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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. The following is a non-final, First Office Action on the merits. Claim 2-21 are pending. Claim 1 has been canceled by the Applicant.
Examiner’s note:
2. Similar with US patent 12,299,713 B2, US patent 11, 983,734 B2; US patent 11/645,672 B2; and US Patent 11,295,340 B2, independent claims 2, 9 and 16 as a whole recites a combination of limitations that has been found as define over prior art of record {the combination of Cui (US 2015/0127469 A1), Won Cho; (US 2009/0037375 A1), Ringdaht; (US 2014/0136344 A1), and other prior art of record teaches elements of the claimed invention. However, it would be hind-sight reasoning to combine the individual elements disclosed in the prior-art in order to achieve Applicant's claimed invention}.
Further, please notes of the double patenting rejection and 101 rejection below for claims 2-21.
Double Patenting
3. Claims 2, 9 and 16 of the Instant Application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable respectively over claims 1, 8 and 15 of US Patent 12,299,713 B2; over claims 1, 8 and 15 of U.S Patent 11,983,734 B2; over claims 1, 10 and 17 of U.S. Patent 11,645,672 B2; and over claims 1, 6 and 14 of U.S. Patent 11,295,340 B2:
Instant Application: 19/191,388
Patent 12,299,713 B2
Patent 11,983,734 B2
Patent: 11,645,672 B2
Patent: 11,295,340 B2
Claims 2, 9 and 16: A system, comprising: a non-transitory memory; and one or more hardware processors coupled with the non-transitory memory and configured to execute instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform operations comprising:
monitoring, as part of an analysis service, one or more navigation metrics associated with navigating a website that includes multiple internal pages, wherein one or more of the internal pages include a plurality of interface elements associated with a plurality of navigation links;
determining, based on the monitoring, presentation values for at least a portion of the interface elements; communicating the presentation values to a server implementing the website; and
causing a real time presentation of an interface element on a user interface of a client device based on the presentation values, the real time presentation bounding an amount of user navigation away from the website.
Claims 1, 8 and 15: A system, comprising: a non-transitory memory; and one or more hardware processors coupled with the non-transitory memory and configured to execute instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform operations comprising:
monitoring one or more navigation metrics associated with navigating a website that includes multiple internal pages, wherein one or more of the internal pages include a plurality of interface elements associated with a plurality of navigation links;
determining, based on the monitoring, presentation values for at least a portion of the interface elements; based on the presentation values, selecting a particular interface element of the at least a portion of the interface elements; and
causing a real time presentation of the particular interface element on a user interface of a client device, the real time presentation bounding an amount of user navigation away from the website.
Claims 1, 8 and 15: A system, comprising: a non-transitory memory; and one or more hardware processors coupled with the non-transitory memory and configured to execute instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform operations comprising:
monitoring one or more navigation metrics associated with navigating a website that includes multiple internal pages, wherein one or more of the internal pages include a plurality of interface elements associated with a plurality of navigation links;
storing navigation data based on the monitoring;
determining, based on the navigation data, presentation values for at least a portion of the interface elements, the presentation values associated with a likelihood of directing a user away from the website; and
causing a real time presentation of an interface element on a user interface of a client device based on the presentation values, the real time presentation bounding an amount of user navigation away from the website.
Claims 1, 10 and 17: A system, comprising: a non-transitory memory; and one or more hardware processors coupled with the non-transitory memory and configured to execute instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform operations comprising:
monitoring one or more navigation metrics associated with navigating a website that includes multiple internal pages, wherein one or more of the internal pages include a plurality of displayed links configured to direct a user of the website away from the website, the navigation metrics including: link parameters of user selected links; and a loss of sale metric associated with reduced user interaction with content of the one or more of the internal pages caused by navigation away from the website using the user selected links;
storing navigation data based on the monitoring;
determining, based on the navigation data and the loss of sale metric, a presentation value for at least one of the link parameters, wherein the presentation value is determined using a revenue model for predicting a link revenue and a loss of sale model for predicting a value of the loss of sale metric; and controlling an amount of user navigation away from the website by causing a real time presentation of a link on a user interface of a client device in accordance with the presentation value.
Claims 1, 6 and 14: A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by a computing device to perform operations comprising:
monitoring one or more user navigation metrics, including: user selection of displayed links when navigating a website that includes multiple internal pages, wherein one or more of the internal pages include a plurality of links; and multiple link parameters of selected links;
storing historical data that includes the user navigation metrics based on the monitoring;
obtaining, based on the historical data, including the user selection of displayed links, a cannibalization metric that corresponds to the plurality of links presented on an internal page, the cannibalization metric associated with navigation away from the website;
determining a relationship between the cannibalization metric and a particular cannibalization covariate that corresponds to the plurality of links, the particular cannibalization covariate predicting navigation away from the website; determining a relationship between a first link parameter and the particular cannibalization covariate;
determining, based on the relationship between the first link parameter and the particular cannibalization covariate, a set of values of the first link parameter that correspond to less than a threshold amount of navigation away from the website; selecting a value of the first link parameter that is within the set of values; and
controlling an amount of user navigation away from the website by causing presentation of a link using the selected value of the first link parameter that is within the set of values.
In summary, claims 1, 8 and 15 of U.S. Patent 12,299,713 B2 teach all the features of claims 2, 9 and 16 of the instant application as indicated in the table above. Although 1, 8 and 15 of U.S. Patent 12,299,713 B2 has additional features (bold limitations above) such as {e.g., based on the presentation values, selecting a particular interface element of the at least a portion of the interface elements}; however, it has been held that deleting elements when the function of element is not desired is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 Section II. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1, 8 and 15 of U.S. Patent 12,299,713 B2 the to arrive at the claims 2, 9 and 16 of the instant application because the person of ordinary skill would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Also, claims 1, 8 and 15 of U.S. Patent 11, 983,734 B2 teach all the features of claims 2, 9 and 16 of the instant application as indicated in the table above. Although 1, 8 and 15 of U.S. Patent 11, 983,734 B2 has additional underlined features (bold limitations above) such as {e.g., storing navigation data based on the monitoring}; however, it has been held that deleting elements when the function of element is not desired is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 Section II. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify or to omit the additional elements of 1, 8 and 15 of U.S. Patent 11, 983,734 B2 the to arrive at the claims 2, 9 and 16 of the instant application because the person of ordinary skill would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Further, claims 1, 10 and 17 of U.S. Patent 11, 645,672 B2 teach all the features of claims 2, 9 and 16 of the instant application as indicated in the table above. Although 1, 10 and 17 of U.S. Patent 11, 645,672 B2 has additional underlined features (bold limitations above) such as {e.g., wherein one or more of the internal pages include a plurality of displayed links configured to direct a user of the website away from the website, the navigation metrics including: link parameters of user selected links; and a loss of sale metric associated with reduced user interaction with content of the one or more of the internal pages caused by navigation away from the website using the user selected links; storing navigation data based on the monitoring; and determining, based on the navigation data and the loss of sale metric, a presentation value for at least one of the link parameters, wherein the presentation value is determined using a revenue model for predicting a link revenue and a loss of sale model for predicting a value of the loss of sale metric”}; however, it has been held that deleting elements when the function of element is not desired is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 Section II. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify or to omit the additional elements of 1, 10 and 17 of U.S. Patent 11, 645,672 B2 the to arrive at the claims 2, 9 and 16 of the instant application because the person of ordinary skill would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
In addition, claims 1, 6 and 14 of the U.S. Patent 11,295,340 B2 teach all the features of claims 2, 9 and 16 of the instant application as indicated in the table above. Although claims 1, 6 and 14 of the U.S. Patent 11,295,340 B2 has additional underlined features (bold limitations above) such as {e.g., storing historical data that includes the user navigation metrics based on the monitoring; obtaining, based on the historical data, including the user selection of displayed links, a cannibalization metric that corresponds to the plurality of links presented on an internal page, the cannibalization metric associated with navigation away from the website; determining a relationship between the cannibalization metric and a particular cannibalization covariate that corresponds to the plurality of links, the particular cannibalization covariate predicting navigation away from the website; determining a relationship between a first link parameter and the particular cannibalization covariate; and determining, based on the relationship between the first link parameter and the particular cannibalization covariate, a set of values of the first link parameter that correspond to less than a threshold amount of navigation away from the website; selecting a value of the first link parameter that is within the set of values}; however, it has been held that deleting elements when the function of element is not desired is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 Section II. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1, 6 and 14 of the U.S. Patent 11,295,340 B2 the to arrive at the claims 2, 9 and 16 of the instant application because the person of ordinary skill would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
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.
4. The claimed invention (Claims 2-21) is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and/or Mathematical Concepts, which has/have been identified/found by the courts as abstract ideas in MPEP 2106.04(a). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because It/they is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications:
5. Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a statutory Category?
Claims 2-8: Yes. These claims are system which recites one or more processors coupled with the on-transitory memory and configured to execute instructions…….….., and therefore is directed to the statutory class of machine and article of manufacture.
Claims 9-15: Yes. These are methods, and therefore are directed to the statutory class of process.
Claims 16-21: Yes. These claims recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is interpreted as a system because they recite a computer to perform…., and therefore are directed to the statutory class of machine.
6. Step 2A prong 1, Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B:
Independent claim 1 (Step 2A, Prong I): is directed to an abstract idea of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and/or Mathematical Concepts:
Limitations 1-2 of monitoring one or more navigation metrics associated with navigating a website that includes multiple internal pages, wherein….. (part of limitation 1); and determining, based on the monitoring, presentation values for at least a portion of the interface elements (limitation 2) fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea because these steps mainly describe the concepts commercial or legal interactions (include subject matter relating to agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions).
Also, the limitation 2 mentioned above of determining, based on the monitoring, presentation values for at least a portion of the interface elements (limitation 2) also fall under Mathematical Concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) grouping of abstract idea because there are mathematical operations/algorithm involve in order to determine/calculate presentation values for at least a portion of the interface elements as reflected in Applicant’s Specification 2025/0348901 A1, in paras 0077-0087.
Independent claim 1, Step 2A (Prong II): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. This judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements (i.e., a non-transitory memory; one or more hardware processors coupled with the non-transitory memory and configured to execute instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform operations……; an analysis service, a real time/the real time) to perform abstract steps/limitations 1 and 2 mentioned above. The additional element(s) in all of the steps is/are -recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using a generic computer component(s) (i.e., a non-transitory memory; one or more hardware processors coupled with the non-transitory memory and configured to execute instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform operations……; an analysis service, a real time/the real time …); thus, they do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in claim 1, part of limitation 1 of “…wherein one or more of the internal pages include a plurality of interface elements associated with a plurality of navigation links…” is merely recited as general link to technological environment; thus, does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Also, in claim 1, the limitations 3-4 of communicating the presentation values to a server implementing the website (limitation 3); and causing a real time presentation of an interface element on a user interface of a client device ….. the real time presentation bounding an amount of user navigation away from the website (limitation 4) are merely transmitting data/ displaying data, which are considered as “insignificant extra solution activity”; thus, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the additional elements (e.g., a server; a user interface of a client device) in limitations 3 and 4 are merely recited as destinations, wherein information is being sent to/transmitted to, which are considered as general link to technological environment; thus, does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) above does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Again, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Again, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components (i.e., a non-transitory memory; one or more hardware processors coupled with the non-transitory memory and configured to execute instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform operations……; an analysis service, a real time/the real time…) to perform the steps/limitations 1-2 amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. see MPEP 2106.05(f). For the above-mentioned reasons, viewed the claim as a whole, the additional elements/additional limitations individually and in combination do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Independent claim 1 (step 2B): The additional element in claim 1 (i.e., a non-transitory memory; one or more hardware processors coupled with the non-transitory memory and configured to execute instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform operations……; an analysis service, a real time/the real time…….) is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. In other word, the additional elements “i.e., a non-transitory memory; one or more hardware processors coupled with the non-transitory memory and configured to execute instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform operations……; an analysis service, a real time/the real time……” is/are amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) of 1-2 mentioned above; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in claim 1, part of limitation 1 of “…wherein one or more of the internal pages include a plurality of interface elements associated with a plurality of navigation links…” is merely recited as general link to technological environment; thus, is not significantly more than the identified abstract idea(s). See MPEP 2106.05(h). Also, in claim 1, the limitations 3-4 of communicating the presentation values to a server implementing the website (limitation 3); and causing a real time presentation of an interface element on a user interface of a client device ….. the real time presentation bounding an amount of user navigation away from the website (limitation 4) are merely transmitting data/ displaying data, which are considered as “insignificant extra solution activity”; thus, are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea.. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the additional elements (e.g., a server; a user interface of a client device) in limitations 3 and 4 are merely recited as destinations, wherein information is being sent to/transmitted to, which are considered as general link to technological environment; thus, are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
When revaluating the limitations 3-4 of communicating the presentation values to a server implementing the website (limitation 3); and causing a real time presentation of an interface element on a user interface of a client device ….. the real time presentation bounding an amount of user navigation away from the website (limitation 4) in step 2B here; sending data/ displaying data/ transmitting data are also well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The use of generic computer to store information, transmit/display information/data and receive/gather information/data through an unspecified generic computer does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, and is/are considered as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. According to MPEP 2106.05 (d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields are e.g., "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”.
Thus, evidences has been provided to show these additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity according to MPEP 2106.07 (a) (III). Therefore, for the above mentioned reasons, viewed as a whole, even in combination, the above additional steps/additional elements/additional limitations do not amount to significantly more/do not provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
As per independent claims 9 and 16: Alice Corp. also establishes that the same/similar analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, a method claim 9 and a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim 16 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same/similar reasons as the system claim(s) 1. The underlined components (i.e., an analysis service; real time; a server; a user interface on a client device; a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executed by a computer system to perform operations…. ) described in independent claims 9 and 16 add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. They are merely using as tools to implement the identified abstract idea and/or are general link to technological environment; and/or insignificant extra solution activities. Thus, they do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, and are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3-8, 10-15 and 17-21 are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claims 2, 9 and 16 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combinations adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. Therefore, dependent claims 3-8, 10-15 and 17-21 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art that is pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure
7. The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cui et al; (US 2015/0127469 A1), wherein teaches The disclosed embodiments provide a system that manages online advertising. During operation, the system calculates an intrinsic value of an online advertisement slot from at least one of a user engagement value and a cannibalization value. Next, the system obtains a reserve price for the online advertisement slot from at least one of the intrinsic value and an advertiser value. Finally, the system uses the reserve price to manage serving of online advertisements from a set of advertising campaigns in the online advertisement slot
Won Cho; (US 2009/0037375 A1), wherein teaches Optimizing search advertising on a search results page in response to a search request includes the search engine determining advertisements for inclusion with the search results, where the advertisements include different advertisement techniques. The method includes selecting one or more of the advertisements for inclusion with the search results page, which may be from different advertising techniques. Additionally, the selection of the advertisements may be based on user click activity, advertisement performance data and the plurality of advertisements, where the advertisements are associated with the different techniques. Thereupon, search result page includes selected advertisements optimized for the benefit of the sponsor and page revenue.
Ringdahl et al; (US 2014/0136344 A1), wherein teaches Systems and methods presented herein may include an exchange or server that may sell the same ad space within content on a computing device a plurality of times before the computing device navigates away from the content. This may include programmatically selling the ad space, such as in a waterfall or real-time auction process, placing a first advertisement at the ad space, then receiving an indication that it is time to resell the ad space before the computing device has navigated away from the content. A second advertisement may then be placed at the ad space. Additionally, the programmatic reselling may include reselling the ad space as in-view.
Moran et al (US 2014/0189509 A1); wherein teaches An interactive communications system includes a passive guide system for guiding users on a website to locate their desired content. The passive guide system includes a monitor module configured to monitor user's interaction with content of the website. The passive guide system further includes an analysis module configured to analyse the user's interaction to anticipate user's requirement. The passive guide system further includes a guide module configured to present a message for guiding the user to locate the content on the website based on the anticipated user's requirement. The passive guide system also includes a feedback module for receiving a feedback from the user and changing the previous message based on the feedback.
Bottom; (US 20120123814 A1), wherein teaches A product assortment planning system determines scaled performance metric values for an assortment of products. The system includes a data store storing performance metric values for an assortment of products including a target assortment of products and a source assortment of products, an equivalization unit and a scaling unit. The equivalization unit equivalizes the performance metric values for the source assortment of products. The scaling unit determines incrementality assumptions. The incrementality assumptions are an estimation of an amount of cannibalization that occurs for the target assortment of products as a result of combining the source assortment of products with the target assortment of products. Scaled performance metric values are calculated for each product in the assortment of products based on the equivalized performance metric values and the incrementality assumptions.
Galperin; (US 8571930 B1), wherein teaches Strategies are described for conducting an advertising campaign using a cost-per-transaction (CPT) pricing model. In this model, the advertiser is charged when an end-user takes some express action in response to viewing the advertisement, such as by clicking on the advertisement, purchasing the advertised asset, performing a registration procedure, and so forth. Various solutions allow for the computation of the expected value of a CPT advertisement when there is a scarcity of data pertaining to the actual performance of the CPT advertisement.
Catania; (US 2014/0297431 A1), wherein teaches A method of implementing a computer readable program code on a computer network by providing an online discount to a user in order to access a coupon code for a business. The method provides a local server and a business server that are connected to a computer network. The business server provides a link which can he selected by a user. The local server provides a database containing data relating to coupon codes, including the codes themselves, expiration dates and other text or images. The user selects the link and the data is accessed from the local server and displayed on a target document to the user. The activity of the user is monitored in the target document and an online program manager allows a business to monitor and update the target document.
Agarwal et al; (US 8,639,574 B2), wherein teaches To help advertisers to manage their online advertising, some business metric, such as ROI, profit, gross profit, etc., may be estimated and/or tracked with respect to an ad campaign, or a portion of the ad campaign. An advertiser may provide a business metric target, such as a target ROI, a target gross profit, a target profit, etc. An ad delivery system may then adjust information in an ad campaign (or a portion of an ad campaign) in an effort to meet the target. Similarly, an advertiser may provide a goal, such as maximizing or minimizing a business metric. The ad delivery system may then adjust information in an ad campaign (or a portion of an ad campaign) in an effort to meet the goal. The targets or goals may be subject to one or more constraints. The advertiser may provide limits on values of one or more business metrics. The ad delivery system may then turn off, or govern, the delivery of ads if the limits are violated.
Further see other reference in PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thuy Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-272-4585 and fax number is 571-273-4585. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30 am to 5: 00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. The FAX 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.
/THUY N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622.
Prosecution Insights