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
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 1-14, 16-18, 20-24 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. On 8/18/26, Applicant amended the independent claims. Applicant’s remarks address these amended features. See the new 103 that addresses these new features.
Also, the 101 is still found to apply. No new additional elements beyond the generic have been added. See the 101 below.
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.
Independent Claims 1, 11, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are in a statutory category of invention. However, the claims recite obtaining a request from a user for an attribution report associated with an advertising campaign; obtaining first data from a first data source; obtaining second data from a second data source; aggregating the first data and the second data into aggregated data; performing, a transformation on the aggregated data to obtain the attribution report; and providing the attribution report to the user; wherein the transformation is performed on household-level data; providing data to generate a report, to scale the aggregate report for one or more missing identities to obtain the attribution report. This is considered in the Abstract Idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity - advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements. The additional elements are considered a cleanroom, a processor, a data platform. The cleanroom is considered generic as its specific technical functions or processes are not claimed. These are considered generic. The generically recited computer elements do not add a practical application or meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations only perform well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). Also, the additional hardware elements are: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions. Viewed separately or as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim does not provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea, in that there is no improvement to another technology or technical field, no improvement to the functioning of a computer, no application with, or by use of a particular machine, no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, no specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routing and conventional in the field, no unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 16-18, 20-24 are not considered directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful description for the claimed invention, these elements do not confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not more than the abstract concepts identified in the claimed invention. Hence, these dependent claims are also rejected under 101.
Please see the 35 USC 101 section at the Examination Guidance and Training Materials page on the USPTO website.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, 16-18, 20, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crider (11922456) in view of Kharas (20260073416).
Claims 1, 11, 21. In regards to cleanroom, note Applicant spec at [20]. Crider discloses a method comprising:
obtaining a request from a user for an attribution report associated with an advertising campaign (Fig. 1c; 2:25-35);
obtaining, by a cleanroom, first data from a first data source (Fig. 1b; 2:25-35; for first source see first advertiser at Fig. 5 );
obtaining, by the cleanroom, second data from a second data source (for second source see 2nd advertiser at Fig. 5);
aggregating the first data and the second data in the cleanroom into aggregated data (Fig. 1b, 1f; 2:25-35; See Fig. 5 at item 530);
performing, within the cleanroom, a transformation on the aggregated data to obtain (Fig. 1f and anonymized response; 2:25-35).
Crider further discloses one or more results, wherein the transformation is performed on grouped data (Fig. 1f; 2:25-35; Fig. 5 item 570; Crider further discloses grouping and groups and cohorts,15:20-30);
providing, to a data platform, the one or more results, the data platform to generate an aggregate report using the one or more results (2:25-35).
Examiner notes Applicant Spec at [34] for scaling and missing identities. Crider does not explicitly disclose one or more results, wherein the transformation is performed on household-level data; or the data platform to scale the aggregate report for one or more missing identities to obtain the attribution report. However, Kharas discloses reporting and report generating engines [47, 51] and aggregate reports [32, 44, 45] and further discloses wherein the transformation is performed on household-level data ([47, 51, 52); and the data platform to scale the aggregate report for one or more missing identities to obtain the attribution report (see aggregate and missing at [37, 39-41, 51, 52]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Kharas reporting and households and fixing/adjusting for missing data to Crider’s reporting and grouping/cohorts. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better report on groups and better adjust for data situations.
Crider further discloses providing the attribution report to the user (Fig. 1f; 2:25-35; Fig. 5 item 570).
In further regards to claims 11, 21, Crider discloses a processor and a media(Figs. 1a, 1b).
Claims 2, 12. Crider further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first data comprises impressions associated with a consumer viewing an advertisement of the advertising campaign (Fig. 1c, item 128-1).
Claims 3, 13. Crider further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first data source is linear content data (see television at 2:60-3:7).
Claims 4-7, 14-17: Crider does not explicitly disclose:
“4, 14. The method of claim 1, further comprising obtaining, by the cleanroom, third data from a third data source.
6, 16. The method of claim 4, wherein the first data is combined with third data and the combination is included in the aggregated data.
7, 17. The method of claim 4, wherein the first data source is the same as the third data source, and the first data is obtained at a different time than the third data.”.
That is Crider does not explicitly disclose aggregating data together from the same advertiser but from different time periods. However, Crider discloses the above aggregating data; and Crider further discloses that the data has categories, 14:50-65; and that the data has date and time information for the tracked events, 14:50-65; and that the data can be grouped by different factors, 5:25-45; and multiple ad campaigns in the plural, 2:60-3:5; and using querys and groups to aggregate the data, 5:25-45. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Crider’s date information and multiple campaigns to Crider’s group by and Crider’s aggregation so that Crider can aggregate data from different date groups together. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better present advertising reports of interest (Fig. 1c and its text description).
Claims 8, 18. Crider further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second data comprises conversions associated with the advertising campaign (Fig. 1c, item 128-3).
Claims 10, 20. Crider further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first data and the second data is privacy sensitive data associated with one or more consumers targeted by the advertising campaign (see anonymized at Fig. 1f).
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crider (11922456) in view of Kharas (20260073416) in view of Bosworth (20160323162).
Claim 22-24. Examiner notes that Applicant Spec states that conversions or impressions can be used for ad data [17, 18]. Crider does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein scaling the aggregate report comprises scaling the aggregate report to match source conversions. However, Crider discloses tracking and reporting on ad impressions and/or conversions, 2:40-60. And, Bosworth discloses ad impressions and ad reports [120] and scaling aggregate reports based on monitored impressions (see scaling at [46, 120]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Bosworth’s reporting and scaling and ad events to Crider’s reporting and ad events. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better report on ad events.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
aa) Bosworth, Randhava, Shimizu discloses scaling and reports and impressions/conversions;
note Guthals use of clean rooms and data aggregation [92].
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTHUR DURAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 7-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARTHUR DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622 8/18/26
Prosecution Insights