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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submission filed on 09/11/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1,8 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 09/11/2025 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argues that “Amended claim 1 directly addresses this technical problem by reciting "processing disparate offline media airing data and online application usage data by a computer to bridge a data gap between offline media and online application usage". This processing is a specific technical operation performed by a computer to integrate and correlate data from fundamentally different and previously disconnected sources. This is far more than merely organizing human activity; it is a technological solution to a technical data integration and correlation challenge. Even if (and contrary to Applicant's assertion) the claimed method were considered to touch upon an abstract idea, the combination of elements in amended claim 1 provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claimed method improves the functioning of a computer and its network environment by enabling it to perform complex, data-intensive attribution calculations on disparate data sources that were previously technically difficult or impossible with conventional online tracking mechanisms (Spec. para. 44). The system processes and correlates large datasets (spot airing data, website usage data) to generate actionable insights, which constitutes a clear technical effect. This directly refutes the Office Action's argument that the invention "does not change nor affect the actual computer itself" (Office Action, p. 4) ( page 3/5)”.
Examiner disagrees. the recitation of: “processing disparate offline media airing data and online application usage data to bridge a data gap between offline media and online application usage” is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see 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.
As such, the claim limitation (s) as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
The recitation of the additional element of “ by computer” does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use.
That is the use of “ by computer” , fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method (processing disparate offline media airing data and online application usage data to bridge a data gap between offline media and online application) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
As such, the examiner finds that any improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to a business process. Second, under Step 2a, Prong 2, the improvement to a technology or technological field must be rooted in the additional element. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements is “ computer”, which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b.
Thus, any improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea, is an improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are not patent eligible (see 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 there 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.). As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem.
Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “The specific, computer-implemented steps of amended claim 1 are far from generic computer functions and contribute to an inventive concept ( page 3/5)”.
Examiner disagrees. The specific, computer-implemented steps of amended claim 1 are NOT far from generic computer functions. Amended claim 1 recites “ processing disparate offline media airing data and online application usage data by a computer to bridge a data gap between offline media and online application usage”.
As stated above, and in the rejection below, the additional element of “ by computer” does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. That is, the additional elements “computer” do not improve computer functionality or another technology or a technical field. They do not implement the abstract idea on a machine that is integral to the claim. The do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Nor do not transform tor reduce a particular articular to a different state or thing. Nor do they apply he abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment. See Revised Guidance ar 55: MPEP 2106.04 (d) (I) Final Act. A generic computer implementation does not render an abstract idea patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S at 223 (“ [ T] he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent -ineligible abstract idea into a patent -eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea ‘ while adding the words “apply it” is not enough for patent eligibility.”).
Also, as evident by Applicant’s specification (paragraphs 39-37 and 83-92). Paragraph 36 “ FIG. 2 shows media creative attribution system 250 communicatively connected to spot airing data providers 210a … 210n through analog communication channels (e.g., telephones, mail, couriers, etc.) and also to spot airing data providers 210a … 210n over network 220 (e.g., Internet) in network environment 200. Examples of spot airing data providers 210a … 210n can include TV networks, media agencies, third-party data providers such as a market research firm, etc”. Paragraph 37, “media creative attribution system 250 may be implemented on one or more server machines operated by a media performance analytics service provider. In some embodiments, media creative attribution system 250 can reside on a cloud-based server operating in a cloud computing environment”. Paragraph 84 discloses “Those skilled in the relevant art will appreciate that the invention can be implemented or practiced with other computer system configurations, including without limitation multi-processor systems, network devices, mini-computers, mainframe computers, data processors, and the like”. Paragraph 92 discloses “A “processor” includes any, hardware system, mechanism or component that processes data, signals or other information…”.
As thus, nothing in the claims, understood in the light of the specifications, requires anything other than off-the-shelf conventional computer, network and display technology for gathering, sending and presenting the desired information. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea, but rather provide a specific, computer-implemented technical solution to a recognized technical problem of data correlation between disparate offline and online media. The combination of its elements, including the processing of disparate data to bridge a data gap, minute-by-minute response profile determination, technically derived baseline, and the use of a weighting function based on specific creative features for allocation, constitutes an inventive concept that is "significantly more" than any abstract idea and provides a technical improvement to how data from different mediums are processed and analyzed. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (page 4/5)”.
Examiner disagrees. Data correlation between disparate offline and online media and/ or how data from different mediums are processed and analyzed and/ or processing of disparate data to bridge a data gap, minute-by-minute response profile determination, derived baseline, and/ or the use of a weighting function based on specific creative features for allocation is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see 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.
As such, the claim limitation (s) as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
The recitation of the additional element of “ by computer” does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use.
That is the use of “ by computer” fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method (data correlation between disparate offline and online media and/ or how data from different mediums are processed and analyzed and/ or processing of disparate data to bridge a data gap, minute-by-minute response profile determination, derived baseline, and/ or the use of a weighting function based on specific creative features for allocation) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
As such, the examiner finds that any improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to a business process. Second, under Step 2a, Prong 2, the improvement to a technology or technological field must be rooted in the additional element. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements is “ computer”, which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b.
Thus, any improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea, is an improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are not patent eligible (see 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 there 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.). As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
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 a judicial exception subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The analysis for this determination is explained below:
Step 1, 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, Step 1, 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, claim(s) 1-7 are directed to a process (i.e. a method); claims 8-14 are directed to a machine (i.e. a system); claims 15-20 are directed to a manufacture (i.e. a non-transitory computer medium).
The claimed invention is directed to at least one judicial exception (i.e a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 for instance recite(s) the following abstract idea of: how data correlation between disparate offline and online media are processed and analyzed. The fallowing limitations recites the abstract idea limitations “ determining, a response profile on a minute-by-minute basis within an attribution time window, the response profile being a portion of a unique visitor (UV) curve associated with an application download or installation through a website on the Internet, wherein multiple media creatives for the application aired offline during the attribution time window and wherein the UV curve comprises a UV spike within the attribution time window; obtaining, a baseline of the UV curve associated with the application download or installation; determining, utilizing the baseline, a total lift by the UV spike for the application download or installation within the attribution time window; determining, by the computer based on a weighting function defined by specific creative features, a weight for each of the multiple media creatives that aired offline within the attribution time window, wherein the creative features comprise at least one of an audience size, a temporal fingerprint, or historical performance; determining, for each respective media creative of the multiple media creatives utilizing the weight, a portion or ratio of the total lift attributable to the respective media creative of the multiple media creatives that aired offline within the attribution time window; and generating, based at least in part on the portion or ratio of the total lift attributable to the respective media creative of the multiple media creatives that aired offline within the attribution time window, a report or visualization for presentation on a user interface.”.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of “ computer; website, internet, network and user interface”. The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes).
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “ computer; website, internet, network and user interface” to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraphs 39-37 and 83-92); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same analysis is applied here to independent claims 8 and 15.
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 15-20 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), by adding the additional steps of : wherein the creative features comprise at least one of an audience size, a temporal fingerprint, or historical network performance (claims 2,9,16); amount of dollar spend ( claims 3,10,17); determining a shadow baseline for an extended time window that extends beyond the attribution time window; and prior to determining the total lift, adjusting the baseline utilizing the shadow baseline (claims 4,11,18,); running a shadow baseline analysis within the extended time window on every media creative that aired within the extended time window; and based on the shadow baseline analysis, determining whether to adjust the response profile prior to determining the total lift (claims 5,12,19); wherein the attribution time window has a size of about five to twenty minutes (claims 6, 13, 20); wherein the multiple media creatives comprises a media creative for the application download or installation (claims 7 and 14).
Thus, the dependent claims further narrows the abstract idea and/or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent 1,8 and 15 , additional elements of proxy (claims 3,10,17), temporal fingerprint and historical network performance (claims 2,916).
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2,9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph. Claims 2,9,16 fail further limit the subject matter claimed of claims 1,8 and 15, from which they depend from. Appropriate correction and/ or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitts wt al, US Pub No :2015/0341684 A1.
As per claims 1,8,16, Kitts teaches:
determining, by the computer, a response profile on a minute-by-minute basis within an attribution time window, the response profile being a portion of a unique visitor (UV) curve associated with an application download or installation through a website on the Internet, wherein multiple media creatives for the application aired offline during the attribution time window and wherein the UV curve comprises a UV spike within the attribution time window ( see at least paragraph 4 (receiving, at the server, web activity data, the web activity data including a time period during the television viewing event and a time period prior to the television viewing event; and measuring, by the server, a delta web response due to the television viewing event based on the web activity data during the television viewing event and the web activity data at a time period prior to the television viewing event); Paragraph 74 (Panel data enrichment may include viewer/responder data, such as demographic, psychographic, and/or behavioral data); paragraphs 84, 112-116, paragraph 84 ( an advertiser may be running advertising and may be maintaining a website. The advertiser may use the systems and methods disclosed herein to measure an impact of the advertisement airings on their website); paragraph 85 (I(m(t1,z1,G)) may be the impressions associated with a media airing at time t1, time zone z1 and geography G. w(t2,z2,G) may be a web traffic metric, such as new visitors, at time t2, time zone Z2, and geography G); paragraph 109 (One process may use geographic areas. For example, if a TV advertisement is run in geographic areas at a high media weight, then for a relatively low spend, it may be possible to produce detectable effects. Another process may localize the effects temporally. The spike curve shape may be exponential with a sharp peak followed by a rapid decline. Therefore, within 5 minutes of a broadcast, signal to noise ratio is greatest. Measurements within 10 minutes, 20 minutes, and 1 day later may have very poor signal to noise ratios); paragraph 253 (This may reveal that the best media to buy might be SOAP-Sa-3 pm based on knowledge of the program that will be on at that time, the web response for that daypart and network. This results in a system which receives new web spike data, and optimizes what is being purchased in that campaign);
obtaining, by the computer, a baseline of the UV curve associated with the application download or installation ( see at least paragraph 141 ( The dynamic pre-period algorithm may be effective in attributing a larger number of airings than the instantaneous treatment control algorithm with exclusion periods. However, the variable baseline period may introduce some endogeneity because an airing at 5 minutes ago, 10 minutes ago, and 30 minutes ago may each retain a different degree of residual lift. Thus, a baseline level when the most recent airing is 5 minutes ago may be higher, than when the most recent airing is 30 minutes ago. Since the baseline may be contaminated with a different degree of historical lift on each airing, error may be introduced in measuring the effect of television. The uniform exclusion period method may be able to minimize baseline lift by selecting a large exclusion period, and also not having a changing amount of baseline lift); paragraph 170 (One diagnostic measure that may help calculate an effect size of a web spike is to measure a percentage change in web activity compared to a baseline at a range of times before and after an ad airing); paragraph 267 (FIGS. 31A and 31B show visits. FIG. 31A shows a web spike percentage lift for 60 minutes before through 60 minutes after a TV airing (at minute 0) with spike magnitude expressed in terms of percentage lift over average baseline activity. FIG. 31B shows an experimental lift measurement measured using difference of differences calculated over a treatment and control geographic area for three web metrics. The time series are shown as a 7 day moving average. The control area (lighter shaded line) with web activity is normalized to 1.0, and treatment area (darker shaded line) shows activity in units of percentage over control. As web spike percentage lift increases, the experimentally measured lift increases);
determining, by the computer utilizing the baseline, a total lift by the UV spike for the application download or installation within the attribution time window (see at least paragraphs 227-229; 265-269; paragraph 267 (FIGS. 31A and 31B show visits. FIG. 31A shows a web spike percentage lift for 60 minutes before through 60 minutes after a TV airing (at minute 0) with spike magnitude expressed in terms of percentage lift over average baseline activity. FIG. 31B shows an experimental lift measurement measured using difference of differences calculated over a treatment and control geographic area for three web metrics. The time series are shown as a 7 day moving average. The control area (lighter shaded line) with web activity is normalized to 1.0, and treatment area (darker shaded line) shows activity in units of percentage over control. As web spike percentage lift increases, the experimentally measured lift increases); paragraph 269 (FIGS. 31E and 31F show new visitors to a homepage from mobile devices. FIG. 31E shows a web spike percentage lift for 60 minutes before through 60 minutes after a TV airing (at minute 0) with spike magnitude expressed in terms of percentage lift over average baseline activity. FIG. 31F shows an experimental lift measurement measured using difference of differences calculated over a treatment and control geographic area for three web metrics. The time series are shown as a 7 day moving average. The control area (upper, lighter shaded line) with web activity is normalized to 1.0, and treatment area (lower, darker shaded line) shows activity in units of percentage over control. As web spike percentage lift increases, the experimentally measured lift increases);
determining, by the computer based on a weighting function defined by specific creative features, a weight for each of the multiple media creatives that aired offline within the attribution time window, wherein the creative features comprise at least one of an audience size, a temporal fingerprint, or historical network performance ( see at least paragraphs 180-188; paragraphs 226-227; paragraph 227 (FIG. 28 depicts an example of a web spike halo report. As shown in FIG. 28, the web spike halo report analysis of web activity changes given a television commercial. The information provided in FIG. 28 is a graphical representation of the information provided in Table 2, as shown above. The graph is sorted in order of highest web response to lowest. This shows that new homepage mobile traffic produces the highest increase in traffic during a television airing, with a 76% change. Total visits increases by 10.2%. The least affected categories include email, display, and product page traffic (deep-linked pages on specific products that a user would have to navigate to); paragraph 249 ( The prediction of performance for an upcoming media M.sub.1 then becomes the weighted average of these historical estimates of wpi. The weights may be trained to predict future wp) ;
determining, by the computer for each respective media creative of the multiple media creatives utilizing the weight, a portion or ratio of the total lift attributable to the respective media creative of the multiple media creatives that aired offline within the attribution time window (see at least paragraphs 180-188, 222-227; paragraph 227 (FIG. 28 depicts an example of a web spike halo report. As shown in FIG. 28, the web spike halo report analysis of web activity changes given a television commercial. The information provided in FIG. 28 is a graphical representation of the information provided in Table 2, as shown above. The graph is sorted in order of highest web response to lowest. This shows that new homepage mobile traffic produces the highest increase in traffic during a television airing, with a 76% change. Total visits increases by 10.2%. The least affected categories include email, display, and product page traffic (deep-linked pages on specific products that a user would have to navigate to);
generating, by the computer based at least in part on the portion or ratio of the total lift attributable to the respective media creative of the multiple media creatives that aired offline within the attribution time window, a report or visualization for presentation on a user interface (see at least paragraphs 226-232; paragraph 226 (FIG. 27 depicts an example of a web spike halo report. As shown in FIG. 27, the web spike halo report analysis of web activity changes given a television commercial. Different classes of web traffic are shown with the average change in web activity. FIG. 27 shows that email signups increase the most within 1 minute of a TV airing (90%), followed by mobile and tablet visits (75%), cost per click or paid search CPC traffic (71%), and new users (61%));
Examiner notes the recitation of : "to bridge a data gap between offline media and online application usage" is an intended result of performing the steps of the claim and, as such, does not limit the scope of the claim for the purpose of prior art.
As per claims 2,9,16,
wherein the creative features comprise at least one of an audience size, a temporal fingerprint, or historical network performance ( see at least paragraphs 226-227; paragraph 227 (FIG. 28 depicts an example of a web spike halo report. As shown in FIG. 28, the web spike halo report analysis of web activity changes given a television commercial. The information provided in FIG. 28 is a graphical representation of the information provided in Table 2, as shown above. The graph is sorted in order of highest web response to lowest. This shows that new homepage mobile traffic produces the highest increase in traffic during a television airing, with a 76% change. Total visits increases by 10.2%. The least affected categories include email, display, and product page traffic (deep-linked pages on specific products that a user would have to navigate to);
As per claims 3, 10 and 17,
wherein dollar spend per media creative is utilized as a proxy for the audience size (see at least paragraph 235 (Although the web spike cluster response analysis may be similar to the web spike halo analysis, the ability to focus targeting may be extremely important in advertising. An advertiser may significantly decrease their media budget, or may move more of their marketing dollars onto segments that are responsive and interested in their offer. The above analysis can also normalize against baseline responsiveness for different segments) ;
As per claims 4,11,18,
determining a shadow baseline for an extended time window that extends beyond the attribution time window; and prior to determining the total lift, adjusting the baseline utilizing the shadow baseline ( see at least paragraphs171-171; paragraph 131 (the first algorithm may be an instantaneous treatment-control algorithm that works by estimating the web traffic without TV as being equal to the web traffic in the time period before the airing); paragraph 141(The dynamic pre-period algorithm may be effective in attributing a larger number of airings than the instantaneous treatment control algorithm with exclusion periods. However, the variable baseline period may introduce some endogeneity because an airing at 5 minutes ago, 10 minutes ago, and 30 minutes ago may each retain a different degree of residual lift. Thus, a baseline level when the most recent airing is 5 minutes ago may be higher, than when the most recent airing is 30 minutes ago. Since the baseline may be contaminated with a different degree of historical lift on each airing, error may be introduced in measuring the effect of television. The uniform exclusion period method may be able to minimize baseline lift by selecting a large exclusion period, and also not having a changing amount of baseline lift); . paragraph 242 (Web spikes may be used to measure which networks, programs, times-of-day, and creative generate the highest response. Rather than just reporting this data, the data may be used to automatically optimize a television campaign to maximize the web site response; using a “closed feedback loop” of web spike data to automatically adjust TV targeting);
As per claims 5,12,19:
running a shadow baseline analysis within the extended time window on every media creative that aired within the extended time window; and based on the shadow baseline analysis, determining whether to adjust the response profile prior to determining the total lift (see at least paragraphs 131-132; paragraph 131 (he first algorithm may be an instantaneous treatment-control algorithm that works by estimating the web traffic without TV as being equal to the web traffic in the time period before the airing); paragraph 141 (The dynamic pre-period algorithm may be effective in attributing a larger number of airings than the instantaneous treatment control algorithm with exclusion periods. However, the variable baseline period may introduce some endogeneity because an airing at 5 minutes ago, 10 minutes ago, and 30 minutes ago may each retain a different degree of residual lift. Thus, a baseline level when the most recent airing is 5 minutes ago may be higher, than when the most recent airing is 30 minutes ago. Since the baseline may be contaminated with a different degree of historical lift on each airing, error may be introduced in measuring the effect of television. The uniform exclusion period method may be able to minimize baseline lift by selecting a large exclusion period, and also not having a changing amount of baseline lift); paragraph 242 (Web spikes may be used to measure which networks, programs, times-of-day, and creative generate the highest response. Rather than just reporting this data, the data may be used to automatically optimize a television campaign to maximize the web site response; using a “closed feedback loop” of web spike data to automatically adjust TV targeting);
.
As per claims 6,13, 20,
wherein the attribution time window has a size of about five to twenty minutes (see at least paragraph 141 (the variable baseline period may introduce some endogeneity because an airing at 5 minutes ago, 10 minutes ago, and 30 minutes ago may each retain a different degree of residual lift. Thus, a baseline level when the most recent airing is 5 minutes ago may be higher, than when the most recent airing is 30 minutes ago);
As per claims 7, 14,
wherein the multiple media creatives comprises a media creative for the application download or installation ( see at least paragraph 253 (This may reveal that the best media to buy might be SOAP-Sa-3 pm based on knowledge of the program that will be on at that time, the web response for that daypart and network. This results in a system which receives new web spike data, and optimizes what is being purchased in that campaign);
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Ray et al, US Pub No : 2018/0270544 A1 teaches cross -screen optimization of advertising placement
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [M- R 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622