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 .
This action is responsive to the application filed November October 04, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and are presented for examination.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 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.
Claim Interpretation
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
6. The claims 1, 13, and 19 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
7. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an install evaluation system adapted for receiving…determining… and transmitting” in claim 1,
“the install evaluation system is …adapted for: receiving…” in claim 13, and
“an install evaluation system adapted to execute…” in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
9. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification does not disclose equivalent structures for the terms interpreted under 112(f) above. Thus, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
10. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
11. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The specification does not disclose equivalent structures for the terms interpreted under 112(f) above. Thus, claims are vague and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
12. 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.
13. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1, 19, and 20 recite:
A method of improving detection of installation types of applications, comprising: using an install evaluation system adapted for:
[a] receiving an exposure temporal pattern reflecting exposure of at least one application distribution activity launched over a certain time period to promote installation of at least one application;
[b] determining a total installs temporal pattern reflecting a total number associated with all installs of the at least one application over the certain time period;
[c] determining a direct installs temporal pattern reflecting a number associated with direct installs of the at least one application resulting from direct exposure to the at least one application distribution activity over the certain time period;
[d] deriving an unrelated installs level reflecting a number associated with installs of the at least one application which are unrelated to the at least one application distribution activity;
[e] computing, based on the total installs temporal pattern, the direct installs temporal pattern, and the unrelated installs level, a consequent installs temporal pattern reflecting with increased accuracy a number associated with consequent installs of the at least one application which consequently follow-up on the direct installs over the certain time period; and
[f] transmitting the consequent installs temporal pattern to at least one distribution system adapted to adjust at least one application distribution activity according to the increased accuracy consequent installs temporal pattern.
Step 2A – prong 1:
The claims recite the limitation of:
[b] determining a total installs temporal pattern reflecting a total number associated with all installs of the at least one application over the certain time period;
[c] determining a direct installs temporal pattern reflecting a number associated with direct installs of the at least one application resulting from direct exposure to the at least one application distribution activity over the certain time period;
[e] computing, based on the total installs temporal pattern, the direct installs temporal pattern, and the unrelated installs level, a consequent installs temporal pattern reflecting with increased accuracy a number associated with consequent installs of the at least one application which consequently follow-up on the direct installs over the certain time period
These limitations of steps [b], [c], and [e] as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Step 2A – Prong 2:
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements “using an install evaluation system adapted for”, “A system for improving detection of installation types of applications, comprising: an install evaluation system adapted to execute a code”, and “A computer program product of improving detection of installation types of applications, comprising a non-transitory medium storing thereon computer program instructions which, when executed by at least one hardware processor, cause the at least one hardware processor” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, and the additional elements of step [a] “receiving an exposure temporal pattern reflecting exposure of at least one application distribution activity launched over a certain time period to promote installation of at least one application”, step [d] “deriving an unrelated installs level reflecting a number associated with installs of the at least one application which are unrelated to the at least one application distribution activity”, and step [f] “transmitting the consequent installs temporal pattern to at least one distribution system adapted to adjust at least one application distribution activity according to the increased accuracy consequent installs temporal pattern” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering and transmitting data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, 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 “using an install evaluation system adapted for”, “A system for improving detection of installation types of applications, comprising: an install evaluation system adapted to execute a code”, and “A computer program product of improving detection of installation types of applications, comprising a non-transitory medium storing thereon computer program instructions which, when executed by at least one hardware processor, cause the at least one hardware processor” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, and for the limitation of step [a] “receiving an exposure temporal pattern reflecting exposure of at least one application distribution activity launched over a certain time period to promote installation of at least one application”, step [d] “deriving an unrelated installs level reflecting a number associated with installs of the at least one application which are unrelated to the at least one application distribution activity”, and step [f]and step [f] “transmitting the consequent installs temporal pattern to at least one distribution system adapted to adjust at least one application distribution activity according to the increased accuracy consequent installs temporal pattern,” the courts have identified mere data gathering and transmitting are well-understood, routine and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering and transmitting do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding to claim 2, the limitation of “wherein the number associated with direct installs is determined based on a number associated with direct installs of the at least one application as result of respective users exposed to content published as part of the at least one application distribution activity” recites further mental process.
Regarding to claim 3, the limitation of “wherein the total number associated with all installs is determined based on all installs reported by a vendor of the at least one application” recites further mental process.
Regarding to claim 4, the limitation of “wherein the unrelated installs level expresses an averaged level of installs of the at least one application over the certain time period which are independent of the exposure temporal pattern” recites further mental process.
Regarding to claim 5, the limitation of “wherein the number associated with consequent installs expresses a number associated with installs of the at least one application by users influenced by other users who made the direct installs” recites further mental process.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation of “wherein the exposure of at least one application distribution activity relates to expenditure invested in the at least one application distribution activity” is additional element that recites insignificant extra solution activity which does not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation of “wherein the exposure temporal pattern reflects a plurality of expenditure levels over the certain time period” is additional element that recites insignificant extra solution activity which does not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation of “wherein the plurality of expenditure levels are selected according to a random and/or pseudo-random pattern” is additional element that recites insignificant extra solution activity which does not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation of “wherein the plurality of expenditure levels are selected according to sinusoidal pattern having a certain frequency” is additional element that recites insignificant extra solution activity which does not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation of “wherein a time period of each expenditure level is selected from a range of one day to one week” is additional element that recites insignificant extra solution activity which does not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation of “wherein a time period of each expenditure level is selected from a range of one day to one week” is additional element that recites insignificant extra solution activity which does not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation of “wherein the exposure temporal pattern is selected from a plurality of exposure temporal patterns according to at least one parameter of the at least one application distribution activity” is additional element that recites insignificant extra solution activity which does not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “determining a second total installs temporal pattern reflecting a total number associated with all installs of the at least one application over the certain time period”, “determining a second direct installs temporal pattern reflecting a number associated with direct installs of the at least one application directly resulting from the at least one another application distribution activity over the certain time period” and “computing, based on the second total installs temporal pattern, the second direct installs temporal pattern and the unrelated installs level, a second consequent installs temporal pattern reflecting a number associated with consequent installs of the at least one application which consequently follow-up on the direct installs relating to the at least one another application distribution activity over the certain time period” is an additional metal process under prong 1. Under prong 2, the “receiving” and “transmitting” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B, the courts have identified mere data gathering and transmitting are well-understood, routine and conventional activities.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation of “wherein the exposure temporal pattern and the second exposure temporal pattern are orthogonal to each other” is additional element that recites insignificant extra solution activity which does not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more.
Regarding to claim 15, the limitation of “wherein the direct installs temporal pattern is computed based on an actual number of the direct installs, the total installs temporal pattern is computed based on an actual number of the total installs, and the consequent installs temporal pattern is computed based on an actual number of the consequent installs” recites further mental process.
Regarding to claim 16, the limitation of “wherein the direct installs temporal pattern is computed based on a revenue associated with the direct installs, the total installs temporal pattern is computed based on a revenue associated with the total installs, and the consequent installs temporal pattern is computed based on a revenue associated with the consequent installs” recites further mental process.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation of “wherein each of the installs relates to installation of the at least one application in a client device used by a respective user” is additional element that recites insignificant extra solution activity which does not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation of “wherein the at least one application is a member of a group comprising a game, and a mobile application” is additional element that recites insignificant extra solution activity which does not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
14. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
15. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Bona et al. (US 20120290584 A1, hereinafter DeBona)
As per claims 1, 19, and 20, DeBona discloses a method of improving detection of installation types of applications, comprising: using an install evaluation system (e.g., system 300, Fig. 3 – see at least 0032) adapted for: receiving an exposure temporal pattern reflecting exposure of at least one application distribution activity launched over a certain time period to promote installation of at least one application – (e.g., receiving installation data –activities-- for mobile apps, including installs and optionally uninstalls/updates within installation loge database 304 and using the time series generator 204 receives the installation information from the installation log database 302. The time series generator 304 generates a time series for each application of the initial index of applications. The time series includes, for each application, a number of installations, uninstallations and/or updates for each day over a predetermined number of days. The predetermined number of days can be provided as one of various numbers of days (e.g., 7 days, 14 days). The time series generator 304 provides the time series for the initial index of applications to the trending engine 306—see at least 0005, 0017, 0033, and 0035);
determining a total installs temporal pattern reflecting a total number associated with all installs of the at least one application over the certain time period – (E.g. a total number of install app within predetermined days/period such as 7 days – see at least 0006, 0035, 0041, 0042, and 0047);
determining a direct installs temporal pattern reflecting a number associated with direct installs of the at least one application resulting from direct exposure to the at least one application distribution activity over the certain time period – (e.g. determine the number of installations of the application for the time period – see at least 0041 and 0042);
deriving an unrelated installs level reflecting a number associated with installs of the at least one application which are unrelated to the at least one application distribution activity— (e.g. determine the number of uninstalls and updates – see at least 0033, 0041 and 0042) ;
computing, based on the total installs temporal pattern, the direct installs temporal pattern, and the unrelated installs level, a consequent installs temporal pattern reflecting with increased accuracy a number associated with consequent installs of the at least one application which consequently follow-up on the direct installs over the certain time period – (e.g., determining the trending of the installations –consequent installs – via computes acceleration of install change over time as such “The trending engine 306 can determine/compute the acceleration (a) of the application between two rates of change. Specifically, the acceleration of the application is defined as the change in the rate of change (R) in the total number of installations (N) of the application for a time period (i) (e.g., each day), uninstalls and updates – see at least 0017, 0041-0044, and 0047) --; and
transmitting the consequent installs temporal pattern to at least one distribution system adapted to adjust at least one application distribution activity according to the increased accuracy consequent installs temporal pattern – (E.g., recommending one or more applications -- trending of the installations—from the trending engine for installation on a mobile computing device – see at least 0002, 0033, and 0041).
Further regarding to claim 19, DeBona discloses a system (system 104 of Fig. 1 – see at least 0021) for implementing method steps as of claim 1 above.
Further regarding to claim 20, DeBona discloses a computer program product of improving detection of installation types of applications, comprising a non-transitory medium --(e.g. computer readable medium – see at least 0060) storing thereon computer program instructions which, when executed by at least one hardware processor, cause the at least one hardware processor to implement method steps as of claim 1 above.
As to claim 2, DeBona discloses wherein the number associated with direct installs is determined based on a number associated with direct installs of the at least one application as result of respective users exposed to content published as part of the at least one application distribution activity– (e.g. determine the number of installations of the application for the time period – see at least 0007, 0015, 0028, 0041 and 0042).
As to claim 4, DeBona discloses wherein the unrelated installs level expresses an averaged level of installs of the at least one application over the certain time period which are independent of the exposure temporal pattern— (e.g. determine the number of uninstalls and updates for the predetermined time– see at least 0033, 0041 and 0042).
As to claim 5, DeBona discloses wherein the number associated with consequent installs expresses a number associated with installs of the at least one application by users influenced by other users who made the direct installs--(E.g., recommending one or more applications -- trending of the installations for the users—from the trending engine for installation on a mobile computing device – see at least 0002, 0033, and 0041).
As to claim 12, DeBona discloses wherein the exposure temporal pattern is selected from a plurality of exposure temporal patterns according to at least one parameter of the at least one application distribution activity—see at least 0005, 0017, 0033, and 0035.
As to claim 13, DeBona discloses wherein the install evaluation system is further adapted for: receiving a second exposure temporal pattern reflecting exposure of at least one another application distribution activity launched simultaneously with the at least one application distribution activity over the certain time period to promote the at least one application– (e.g., receiving installation data –activities-- for mobile apps, including installs and optionally uninstalls/updates within installation loge database 304 and using the time series generator 204 receives the installation information from the installation log database 302. The time series generator 304 generates a time series for each application of the initial index of applications. The time series includes, for each application, a number of installations, uninstallations and/or updates for each day over a predetermined number of days. The predetermined number of days can be provided as one of various numbers of days (e.g., 7 days, 14 days). The time series generator 304 provides the time series for the initial index of applications to the trending engine 306—see at least 0005, 0017, 0033, and 0035); determining a second total installs temporal pattern reflecting a total number associated with all installs of the at least one application over the certain time period– (E.g. a total number of install app within predetermined days/period such as 7 days – see at least 0006, 0035, 0041, 0042, and 0047); determining a second direct installs temporal pattern reflecting a number associated with direct installs of the at least one application directly resulting from the at least one another application distribution activity over the certain time period– (e.g. determine the number of installations of the application for the time period – see at least 0041 and 0042); computing, based on the second total installs temporal pattern, the second direct installs temporal pattern and the unrelated installs level, a second consequent installs temporal pattern reflecting a number associated with consequent installs of the at least one application which consequently follow-up on the direct installs relating to the at least one another application distribution activity over the certain time period(e.g., determining the trending of the installations –consequent installs – via computes acceleration of install change over time as such “The trending engine 306 can determine/compute the acceleration (a) of the application between two rates of change. Specifically, the acceleration of the application is defined as the change in the rate of change (R) in the total number of installations (N) of the application for a time period (i) (e.g., each day), uninstalls and updates – see at least 0017, 0041-0044, and 0047) ; and transmitting the second consequent installs temporal pattern to the at least one distribution system adapted to adjust at least one another application distribution activity according to the increased accuracy second consequent installs temporal pattern– (E.g., recommending one or more applications -- trending of the installations—from the trending engine for installation on a mobile computing device – see at least 0002, 0033, and 0041).
As to claim 14, DeBona discloses wherein the exposure temporal pattern and the second exposure temporal pattern are orthogonal to each other (e.g., receiving installation data –activities-- for mobile apps, including installs and optionally uninstalls/updates within installation loge database 304 and using the time series generator 204 receives the installation information from the installation log database 302 – see at least 0005, 0017, 0033, and 0035).
As to claim 15, DeBona discloses wherein the direct installs temporal pattern is computed based on an actual number of the direct installs, the total installs temporal pattern is computed based on an actual number of the total installs, and the consequent installs temporal pattern is computed based on an actual number of the consequent installs –(E.g. determining a total number of install app, uninstalls, and updates within predetermined days/period such as 7 days – see at least 0006, 0035, 0041, 0042, and 0047);
As to claim 17, DeBona discloses wherein each of the installs relates to installation of the at least one application in a client device used by a respective user – (e.g. install application of mobile device via a user – see at least 0003, 0007, 0015, 0028, 0041 and 0042).
As to claim 18, DeBona discloses wherein the at least one application is a member of a group comprising a game, and a mobile application –– (e.g. install application of mobile device via a user – see at least 0003, 0007, 0015, 0028, 0041 and 0042).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
17. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeBona in view of Todd (US 20040025033 A1).
As to claim 3, it is to note that DeBona does not explicitly disclose; however, Todd, in an analogous art, discloses wherein the total number associated with all installs is determined based on all installs reported by a vendor of the at least one application—(e.g., determine the total number of installs of software on the user computer by vendor to prevent unauthorized installation– see at least 0026-0027, 0042, step 54 of Fig. 5, and associated text).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Todd’s teaching into DeBona’s teaching for further ease of vendor to keep track of user’s installation; according, promote efficiency in preventing unauthorized software installation.
18. Claims 6-8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeBona in view of Sanan et al. (US 20180018155 A1, hereinafter Sanan).
As to claim 6, it is to note that DeBona does not explicitly disclose, but Sanan, in an analogous art, discloses wherein the exposure of at least one application distribution activity relates to expenditure invested in the at least one application distribution activity – (e.g., using generating a model that provides a likelihood the user will perform the specified post-install activity including receiving data specifying a target level of gain, including one of a spend level or a profit level after install of the application by the user and applying the model to the one or more attributes of the user to obtain the likelihood.. For example, application provider 126 can choose to optimize content selection for post-install user interactions with the application as the goal and then proceed to select the categories (or types) of post-install user interactions the application provider is interested in driving. Post-install activity option 202c can be selected when the selection value strategy is to use the target cost-per-install 204 to drive installs from users who are likely to provide the highest gain (e.g., spend the most). In some implementations, a graph 206 can show estimated installs 206a relative to an estimated cost-per-install (CPI) 206b. A data point 207a, for example, can identify a position on the graph 206 associated with the current settings within the post-install activity option 202a receiving data specifying a post-install activity comprises receiving data specifying a target level of gain to be obtained following install of the application, e.g. the level of gain being defined by one or more or of spend a user and profit, such as a lifetime profit or a profit for some other time period that is related to a value provided by having the user 524 as a customer. For example, the user interface 200 can include one or more features that allow the application provider 126 to identify a threshold lifetime value threshold, value-to-cost threshold, or some other value associated with a likelihood that the user will achieve after downloading an app (e.g., Example 203)—see Sanan, at least 0005, 0040-0053).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Sanan’s teaching into DeBona’s teaching for further optimizing user’s installation; according, promote cost/profit efficiency in downloading the software installation.
As to claim 7, modified DeBona with Sanan discloses wherein the exposure temporal pattern reflects a plurality of expenditure levels over the certain time period – (E.g., incorporated Sanan’s teaching of using the interaction graph generating a model that provides a likelihood the user will perform the specified post-install activity including receiving data specifying a target level including spend levels within time period —see Sanan, at least 0005, 0040-0053, into DeBona’s teaching for further optimizing user’s installation; according, promote cost/profit efficiency in downloading the software installation).
As to claim 8, modified DeBona with Sanan discloses, wherein the plurality of expenditure levels are selected according to a random and/or pseudo-random pattern --– (E.g., incorporated Sanan’s teaching of using the interaction graph generating a model that provides a likelihood the user will perform the specified post-install activity including receiving data specifying a target level including setting a limit of spend level within time period —see Sanan, at least 0005, 0040-0053, into DeBona’s teaching for further optimizing user’s installation; according, promote cost/profit efficiency in downloading the software installation).
As to claim 16, it is to note that DeBona does not explicitly disclose, but Sanan, in an analogous art, discloses wherein the direct installs temporal pattern is computed based on a revenue associated with the direct installs, the total installs temporal pattern is computed based on a revenue associated with the total installs, and the consequent installs temporal pattern is computed based on a revenue associated with the consequent installs activity – (e.g., using generating a model that provides a likelihood the user will perform the specified post-install activity including receiving data specifying a target level of gain, including one of a spend level or a profit level after install of the application by the user and applying the model to the one or more attributes of the user to obtain the likelihood.. For example, application provider 126 can choose to optimize content selection for post-install user interactions with the application as the goal and then proceed to select the categories (or types) of post-install user interactions the application provider is interested in driving. Post-install activity option 202c can be selected when the selection value strategy is to use the target cost-per-install 204 to drive installs from users who are likely to provide the highest gain (e.g., spend the most). In some implementations, a graph 206 can show estimated installs 206a relative to an estimated cost-per-install (CPI) 206b. A data point 207a, for example, can identify a position on the graph 206 associated with the current settings within the post-install activity option 202a receiving data specifying a post-install activity comprises receiving data specifying a target level of gain to be obtained following install of the application, e.g. the level of gain being defined by one or more or of spend a user and profit, such as a lifetime profit or a profit for some other time period that is related to a value provided by having the user 524 as a customer. For example, the user interface 200 can include one or more features that allow the application provider 126 to identify a threshold lifetime value threshold, value-to-cost threshold, or some other value associated with a likelihood that the user will achieve after downloading an app (e.g., Example 203)—see Sanan, at least 0005, 0040-0053).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Sanan’s teaching into DeBona’s teaching for further optimizing user’s installation; according, promote cost/profit efficiency in downloading the software installation.
19. Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeBona in view of Sanan and in further view of Walters et al. (US 20210049668 A1, hereinafter Walters).
As to claim 9, it is to note that modified DeBona with Sanan does not explicitly disclose, but Walters, in an analogous art, discloses wherein the plurality of expenditure levels are selected according to sinusoidal pattern having a certain frequency – (E.g., using graph in sinusoidal-like shaped curve to determine spending patterns within time period; accordingly, allowing to evaluate contemporaneous spending recommendations and modify future user spending behavior – see Walters, at least 0002, 0044, Fig. 5, and associated text).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Walters’s teaching of using spending graph in sinusoidal-like shaped curve into modified teaching of DeBona with Sanan for further optimizing user’s installation; according, promote cost/profit efficiency in downloading the software installation.
As to claim 10, it is to note that modified DeBona with Sanan does not explicitly disclose, but Walters, in an analogous art, discloses wherein a time period of each expenditure level is selected from a range of one day to one week– (E.g., using graph in sinusoidal-like shaped curve to determine spending patterns within time period (in days) ; accordingly, allowing to evaluate contemporaneous spending recommendations and modify future user spending behavior – see Walters, at least 0002, 0044, Fig. 5, and associated text).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Walters’s teaching of using spending graph in sinusoidal-like shaped curve into modified teaching of DeBona with Sanan for further optimizing user’s installation; according, promote cost/profit efficiency in downloading the software installation.
As to claim 11 it is to note that modified DeBona with Sanan does not explicitly disclose, but Walters, in an analogous art, discloses wherein a number of the expenditure levels is selected from a range of five to fifteen – (E.g., using graph in sinusoidal-like shaped curve to determine spending patterns within time period (in days) ; accordingly, allowing to evaluate contemporaneous spending recommendations and modify future user spending behavior – see Walters, at least 0002, 0044, Fig. 5, and associated text).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Walters’s teaching of using spending graph in sinusoidal-like shaped curve into modified teaching of DeBona with Sanan for further optimizing user’s installation; according, promote cost/profit efficiency in downloading the software installation.
Conclusion
20. The prior art made of record and not relied upon (cited on 892 form) is considered pertinent to application disclosure.
Jones et al. (US-20200264859-A1) disclosed tracking application data, or data associated with a software application such as the downloads and installations of that software application.
Marsnik et al. (US-20070067260-A1) disclosed assessing value of a computer program installed in a computer of a company.
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARINA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8 am to 4: 30 pm ET).
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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached on (571)-272-6799. 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.
/MARINA LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights