IP Library Granted Patent US 12,333,565
Granted Patent B2
US 12,333,565 · App. 17/727,662 · Granted Jun 17, 2025

Adaptive lead generation for marketing

Inventors: Pavan Korada (San Rafael, CA); Sunpreet Singh Khanuja (San Jose, CA); Weiwei Zhang (Palo Alto, CA); Bharat Goyal (San Jose, CA)
Assignee: Zeta Global Corp.
G06Q30/0243G06F16/24578G06F16/9535G06F30/20G06Q30/016G06Q30/0251
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,333,565
App. No.
17/727,662
Granted
Jun 17, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

Various examples are directed to systems and methods for adaptively generating leads. A marketing system may determine that a first lead score for a first lead is greater than a first lead score threshold and determine that a second lead score for a second lead is less than the first lead score threshold. The marketing system may generate a set of filtered leads including the first lead information from the first lead. The marketing system may determine a scrub rate that describes a portion of first execution cycle data having lead scores greater than the first lead score threshold and determine that the scrub rate is greater than an analysis window scrub rate by more than a scrub rate threshold. The marketing system may select a second lead score threshold that is lower than the first lead score threshold.

Claims (56)

1. A system comprising at least one processor and a memory in communication with the at least one processor, wherein the system is programmed to:

receive first data comprising a first set of leads and a second set of leads, wherein the first set of leads comprises first lead information describing a plurality of first potential customers and the second set of leads comprises second lead information describing a plurality of second potential customers;

determine a first lead score for the plurality of first potential customers in the first set of leads based at least in part on a first lead scoring model;

determine that the first lead score for a first lead is greater than a first lead score threshold for the plurality of first potential customers in the first set of leads;

determine that a quality of the first data is different than a quality of an analysis window data by more than a quality threshold, the analysis window data comprising a plurality of leads received during an analysis window time period;

determine a second lead scoring model based at least in part on the first data;

wherein determining that the quality of the first data is different than a quality of analysis window data by more than a quality threshold comprises:

determining a scrub rate, wherein the scrub rate describes a portion of the first data having lead scores greater than the first lead score threshold;

determining that the scrub rate is greater than a scrub rate of an analysis window by more than a scrub rate threshold; and

receiving lead score data describing lead scores for at least one lead received during an observation period and at least one lead received during the analysis window and not during the observation period.

2. The system of claim 1 , wherein determining the second lead scoring model comprises re-training the first lead scoring model based at least in part on the first data.

3. The system of claim 1 , wherein determining the second lead scoring model comprises modifying a scoring parameter of the first lead scoring model.

4. The system of claim 1 , further programmed to, after determining the second lead scoring model, determine that application of the second lead scoring model is permitted by a limitation rule.

5. The system of claim 1 , further programmed to:

determine an average scrub rate for a second plurality of leads received during the analysis window; and

determine the scrub rate threshold based at least in part on the average scrub rate.

6. The system of claim 1 , further programmed to:

determine a mean scrub rate of a plurality of historical scrub rates to generate the scrub rate of the analysis window; and

determine that the scrub rate threshold is more than two standard deviations higher than the mean scrub rate.

7. The system of claim 1 , wherein determining that the quality of the first data is different than a quality of analysis window data by more than a quality threshold comprises determining that a first value of the first lead information indicates that the first lead is not likely to convert.

8. The system of claim 1 , where the system is further programmed to: before generating the second set of leads, send a message to an administrative user; and

determine that more than a threshold time has passed since sending of the message.

9. The system of claim 1 , wherein the first data consists of leads received during an observation period shorter than the analysis window.

10. The system of claim 1 , wherein the system is further programmed to determine a scrub rate for a plurality of lead scores for leads received during the analysis window.

11. The system of claim 1 , further programmed to determine that a second lead score for the plurality of second potential customers in the second set of leads is less than the first lead score threshold, wherein the first data and second data consist of leads with a first common value for a first lead category, and wherein the first data and the second data include leads with a second common value for a second common lead value.

12. A method for adaptively generating leads, comprising:

receiving first data comprising a first set of leads and a second set of leads, wherein the first set of leads comprises first lead information describing a plurality of first potential customers and the second set of leads comprises second lead information describing a plurality of second potential customers;

determining a first lead score for the plurality of first potential customers in the first set of leads based at least in part on a first lead scoring model;

determining that the first lead score for a first lead is greater than a first lead score threshold for the plurality of first potential customers in the first set of leads;

determining that a quality of the first data is different than a quality of an analysis window data by more than a quality threshold, the analysis window data comprising a plurality of leads received during an analysis window time period;

determining a second lead scoring model based at least in part on the first data;

wherein determining that the quality of the first data is different than a quality of analysis window data by more than a quality threshold comprises:

determining a scrub rate, wherein the scrub rate describes a portion of the first data having lead scores greater than the first lead score threshold;

determining that the scrub rate is greater than a scrub rate of an analysis window by more than a scrub rate threshold; and

receiving lead score data describing lead scores for at least one lead received during an observation period and at least one lead received during the analysis window and not during the observation period.

13. The method of claim 12 , wherein determining the second lead scoring model comprises re-training the first lead scoring model based at least in part on the first data.

14. The method of claim 12 , wherein determining the second lead scoring model comprises modifying a scoring parameter of the first lead scoring model.

15. The method of claim 12 , further comprising, after determining the second lead scoring model, determining that application of the second lead scoring model is permitted by a limitation rule.

16. The method of claim 12 , further comprising:

determining an average scrub rate for a second plurality of leads received during the analysis window; and

determining the scrub rate threshold based at east in part on the average scrub rate.

17. The method of claim 12 , further comprising:

determining a mean scrub rate of a plurality of historical scrub rates to generate the scrub rate of the analysis window; and

determining that the scrub rate threshold is more than two standard deviations higher than the mean scrub rate.

18. The method of claim 12 , wherein determining that the quality of the first data is different than a quality of analysis window data by more than a quality threshold comprises determining that a first value of the first lead information indicates that the first lead is not likely to convert.

19. A non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions which, when read by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising:

receiving first data comprising a first set of leads and a second set of leads, wherein the first set of leads comprises first lead information describing a plurality of first potential customers and the second set of leads comprises second lead information describing a plurality of second potential customers;

determining a first lead score for the plurality of first potential customers in the first set of leads based at least in part on a first lead scoring model;

determining that the first lead score for a first lead is greater than a first lead score threshold for the plurality of first potential customers in the first set of leads;

determining that a quality of the first data is different than a quality of an analysis window data by more than a quality threshold, the analysis window data comprising a plurality of leads received during an analysis window time period;

determining a second lead scoring model based at least in part on the first data;

wherein determining that the quality of the first data is different than a quality of analysis window data by more than a quality threshold comprises:

determining a scrub rate, wherein the scrub rate describes a portion of the first data having lead scores greater than the first lead score threshold;

determining that the scrub rate is greater than a scrub rate of an analysis window by more than a scrub rate threshold; and

receiving lead score data describing lead scores for at least one lead received during an observation period and at least one lead received during the analysis window and not during the observation period.

20. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 19 , wherein determining the second lead scoring model comprises re-training the first lead scoring model based at least in part on the first data.

Assignments (3)
NOTICE OF GRANT OF SECURITY INTEREST IN PATENTS Recorded Aug 30, 2024
From: ZETA GLOBAL CORP.; ZSTREAM ACQUISITION LLC
To: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT
Reel/Frame 068822/0154 →
CHANGE OF NAME Recorded Apr 28, 2022
From: ZETA INTERACTIVE CORP.
To: ZETA GLOBAL CORP.
Reel/Frame 059761/0203 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Apr 28, 2022
From: KORADA, PAVAN; KHANUJA, SUNPREET SINGH; ZHANG, WEIWEI; GOYAL, BHARAT
To: ZETA INTERACTIVE CORP.
Reel/Frame 059765/0420 →
Continuity (4)
Continuation 16453471 · Jun 26, 2019
Division 15594104 · May 12, 2017
Provisional Application 62336514 · May 13, 2016
Related Publication 20220245667A1 · Aug 4, 2022
References Cited (114)
US 6792399B1 · Phillips et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 7003476B1 · Samra et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 7949588B2 · Willis · 2011 [cited by examiner]
US 8271313B2 · Williams et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8577736B2 · Swinson et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 10032174B2 · Hoff · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 10157352B1 · Chan et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 10242068B1 · Ross et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10387833B2 · Swinson et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10395217B1 · Lovejoy · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 11144949B2 · Korada et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 11227304B2 · Korada et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 11354700B2 · Korada et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 11972455B2 · Korada et al. · 2024 [cited by applicant]
US 20040103017A1 · Reed et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20060242000A1 · Giguiere · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20070219848A1 · Hubsher · 2007 [cited by examiner]
US 20070233561A1 · Golec · 2007 [cited by examiner]
US 20070244741A1 · Blume et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20080288361A1 · Rego · 2008 [cited by examiner]
US 20090048859A1 · Mccarthy et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20110082759A1 · Swinson et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110231230A1 · Christon · 2011 [cited by examiner]
US 20110258016A1 · Barak · 2011 [cited by examiner]
US 20110258049A1 · Ramer et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110264479A1 · Birr · 2011 [cited by examiner]
US 20110276507A1 · O'malley · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110307382A1 · Siegel · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20120323695A1 · Stibel · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20130066676A1 · Williams et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20140046880A1 · Breckenridge et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140149161A1 · Hedges et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140149178A1 · Hedges · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140200993A1 · Murphy · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140214482A1 · Williams et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140236708A1 · Wolff et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140249873A1 · Stephan · 2014 [cited by examiner]
US 20140278981A1 · Mersov et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140316883A1 · Kitts et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20150142713A1 · Gopinathan et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150186926A1 · Chittilappilly et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150213503A1 · Friborg, Jr. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150248693A1 · Dubey · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150379647A1 · Gupta et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20160071117A1 · Duncan · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160210657A1 · Chittilappilly et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160217476A1 · Duggal · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 20170206571A1 · Dhawan et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170300933A1 · Mascaro et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170329881A1 · Korada et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170330220A1 · Korada et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170345054A1 · Sinha et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20180060744A1 · Achin et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20190251593A1 · Allouche · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190318378A1 · Korada et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20220027943A1 · Korada et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220092635A1 · Korada et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20240320704A1 · Korada et al. · 2024 [cited by applicant]
Patrick Luciano, Increasing loyalty using predictive modeling in Business-to-Business Telecommunication, Jun. 10, 2015, Arxiv. [cited by examiner]
“U.S. Appl. No. 15/594,104, Advisory Action mailed Mar. 9, 2020”, 5 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 15/594,104, Final Office Action mailed Jan. 2, 2020”, 31 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 15/594,104, Final Office Action mailed Oct. 26, 2020”, 31 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 15/594,104, Non Final Office Action mailed Jun. 24, 2020”, 32 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 15/594,104, Non Final Office Action mailed Sep. 30, 2019”, 26 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 15/594,104, Notice of Allowance mailed Jun. 10, 2021”, 23 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 15/594,104, Response filed Jan. 26, 2021 to Final Office Action mailed Oct. 26, 2020”, 13 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 15/594,104, Response filed Feb. 27, 2020 to Final Office Action mailed Jan. 2, 2020”, 11 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 15/594,104, Response filed Jun. 2, 2020 to Final Office Action mailed Jan. 2, 2020”, 12 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 15/594,104, Response filed Jun. 26, 2019 to Restriction Requirement mailed May 23, 2019”, 6 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 15/594,104, Response filed Nov. 19, 2019 to Non-Final Office Action mailed Sep. 30, 2019”, 15 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 15/594,104, Response Filed Sep. 24, 2020 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jun. 24, 2020”, 13 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 15/594,104, Restriction Requirement mailed May 23, 2019”, 7 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 15/594,284, Corrected Notice of Allowability mailed Nov. 3, 2021”, 9 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 15/594,284, Final Office Action mailed May 24, 2021”, 12 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 15/594,284, Final Office Action mailed Aug. 4, 2020”, 11 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 15/594,284, Non Final Office Action mailed Jan. 16, 2020”, 12 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 15/594,284, Non Final Office Action mailed Dec. 31, 2020”, 12 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 15/594,284, Notice of Allowance mailed Oct. 27, 2021”, 13 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 15/594,284, Response filed Mar. 31, 2021 to Non Final Office Action mailed Dec. 31, 2020”, 7 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 15/594,284, Response filed Apr. 16, 2020 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jan. 16, 2020”, 9 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 15/594,284, Response filed Sep. 22, 2021 to Final Office Action mailed May 24, 2021”, 8 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 15/594,284, Response filed Dec. 4, 2020 to Final Office Action mailed Aug. 4, 2020”, 8 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 16/453,471, Applicant Interview Summary filed Feb. 7, 2022”, 1 pg. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 16/453,471, Examiner Interview Summary mailed Jan. 7, 2022”, 2 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 16/453,471, Final Office Action mailed Feb. 25, 2021”, 39 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 16/453,471, Non Final Office Action mailed Sep. 25, 2020”, 38 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 16/453,471, Non Final Office Action mailed Nov. 2, 2021”, 27 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 16/453,471, Notice of Allowance mailed Jan. 25, 2022”, 23 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 16/453,471, Response filed Aug. 25, 2021 to Final Office Action mailed Feb. 25, 2021”, 12 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 16/453,471, Response Filed Jan. 25, 2021 to Non Final Office Action mailed Sep. 25, 2020”, 12 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 16/453,471, Response filed Dec. 2, 2021 to Non Final Office Action mailed Nov. 2, 2021”, 11 pgs. [cited by applicant]
Aggour, Kareem, et al., “Mining company networks for marketing insights and sales leads”, IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining, (2013), 805-812. [cited by applicant]
Dubiel, Jorg, “Promoting target models by potential measures”, (2010), 13 pgs. [cited by applicant]
Ramakrishnan, et al., “Automatic sales lead generation from web data”, IEEE, Computer society, Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Data engineering., (2006), 10 pgs. [cited by applicant]
Yan, Junchi, et al., “Sales pipeline win propensity prediction: A regression approach”, arXiv:1502.06229v1, (2015), 5 pgs. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 15/594,104 U.S. Pat. No. 11,144,949, May 12, 2017, Adaptive Lead Generation for Marketing. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 16/453,471, filed Jun. 26, 2019, Adaptive Lead Generation for Marketing. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 17/450,490, filed Oct. 11, 2021, Adaptive Lead Generation for Marketing. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 15/594,284, U.S. Pat. No. 11,227,304, May 12, 2017, Adaptive Real Time Modeling and Scoring. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 17/538,647, filed Nov. 30, 2021, Adaptive Real Time Modeling and Scoring. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 17/538,647, Response filed Nov. 20, 2023 to Non Final Office Action mailed Aug. 24, 2023”, 11 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 17/538,647, Notice of Allowance mailed Dec. 27, 2023”, 8 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 17/538,647, Non Final Office Action mailed Dec. 28, 2022”, 16 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 17/538,647, Response filed Mar. 23, 2023 to Non Final Office Action mailed Dec. 28, 2022”, 9 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 17/538,647, Supplemental Amendment & Response filed Mar. 28, 2023”, 10 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 17/450,490, Non Final Office Action mailed Sep. 27, 2024”, 25 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 18/620,239, Non Final Office Action mailed Jan. 22, 2025”, 16 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 18/620,239, Preliminary Amendment filed Jun. 11, 2024”, 7 pgs. [cited by applicant]
Chen, Pei-Yu, et al., “Community-Based Recommender Systems: Analyzing Business Models from a Systems Operator's Perspective”, Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (2009), 10 pgs. [cited by applicant]
Wang, Tianyong, et al., “The model of Internet marketing program considering 2ls”, (2005), 6 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 17/538,647, Final Office Action mailed Apr. 14, 2023”, 17 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 17/538,647, Examiner Interview Summary mailed Jun. 30, 2023”, 2 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 17/538,647, Response filed Jul. 14, 2023 to Final Office Action mailed Apr. 14, 2023”, 10 pgs. [cited by applicant]
“U.S. Appl. No. 17/538,647, Non Final Office Action mailed Aug. 24, 2023”, 22 pgs. [cited by applicant]