DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 5/28/2024 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/29/2025.
a. Claims 1, 8, 15 are amended
b. Claims 7, 14, 20 are cancelled
Overall, Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-19 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 1-6, 8-13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-7 are directed to a system, claims 8-14 are directed to a computer implemented method, and claims 15-20 are directed to computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 8, 15) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 8, 15) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] An audience measurement computing system comprising: a processor; a memory having stored therein computer readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the audience measurement computing system to perform operations
[B] accessing, via network communications with one or more servers, measured impression counts associated with an advertising campaign,
wherein the accessed measured impression counts indicate: (i) a measured total impression count of the advertising campaign for impressions delivered through both a television delivery vehicle and a digital delivery vehicle collectively, (ii) a measured television impression count for any impressions of the advertising campaign delivered through the television delivery vehicle, and (iii) a measured digital impression count for any impressions of the advertising campaign delivered through the digital delivery vehicle;
[C] accessing, via network communications with one or more servers, measured lift values associated with the advertising campaign,
wherein the measured lift values indicate: (i) a measured total lift value of the advertising campaign attributed to impressions delivered through both the television delivery vehicle and the digital delivery vehicle collectively, (ii) a measured television lift value attributed to any impressions of the advertising campaign delivered through the television delivery vehicle, and (iii) a measured digital lift value attributed to any impressions of the advertising campaign delivered through the digital delivery vehicle;
based on differences between the measured total impression count and the measured television impression count and the measured digital impression count,
[D] segregating the measured impression counts into mutually exclusive impression counts including: (i) impressions associated with both the television delivery vehicle and the digital delivery vehicle, (ii) impressions associated solely with the television delivery vehicle, and (iii) impressions associated solely with the digital delivery vehicle;
[E] determining vehicle-specific lift components indicative of: (i) a first extent of lift of the advertising campaign attributable solely to the television delivery vehicle, and (ii) a second extent of lift of the advertising campaign attributable solely to the digital delivery vehicle, wherein the determining the vehicle-specific lift components is based on the mutually exclusive impression counts and respective definitions of the measured lift values according to correlations with the vehicle-specific lift components weighted according to the mutually exclusive impression counts; and
[F] generating a report indicating the vehicle-specific lift components.
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 8, 15) recites: segregating the counted impressions ([D]); categorizing the counted impressions ([E]); and generating a report with the results ([F]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “identifying a correlation between advertising media (i.e., stimuli) and lift value”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers reasonable performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. For example, the step segregating counts, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally building groups with counts of similar impressions; the step determining lift components, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally identifying the lift components; the step generating a report, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally creating a summarizing report. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
In addition, or alternatively, this is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers agreements in the form of advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 8, 15) recites an abstract idea that represents a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – QUALIFIERS]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “via network communications with one or more servers,” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the qualifiers “wherein the accessed measured impression counts indicate: (i) a measured total impression count of the advertising campaign for impressions delivered through both a television delivery vehicle and a digital delivery vehicle collectively, (ii) a measured television impression count for any impressions of the advertising campaign delivered through the television delivery vehicle, and (iii) a measured digital impression count for any impressions of the advertising campaign delivered through the digital delivery vehicle”; “wherein the measured lift values indicate: (i) a measured total lift value of the advertising campaign attributed to impressions delivered through both the television delivery vehicle and the digital delivery vehicle collectively, (ii) a measured television lift value attributed to any impressions of the advertising campaign delivered through the television delivery vehicle, and (iii) a measured digital lift value attributed to any impressions of the advertising campaign delivered through the digital delivery vehicle;”; “wherein the determining the vehicle-specific lift components is based on the mutually exclusive impression counts and respective definitions of the measured lift values according to correlations with the vehicle-specific lift components weighted according to the mutually exclusive impression counts”, as applied to the measured impression, the lift count, and the vehicle specific lift components, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These qualifiers of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “identifying a correlation between advertising media (i.e., stimuli) and lift value”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – ADDITIONAL STEPS]
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: accessing measured impression counts ([B]), accessing measured lift values ([C]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“identifying a correlation between advertising media (i.e., stimuli) and lift value”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional steps of independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 8, 15) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 8, 15) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 8, 15 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 2, which is representative of dependent claims 9, 16, recites:
[A] determining a modification to resource allocation between the television delivery vehicle and the digital delivery vehicle based on the vehicle-specific lift components.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “identifying a correlation between advertising media (i.e., stimuli) and lift value”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“identifying a correlation between advertising media (i.e., stimuli) and lift value”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“identifying a correlation between advertising media (i.e., stimuli) and lift value”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“identifying a correlation between advertising media (i.e., stimuli) and lift value”).
Therefore, dependent claim 2 (which is representative of dependent claims 9, 16) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 3, which is representative of dependent claims 10, 17, recites:
[A] suggesting the modification to resource allocation; and
[B] responsive to receiving an indication that the suggested modification to resource allocation has been approved, causing the advertising campaign to be modified in accordance with the modification.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “identifying a correlation between advertising media (i.e., stimuli) and lift value”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“identifying a correlation between advertising media (i.e., stimuli) and lift value”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“identifying a correlation between advertising media (i.e., stimuli) and lift value”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“identifying a correlation between advertising media (i.e., stimuli) and lift value”).
Therefore, dependent claim 3 (which is representative of dependent claims 10, 17) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 4-6, which are representative of dependent claims 11-13, 18-19, respectively, recite:
wherein the vehicle-specific lift components are determined relative to a baseline lift value.
wherein the advertising campaign includes impressions delivered through the television delivery vehicle that overlap with impressions delivered through the digital delivery vehicle.
wherein the respective definitions of the measured lift values are defined by three constrained equations which define each of the measured lift values according to respective weighted combinations of the vehicle-specific lift components.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements – vehicle-specific lift components; advertising campaign; lift-value definition – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (“identifying a correlation between advertising media (i.e., stimuli) and lift value”), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 4-6, which are representative of dependent claims 11-13, 18-19, respectively, are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 difference 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 the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al (US 2015/0095138), in view of Cavander et al (US 2013/0035975).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, 15: Rao discloses: An audience measurement computing system comprising: a processor; a memory having stored therein computer readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the audience measurement computing system to perform operations comprising: {see at least fig1, [0022]}
accessing, via network communications with one or more servers, measured impression counts associated with an advertising campaign, {see at least fig1, [0023]-[0037] audience members (based on BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on impression count)}
wherein the accessed measured impression counts indicate: (i) a measured total impression count of the advertising campaign for impressions delivered through both a television delivery vehicle and a digital delivery vehicle collectively, (ii) a measured television impression count for any impressions of the advertising campaign delivered through the television delivery vehicle, and (iii) a measured digital impression count for any impressions of the advertising campaign delivered through the digital delivery vehicle; {see at least fig4, [0409]-[0412] TV only, network (reads on digital) only, both channels}
accessing, via network communications with one or more servers, measured
wherein the measured lift values indicate: (i) a measured total advertising campaign delivered through the television delivery vehicle, and (iii) a measured digital
based on differences between the measured total impression count and the measured television impression count and the measured digital impression count, segregating the measured impression counts into mutually exclusive impression counts including: (i) impressions associated with both the television delivery vehicle and the digital delivery vehicle, (ii) impressions associated solely with the television delivery vehicle, and (iii) impressions associated solely with the digital delivery vehicle; {see at least fig4, [0409]-[0412] TV only, network (reads on digital) only, both channels. Rao fails to explicitly disclose the conditional claim limitation; however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that the operation of segregating can be performed by fulfilling the conditional clause – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}
determining, by performing an entropy optimization numerical method, vehicle-specific In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (CAFC 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).}
generating a report indicating the vehicle-specific
Rao does not disclose, however, Cavander discloses:
… lift value … {see at least fig1, rc113, [0024] determine lift factors (reads on lift value)}
… lift components … {see at least fig1, rc113, [0024] determine lift factors (reads on lift components)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Rao to include the elements of Cavander. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to determine components lift in advertisement. In the instant case, Rao evidently discloses measuring advertisement audience. Cavander is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of lift values in the same or similar context. Since both measuring advertisement audience, as well as lift values are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Rao, as well as Cavander would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Rao / Cavander.
Regarding Claims 2, 9, 16: Rao, Cavander discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8, 15. Cavander further discloses: wherein the operations further include
determining a modification to resource allocation between the television delivery vehicle and the digital delivery vehicle based on the vehicle-specific lift components. {see at least [0022], [0024] lift factors for resource allocation; fig6, [0040] marketing resources allocation}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Rao, Cavander to include additional elements of Cavander. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to increase advertisement campaign efficiency. In the instant case, Rao, Cavander evidently discloses. Cavander is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of modifying resource allocation in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 3, 10, 17: Rao, Cavander discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 9, 16. Cavander further discloses: wherein the operations further include:
suggesting the modification to resource allocation; and {see at least [0022], [0024] lift factors for resource allocation; fig6, [0040] marketing resources allocation}
responsive to receiving an indication that the suggested modification to resource allocation has been approved, causing the advertising campaign to be modified in accordance with the modification. {see at least [0022], [0024] lift factors for resource allocation; fig6, [0040] marketing resources allocation}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Rao, Cavander to include additional elements of Cavander. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to increase advertisement campaign efficiency. In the instant case, Rao, Cavander evidently discloses. Cavander is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of modifying resource allocation in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 4, 11: Rao, Cavander discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8. Cavander further discloses:
wherein the vehicle-specific lift components are determined relative to a baseline lift value. {see at least [0024] relationship between allocation of resources and outcome (based on BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on baseline, because the base can be equated with no allocation at all)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Rao, Cavander to include additional elements of Cavander. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to use the right calculation method. In the instant case, Rao, Cavander evidently discloses. Cavander is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of demining the lift in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 5, 12, 18: Rao, Cavander discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8, 15. Rao further discloses:
wherein the advertising campaign includes impressions delivered through the television delivery vehicle that overlap with impressions delivered through the digital delivery vehicle. {see at least [0174] calculating duplication; [0201] duplication between TV and internet advertisement (reads on digital advertainment)}
Regarding Claims 6, 13, 19: Rao, Cavander discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8, 15. Rao further discloses:
wherein the respective definitions of the measured lift values are defined by three constrained equations which define each of the measured lift values according to respective weighted combinations of the vehicle-specific lift components. {see at least [0170]; [table9], [0174], [0181], [0194], disclose separate equations for lifts on each vehicle}
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20120022930 A1 Brouhard; Jesse SYSTEM AND METHOD OF A MEDIA DELIVERY SERVICES PLATFORM FOR TARGETING CONSUMERS IN REAL TIME - A media targeting system may be configured to coordinate media and manage media conflicts in its delivery to consumers. The media targeting system may in near real-time arbitrate between all offers assigned to a particular consumer or available to the consumer via one or more channels to ensure that a consumer only receives non-conflicting offers during particular time periods. The media targeting system may translate offers into a real-time, in-store loyalty environment including consumer real-time behavior assignment into traits in order to make a real-time offer assignment based on the traits. An application on a mobile device of a consumer may allow the consumer to share offers with other consumers via a bump of the consumers' mobile devices.
US 20170155956 A1 Nagaraja Rao; Kumar et al. METHODS AND APPARATUS TO ESTIMATE DEDUPLICATED TOTAL AUDIENCES IN CROSS-PLATFORM MEDIA CAMPAIGNS - Methods, apparatus, systems and articles of manufacture to estimate deduplicated total audiences in cross-platform media campaigns are disclosed. An example method includes determining a first audience reach for a television audience, the television audience representative of audience members exposed to the media campaign via television media delivery, and determining a second audience reach for a digital audience, the digital audience representative of audience members exposed to the media campaign via digital media delivery. The example method also includes an overlap multiplier based on the media campaign, the overlap multiplier an odds ratio, and determining a duplication factor for the media campaign based on the first audience reach, the second audience reach and the overlap multiplier. The example method also includes determining a total audience for the media campaign based on the first audience reach, the second audience reach and the duplication factor.
US 20150317670 A1 Cavander; David et al. DYNAMIC MARKETING RESOURCE ARBITRAGE - Techniques are disclosed for generating a forward-looking, goal seeking marketing plan that links prior media purchase transactions to predicted future financial results for a brand, product market, or campaign. A computing device is configured to receive input data associated with one or more marketing elements, such as television ads, print ads, and online ads. From the input data, response factors corresponding to each marketing element can be calculated. These response factors can be used to generate a model upon which future marketing transactions can be planned in accordance with scenarios associated with a particular marketing campaign. A marketing plan can be generated from the model in which some or all marketing elements are ordered in a flighting schedule that provides optimum financial results for a selected scenario.
US 20120054021 A1 Kitts; Brendan et al. SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING EFFECTS OF MULTI-CHANNEL MEDIA SOURCES ON MULTI-CHANNEL CONVERSION EVENTS - This paper presents a practical method for measuring the impact of multiple marketing events on sales, including marketing events that are not traditionally trackable. The technique infers which of several competing media events are likely to have caused a given conversion. The method is tested using hold-out sets, and also a live media experiment for determining whether the method can accurately predict television-generated web conversions.
US 20180341673 A1 Reim; John et al. Systems and Methods for Providing Real-Time Discrepancies Between Disparate Execution Platforms - In accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure, each third party system of multiple third party systems can store files including datasets associated with one or more campaigns. A computing system can be in communication with the third party systems and including a first database and a second database. The computing system can be configured to receive the selection of the one or more third-party systems, store metadata associated with the at least one campaign in the first database, calculate at least one discrepant data value between the one or more third party systems, based on the datasets associated with the at least one campaign from each of the one or more third party systems.
US 20070038516 A1 Apple; Jeff et al. Systems, methods, and computer program products for enabling an advertiser to measure user viewing of and response to an advertisement - Systems, methods, apparatus, and/or computer program products for measuring if, when, how, and/or to what degree an user responds to an advertisement to enable an advertiser to produce an unique advertisement for the user and measure the effectiveness of advertisements through wireless and other media channels. The system enables an advertiser to measure the effectiveness of advertisements transmitted to the user through multiple media channels, including, but not limited to: television, radio, personal computer, billboard, magazines, newspapers, product package, and/or other wireless devices, as well as a wireless network. The system also incorporates static and/or dynamic information about the user and/or feedback from the user to produce dynamically an unique advertisement that increases and/or maximizes the probability of the user and comparable users buying the advertised product.
US 20110119126 A1 Park; John B. et al. Online Monitoring Systems to Determine Offline Advertising Effectiveness - Methods, systems, and apparatuses for online monitoring systems to determine offline advertising effectiveness. Information related to an advertisement for a product is received. The advertisement is presented through offline media. The information includes an advertising schedule. Communications related to the product that are received from the consumers in the market at the time the advertisement is presented, are detected. Data responsive to the detected communications are collected; the data represent a number of consumers in the market. A statistical correlation between the collected data and the advertising schedule is determined and provided to the advertiser as a report of the effectiveness of the advertising.
US 10467653 B1 Avedissian; Armen et al. Tracking online conversions attributable to offline events - Systems and methods are provided for determining a quantity of network location visitors that are likely generated or encouraged by specific offline events. A corresponding number of leads may then be attributed to and associated with those specific events. Ongoing conversion activity of those visitors may be tracked and associated with the offline events. Conversions of those visitors may be attributed entirely or partially to one or more specific offline events. The effectiveness of each offline may then be evaluated based on aggregate lead and conversion information.
WO 0125957 A2 BARRY DOUGLAS PERSONALIZED GAMING AND DEMOGRAPHIC COLLECTION METHOD AND APPARATUS - A method and apparatus that allows contestants to personalize what they can play for and which collects demographics from contestants using ubiquitous Internet devices or a new slot machine on a casino floor. Contestants are given the opportunity to earn points and/or other economic value that they can redeem for various prizes that are of interest to them and which they may have chosen to play for. A plurality of prizes can be selected from a plurality of categories. As the contestants play games of chance, a pool of advertisements is presented to the contestants. Advertisements from the pool are selected in accordance with each contestants buying propensity. As contestants play games of chance, the system infers additional propensities of each user and stores this for later reduction. The reduced data is then sold as marketing data together with a list of system users that comprises name, address, phone number and e-mail addresses and play information and the like. The system is implemented using a client-server paradigm. A server maintains databases needed to track all of the contestants that register with the system. The client devices, including the new slot machine, use a standard web browser as a means to retrieve and display web pages to the contestant. Most web pages have an attached JavaScript program that implements the functionality of the present invention. Other web pages that contestants encounter comprise a shell for a Java applet that embodies a game of chance. The Java applet that implement games of chance are universal in distribution relying on the web browser to homogenize the user interface across a wide range of hardware platforms.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “… claim 1 includes a sequence of specific sequential operations to first establish, by segregating measured impression counts, "mutually exclusive impression counts" that are "based on differences between" measured impression counts for both the full campaign and for each of digital and television vehicles of the campaign, and then determining, by performing an entropy optimization numerical method, vehicle-specific lift components "based on the mutually exclusive impression counts and respective definitions of the measured lift values". At a minimum, it must be acknowledged that the human mind is not equipped for segregating measured impression counts into mutually exclusive impression counts based on differences, and then using such mutually exclusive impression counts as a basis to determine vehicle-specific lift components "by performing an entropy optimization numerical method", as required by currently amended independent claim 1. Thus, the requirements of claim 1 cannot be practically performed in the human mind. As such, claim 1 does not recite a mental process as articulated in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(111).”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action determines at Step 2A2 that the steps: (1) segregating the measured impression counts into mutually exclusive impression counts, (2) determining vehicle-specific lift components based on certain criteria, and (3) generating a report, are performable in the human mind. These operations are basic operations, a human mind performs on a routine basis, be it separately or together. No tools would be required for performing these steps. There is nothing in these basic steps that would prevent the human mind from performing the above mentioned steps.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Claim 1 reflects a technological improvement in the technical field of audience measurement.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, MPEP 2106.05(a) discloses that the additional claim elements bring about “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.” Audience measurement is a pure BUSINESS problem, rather than a technology or technical field problem. As such, the limitations which have not been deemed as being part of the identified abstract idea, i.e., the “additional limitations,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Second, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Thus, Applicant's specification describes a particular technical problem arising in the field of audience measurement, and then sets forth a specific manner of addressing that problem through introduction of a specific combination of elements, which, taken as a whole, enable an improvement in accuracy, efficiency, and utility of the assessment of advertising campaign impressions across television and digital vehicles.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately here above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Further, by directing currently amended claim 1 to a practical solution in a particular field of technology, the claimed invention does not pre-empt the field of all possible solutions. On the contrary, claim 1 is directed to a particular technical solution to a problem arising in the technical field of audience measurement. Because the claimed invention provides such an improvement, the additional elements in combination integrate the alleged exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(II).”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are patent-eligible because they do not preempt all ways of conducting advertisement on the Internet or on social networking sites. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, while the risk that a claim directed to a judicial exception will pre-empt use of the exception by others has been identified as a concern underlying the need for applying closer scrutiny to such claims, the question of pre-emption itself is addressed through the two-part analysis set out by the Court. The Supreme Court has described the concern driving the judicial exceptions as preemption, however, the courts do not use preemption as a stand-alone test for eligibility. Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in the two-part framework from Alice and Mayo, and are resolved by using this framework to distinguish between preemptive claims, and "those that integrate the building blocks into something more ... the latter pose no comparable risk of pre-emption, and therefore remain eligible." It should be kept in mind, however, that while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not guarantee that a claim is eligible (see July 2015 IEG Update: Subject Matter Eligibility – VI. The Role of Preemption).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “In sum, even if claim 1 is directed to ineligible subject matter (although it is not), and even if claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application (although it is), claim 1 still provides an inventive concept that amounts to "something more."”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action has determined at Step 2B:
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 8, 15) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 8, 15 are deemed ineligible.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits that the primary reference, Rao does not disclose certain claim elements.
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In sum piecemeal analysis of references is not a proper examination practice.
Second, Rao is specifically directed to discriminating between two types of the primary reference (“Rao”) discloses discriminating between two types of advertising vehicles – online campaigns and TV campaigns. Furthermore, Cavander discloses a method to quantify the commercial success of advertising campaigns, which is the lift in performance.
Therefore, it is concluded that the combination Rao, Cavander discloses the limitations of independent claim1, as filed and amended.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “In particular, similar to Rao, nothing in Cavender even suggests determining vehicle-specific lift components based on "mutually exclusive impression counts and respective definitions of the measured lift values", and certainly does not even suggest doing so "by performing an entropy optimization numerical method" as reflected in the current amendment of claim 1. Nor does Cavender teach or suggest "based on differences between the measured total impression count and the measured television impression count and the measured digital impression count, segregating the measured impression counts into mutually exclusive impression counts"”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In sum piecemeal analysis of references is not a proper examination practice.
Second, Rao discloses:
based on differences between the measured total impression count and the measured television impression count and the measured digital impression count, segregating the measured impression counts into mutually exclusive impression counts including: (i) impressions associated with both the television delivery vehicle and the digital delivery vehicle, (ii) impressions associated solely with the television delivery vehicle, and (iii) impressions associated solely with the digital delivery vehicle; {see at least fig4, [0409]-[0412] TV only, network (reads on digital) only, both channels. Rao fails to explicitly disclose the conditional claim limitation; however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that the operation of segregating can be performed by fulfilling the conditional clause – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}
determining, by performing an entropy optimization numerical method, vehicle-specific In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (CAFC 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).}
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “As such, even assuming that Rao were somehow to be combined with Cavender, any such combination would still be lacking any teaching or suggestion of that which is recited by each of the independent claims, including, at least "accessing ... measured impression counts" having the specific features recited by each of the independent claims; "accessing measured lift values" having the specific features recited by each of the independent claims; "based on differences between the measured total impression count and the measured television impression count and the measured digital impression count, segregating the measured impression counts into mutually exclusive impression counts" in the manner recited by each of the independent claims; and determining vehicle-specific lift components that meet the requirements set forth in each of the independent claims, and certainly not "by performing an entropy optimization numerical method" as recited by each of the independent claims.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
The other arguments presented by Applicant continually point back to the above arguments as being the basis for the arguments against the other 103 rejections, as the other arguments are presented only because those claims depend from the independent claims, and the main argument above is presented against the independent claims. Therefore, it is believed that all arguments put forth have been addressed by the points above.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The changes of the grounds for rejection, if any, have been necessitated by Applicant’s extensive amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection is maintained, necessitated by the extensive amendments and by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571.272.7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3698