revised lift of 91.
[0164] In some cases, a long-term trend (e.g., based on monthly, seasonal yearly averages) may indicate that the lift should be further reduced. For example, a lift rate may be calculated for one or more similar ad spots in the past (e.g., same time of day; same day of the week, same program, same network, etc.) by calculating the lift attributable to those spots as a percent of the total number of leads received during the relevant measurement windows. Such lift rates may be averaged over time, or may be used individually to inform a new measurement. For example, if a historical lift rate is 64% of received leads while the current measurement suggests a higher lift rate of 66%, then the lower rate may be used in place of the new measurement, or the new rate and the historical rate may be averaged. Continuing the above example, the lift may be reduced from 91 to 88 following an adjustment for a long-term trend.
[0165] Once lift is determined, the leads may be sampled to select individual visitors to associate with the ad spot. In some cases, sampling may be performed minute-by-minute, whereby for each minute during the sampling window, leads received during that minute may be sampled if the number of actual received leads exceeds the number of leads predicted by the daily trend model for that minute. Leads received during that minute may be filtered (e.g., by geography) and then sorted (e.g., chronologically) and then sampled up to a number corresponding to the lift rate. Alternatively, a similar process may be used for time blocks greater or less than one minute.
[0166] In a further example, we assume the following results were obtained over the course of one week: 100,000 total leads were received, 10,000 conversions were attributed to 100 ad spots, each ad spot having been purchased at a cost of $500. Also during this time, a lift rate of 60% was determined. Thus, 60,000 of these leads may be attributed to ad spots. However, only 5,000 of the conversions received during the week were attributable to this week's leads.
[0167] Using the lead recognition engine 22, the activity tracking system 20, and the lead database 50 of FIG. 1, any subsequent actions (e.g., conversions) performed by a visitor associated with any one of the leads attributed to a spot may also be attributed to the spot. As such, any conversions (and associated revenue and profit) performed by those attributed leads may be associated with one or more ad spots.
[0168] Once attribution has been completed, and once subsequent conversion data has been collected, the resulting raw or aggregated data may be presented to a user or may be further analyzed and evaluated to determine advertising spot effectiveness. For example, the performance of TV and/or radio advertisement may be grouped and viewed by network, TV/radio program, day part, creative (i.e., the unique content of the ad spot), time, ISCI (Industry Standardized Commercial Identifier) code, country, state, etc.
[0169] Metrics by which such performance may be evaluated and presented may include number of spots, total leads, cost, profit, revenue, ROI, cost per lead, cost per conversion, leads per spot, total conversions, conversions per spot, conversion rate (conversions/total attributed leads), cost per spot, or any other suitable metric.
[0170] Continuing the above example, dividing the week's total ad expense ($500*100 spots=$50,000) by the number of leads (60,000) reveals a cost per lead of $0.83. Similarly, dividing total ad expense ($50,000) by the number of conversions (5,000) yields the week's cost per conversion of $10. Assuming each converted lead is associated with a long-term value (LTV) of $50, this week's 500 conversions create $200,000 in forecasted future profit (=($50 LTV?$10 cost)?5000 conversions).
- NPL: Liaukonyte, Jura and Teixeira, Thales and Wilbur, Kenneth C., Television Advertising and Online Shopping (October 23, 2014). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2421408 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2421408
However, the above discovered post updating of the search in view of response filed 09/13/2024, are insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the same reason(s) as in the Non-Final Rejection of record 06/12/2024.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIPEN M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 08:30-17:00 EST.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571)270-1376. 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.
/DIPEN M PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621