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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment of 4/8/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 2-21 are pending in this Office Action.
Claim 1 is cancelled.
Claims 2-21 are new.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/27/2024, 10/18/2024, 2/7/2025, 4/8/2025, 5/27/2025, 7/3/2025, 7/25/2025, and 9/12/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 7, 9, 11, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the one or more demographic factors". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the predictive model" in line 2 and “the second viewership data” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the device classification". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 15-20 each recite the limitation "The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 13". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 21 is rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 would be allowable if the above 112(b) rejections were to be overcome and further rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 2, 5-7, 10-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alla et al. (US 2014/0317114) in view of Cai et al. (US 2016/0027037) and further in view of Liyanage (US 2013/0046615).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Alla teaches: A method and a non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising:
receiving first viewership data associated with a first consumer's view of an advertisement of an advertising campaign [media device 106 collects the media ID 122 of the media 118 presented to the user, which may be an advertisement, along with a user and/or device ID and sends (block 116) the media ID 122 and device/user ID 124 as part of collected data 126 to the AME 108 (par. 39, 41, and 46, Fig. 1, 4, and 7). The advertisement is part of a campaign (par. 27)]
generating a first consumer classification based on the first viewership data [after receiving the media monitoring information, determining demographic information associated with the device and/or user identifier 124, such as the user’s race, interests, or location (par. 24-25 and 83-84)]
adding the first consumer classification as a first dimension to a multi-dimensional classification that is specific to the first consumer [correlating the demographics of the user(s) with the media presented and media device (par. 45-46, 64, and 98, Fig. 1, 4, 6, and 7)]
mapping the first viewership data to a first consumer device associated with the first consumer [grouping together the media ID 122 and the one or more device/user identifier(s) 124 as collected data 126 (par. 46, Fig. 1)]
adding the first consumer device as a second dimension to the multi-dimensional classification [correlating the media that was presented and media device with the demographics of the user(s) of the media device(s) (par. 45-46, 64, and 98, Fig. 1, 4, 6-7)]
obtaining a plurality of impressions associated with the advertisement [obtaining impressions for an advertisement (par. 18, 27, and 45-46)]
correlating a portion of the plurality of impressions with the first consumer using the multi-dimensional classification [impressions are logged and associated with the user information correlated to the media device (par. 18, 45-46, and 98)]
extrapolating the correlated portion of the plurality of impressions to a plurality of consumers using target consumer data to obtain a total number of impressions [extrapolating the records to identify the number of users exposed to the particular media (par. 19)]
deduplicating impressions [Unique impression counts eliminate duplicate exposures (par. 27)].
Alla does not explicitly disclose: the obtaining the plurality of impressions is in real-time; deduplicating the total number of impressions to obtain a deduplicated reach of the advertisement; and sending at least the deduplicated reach and the multi-dimensional classification to a user interface.
Cai teaches: deduplicating the total number of impressions to obtain a deduplicated reach of the advertisement [deduplicating impressions to obtain deduplicated reach (par. 220, 236, and 242)] and
sending at least the deduplicated reach and the multi-dimensional classification to a user interface [proving a user interface including de-duplicated reach information and multiple dimensions of classifications (par. 241-242, Fig. 36 and 37)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Alla and Cai before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Alla by incorporating deduplicated reach and sending the deduplicated reach and the multi-dimensional classification to a user interface as disclosed by Cai. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a content provider with information including a number of unique users and/or devices to which impressions have been presented (Cai – par. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Alla and Cai in obtaining the invention as specified in the instant claim.
While Cai mentions real-time processes (par. 104), Cai does not explicitly disclose obtaining the plurality of impressions in real-time.
Liyanage teaches: obtaining the plurality of impressions in real-time [providing a total number of impressions for an advertisement in real-time (par. 25 and 32)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Alla, Cai, and Liyanage before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Alla and Cai by incorporating obtaining the plurality of impressions in real-time as disclosed by Liyanage. The motivation for doing so would have been to be able to provide the total number of impressions upon request (Liyanage – par. 25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Alla and Cai with Liyanage to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5, Alla, Cai, and Liyanage teach the method of claim 2; Cai further teaches: determining incremental reach associated with the advertisement; and sending the incremental reach to the user interface [determining and displaying an incremental reach (par. 241-242, Fig. 36-37)].
Regarding claim 6, Alla, Cai, and Liyanage teach the method of claim 2; Alla and Liyanage further teach: determining an efficacy of the advertising campaign relative to one or more demographic factors associated with a target audience; and sending the efficacy of the advertising campaign to the user interface [Alla - generating a report indicating effectiveness of the advertisement campaign, including statistics such as impressions associated with demographics (par. 27, 68-69, and 85, Fig. 5). Liyanage – impressions based on demographic and visualizations (par. 44)].
Regarding claim 7, Alla, Cai, and Liyanage teach the method of claim 5; Alla further teaches: sending the one or more demographic factors to the user interface [generating a report for display, including media exposure metrics and associated demographic segments (par. 27, 68-69, and 85, Fig. 5].
Regarding claim 10, Alla, Cai, and Liyanage teach the method of claim 2; Alla further teaches: the multi-dimensional classification includes one or more dimensions associated with a device classification of the first consumer [the user and/or device identifier(s) 124 may include a device classification, depending on the type of device, such as an Apple ID (par. 41-43)].
Regarding claim 11, Alla, Cai, and Liyanage teach the method of claim 9; Alla further teaches: the device classification of the first consumer includes at least one of a TV, a personal computer, or a mobile device [the type of device being used (e.g. via a tablet display, via a television, etc.) (par. 28). The device id may further include (e.g., an international mobile equipment identity (IMEI), a mobile equipment identifier (MEID) (par. 41-43)].
Regarding claims 12 and 18, Alla, Cai, and Liyanage teach the method of claim 2; Alla and Cai further teach: the first viewership data is obtained from one or more of broadcast TV, cable TV, and video on demand [Alla - Different types of media may be, for example, television programming, on-demand media, or broadcast media (par. 69-70). Cai – cable TV (par. 266)].
Regarding claims 13 and 19, Alla, Cai, and Liyanage teach the method of claim 2; Alla further teaches: the target consumer data comprises census data [census measurement (par. 20, 77, and 80-83)].
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons given in the above rejection of claims 10 and 11.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is rejected for the same reasons given in the above rejection of claim 9.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alla et al. (US 2014/0317114) in view of Cai et al. (US 2016/0027037), further in view of Liyanage (US 2013/0046615), and further in view of Traasdahl et al. (US 2013/0124309) (Of Record).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Alla, Cai, and Liyanage teach the method of claim 2; While Liyanage discloses a threshold number of impressions (abstract), Alla, Cai, and Liyanage do not explicitly disclose: in response to a threshold number of impressions being received by the first consumer, adjusting a delivery of the advertisement to the first consumer.
Traasdahl teaches: in response to a threshold number of impressions being received by the first consumer, adjusting a delivery of the advertisement to the first consumer [perform frequency capping using the device graph and/or the impression history. For example, determine that a particular advertisement has been shown more than a threshold number of times (e.g., an advertisement has already been shown to a user 5 times across their laptop computer, smartphone, and tablet computer). The analytics module 465 may determine the advertisement should not be provide to the user on the current device (e.g., may cap or limit the number of times the advertisement is shown) (par. 66)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Alla, Cai, Liyanage, and Traasdahl before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Alla, Cai, and Liyanage by incorporating adjusting a delivery of the advertisement in response to a threshold number of impressions being received as disclosed by Traasdahl. The motivation for doing so would have been to help prevent overexposure of the advertisement (Traasdahl – par. 66). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Alla, Cai, and Liyanage with Traasdahl to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alla et al. (US 2014/0317114) in view of Cai et al. (US 2016/0027037), further in view of Liyanage (US 2013/0046615), and further in view of Dierks et al. (US 2011/0239243) (Of Record).
Regarding claim 4, Alla, Cai, and Liyanage teach the method of claim 2; Alla, Cai, and Liyanage do not explicitly disclose: obtaining sales lift data corresponding to the deduplicated reach; and sending the sales lift data to the user interface.
Dierks teaches: obtaining sales lift data corresponding to the deduplicated reach; and sending the sales lift data to the user interface [obtaining and displaying various metrics on a user interface, such as total reach and a corresponding revenue (par. 93-95 and Fig. 6)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Alla, Cai, Liyanage, and Dierks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Alla, Cai, and Liyanage by incorporating obtaining sales lift data corresponding to the deduplicated reach; and sending the sales lift data to the user interface as disclosed by Dierks. The motivation for doing so would have been to summarize the results of the advertisement for a user (Dierks – par. 93). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Alla, Cai, and Liyanage with Dierks to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons given in the above rejection of claims 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Claims 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alla et al. (US 2014/0317114) in view of Cai et al. (US 2016/0027037), further in view of Liyanage (US 2013/0046615), and further in view of Skudlark et al. (US 2010/0057560) (Of Record).
Regarding claims 9, Alla, Cai, and Liyanage teach the method of claim 7; Alla further teaches: using a feedback loop including an input of at least the first viewership data, the second viewership data, or a third viewership data [receives the media monitoring information as input and providing feedback in the form of a report (par. 84-85)].
Alla, Cai, and Liyanage do not explicitly disclose: the predictive model for the first consumer classification is updated by: calculating a difference between the predictive model of consumer behavior and actual consumer behavior; and generating an output of at least an updated predictive model of consumer behavior; and the predictive model for the first consumer classification is updated in real-time.
Skudlark teaches: a predictive model for the first consumer classification is updated by: calculating a difference between the predictive model of consumer behavior and actual consumer behavior; and generating an output of at least an updated predictive model of consumer behavior; and the predictive model for the first consumer classification is updated in real-time [a customer behavior predictor including a model used to estimate a customer’s likely response to advertisements. Comparing the predicted and actual responses, and the prediction model may be refined continually based on real time data (par. 14, 47, 49, 73, 83, 94, and 114, Fig. 1)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Alla, Cai, Liyanage, and Skudlark before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Alla, Cai, and Liyanage by incorporating Skudlark’s teaching of updating a predictive model. The motivation for doing so would have been to predict customer response to advertisement and improve model performance (Skudlark – abstract and par. 83). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Alla, Cai, and Liyanage with Skudlark to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is rejected for the same reasons given in the above rejection of claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Boyd whose telephone number is (571)270-0676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm PST.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/ALEXANDER BOYD/ Examiner, Art Unit 2424