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
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 04/09/2026.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 11, 15 and 18 have been amended.
Claims 21-23 have been added.
Claims 2,9,16 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 04/09/2026 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 2,9 and 16 rejection under 35 USC § 112, fourth paragraph. Applicant has canceled the claims. therefore, the claim rejection of claims 2,9 and 12 under 35 USC § 112, fourth paragraph is withdrawn.
With regard to claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 102, Applicant’s arguments are considered. The claim rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 102 is withdrawn.
With regard to claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argues that “These newly recited steps constitute a concrete technological improvement to the data correlation system. Dynamically calculating an extended shadow baseline and utilizing it to adjust the primary baseline allows the computer system to filter out complex signal noise and residual out-of-window data influences that conventional tracking mechanisms cannot accurately process. This represents an improvement to the functioning of the data correlation system itself, elevating the claim beyond merely organizing human activity or applying an abstract idea using generic computer components. Therefore, the combination of elements in amended claim 1 integrates the data correlation process into a practical application and recites patent-eligible subject matter (page 7/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. Dynamically calculating an extended shadow baseline and utilizing it to adjust the primary baseline allows the computer system to filter out complex signal noise and residual out-of-window data influences that conventional tracking mechanisms cannot accurately process that result in improvement to the data correlation system are part of the abstract idea itself, they are not capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b. Only technological improvements rooted in the "additional elements" of a claim are capable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2, and only "additional elements" are capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b.
Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements are “computer system”, as evidenced by applicant specification [37-39 and 83-92] 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 purported technological improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer, and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are improvement to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (SAP v. Investpic decision: 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.).
Furthermore, the use of “ computer system” 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 (improvement to the data correlation system) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology. As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 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, 3-8, 10-15, 17-23 are directed to a system and a method which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea:
“ 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, a shadow baseline for an extended time window that extends beyond the attribution time window; adjusting, the baseline utilizing the shadow baseline prior to determining a total lift; determining, utilizing adjusted 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 transmitting (e.g. 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 namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors. 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 using a computer system with one or more hardware processors and configured to execute software instructions, such as processing disparate offline media airing data and online application usage data and user interface (e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer components).
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
transmitting (e.g. 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;
More The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic computer components performing a generic computers function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and generic computer components. 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 one or more computers, or merely uses computers 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. Specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system with one or more hardware processors and configured to execute software instructions, such as processing disparate offline media airing data and online application usage data and user interface (e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer components).
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 one or more computers, 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 one or more general-purpose computer and generic computer components (as evidenced from paragraphs 37-39 and 83-92of the applicant’s specification) and the affinity v Direct TV decision which states that a user interface is a generic computer component); 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.
Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
transmitting (e.g. 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;
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 Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 8,15 .
The dependent 3-8, 10-14, 17-23 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), and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No). Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, 17-23 are not patent eligible.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Independent claims recite combination of features of which Examiner is unable to find a prior art that discloses the claimed features . The most relevant prior the examiner has found is:
Chen et al, US Pat No: 11,562393, B1, teaches A self-consistent inception architecture includes a process that integrates online data and offline data to determine an estimated lift (“prior lift”) in the number of unique visitors (UVs) to a website caused by a television (TV) spot airing on an offline medium. The prior lift is used to adjust a UV profile of the website. A baseline thus produced is fitted through an inception process in which a locally weighted scatterplot smoothing algorithm is applied iteratively until a final baseline converges. The baseline from the inception process is used to determine a calculated lift. If the prior lift and the calculated lift are not consistent (e.g., within a threshold), the process is run iteratively until the prior lift and the calculated lift are consistent. The calculated lifts can be used to determine and visualize performance metric(s) relating to media creatives such as TV spots airing in the physical world.
Swinson et al, US Pub No: 20230051566 A1, teaches an attribution system aggregates and merges online data and offline chronologically. The attribution system examines merged data for unique visitor (UV) sessions initiated at an online medium (e.g., a website) within an attribution window for a spot that aired on an offline medium (e.g., a television network) and, for each conversion event that occurred in a UV session, assigns a session timestamp to it so that the conversion event is correlated to the spot. The attribution system then determines an overall conversion rate of UVs to the online medium in the attribution window and the attribution by the spot that aired on the offline medium to the overall conversion rate of UVs to the online medium in the attribution window. Results of the offline attribution to the online conversions can be visualized and presented on a client device communicatively connected to the attribution system.
As thus, claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, 17-23 recite subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the Applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection above
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 he current invention relates to a computer-generated method for optimizing placement of advertising content across multiple different devices. The system can allocate advertising campaigns and plans to various inventory types based on the probability of accurate consumer matching. Consumer matching can be achieved by generation of look-alike models in a consumer's device graph to predict future consumption behavior. The system includes an interface through which an advertiser can access relevant information about inventory and success of a given 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
Prosecution Insights