DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the RCE filed on 11/07/2025. Claims 11, 15, 19, 23, 27, and 31 are amended; claims 1-10, 12, 20, and 28 are cancelled; claims 11, 13-19, 21-27, and 29-31are pending.
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 .
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.
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 11, 13-19, 21-27, and 29-31are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more and is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the rationale for finding is explained below:
Regarding claims 11, 13-19, 21-27, and 29-31, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: Claims 11, and 13-18 are directed to a system, claims 19, and 21-26 are directed to a method, and claims 27, and 29-31 are directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Thus, these claims, on their face, are directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A - Prong One: As 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(s) recites a judicial exception; that is, whether the claim(s) set forth or describe a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea. 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".
Claim 11 is presented here as a representative claim for specific analysis (The underlined claim terms here are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea and are further analyzed under Step 2A - Prong Two):
An attribution verification platform, comprising: (an attribution verification platform according to the specification in Figure 3 an its related text is a computing apparatus), comprising;
a memory and at least one processor operatively coupled to the memory, the at least one processor being configured to;
obtain an analytics report including at least a plurality of transaction records, each of the transaction records being associated with a different one of a plurality of transactions, each of the plurality of transactions being associated with a different one of a plurality of advertisements, each of the plurality of transactions being completed as a result of the transaction's respective advertisement being presented on one of a plurality of publishing platforms;
validate the analytics report, the validating of the analytics report including determining whether the analytics report contains sufficient information for applying a selected attribution rule, the sufficient information including attribute required by the attribution rule;
generate an attribution report based on the analytics report and the attribution rule, and transmit the attribution report to an advertising platform when the analytics report includes the attribute values required for applying the selected attribution rule, and transmit, to an advertiser client device, an identifier of the selected attribution rule and an indication of one or more attribute values or attribute types that are missing from the analytics report and that are necessary for applying the selected attribution rule, when the analytics report lacks at least one of the attribute values required for applying the selected attribution rule.
The claims here are based on the recitation of an abstract idea (i.e. recitation other than the additional elements delineated here with underlining and further addressed per Step 2B - Prong Two). The claims recite the abstract idea of directed to sending and receiving data to calculate and verify payable commissions to/from advertisers/publishers which falls within certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
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. Refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C. The phrase "mental processes" applies to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.A-C.
Additional Independent Claims: The analysis of claim 11 is applicable to the additional independent claims 19 and 27 as these additional claims comprise alternate embodiments that implement the same steps of the system of the claim analyzed above. The additional independent claims recite the additional elements of an attribution verification platform, a memory, at least one processor, a plurality of publishing platforms, an attribution verification platform, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing.
Dependent Claims: Dependent claims 13-16, 18, 21-24, 26, and 29-31 recite the same additional elements as the parent claim(s) as well as and/or fail to recite any additional elements. The dependent claims further reiterate the same abstract idea with further embellishments. Claims 17 and 25 recite one or more servers.
Therefore, the identified claims fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Thus, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2A - Prong Two: As per MPEP 2106.04.II.A.2, 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, Prong Two thus distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception.
The claims offer the additional elements of: an attribution verification platform, a memory, at least one processor, a plurality of publishing platforms, an advertiser client device , an attribution verification platform, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing, and one or more servers. It would have been readily apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time the invention was filed that the additional elements represent generic computing devices. The additional element(s) are simply utilized as generic computing tools to implement the abstract idea, functioning as mere instructions to apply the exception. Figures 1-3, 13, and 14 and their related disclosure of the specification (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0351450 A1 – Hereinafter disclosure/specification) detail any combination of a generic computer system programmed to perform the methodology. Thus, describing generic computer components. Merely adding generic hardware and computer components to perform abstract ideas does not integrate those ideas into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223 (The "mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."); see also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished.'") (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). Therefore, the claims amount to no more than a mere method, system, and/or computer program product to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the claims appear to be a solution to a commercial/business problem of detecting fraudulent activity in advertisement systems.
The ordered combination of these additional elements amounts to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The ordered combination offers nothing more than employing a generic configuration of computer devices and computer functions. The claims do not amount to a practical application, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception).
Step 2B: As per MPEP 2106.05, the additional elements are analyzed, both individually and in combination, to determine whether an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis under Step 2B does not consider the elements describing the abstract ideas that are set forth above in Step 2A. Instead, the analysis only assesses the claim limitations other than the invention's use of the ineligible concepts to which the claims are directed. The court's precedent has consistently employed this same approach, and as a matter of law, narrowing or reformulating an abstract idea does not add "significantly more" to it. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Also receiving and transmitting data over a network is a well-known, routine, and conventional computer functionality (Symantec), and processing that data network is a well-known, routine, and conventional computer functionality (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am), and storing data and electronic recordkeeping is a well-known, routine, and conventional computer functionality (Alice Corp).
As the claims do not contain additional elements other than those set forth above in Step 2A, the analysis is complete and the claims are found to be absent additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Examiner Note
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 11, 13-15, 17-19, 21-23, and 25-27, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) (Pre-AIA ), or under 35 U.S.C. 103 (AIA ), as being unpatentable over Ferzacca et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0290373 A1 – Hereinafter Ferzacca) in view of Singh et al. (US 20150347540 A1)
Claim 11:
Ferzacca teaches;
A system comprising: a memory and at least one processor operatively coupled to the memory, the at least one processor being configured to: (See at least Figure 1 and its related text.)
obtain an analytics report including at least a plurality of transaction records, each of the transaction records being associated with a different one of a plurality of transactions, each of the plurality of transactions being associated with a different one of a plurality of advertisements, each of the plurality of transactions being completed as a result of the transaction's respective advertisement being presented on one of a plurality of publishing platforms; (See at least Figure 3 and its related text and paragraphs 0018, 0022, and 0024.)
generate an attribution report based on the analytics report and the attribution rule, and transmit the attribution report to an advertising platform (See at least the abstract and paragraphs 0018, 0019, 0020, 0023-0026, and 0032.)
Ferzacca does not appear to explicitly teach validate the analytics report, the validating of the analytics report including determining whether the analytics report contains sufficient information for applying a selected attribution rule, the sufficient information including attribute values required by the attribution rule; transmit, to an advertiser client device, an identifier of the selected attribution rule and an indication of one or more attribute values of attribute types that are missing from the analytics report and that are necessary for applying the selected attribution rule, wherein the analytics report lacks at least one of the attribute values required for applying the selected attribution rule, when the analytics report lacks at least one of the attribute values required for applying the selected attribution rule; transmit the repot when the analytics report includes the attribute values required for applying the selected attribution rule.
Singh teaches validate the analytics report, the validating of the analytics report including determining whether the analytics report contains sufficient information for applying a selected attribution rule, the sufficient information including attribute values required by the attribution rule (para 0025 teaches performing validation including identifying/determining missing data; para 0025 further teaches prompting user to enter mandatory fields.); transmit, to an advertiser client device, an identifier of the selected attribution rule and an indication of one or more attribute values of attribute types that are missing from the analytics report and that are necessary for applying the selected attribution rule (para 0043 teaches validation error reporting highlighting error cells (an identifier corresponding to the attribution rule); note error reporting takes place only when error is detected. Also, see para 0043 that teaches “The validation rules may specify the requirements that must be met by data in the data construction database 110. Also, data construction validation report requirements may be specified in the requisites.” Also, see Fig, 6, 13-14, etc.…); transmit the repot when the analytics report includes the attribute values required for applying the selected attribution rule, when the analytics report lacks at least one of the attribute values required for applying the selected attribution rule ( para 0073 teaches “before a record is sent back to the database it is checked to verify that all required fields per the validation requirements.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ), or to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the method taught by Ferzacca by using validating teaching of Sing in order to enforce validation rules for the report. (Para 0025, “[0025] Also, the data construction system enables users to define and enforce validation rules.….”)
Independent Claim 19:
Ferzacca teaches a method in at least the abstract.
The remainder of Claim 19 is rejected under 35 USC § 103 for substantially the same reasons as claim 11.
Independent Claim 27:
Ferzacca teaches storage for the program that runs the system in at least paragraph 0020.
The remainder of Claim 19 is rejected under 35 USC § 103 for substantially the same reasons as claim 11.
Claims 13, 21, and 29:
Ferzacca as modified by Singh teaches all the limitations of claims 11, 19, and 27 above.
Singh further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to transmit, to an advertiser client device, an indication of one or more attribute values or attribute types that are necessary for evaluating the attribution rule, and which are missing from the analytics report, the indication being transmitted when the analytics report lacks sufficient information for applying the attribution rule (para 0025 teaches performing validation including detecting when the required filed (sufficient information) are missing; para 0043 teaches validation error reporting highlighting error cells (an identifier corresponding to the attribution rule); note error reporting takes place only when error is detected. Also, see para 0043 that teaches “The validation rules may specify the requirements that must be met by data in the data construction database 110. Also, data construction validation report requirements may be specified in the requisites.” Also, see Fig, 6, 13-14, etc.…).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ), or to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the method taught by Ferzacca by using validating teaching of Singh in order to enforce validation rules for the report. (Para 0025, “[0025] Also, the data construction system enables users to define and enforce validation rules.….”)
Claims 14, 22, and 30:
Ferzacca as modified by Singh teaches all the limitations of claims 11, 19, and 27 above.
Singh further teaches wherein validating the analytics report includes: (i) identifying one or more attribute values that are needed for applying the attribution rule; and (ii) detecting whether the analytics report includes the attribute values, the indication being transmitted when the analytics report lacks sufficient information for applying the attribution rule (para 0025 teaches performing validation including detecting when the required filed (sufficient information) are missing; para 0043 teaches validation error reporting highlighting error cells (an identifier corresponding to the attribution rule); note error reporting takes place only when error is detected. Also, see para 0043 that teaches “The validation rules may specify the requirements that must be met by data in the data construction database 110. Also, data construction validation report requirements may be specified in the requisites.” Also, see Fig, 6, 13-14, etc.…).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ), or to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the method taught by Ferzacca by using validating teaching of Singh in order to enforce validation rules for the report. (Para 0025, “[0025] Also, the data construction system enables users to define and enforce validation rules.….”)
Claims 15, 23, and 31:
Ferzacca as modified by Singh teaches all the limitations of claims 11, 19, and 27 above, further Ferzacca teaches wherein the attribution report generated by the at least one processor includes a plurality of attribution records (para 0017, “ The attribution commission system 540 may store the reward or commission information associated with each marketing interaction 60 and specific customer acquisition over discrete time steps. The attribution data warehouse 510 and the attribution commission system 540 may have separate dedicated physical databases assigned to them. Alternatively, the attribution data warehouse 510 and the attribution commission system 540 may share the same physical database with logical and software based partitions. The database may be any type of data repository including, for example, an SQL table or ASCII text file.”), each of the attribution records corresponding to a respective transaction identified in the analytics report, and wherein each of the attribution records includes an indication of a fee that is due to the advertising platform for the transaction (para 0025, “The in-house provisioning system and the approved marketing partners may also use the APIs to provide the attribution data warehouse 510 with information related to the Marketing Costs and Value. This information includes, but is not limited to advertising cost as a value of cost per impression (CPI), cost per mille or the advertisement cost per thousand views (CPM), cost per acquisition (CPA), cost per click (CPC) or other standard rates as defined in the industry. Each marketing activity, marketing channel, and marketing type may be assigned specific advertising costs, as well as a metric assigned to the real-time and historical performance of the associated marketing activity, marketing channel, or marketing type.”)
Further, the combination of features produces no unforeseen, new, novel, or unexpected results. Rather, each feature operates as expected singularly or in combination.
Claims 17 and 25:
Ferzacca as modified by Singh teaches all the limitations of claims 11 and 19 above, further Ferzacca teaches the adverting platform and its servers via at least Figure 2 and its related text.
Further, the combination of features produces no unforeseen, new, novel, or unexpected results. Rather, each feature operates as expected singularly or in combination.
Claims 18 and 26:
Ferzacca as modified by Singh teaches all the limitations of claims 11 and 19 above, further Ferzacca teaches fees via different commission rules for different items in at least Figure 2 and its related text and at least paragraph 0017 where commission rules are discussed.
Further, the combination of features produces no unforeseen, new, novel, or unexpected results. Rather, each feature operates as expected singularly or in combination.
Claims 16 and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) (Pre-AIA ), or under 35 U.S.C. 103 (AIA ), as being unpatentable over Ferzacca as modified by Singh and further in view of Hoffman et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0125474 A1 – Hereinafter Hoffman).
Claims 16 and 24:
Ferzacca as modified by Singh teaches all the limitations of claims 11 and 19 above, further Ferzacca teaches websites in at least paragraphs 00174 and 0024 but does not explicitly teach a news website.
Hoffman teaches streaming applications and gaming in at least paragraphs 0032 and 0038.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ), or to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the methodology taught by Ferzacca by using streaming and/or gaming as taught by Hoffman in order to allow commissioning on multiple online channels and not just websites.
Further, the combination of features produces no unforeseen, new, novel, or unexpected results. Rather, each feature operates as expected singularly or in combination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 11-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of US Patents No. 10,733,632 and 11,694,233. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same subject matter, perform the equivalent functions and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be free to practice one of the claimed inventions without infringing upon the other.
The claims of the present invention are broader than the parents and using the same prior art they are obvious variants of each other.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Pg. 8-9), “the claims therefore recite a practical application of data validation rules implemented through specific, computer-executed steps that control the flow of information between networked devices. The sequence of determining sufficiency, conditionally generating and transmitting an attribution report, and conditionally transmitting a rule identifier and missing-attribute information to an external client device constitutes a non-generic improvement to computer functionality in the field of digital advertising analytics. See MPEP @ 2106.05(a), (c); DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The claims are thus not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong Two.”
Instant specification, “[0134] At step 1608, the AVP 1312 validates the analytics report 1423A. In some implementations, validating the analytics report 1423A may include detecting whether the analytics report provides sufficient information for applying any (or all) of the attribution rules 1415A. In some implementations, for any of the attribution rules 1415A, the AVP 1312 may perform the following steps: (i) identify one or more attribute values that are needed for applying the attribution rule, and (ii) detect whether those attribute values are present in the analytics report 1423A. If the attribute values needed for the application of all attribution rules are present, the process may proceed to step 1610. If the attribute values needed for the application of at least one attribution rule the process may proceed to step 1618.”
As can be seen, the steps of validation, and detecting sufficiency are merely determined using the rules (para 0041 states “one or more rules for 317 for detecting whether a record in the attribution report is invalid, and additional information 318 specified by the advertiser when the advertiser profile 307 is created.”). Nothing in the argued limitation provides a technical feature, that will provide an improvement into validation or detecting sufficiency technology. In fact, the claims don’t even provide any technical detail at all, as how this is done. It simply states processor is configured to perform these steps, which will amount to simply applying computer as tool.
Applicant argues (Pg. 8-9), “Alternatively, under Step 2B, the claims as an ordered combination recite "significantly more" than any alleged abstract concept. The coordination of (i) a rule-keyed sufficiency determination based on "attribute values required by the attribution rule," (ii) conditional generation and transmission of an attribution report only "when the analytics report includes the attribute values required for applying the selected attribution rule," and (iii) conditional transmission of a corrective message identifying "the selected attribution rule" and "one or more attribute values or attribute types that are missing from the analytics report" is neither routine nor conventional. This combination, expressly supported by paragraphs [0165]-[0173], represents a technological improvement that enhances data accuracy and system reliability in distributed attribution verification platforms.”
The applicant clearly states rules being used to perform the steps, which is abstract idea itself. For example, observing, analyzing, and then taking an action. After, providing support that claims are no more than merely application of rules for validation, the applicant provides conclusory statement, stating that these steps represents a technological improvement that enhances data accuracy and system reliability in distributed attribution verification platforms. Enhancing data accuracy by validating the required information are available is not enhancement to technology. What technical steps are being taken that are enhancing technology, and what technology is being improved?
Applicant argues (Pg. 11), “At no point does Ferzacca describe or suggest determining whether an analytics report contains sufficient information for applying a selected attribution rule, nor does it disclose any operation that identifies missing attribute values or notifies an advertiser that a rule cannot be applied. Ferzacca's verification is limited to comparing existing records to calculate commissions and does not perform any rule-keyed sufficiency check or conditional transmission of the type required by the pending claims.”
The examiner relies on Singh reference to explicitly teach the argued limitation rather than Ferzacca reference.
Applicant argues (Pg. 11), “Singh likewise fails to teach or suggest the claimed subject matter. Singh describes a cloud- based attribution model that distributes credit across multiple advertisement touchpoints and includes an attribution model generator that applies statistical weighting to known user interactions (See e.g., Singh [0040]-[0049] and [0056]). Singh presupposes the availability of complete conversion-path data and does not determine whether required attribute fields are present. Singh performs no conditional operations that depend on the presence or absence of required data and does not transmit an identifier of an attribution rule or an indication of missing attributes to an advertiser or any other external device. Thus, Singh's disclosure concerns allocation of credit within available datasets, not automated validation of data sufficiency.”
The Singh reference on multiple places, explicitly recites such features. For example, para 0025 states:
“[0025] Also, the data construction system enables users to define and enforce validation rules. The validation rules for example can be database table-level validation and field-level validation. The validation can be performed in the data construction system during data construction. Validation in the data construction system may include controlling the data created for the database according to validation rules. For example, the validation performed in the data construction system includes restricting data through validity or null checks. For example, the system prompts the user to enter details regarding mandatory construction fields to identify data missing for the fields or to identify NULL values entered for the fields when non-null values are required. Also, the system provides real-time validation error reporting with highlighted error cells and error strings.”
As can be seen, the user is prompted, whenever the validation determines that required/mandatory fields are missing (presence or absence of required data). Thus, notification (prompt) is generated when the required data is missing; further it also notifies when data is not sufficient (null values entered when no-null values) or required. Also, from Fig. 1 (para 0029), the database where the record are can be database servers, and 113 are devices that are used by multiple users to access the database, and interface is provided (0032); thus, notification is being provided to user, when ever the data at the serves is missing. Also, see Fig. 2 for communication; and note that these features are incorporated into primary reference, so as long we have teachings that validate the rules, and send notification, we can incorporate into primary reference to teach claimed invention (see prior art rejection). Also, see Fig. 5 for such rules. Also, see Fig. 12 for validation workflow.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20120303447 A1: “A computer system for providing attribution based on advertisement conversion data comprising a processing circuit configured to receive user interaction data, to determine that a conversion event has occurred based on the user interaction data and conversion criteria, to store conversion path data based on the user interaction data, wherein the conversion path data comprises user interaction data prior to and including the conversion event.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WASEEM ASHRAF whose telephone number is (571)270-3948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 09:30 A.M-06:00 P.M.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at 571-272-5250. 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.
/WASEEM ASHRAF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3621