DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claims 5, 14, & 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 19, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See Examiner’s response below.
With respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, applicant appears to assert that Raimbeault does not teach “receiving, from a server, first-party data comprising usage metrics for wireless devices of a first set of users, the usage metrics representing behavioral patterns of usage of the wireless devices by respective ones of the first set of users; and ingesting the first-party data into a model trained using usage metrics for wireless devices of a second set of users different from the first set of users”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Raimbeault teaches [0037-0038] gathering usage metrics from a first set of data from a first set of users. Raimbeault goes further to teach [0038, 0063] utilizing peer data for gathering behavior and usage data, wherein this peer data is indicative of a second set of users. Therefore, Raimbeault does in fact teach “receiving, from a server, first-party data comprising usage metrics for wireless devices of a first set of users, the usage metrics representing behavioral patterns of usage of the wireless devices by respective ones of the first set of users; and ingesting the first-party data into a model trained using usage metrics for wireless devices of a second set of users different from the first set of users”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1-7 & 10-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being unpatentable over Raimbeault (US Pub. No. 2009/0106085 A1).
In respect to Claim 1, Raimbeault teaches:
As to claim 1, Raimbeault discloses a computing system for determining audience
segments (consumer groups behavior [0059][0041]) comprising:
a processor (fig. 3); and
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, having stored thereon program
instructions that, upon execution by the processor, cause performance of a set of operations
(fig. 3) comprising:
receiving, from a server, first-party data comprising usage metrics (metrics [0038]) for
wireless devices (wireless [0037]) of a first set of users (shopping history [0038]), the usage
metrics representing behavioral patterns of usage of the wireless devices by respective ones of
the first set of users; (shopping history [0038]),
ingesting (capture. [0038]) the first-party data into a model (model [0038]) trained using
usage metrics (metrics [0038]) for wireless devices of a second set of users different from the
first set of users, the usage metrics representing behavioral patterns of usage of the wireless
devices by respective ones of the second set of users ([0041]);
querying the model based on a particular behavioral pattern represented by the usage
metrics of the first-party data for wireless devices of a particular segment of the first set of
users (metrics representing a user's social and shopping history and patterns of behavior
[0038][0061]-[0062]); and
based on the querying, outputting, by the model, one or more determined
characteristics of the particular segment (consumer groups behavior. [0059]) that exhibited the
particular behavioral pattern ([0063]).
Raimbeault teaches [0037-0038] gathering usage metrics from a first set of data from a first set of users. Raimbeault goes further to teach [0038, 0063] utilizing peer data for gathering behavior and usage data, wherein this peer data is indicative of a second set of users.
As to claim 2, Raimbeault discloses a computing system of claim 1, wherein the model is
configured to analyze behavioral patterns of usage of wireless devices represented by usage
metrics input
into the model ([0038]) to determine one or more characteristics of users of the wireless
devices that exhibited the behavioral patterns. (consumer groups behavior. [0059]).
As to claim 3, Raimbeault discloses a computing system of claim 1, wherein the
particular behavioral pattern comprises a pattern of exposure of the particular segment
(consumer groups behavior. [0059]) to one or more particular types of multimedia content.
(display [0018]).
As to claim 4, Raimbeault discloses a computing system of claim 1, the set of operations
further comprising:
transmitting, to an external computing system, the one or more determined
characteristics of the particular segment (consumer groups behavior. [0059]) that exhibited the
particular behavioral pattern to facilitate use of the one or more determined characteristics by
the external computing system to select targeted content. (display [0018]).
As to claim 5, Raimbeault discloses a computing system of claim 1, wherein the usage
metrics for the wireless devices of the first set of users comprises one or more of a frequency of
usage (frequency [0042]) or a duration of usage of one or more applications installed on the
wireless devices. (duration. [0067]).
As to claim 6, Raimbeault discloses a computing system of claim 1, the set of operations
further comprising:
receiving additional usage metrics for wireless devices of a third set of users, the
usage metrics representing behavioral patterns of usage of the wireless devices by respective
ones of the third set of users ([0068]);
updating the model using the additional usage metrics (change data. [0068]);
querying the updated model based on the particular behavioral pattern ([0068]); and
based on the querying of the updated model, outputting (display [0018]), by the model, one or
more updated characteristics of the particular segment that exhibited the particular behavioral
pattern ([0068]).
As to claim 7, Raimbeault discloses a computing system of claim 6, the set of operations
further comprising:
transmitting, to an external computing system (display [0018]), the one or more
updated characteristics of the particular segment that exhibited the particular behavioral
pattern ([0068]).
Claims 10-15 are the method claims corresponding to system claims 1-5 respectively, therefore are rejected for the same reasons noted previously.
Claims 16-20 are the media claims corresponding to system claims 1 & 3-7 respectively, therefore are rejected for the same reasons noted previously.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Raimbeault in view of Hoogs et al. (US Pub. No. 20060015377).
As to claim 8, the teaches of Raimbeault have been discussed above,
Raimbeault does not teach a plurality of nodes and a plurality of weights,
respective nodes of the plurality of nodes represent one or more of the first set of users or the second set of users, respective weights of the plurality of weights represent respective correlation
coefficients between the respective nodes, and the set of operations further comprises
determining the plurality of weights based on the usage metrics.
Hoogs teaches a plurality of nodes and a plurality of weights (weight [0030]), respective
nodes of the plurality of nodes (node [0033]-[0034]) (represent one or more of the first set of
users or the second set of users, respective weights of the plurality of weights represent
respective correlation coefficients (in relation with the confidence attribute [0034])
(relationship. [0030]) between the respective nodes (nodes [0034]-[0036]), and
the set of operations further comprises determining the plurality of weights based on
the usage metrics (metrics [0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to have modified Raimbeault by the teaching of Hoogs to
include a plurality of nodes and a plurality of weights, respective nodes of the plurality of
nodes represent one or more of the first set of users or the second set of users, respective
weights of the plurality of weights represent respective correlation coefficients between the
respective nodes, and the set of operations further comprises determining the plurality of
weights based on the usage metrics with the motivation to more provide better data
integration as taught by Hoogs [0004]).
As to claim 9, Raimbeault teaches a computing system of claim 8, wherein the model is
at least one of:
a neural network or a Markov model. (Markov model Hoogs [0054]).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1395. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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.
/JOSHUA BULLOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153 August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights