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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 10/23/2025.
Claims 4, 18 and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims -4, 5-17 and 19 have been amended.
New claims 21-23 have been added.
6. Claims 1-9, 5-17, 19 and 21-23 are currently pending and are considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
7. The Applicant is respectfully reminded that each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-9, 5-17, 19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 1, recites a computer-implemented method, which is a statutory class, comprising:
retrieving, from a data store, data associated with a plurality of advertising channels used in a plurality of geographic units;
deriving a reduced multicollinearity data set comprising one or more hierarchical by reducing a distance metric among geographic units of the plurality of geographic units that are disposed inside the one or more hierarchical clusters by performing operations comprising;
initializing each of the plurality of geographic units as a separate hierarchical cluster
to create a plurality of hierarchical clusters; and
iteratively merging the plurality of hierarchical clusters starting with two hierarchical
clusters in the plurality of hierarchical clusters having a smallest distance metric and
continuing the merging until all geographic units are grouped into a predefined number of hierarchical clusters to generate the reduced multicollinearity data set;
analyzing the reduced multicollinearity data set one or more clusters using a model to generate one or more visualizations used to increase an impression impact, increase a carryover, or a combination thereof, in at least one of the plurality of advertising channels; and
causing display of the one or more visualizations on a graphical user interface of a
computing device.
The steps of
retrieving, from a data store, data associated with a plurality of advertising channels used in a plurality of geographic units;
deriving a reduced multicollinearity data set comprising one or more hierarchical by reducing a distance metric among geographic units of the plurality of geographic units that are disposed inside the one or more hierarchical clusters by performing operations comprising;
initializing each of the plurality of geographic units as a separate hierarchical cluster
to create a plurality of hierarchical clusters; and
iteratively merging the plurality of hierarchical clusters starting with two hierarchical
clusters in the plurality of hierarchical clusters having a smallest distance metric and
continuing the merging until all geographic units are grouped into a predefined number of hierarchical clusters to generate the reduced multicollinearity data set;
analyzing the reduced multicollinearity data set one or more clusters] using a model to generate one or more visualizations used to increase an impression impact, increase a carryover, or a combination thereof, in at least one of the plurality of advertising channels; and
causing display of the one or more visualizations on a graphical user interface of a
computing device,
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a method for retrieve data, comprising marketing data to derive a pre-processed data set and to derive a reduced multicollinearity data set. The above identified method steps recite commercial interactions such as sales activities and/or tailored personalized marketing relating to providing data associated with the person.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interaction such as tailored personalized marketing, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computing device, a memory and one or more processors. The computing device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of retrieving data; deriving a reduced multicollinearity data set; initializing each of the plurality of geographic units; and iteratively merging the plurality of hierarchical clusters; analyzing the reduced multicollinearity data set; and causing display of the one or more visualizations) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computing device, a memory and one or more processors amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements are similar to the additional elements found by courts to be mere instructions to apply an exception because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery to perform an existing process such as: a common business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 US 208, 223; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334); providing a user with tailored information like advertisements based on information known about the user such as a location, address, or personal characteristics and a time of day is a fundamental practice long prevalent in our system); In re Morsa, 809 F. App’x 913, 917 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. That is, a computing device, a memory and one or more processors, performing commercial interactions including: retrieving data; deriving a reduced multicollinearity data set; initializing each of the plurality of geographic units; and iteratively merging the plurality of hierarchical clusters; analyzing the reduced multicollinearity data set; and causing display of the one or more visualizations, amount to mere instructions to apply the steps to a computer comprising of a processor.
Thus, claims 1, 17 and 19 are not eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-3, 5-16, and 21-23 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in claims 1, 17 and 19. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1-9, 5-17, 19 and 21-23 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed on 10/23/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9, 5-17, 19 and 21-23 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
11. Applicant argued that “…Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Applicant respectfully disagrees that the claims are directed to any abstract idea. Further, the claims have been amended to include additional technical details that are also not directed to any abstract idea. Moreover, the claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem. In the application as filed it explains that "[r]egression methods [can] use aggregated panel data to concurrently identify the casual impact of multiple factors," however, one of the challenges that "undermine[s] the ability to confidently affirm that the estimated parameters from regression methods represent the true causal impact" includes "multicollinearity among covariates." Application as filed at [0019]. For example, "[w]hen attempting to estimate impacts via a regression model, highly correlated variables result in larger estimate variances and imprecise attribution of channel contributions. for
example, to sales." Id. at [0020]. Further, "[i]t is not uncommon to observe regression coefficients switching signs when highly correlated inputs are introduced, consequently undermining the confidence of business stakeholders in the model's results…” Remarks pages 8-10
12. Examiner notes that customizing information from a data store for display to the graphical user interface of a user device is a fundamental practice to increase the effectiveness of advertisements. The portions of the specification mentioned described how the business process in how to improve particular business decisions. However, the technology is not improved. The retrieving, analyzing and displaying visualization on a graphical user interface are both data gathering and outputting data. The additional element of a computer device that can process data is used as a tool to implement the abstract idea and apply it without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or transforming it into a patent eligible application. The rejection is therefore maintained.
Conclusion
13. The claims are not rejected using prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102/103(a): The closest prior art found by the Examiner are:
14. Camargo et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,118,481) discloses generating and distributing access credentials to users that access a rental property for a limited time period. Users can be provided with access to the rental property through an application or webpage portal without creating a new user account or user login for the application. For example, a user can be granted access to control electronic devices associated with a monitoring system of a rental property without creating a new user account with the monitoring system. Techniques described herein enable such users to more easily access, for example, rental property information that is associated with a monitoring system of the rental property. In this manner, access credentials can be distributed to users through any suitable means, e.g., through email or SMS, and used to temporarily authenticate users (see at least the Abstract).
15. Hailey et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,676,226) discloses a system that (i) automates home searching for a prospective home buyer and organizes search results according to user-defined criteria and potential home maintenance costs; and (ii) leverages historical and statistical data to identify potential home maintenance costs that may be otherwise overlooked by or hidden from a prospective home buyer see at least Field Of The Invention paragraph (1).
16. Denninghoff (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0401274) discloses a computer-implemented method for computational textual search to find and display search identified information in documents. Search queries are processed over one or more documents either at a server or user device using match schemes that produce both binary (match or no match) and non-binary (i.e. multiple matching values) results and have relative fuzziness relationships. A fuzzier match scheme implies more results and fewer false negatives and a less fuzzy match scheme implies fewer results and fewer false positives. This fuzziness relationship allows, without changing a search string, for users to quickly change from a match scheme to a fuzzier or less fuzzy match scheme depending on user evaluation of results as containing too many false negatives or too many false positives—without becoming a programmer of complex search string metadata or an expert user of advanced search capabilities (see at least the Abstract).
17. The prior art mentioned above failed to teach or suggest the combination of the elements of retrieving data from a data store, the data comprising marketing data associated with a plurality of advertising channels used in a plurality of geographic units; pre-processing the data to generate a pre-processed data set; hierarchically clustering the pre-processed data set; deriving a reduced multicollinearity data set comprising one or more clusters based on the hierarchically clustering by reducing a distance metric among geographic units of the plurality of geographic units that are disposed inside the one or more clusters; and analyzing the one or more clusters with a model to generate one or more visualizations used to increase an impression impact, increase a carryover, or a combination thereof, in at least one of the plurality of advertising channels.
18. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARILYN G MACASIANO whose telephone number is (571)270-5205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12:00-9:00 pm.
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, llana Spar can be reached at 571)270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/MARILYN G MACASIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622 01/10/2026