DETAILED ACTION
Notice relating to Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
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 the Claims
Applicant’s current amendment (dated 02 MARCH 2026), has been entered. The status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-7 and 11-23 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference(s) and/or citations being used in the current rejection.
Examiner’s Note
It is noted to Applicant that Allowable subject matter has been indicated in related Applications 15/219,262, 15/985,634, 16/883,935, and 17/938,033. Applicant is suggested to try and incorporate similar Allowable content into the current Application’s claims to try and move prosecution forward to an Allowance. Applicant is also cautioned not to repeat allowable subject matter in a manner that could lead to a double patenting rejection. This is just a note and suggestion by the Examiner, any amendments made by Applicant will be searched thoroughly before a final indication on Allowability is made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 11-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chittilappilly et al., US 2015/0186925 in view of Cavander et al., US 2013/0035975 and further in view of Pecjak et al., US 8,874,652 and Bosworth et al., US 2015/0189500.
Regarding claim 1, Chittilappilly discloses a method, comprising:
receiving first data associated with a first engagement of a media consumer on a first platform, the first data being obtained from a first source (system can collect responses and engagement data associated with at least a consumer, i.e. including a first, from at least a source; page 4, paragraph 56, and page 8, paragraph 120, and wherein relating to engagement in relation to a stimuli/media; page 4, paragraphs 55 and 57-58, and page 5, paragraph 75, and page 6, paragraph 88, and wherein with data from different platform(s), i.e. such as social site activity, reward registrations, etc.; page 4, paragraph 58);
generating a consumer characterization based on the first data (system will utilize the collected data in order to organize, i.e. generate it, into aggregated, one-to-one data, i.e. characterization type data; page 4, paragraph 56, and page 8, paragraph 120, and Fig. 6A, element 612);
calculating a predictive model of consumer behavior in view of the consumer characterization and a plurality of constraints (system can train/calculate a learning model based on the data and other factors/constraints; page 4, paragraph 56, and page 8, paragraph 120, and Fig. 6A, element 614, and wherein with a predictive model; page 5, paragraph 72, and relating to consumer behaviors; page 4, paragraphs 65-68);
receiving second data associated with a second engagement of the media consumer on a second platform (can collect responses and engagement data associated with the consumer; page 4, paragraph 56, and page 8, paragraph 120, and where system can perform the operations iteratively, i.e. repeated/recurring; page 8, paragraph 120, and Fig. 6A, element 620, and wherein this includes receipt of new data; page 8, paragraph 116, and wherein relating to engagement in relation to a stimuli/media; page 4, paragraphs 55 and 57-58, and page 5, paragraph 75, and page 6, paragraph 88, and again with data from different platform(s), i.e. such as social site activity, reward registrations, etc.; page 4, paragraph 58);
updating the consumer characterization based on the second data (again system can utilize the collected data in order to organize, i.e. generate it, into aggregated, one-to-one data, i.e. characterization type data; page 4, paragraph 56, and page 8, paragraph 120, and Fig. 6A, element 612, and wherein based on receipt of new data, thereby indicating updated characterization type data; page 8, paragraph 116); and
providing at least one of the consumer characterization or the predictive model (system can display/provide report including information as a result of and relating to the characterization information and the predictive model; pages 10-11, paragraphs 149-151, and Fig. 11).
While Chittilappilly does disclose a display unit (Fig. 14, element 1410), as well as displaying/providing a report (page 10, paragraph 149, and Fig. 11) and engagements across the first and second platforms (can collect responses and engagement data associated with the consumer; page 4, paragraph 56, and page 8, paragraph 120, and where system can perform the operations iteratively, i.e. repeated/recurring; page 8, paragraph 120, and Fig. 6A, element 620, and wherein this includes receipt of new data; page 8, paragraph 116, and wherein relating to engagement in relation to a stimuli/media; page 4, paragraphs 55 and 57-58, and page 5, paragraph 75, and page 6, paragraph 88, and again with data from different platform(s), i.e. such as social site activity, reward registrations, etc.; page 4, paragraph 58), Chittilappilly does not explicitly disclose first viewership data, the first viewership data being obtained from a first source, and the first viewership data;
second viewership data;
updating data, including performing a deduplication operation to avoid double-counting data of the same media consumer across first and second platforms, by associating first data and second data with a common consumer identifier that links device identifiers across the first and second platform; and
providing to a user interface.
In a related art, Cavander does disclose first viewership data associated with a first data of a consumer on a first platform (information representative of at least a consumer view of an advertisement/media relating to a campaign; page 2, paragraphs 114-116, and from different platform(s), i.e. multiple different consumer devices; page 2, paragraph 16, and/or different marketing channels; page 3, paragraph 21, and page 5, paragraph 33), the first viewership data being obtained from a first source (collected from at least a first source such as an advertiser or consumer; page 2, paragraph 115), and the first viewership data (again, information representative of at least a consumer view of an advertisement/media relating to a campaign; page 2, paragraphs 114-116);
second viewership data associated with a second data of the consumer on a second platform (information representative of at least a consumer view of an advertisement/media relating to a campaign, and wherein this can include presentation of advertisements to consumers; page 2, paragraphs 114-116, and again from different platform(s), i.e. multiple different consumer devices; page 2, paragraph 16, and/or different marketing channels; page 3, paragraph 21, and page 5, paragraph 33); and
providing to a user interface (can provide display page, i.e. interface, for presenting the various information/outcomes and other data; page 6, paragraph 40, and wherein system can explicitly include a user interface; page 4, paragraph 24, and Fig. 1, element 114).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art of Chittilappilly and Cavander by allowing specific viewership data related to campaigns to be collected and utilized for different calculations and presentations relating to different advertising campaigns, in order to provide an improved system and method for analyzing consumer interactions with campaigns and the results of those interactions to generate a cross-media or cross-channel attribution model representing the true impact of cross-media and cross-channel marketing resource allocation decisions (Cavander; page 1, paragraph 11).
Chittilappilly in view of Cavander does not explicitly disclose updating data, including performing a deduplication operation to avoid double-counting data of the same media consumer across first and second platforms, by associating first data and second data with a common consumer identifier that links device identifiers across the first and second platform.
In a related art, Pecjak does disclose updating data, including performing a deduplication operation (can update data by performing deduplication on it; col. 14, lines 27-46, and col. 35, line 63 – col. 36, line 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art of Chittilappilly, Cavander, and Pecjak by allowing the data already being collected and organized in Chittilappilly in view of Cavander to be updated by deduplication processing, in order to provide an improved system and method for understanding audience visitation and habits to support useful advertising planning, buying, and selling (Pecjak; col. 1, lines 19-21).
Chittilappilly in view of Cavander and Pecjak does not explicitly disclose a deduplication operation to avoid double-counting data of a same media consumer across first and second platforms, by associating first data and second data with a common consumer identifier that links device identifiers across the first and second platform.
In a related art, Bosworth does disclose a deduplication operation to avoid double-counting data of a same media consumer across first and second platforms (with deduplication operations on the data from various platforms/databases/proprietors; page 13, paragraph 101, and page 14, paragraphs 105 and 109, and in order to prevent over-counting an under-counting; page 2, paragraph 24, and page 13, paragraph 97), by associating first data and second data with a common consumer identifier that links device identifiers across the first and second platform (associating the user/device data, i.e. including the user/device identifier(s), which are received from different platforms/databases/proprietors, to a unique impression identifier, i.e. consumer identifier, which links the user/device data with that identifier; page 13, paragraph 97, and page 14, paragraphs 109-112, and page 15, paragraph 118, and again with user/device data including identifiers; page 13, paragraph 98, and page 14, paragraph 108, and page 15, paragraph 116).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art of Chittilappilly, Cavander, Pecjak, and Bosworth by allowing the data already being collected and organized in Chittilappilly in view of Cavander and Pecjak to be deduplicated to eliminate double/over counting across different platforms, in order to provide an improved system and method for improving reporting effectiveness for online and offline advertising campaigns by tracking quantities of impressions attributable to various users (Bosworth; page 4, paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 2, Chittilappilly in view of Cavander, Pecjak, and Bosworth discloses the second viewership data is obtained from a second source (Cavander; can be from one of a plurality of sources, i.e. including a second, which can be a third-party source; page 2, paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 3, Chittilappilly in view of Cavander, Pecjak, and Bosworth discloses the first source is a first-party source and the second source is a third-party source (Cavander; plurality of sources for the data, i.e. first/second, wherein the first can be a first-party source such as a consumer or advertiser, and the second can be a third-party source; page 2, paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 11, Chittilappilly in view of Cavander, Pecjak, and Bosworth discloses calculating lift data of an advertising campaign (Cavander; based on lift factors; page 4, paragraph 24, and page 5, paragraph 29);
comparing the lift data to the predictive model (Cavander; comparing the lift with other data, and wherein this is based on predicted data; page 5, paragraph 29, and Chittilappilly; with learning model; page 4, paragraph 56, and page 8, paragraph 120, and wherein with a predictive model; page 5, paragraph 72); and
updating the predictive model in view of the compared lift data and a calculated accuracy of the predictive model to create an updated predictive model (Cavander; can make updates based on the lift determination(s); page 5, paragraph 29, and Chittilappilly; system can make adjustment(s) to the model, i.e. update it, based on the validation outcome; page 8, paragraph 114-115).
Regarding claim 12, Chittilappilly in view of Cavander, Pecjak, and Bosworth discloses at least one of the updated predictive model, or the lift data, are provided to the user interface (Chittilappilly; displaying/providing report(s); page 10, paragraph 149, and Fig. 11, and Cavander; display page, i.e. interface, for presenting the various information/outcomes, including based on the lift data; page 6, paragraph 40, and page 7, paragraph 43 and wherein system can explicitly include a user interface; page 4, paragraph 24, and Fig. 1, element 114).
Regarding claim 13, Chittilappilly in view of Cavander, Pecjak, and Bosworth discloses the first consumer characterization is based on at least one of:
a demographic, a lifestyle, a habit, a behavior, a purchasing intent, a purchase pattern, or a pattern of media consumption (Chittilappilly; with behaviors; page 4, paragraphs 65-68, and Cavander; consumer behavior and viewing behaviors; page 2, paragraphs 13 and 15, and with demographic(s), i.e. age, income, education, etc.; page 3, paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 14, Chittilappilly in view of Cavander, Pecjak, and Bosworth discloses receiving input via the user interface to build a campaign scenario (Cavander; can accept user inputs for editing/creating campaign(s); page 6, paragraph 40, and Fig. 6, and Chittilappilly; making adjustments/directing resources related to a campaign; page 11, paragraph 151).
Regarding claim 15, Chittilappilly in view of Cavander, Pecjak, and Bosworth discloses the campaign scenario is built in view of the predictive model (Cavander; campaign based on the outcomes; page 6, paragraph 40, and page 7, paragraph 43, and again with predicted data; page 5, paragraph 29, and Chittilappilly; based on outcomes, i.e. associated with the model, adjustments/directing resources related to a campaign; page 11, paragraph 151, and Fig. 6B, element 634).
Regarding claim 16, Chittilappilly in view of Cavander, Pecjak, and Bosworth discloses the campaign scenario includes a plan to deliver one or more advertisements across multiple media platforms (Cavander; for advertising across multiple media channels/platforms, such as TV, Email, Websites, etc.; Fig. 6, element 645, and pages 6-7, paragraphs 40-41, and page 1, paragraph 2, and page 2, paragraph 12, and Chittilappilly; with at least linear television and/or online video, email, etc.; page 5, paragraph 70, and Fig. 1B, element 141).
Regarding claim 17, Chittilappilly in view of Cavander, Pecjak, and Bosworth discloses the multiple media platforms include at least two of: linear, streaming, or digital (Chittilappilly; with at least linear television and/or online video, email, etc.; page 5, paragraph 70, and Fig. 1B, element 141, and Cavander; linear TV, streaming video, and/or digital content such as email/websites; Fig. 6, element 645, and pages 6-7, paragraphs 40-41, and page 1, paragraph 2, and page 2, paragraphs 12-13).
Regarding claim 18, Chittilappilly in view of Cavander, Pecjak, and Bosworth discloses the campaign scenario is designed to deliver one or more advertisements to a first party audience (Cavander; for user(s) in a particular geographic area, i.e. first party audience across different channels; Fig. 4, and page 5, paragraph 34, and for at least linear TV, i.e. considered a first-party audience; Fig. 6, element 645, and pages 6, paragraph 40).
Regarding claim 19, Chittilappilly in view of Cavander, Pecjak, and Bosworth discloses the advertising campaign is designed to also deliver the one or more advertisements to a third party audience (Cavander; for user(s) in a particular geographic area, i.e. different area can be considered a third party audience, across different channels; Fig. 4, and page 5, paragraph 34, and streaming video, and/or digital content such as email/websites, i.e. considered a third party audience; Fig. 6, element 645, and pages 6-7, paragraphs 40-41, and page 1, paragraph 2, and page 2, paragraphs 12-13).
Regarding claim 20, Chittilappilly in view of Cavander, Pecjak, and Bosworth discloses the user interface to provide information related to advertisement planning, measurement, and outcomes (Cavander; can provide input/planning, measurement scenarios/techniques, and outcomes; Fig. 6, and pages 6-7, paragraphs 40-43, and again with a user interface; page 4, paragraph 24, and Fig. 1, element 114, and Chittilappilly; providing report; pages 10-11, paragraphs 149-151, and Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 21, Chittilappilly in view of Cavander, Pecjak, and Bosworth discloses when providing the predictive model to the user interface, the method further comprises providing a time-based component for an advertising campaign or content delivery (Chittilappilly; providing time based data; page 2, paragraph 23, and page 7, paragraphs 97-99, and Figs. 4A and 4B, and Cavander; relating to time data such as week, month, year; page 6, paragraph 40).
Claim 22, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 1. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
a memory, and one or more processors coupled to the memory, the one or more processors configures to execute operations to cause the system to perform operations (Chittilappilly; including processor and processor executable instructions from memory/storage; page 11, paragraphs 153 and 155, and page 12, paragraphs 157 and 159).
Claim 23, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 2.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chittilappilly et al., US 2015/0186925 in view of Cavander et al., US 2013/0035975, Pecjak et al., US 8,874,652, and Bosworth et al., US 2015/0189500, and further in view of Traasdahl et al., US 2013/0124309.
Regarding claim 4, Chittilappilly in view of Cavander, Pecjak, and Bosworth discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 2, as well as the first source includes a particular source, and the second source includes a panel (Cavander; plurality of sources for the data, i.e. first/second, wherein the first can be a first-party source such as a consumer or advertiser, and the second can be a third-party source; page 2, paragraph 15, and Chittilappilly, including Nielsen data, i.e. panel data; page 6, paragraph 84).
Chittilappilly in view of Cavander, Pecjak, and Bosworth does not explicitly disclose a consumer graph.
In a related art, Traasdahl does disclose a consumer graph (consumer graph of devices and corresponding activities; page 4, paragraphs 25 and 28, and Figs. 1 and 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art of Chittilappilly, Cavander, Pecjak, Bosworth, and Traasdahl by allowing particular sources/types of data to be utilized when performing the operations already disclosed in Chittilappilly in view of Cavander, Pecjak, and Bosworth, in order to provide an improved system and method for tracking the activities of users across multiple devices (Traasdahl; page 1, paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 5, Chittilappilly in view of Cavander, Pecjak, Bosworth, and Traasdahl discloses the consumer graph comprises a plurality of nodes and each node includes aggregated consumer data (Traasdahl; graph(s) with nodes and connections, wherein the nodes contain information relating to the consumer, including aggregated data; Figs. 1 and 2, and page 4, paragraph 28, and page 5, paragraph 34 ).
Regarding claim 6, Chittilappilly in view of Cavander, Pecjak, Bosworth, and Traasdahl discloses the consumer graph is initially created from a data set that excludes panel data, wherein the consumer graph is calibrated using panel data (Traasdahl; based on data from particular server, i.e. advertisement server, graph can be initially constructed, and then updated, i.e. refined/calibrated, as indicated by page 8, paragraph 55, and wherein the updated data is interpreted as including data from content/merchant server(s) which have data from audiences/segments/groups, i.e. panel type data; page 7, paragraph 46, and wherein with various data sets; page 8, paragraph 51).
Claim 7, which discloses a method, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 4. The following additional details are also disclosed:
data sets (Traasdahl; with various data sets; page 8, paragraph 51).
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 RANDY A FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)270-5680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6:00am - 3:00pm 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, 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.
/RANDY A FLYNN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights