DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 31 August 2026 has been entered.
Claims amended: 1, 3, 15, 21, 23
Claims cancelled: 10-14, 17-20
Claims added: none
Claims currently pending: 1-9, 15, 16, 21-29
Response to Arguments
Applicant, in “REMARKS/ARGUMENTS” section, presents opening remarks regarding the disposition of the claims and the amendments to the claims. As no specific argument is raised in this/these section(s) with respect to the instant application, no rebuttal is required.
Applicant, in the “Claim Objections” section, refers to grammatical issues noted in the previous Office action and notes that the claims in question have been amended. Examiner appreciates the attention to this matter and has withdrawn the objections.
Applicant, in the “Claim Rejections Under Double Patenting” section, remarks that, “Applicants will consider filing of a terminal disclaimer” pending resolution of other matters in the Application. Applicant’s response to the Double Patenting rejection was non-responsive. While Examiner could have issued a Notice of Non-Responsive Amendment, to further the prosecution of the case, Examiner is instead warning the applicant with regards to the requirements of the MPEP with regards to Double Patenting Rejections. As per 37 CFR 1.111, "In order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action". While 37 CFR 1.111 allows for a request to "be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated", a Double Patenting rejection is not an objection or requirement as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims as noted in MPEP 804 (B)(1) "filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance." As such, a failure to address the Double Patenting rejection in future correspondence is likely to result in a Notice of Non-Responsive Amendment. Applicants can properly address the Double Patenting rejection by either filing a Terminal Disclaimer or providing specific arguments why one or more limitations in the claims, as amended, are not an obvious variant of the claims in the identified reference(s). Merely, amending the claims to recite a new limitation and stating that the applicant believes the Double Patenting rejection cannot be maintained over the claims as currently amended is not sufficient. The applicant needs to provide specific arguments as to why said limitation would not be an obvious variant of the claims in the identified patent. However, should the applicant present such a convincing argument, then the claims of the instant application would also not be obvious variants of the claims of the previous application and/or patent, then it is likely they would also not be obvious variants of the claims of the instant application for which the examiner has issued an Office Action. This is because said previously examined claims were obvious variants of the previous application and/or patent. Thus, a successful argument regarding amended claims not being obvious variants of the previous application and/or patent is likely to result in Restriction by Original Presentation for the newly amended claims in the instant application. Given that the applicant has provided no specific argument as to why the claims as amended are not obvious variants of the references noted in the previous Office action, the Double Patenting rejection has been maintained.
Applicant, in the “Step 2A, Prong One” section, refers to newly amended claim language and argues that “amended claims’ manner of associating and moving data across distinct devices” represents “an improvement in computer functionality rather than an abstract idea”. Examiner disagrees to this notion as the claimed invention, specifically the newly amended claim language associates data from different devices via a “user identification mechanism”. This is not a problem arising in computer technology, but a problem arising in advertising interaction as performed on generic computer hardware. A largely equivalent scenario would be a customer interacting with two disparate stores and correlating the interactions with each other via the user identifying themselves. The use of computers is tangential to the abstract idea and the computers themselves are not improved.
Applicant, in the “Step 2A, Prong Two” section, refers to the newly amended claim language and argues that, “comparing profiles and associated device data in a distributed system can improve speed and efficiency, conserve device, processing, memory, and network resources, distribute memory more uniformly, and improve precision as datasets grow”. This appears to be a generic list of potential improvements to computer processing when utilizing “distributed computing”, which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional technique. These are not specific performance improvements tied to the claimed arrangement of user devices. The computer devices (i.e., first device, second device, and third device) are used in their conventional manner, to present and gather data. The arrangement of devices into three devices is barely supported by the specification; paragraph 0020 does not make explicit reference to three distinct devices. Rather, paragraph 0020 describes “multiple electronic devices”. Furthermore, as made clear in at least 0020, the “requests to receive and process data…may be transmitted according to other methods known to persons of ordinary skill in the art”. Thus, the arrangement of devices does not represent a practical application of the abstract idea.
Applicant, in the “Step 2B” section, refers to many limitations from the claims and argues that the steps of the claimed invention do not represent “a set of repetitive calculations or a generic computer implementation”. This argument is merely conclusive; Applicant has not detailed why the combination of elements represents “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. In the absence of cogent argument, Examiner is at a loss to provide a rebuttal that isn’t repetitive of the grounds of rejection presented in the previous Office action and in this Office action.
Applicant, in the “Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103” section, refers to newly amended claim language and argues that the previously applied prior art references don’t teach the new language. This argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented herein which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Applicant then argues with respect to claims 3, 23, and 27 that newly amended claim language utilizing “omitting…a profile…insufficiently similar”. This argument is largely moot in view of the new citations to Lindsay presented herein. Examiner notes that the disclosure of Lindsay includes profiles when they are found sufficiently similar, which is a different way of describing omitting (i.e., not including) profiles when they are not found to be sufficiently similar. Therefore, the grounds of rejection presented for these claims involves largely the same references but has been updated with new citations/discussion with respect to Lindsay.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9, 15, 16, 21-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,810,147 B2 in view of Wang (Pub. #: US 2017/0364964 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application represent a subset of the claims found in the ‘147 patent in view of Wang. For example, a comparison between claim 1 in the instant application and that found in ‘147 appears as such:
PNG
media_image1.png
997
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The primary difference is the removal of several elements and some small changes to the remainder of the claim language and the addition of a matching of user profiles across devices feature. As for the addition of the “data associated with an exposed group”, this language represents moving of the description of the data from the now-removed “receiving” step to the introduction of the “data” in the “creating” step. This re-wording does not functionally/structurally change the invention.
As for, “wherein the electronic device data associated with the second device comprises location-specific data received after a user associated with the at least one profile from the exposed group is exposed to targeted content on a third device different from the second device, and wherein a user identification mechanism is shared by the second and third device, wherein the profiles associated with the first device and the second device have been matched;”: The ‘147 does not appear to specify matching disparate devices based on a shared user identification mechanism between the devices in order to link the profile(s) in the devices. However, Wang teaches a technique of linking disparate devices via a “user login identifier” in at least Figure 2A, Figure 2B, and 0048-0056, and 0057-0060.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the advertisement effectiveness system of Lindsay, in view of Chhaya and Luo, with the technique of linking disparate devices as taught by Wang. Motivation to combine Lindsay, in view of Chhaya and Luo, with Wang derives from the desire to provide advertisements to a user that are most effective and least cost (Wang: 0008-0012).
Claims 1-9 in the instant application closely map to claims 1-9 of the ’147 patent; claims 15, 16, 27, 28, 29 in the instant application closely map to claims 15, 16, 3, 4, and 6 on the ‘147 patent with the latter three claims representing a method embodiment corresponding to the system embodiment of the ‘147 patent; claims 21-16 of the instant application closely map to claims 21, 2-6 of the ’147 patent with the latter 5 claims representing a computer-readable medium embodiment corresponding to the system embodiment of the ‘147 patent.
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 1-9, 15, 16, 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-9 are directed towards a system. Claims 15, 16, 27-29 are directed towards a method. Claims 21-26 are directed towards a manufacture (computer-readable medium) which is defined in paragraph 0040 as “non-transitory”. 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.
Claim 1 is presented here as a representative claim for specific analysis (The underlined claim terms here are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea.):
A system comprising:
at least one processor;
and memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, performs a method comprising:
creating a control group using data associated with an exposed group based at least upon a commonality threshold for one or more features, wherein the commonality threshold is determined using a machine-learning algorithm that receives both non-exposed user profile information and exposed user-profile information as input, the machine learning algorithm trained using a historical dataset comprising information associated with a preexisting profile database of both exposed and non-exposed individuals from prior campaigns;
matching at least one profile from the control group with at least one profile from the exposed group;
automatically monitoring electronic device data associated:
at least a first device associated with at least one profile from the control group and the exposed group;
and at least a second device associated with the at the least one profile from the exposed group,
wherein the electronic device data associated with the second device comprises location-specific data received after a user associated with the at least one profile from the exposed group is exposed to targeted content on a third device different from the second device,
and wherein a user identification mechanism is shared by the second device and the third device,
wherein the profiles associated with the first device and the second device have been matches;
comparing the electronic device data for the at least first device and the at least second device;
and generating at least one result based on the comparison.
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 2A - Prong Two and Step 2B). The claims recite the abstract idea of evaluating the performance of advertisements using a control group and an exposed group which falls within certain methods of organizing human activity.
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 Remaining Claims: The additional independent claims fail to recite any additional elements beyond those identified above except for “a computer readable memory” (claim 21). The dependent claims recite fail to recite any additional elements beyond those already identified except: “a fuzzy matching technique” (claims 4, 5, 24, 25, 28).
The dependent claims further reiterate the same abstract idea with further embellishments: type of data within a user profile (claims 2, 3, 16); type of matching techniques used (claims 4, 5, 24, 25, 28); data is explicitly advertising campaign data (claims 6, 7, 26, 29); classifying characteristics of the data (claims 8, 9). Therefore, the identified claims fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A - Prong Two: As per MPEP 2106.04.II.A.2, Prong Two determines if the claim(s) recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As for the additional elements of: at least one processor, memory or a computer readable memory, at least one electronic device, first device, second device, third device. To be patent-eligible, the elements additional to the identified abstract idea must amount to more than "an instruction to apply the abstract idea . . . using some unspecified, generic computer" to render the claim patent-eligible. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 226 (2014). Applicant's Specification broadly describes support for well-known generic computer elements in at least 0040-0043. 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. 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).
As for the additional element(s) of: a fuzzy matching technique. The additional element(s) represent insignificant extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g).
As for the additional element(s) of: machine-learning algorithm. The use of machine learning or artificial intelligence, without providing details of how the models themselves are improved, represents mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
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.
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.
As for the additional element(s): a fuzzy matching technique. Fuzzy logic at a high level of generality represents performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Fuzzy logic has been studied “since the 1920s” as indicated by the “Fuzzy logic” article on Wikipedia as archived on 17 October 2016.
As for the additional element(s): machine-learning algorithm. Applying "machine learning" at a high level of generality represents performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Machine learning is well-understood, routine and conventional as exemplified in "Approaches to Machine Learning" by Langley et al. (Langley, P. and Carbonell, J.G. (1984), Approaches to machine learning. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 35: 306-316. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630350509 (Year: 1984))
References of Record but not Applied in the Current Grounds of Rejection
The prior art listed below is made of record as considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is not relied upon in the grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Those starred with '*' were added to this list in this Office action. Those without "*" were added in a previous Office action and are not repeated on a PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form but are maintained herein for informational purposes only.
Forte et al., in “Learning human behavioral profiles in a cyber environment”, discloses techniques for determining user profile information using behavioral data in online environments.
Examiner's Note on the Format of the Prior Art Rejections
The prior art rejections below contain underlined markings of the limitations (e.g. sample limitation). The underlined portions of a claim are addressed at the end of the grounds of rejection for that claim. Examiner notes that the underlining of the claim language is not a statement that the primary reference does not teach that language, but simply that said claim language is addressed at the end of the grounds of rejection for that claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 7, 15, 16, 21-23, 26, 27, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Lindsay et al. (Pub. #: US 2012/0166520 A1) in view of
Chhaya et al. (Pub. #: US 2016/0147758 A1) in view of
Luo et al. (Pub. #: US 2017 /0132658 A1) in view of
Wang (Pub. #: US 2017/0364964 A1).
Claim(s) 1, 15, 21:
These claims are analogous with different representative embodiments: claim 1 is a system embodiment, claim 15 is a method embodiment, claim 21 is a computer-readable medium embodiment. Lindsay teaches a computer system with computer-readable media in at least 0057-0059 for performing the steps:
creating a control group using data associated with an exposed group based at least upon a commonality threshold for one or more features,
wherein the commonality threshold is determined using a machine-learning algorithm that receives both non-exposed user profile information and exposed user-profile information as input, the machine learning algorithm trained using a historical dataset comprising information associated with a preexisting profile database of both exposed and non-exposed individuals from prior campaigns;
matching at least one profile from the a control group with at least one profile from the exposed group;
(Lindsay discloses processing the logs into a "control group" and matching profiles with an "exposed" group in at least 0035 et. seq.)
automatically monitoring electronic device data associated with: at least a first device associated with the at least one profile from the control group;
and at least a second device associated with the at the least one profile from the exposed group,
wherein the electronic device data associated with the second device comprises location-specific data received after a user associated with the at least one profile from the exposed group is exposed to targeted content on a third device different from the second device, and wherein a user identification mechanism is shared by the second and third device,
wherein the profiles associated with the first device and the second device have been matched;
comparing the electronic device data from the at least one control group with the electronic device data from the exposed group; and generating at least one result based on the comparison.
(Lindsay discloses determining the "effectiveness of advertisements" from the data obtained from monitoring user devices comprising both the control group and the exposed group in at least 0041-0048. Lindsay discloses monitoring)
As for, “creating a control group using data associated with an exposed group based at least upon a commonality threshold for one or more features, wherein the commonality threshold is determined using a machine-learning algorithm that receives both non-exposed user profile information and exposed user-profile information as input, the machine learning algorithm trained using a historical dataset comprising information associated with a preexisting profile database of both exposed and non-exposed individuals from prior campaigns;”: Lindsay discloses receiving "a log of user advertising exposures" from user devices in at least claim 1, 0016-0018, and 0029. Lindsay discloses maintaining a database of users, with some of the users exposed to an advertisement and some others not exposed to the advertisement and matching users based on ‘demographic’ and ‘behavior’ information in the database including non-exposed and exposed profile information in at least Figure 4 and 0050; thus, Lindsay discloses creating a control group based on user commonalities. Lindsay further discloses that the data of both exposed and non-exposed users is for at least past campaigns in at least 0036-0037 with the control group generator used to generate surveys to issue to users for the purposes of ‘richer reporting about an advertising campaign’ for “a user’s past impressions”. Lindsay does not appear to specify using a machine learning algorithm trained on user profile information to match profiles based on a commonality threshold. However, Chhaya teaches a technique of using machine learning to cluster user profiles into groups based on a similarity threshold in at least Figures 5 and 6 and 0016, 0019, 0084-0114.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the advertisement effectiveness system of Lindsay with the technique of using machine learning to cluster user profiles into groups based on a similarity threshold as taught by Chhaya. Motivation to combine Lindsay with Chhaya derives from the desire to better market to users (Chhaya: 0002).
As for, "automatically monitoring electronic device data associated with: at least a first device associated with the at least one profile from the control group;
and at least a second device associated with the at least one profile from the exposed group,": Lindsay is primarily directed towards analyzing previously collected data. Lindsay, in view of Chhaya, does not appear to specify monitoring already selected control and exposed groups. However, Luo teaches a technique of determining advertising lift wherein groups are established and then monitored for response to advertisements in at least Figure 14, 0067, 0068.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the advertisement effectiveness system of Lindsay, in view of Chhaya, with the technique of monitoring data for established groups as taught by Luo. Motivation to combine Lindsay, in view of Chhaya, with Luo comes from the desire to more effectively measure the lift of advertisements (Luo: 0003, 0004).
As for, “wherein the electronic device data associated with the second device comprises location-specific data received after a user associated with the at least one profile from the exposed group is exposed to targeted content on a third device different from the second device, and wherein a user identification mechanism is shared by the second and third device, wherein the profiles associated with the first device and the second device have been matched;”: Lindsay, in view of Chhaya and Luo, does not appear to specify matching disparate devices based on a shared user identification mechanism between the devices in order to link the profile(s) in the devices. However, Wang teaches a technique of linking disparate devices via a “user login identifier” in at least Figure 2A, Figure 2B, and 0048-0056, and 0057-0060.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the advertisement effectiveness system of Lindsay, in view of Chhaya and Luo, with the technique of linking disparate devices as taught by Wang. Motivation to combine Lindsay, in view of Chhaya and Luo, with Wang derives from the desire to provide advertisements to a user that are most effective and least cost (Wang: 0008-0012).
Claim(s) 2, 16, 22:
wherein the exposed group and the control group are selected from a panel of active users.
(Lindsay discloses processing the logs into a "control group" and matching profiles with an "exposed" group in at least 0035 et. seq. Lindsay further specifies that the user information includes "fields suitable for describing a user's profile" in at least 0038.)
Claim(s) 3, 23, 27:
wherein creating the control group comprises: comparing a first set of characteristics in a first set of profiles to a second set of characteristics in a second set of profiles in the panel to identify commonalities between the first set of profiles and the second set of profiles; and selecting the profiles having commonalities for inclusion in the control group
omitting a selected profile from further analysis when a comparison algorithm determines that the selected profile and a profile in the exposed group are insufficiently similar.
(Lindsay discloses processing the logs into a "control group" and matching profiles with an "exposed" group in at least 0035 et. seq. Lindsay further specifies that the control group is based on commonalities between users in at least 0048-0051. Lindsay discloses, in at least 0050, that the system retrieves profiles for users that are similar to the exposed users, leaving out the remaining profiles as not ‘candidates’.)
Claim(s) 6, 26, 29:
wherein the data is associated with targeted content for one or more online campaigns.
(Lindsay discloses that the information gathered from user devices includes demographic data and exposure to targeted advertisements in at least claim 1, 0035, 0048-0051.)
Claim(s) 7:
wherein the exposed group is exposed to the targeted content and the control group is not exposed to the targeted content.
(Lindsay discloses processing the logs into a "control group" and matching profiles with an "exposed" group in at least 0035 et. seq. Lindsay further specifies that the control group is based on commonalities between users in at least 0048-0051.)
Claim(s) 4, 5, 8, 9, 24, 25, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Lindsay et al. (Pub. #: US 2012/0166520 A1) in view of
Chhaya et al. (Pub. #: US 2016/0147758 A1) in view of
Luo et al. (Pub. #: US 2017 /0132658 A1) in view of
Wang (Pub. #: US 2017/0364964 A1) in view of
Efrat (Pub. #: US 2015/0012355 A1).
Claim(s) 4, 24, 28:
wherein matching the at least one profile from the control group with at the least one profile from the exposed group comprises identifying the commonalities between the first set of profiles and the second set of profiles using a fuzzy matching technique.
Lindsay, in view of Chhaya and Luo, does not appear to specify using fuzzy matching and feature vectors of user characteristics as part of the matching process. However, Efrat teaches a technique of normalizing user data in the form of vectors to values between 0 and 1 in at least 0023-0026. Efrat further teaches comparing users to "archetypes" (i.e., groupings of users) using at least a "heuristic genetic algorithm" which is "fuzzy" by nature in at least 0027-0031.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user matching portion of Lindsay, in view of Chhaya and Luo, with the additional user matching techniques of Efrat. Motivation to combine Lindsay, in view of Chhaya and Luo, with Efrat derives from the desire to send the most effective advertisements/content to a user based on "profiling and segmentation data" (Efrat: 0027).
Claim(s) 5, 25:
wherein the fuzzy matching technique comprises: normalizing the first set of characteristics and the second set of characteristics; generating a first feature vector for the first set of characteristics and a second feature vector for the second set of characteristics; and comparing the first feature vector to the second feature vector.
Lindsay, in view of Chhaya and Luo, does not appear to specify using fuzzy matching and feature vectors of user characteristics as part of the matching process. However, Efrat teaches a technique of normalizing user data in the form of vectors to values between 0 and 1 in at least 0023-0026. Efrat further teaches comparing users to "archetypes" (i.e., groupings of users) using at least a "heuristic genetic algorithm" which is "fuzzy" by nature in at least 0027-0031.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user matching portion of Lindsay, in view of Chhaya and Luo, with the additional user matching techniques of Efrat. Motivation to combine Lindsay, in view of Chhaya and Luo, with Efrat derives from the desire to send the most effective advertisements/content to a user based on "profiling and segmentation data" (Efrat: 0027).
Claim(s) 8:
wherein processing the data comprises: extracting a set of characteristics from the data; comparing the extracted set of characteristics to at least one of a characteristic classifier and a statistical model to determine the proper classification of one or more characteristics in the set of characteristics; and segmenting the classified one or more characteristics into one or more groups.
Lindsay, in view of Chhaya and Luo, does not appear to specify the extraction of characteristics for determining characteristic classifications into segments. However, Efrat teaches a technique of creating "persona" from user data characteristics in at least 0038-0041.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user characteristics of Lindsay, in view of Chhaya and Luo, with the additional user characteristics segmentation of Efrat. Motivation to combine Lindsay, in view of Chhaya and Luo, with Efrat derives from the desire to send the most effective advertisements/content to a user based on "profiling and segmentation data" (Efrat: 0027).
Claim(s) 9:
wherein the one or more groups correspond to demographic characteristics of members of the exposed group.
Lindsay, in view of Chhaya and Luo, does not appear to specify the extraction of characteristics for determining characteristic classifications into segments. However, Efrat teaches a technique of creating "persona" from user data characteristics in at least 0038-0041.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user characteristics of Lindsay, in view of Chhaya and Luo, with the additional user characteristics segmentation of Efrat. Motivation to combine Lindsay, in view of Chhaya and Luo, with Efrat derives from the desire to send the most effective advertisements/content to a user based on "profiling and segmentation data" (Efrat: 0027).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT SNIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-9604. The examiner can normally be reached M-W: 9:00-4:30 Mountain (11:00-6:30 Eastern).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at (571)270-3948. 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.
/SCOTT SNIDER/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
