DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The Response filed 05/26/2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 19, 27, 35 are amended. Claims 1-18 are cancelled. Claims 19-38 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 19-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the evaluation of business metrics, specifically return metrics comprising the steps of obtaining return rate metrics and adjustment coefficients, determining conversion feedback is delayed, adjusting the metrics based on the coefficients, and determining a target return rate metric.
The limitation of obtaining return rate metrics and adjustment coefficients, determining a delay, adjusting the metrics based on the coefficients, and determining a target return rate metric, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “system” and “processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “system” and “processor” language, “obtaining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person reading a report regarding the performance of the campaign/plan. Similarly, the limitation of “determining”, as drafted is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation coves the performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the system. But for the “system” and “processor” language, “determining” in the context of the claim encompasses the person thinking that a conversion information will take a certain time period beyond an initial expected time period. Similarly, the limitation of “adjusting”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “system” and “processor” language, “adjusting” in the context of this claim encompasses the person performing a mathematical operation. Furthermore, but for the “system” and “processor” language, the step of “determining” in the context of the claim encompasses the person thinking of a prediction/estimation of possible return metric using particular mathematical rules. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claimed invention is further directed towards a commercial interaction and fundamental economic practice. As currently claimed, the invention is directed towards making financial calculations and estimations including the collection and analysis of business metrics for further optimization of business practices including spending and return similar to OIP Technology and In re Mau Corps. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using system comprising a processor to perform the steps of obtaining, adjusting, and determining. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of obtaining information, making a determination based on obtained information, and performing repetitive calculations) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does 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 element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims are further directed towards the judicial exception without significantly more. The dependent claims provide limitations on defining the particular pieces of information and how the information is determined/calculated (such as claim 20, 22-24, 26), and additional abstract steps (such as claim 21, 25). These are still directed towards the judicial exception as these further define the abstract elements such as further defining the information and relationship between the information, or further include additional abstract steps such as obtaining information and making determinations. They are not significantly more as they do not further integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The dependent claims is not patent eligible.
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
As currently claimed, the invention is directed towards evaluating return on content distribution plans. The claims recite the steps of obtaining a return metric of a content delivery plan, the return rate metric being based on cost and revenue at a time point. The invention further obtains a return adjustment coefficient for the time point and adjusts the return rate metric using the adjustment coefficient. The claims then recite determining a delay to the conversion, and determining a target return rate metric for the plan, the target return rate indicating a potential return rate metric after a revenue return period at the end of a cost expenditure during the time period.
Upon search and consideration, the Examiner notes the following reference(s):
Lim et al. (US 20230325853 A1), which talks about modeling contributory effects in marketing including tracking rate of return metrics and associating returns with spending using time based coefficients.
Saini et al. (US 20220067753 A1), which talks about analysis of marketing effects include a time delay coefficient.
Galloway et al. (US 20140046983 A1), which talks about determining relationship coefficient for time series data point.
Aldrey et al. (US 20120158461 A1), which talks about content distribution and management including tracing of distribution performance and real time optimization.
Harvey et al. (US 20100161492 A1), which talks about analyzing return on investments for marketing campaigns.
Although these reference(s) does discuss the concept of performing return analysis on content delivery including the concept of accounting for delay in return from an initial cost/spending using coefficients and adjustments, these references, alone or in combination fail to teach/suggest the concept of determining a target return rate as defined by the current claim. As such, the Examiner has determined the claimed invention to be non-obvious over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments as directed towards the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant first asserts the claimed invention recites an improved return evaluation solution to a concrete technical problem arising in content delivery scenario due to asynchronous and delayed feedback. The Examiner notes that although the present invention is directed towards internet content, the concept of tracking feedback/performance from delivered content is not exclusive to internet content as marketing firms/agencies measure performance for broadcast advertisements such as radio, television, and print campaigns. Thus, the Examiner asserts the problem being addressed is a fundamental business problem and not specific to a technological environment. Unlike cases such as DDR Holding, Enfish, or McRO, the invention is directed towards the adjustment of metrics and determining a business metric which is similar to Bancorp and In re Maucorps. In the case of DDR Holding, the claims of DDR hold specifically recites the dynamic steps of modifying computer code. In the case of Enfish, the originally filed specification specifically recites particular technological benefits including achieve benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements over conventional databases. Similarly, in the case of McRO, the originally filed specification discusses the implementation of particular steps and calculations which would not be used by a traditional artist to perform the animation and the purpose of the particular steps and calculations to automate a process which traditionally requires artists, thereby providing a method of automation. In the present case, although the originally filed specification does discuss addressing the problem of measuring return related metrics including those arising from delays in return metric, the invention is directed towards addressing a business analysis problem similar to Bancorp and In re Maucorps as discussed above. Furthermore, the Applicant asserts return rate metric, return adjustment coefficient, and target return rate metric can not reasonably be computed by a person. The Examiner notes that although the information originated from a computer system and reflect information from a computer source, this does not prevent the information from being capable of being performed by a human mind. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Burnett v. Panasonic Corp., and FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., although the information may originate from electronic systems, this does not preclude the invention from being abstract. The Applicant further asserts the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application as the invention provides a technical solution to the problem of evaluation errors of content delivery plan returns. The Examiner notes as discussed in cases such as OIP Technology, In re Maucorps, and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), the use of a computer to calculate and optimize business metrics and functions are still abstract. Furthermore, although the prior art does not specifically address the particular calculations/adjustments using coefficients, these are still considered well-understood, routine and conventional activities as these are repetitive calculations and manipulation of numeric values in a computer similar to Flook and Bancorp. As such, the Examiner has determined the invention to be directed towards a judicial exception without significantly more and the rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT M CAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11-7.
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, ILANA SPAR can be reached at (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/VINCENT M CAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights