Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 10, 2025 has been entered.
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the RCE filed on November 10, 2025.
Claims 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 20 are cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16-19, and 21-27 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16-19, and 21-27 are examined.
This Office Action is given Paper No. 20260323 for references purposes only.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16-19, and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claims recite an abstract idea of filtering and manipulating event data, which is a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk; commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Claim 8, representative of claims 1 and 14, includes the following limitations:
Obtaining event data corresponding to a sequence of user events associated with playback of a video;
Flagging one or more entries in the event data corresponding to text entries determining whether the one or more entries match a preset text-based rule indicative of personally identifiable information;
Removing the flagged entries from the event data to create cleaned data;
Filtering the cleaned data into accepted data and rejected data based on a set of rules, wherein the accepted data includes event type, event time, view identifier, content description, device name, event class, and package name, wherein the rejected data includes duplicate and incomplete data;
Determining a custom field data indicative of a video title;
Obtaining the custom field data from a content provider;
Generating media measurement information based on the accepted data and custom field data;
Reporting the media measurement information to a collection facility without revealing the flagged entries.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim limitations recite the following additional elements that are beyond the judicial exception:
Application software via a programming interface;
User device.
These additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
They add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
They generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The claim limitations do not recite additional elements, or an ordered combination of additional elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2 above, the additional element of a “user device” is mere instructions to apply an exception, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept at step 2B.
According to the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is mere instructions to apply an exception under step 2A should be re-evaluated at step 2B. Thus, the additional element of a “user device” is re-evaluated to determine whether it constitutes significantly more. Examiner finds that the additional elements of a “user device” is simply the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262 and MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional elements only provide a result-oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications, which is equivalent to “apply it”. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2357 and MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2 above, the additional element of a “application software via a programming interface” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept at step 2B.
According to the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is mere instructions to apply an exception under step 2A should be re-evaluated at step 2B. Thus, the additional element of an “application software via a programming interface” is re-evaluated to determine whether it constitutes significantly more. Examiner finds that the additional element of an “application software via a programming interface” is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 and MPEP 2106.05(h). Additionally, an “application software via a programming interface” merely limits the claims to the computer field. See FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95 and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, when considering all the additional claim elements both individually and as an ordered combination, Examiner finds that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the exception.
The dependent claims fail to cure this deficiency and are rejected accordingly.
Claim 2 recites filtering event data based on data type, data size, or origin, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites installing a meter on the user device, which is use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks, or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F. 3d 1253, 1262 and MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 5 recites the event data is a first type of event data, and a second type of event data is different from the first type, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites monitoring the software for event data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated). See Electric Power Group, and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 21 recites the accepted event data includes a user event time, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 22 recites the preset rule is a regular expression corresponding to a credit card number, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 23 recites sending a callback to the interface, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. mere data gathering). See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2, 5-6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17-19, and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gunther et al. (US 2018/0332128), in view of Ray et al. (US 2024/0187706), and further in view of Cook (US 2015/0193638).
Claims 1, 8, 14
Gunther discloses:
obtaining event data (receive data indicative of changes, see [0024]) from application software (observer application, see [0024]) via an accessibility service application programming interface (accessibility service, see [0024]), the application software and the accessibility service application programming interface stored on a user device (mobile device, see [0024]), the accessibility service application programming interface configured to access event data (events, see [0024]) corresponding to a sequence of user events associated with playback of a video (what videos are watched, see [0038]);
filtering (filter, see [0043]) the cleaned event data into accepted event data (URL visited, see [0102]) and rejected event data based on a set of rules (list of rules, see [0027-0035]), the accepted event data including an event type (e.g. video on YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, see [0038]), an event time (timestamp, see [0100]), a view identifier (identifier of the UI layout, e.g. android.webkit.WebView, see [0056, 0060]), a content description (content description, see [0060]), a device name of the user device (identifier of mobile device, see [0101]), an event class (className, see [0060]), and a package name (packageName, see [0060]), the event type indicative of one of the sequence of user events corresponding to the playback of the video (e.g. video on YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, see [0038]), the rejected event data including duplicate (duplicate entries, same URL, see [0029, 0102]) and incomplete instances (e.g. cnn.com, canonical variant, see [0029, 0102]) of event data;
generating media measurement information (record, see [0102]) based on a combination of the accepted event data (accurate/visited URLs, see [0080]) and the custom field data (e.g. window state change, view focus, keyboard up, text changed, see [0070-0079]) such that the media measurement information associates: (i) the device name of the user device (identifier of mobile device, see [0101]), (ii) playback of the video at the event time (what videos are watched, see [0038]);
reporting the media measurement information (buffered and analyzed data, see [0045]) to a collection facility (aggregation server, see [0045, 0102]) without revealing the flagged one or more entries matching the preset text-based rule indicative of personally identifiable information (unique identifiers of the users, see [0101]).
Gunther does not disclose:
Determining… video;
Responsive… data.
Ray teaches:
determining that custom field data indicative of a title (program title, see [0207]) of the video is available to be combined with the accepted event data, wherein determining that the custom field data is available includes sending a request to a content provider associated with the video (demand-side provider, see [0185]);
responsive to determining that the custom field data is available: obtaining the custom field data from the content provider (set of programs viewed, see [0185])… (iii) the title of the video (program title, see [0207]) indicated by the obtained custom field data.
Gunther discloses obtaining event data via an accessibility service, filtering the event data, generating media measurement information, and reporting the media measurement information. Gunther does not disclose determining a title of the video and obtaining custom field data, but Ray does. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the system and method for the capture of mobile behavior, usage, or content exposure of Gunther with the determining a title of the video and obtaining custom field data of Ray because 1) a need exists for measuring consumer behavior on networks that is cost effective, does not disrupt the device, and allows for privacy (see Gunther [0006-0007]); and 2) a need exists for quickly and securely hashing user identities by advertising buying platforms (see Ray [0021]). Determining a title of the video and obtaining custom field data is useful for advertising buying platforms.
Gunther in view of Ray discloses the limitations above. Gunther in view of Ray does not disclose:
Categorically… device;
Removing… data.
Cook teaches:
categorically flagging one or more entries in the event data (filter the results, see [0022]) corresponding to text entries in response to determining the one or more entries match with at least one preset text-based rule (e.g. social security number, date of birth, see [0022]) indicative of personally identifiable information (PII data, see [0022]) of a user of the user device;
removing (remove, see [0022, 0028]) the flagged one or more entries (e.g. data with social security number, date of birth, see [0022]) from the event data to thereby generate cleaned event data (filtered data, see [0022]).
Gunther in view of Ray discloses obtaining event data via an accessibility service, filtering the event data, generating media measurement information, reporting the media measurement information, a title of the video, and obtaining custom field data. Gunther in view of Ray does not disclose categorically flagging entries and removing the flagged entries, but Cook does. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the system and method for the capture of mobile behavior, usage, or content exposure of Gunther, in view of Ray, with the categorically flagging entries and removing the flagged entries of Cook because a need exists for preventing security breaches involving PII to prevent identify theft, embarrassment, blackmail, and damage to personal credit ratings (see Cook [0003]). Categorically flagging entries and removing the flagged entries will help prevent security breaches.
Claim 2
Furthermore, Gunther discloses:
The user device to perform filtering the event data based on at least one of data type (URL, see [0029-0031]), data size, or data origin.
Claims 5, 12, 18
Furthermore, Gunther discloses:
the event data is a first type of event data (e.g. URL, what videos are watched, see [0029-0031, 0038]), and wherein the instructions further cause, when executed by the at least one processor, the user device to perform filtering a second type of event data (e.g. user types in “search key words”, what products are searched, see [0032, 0039]) different from the first type of event data, the second type of event data unrelated to a presentation of media.
Claims 6, 10, 19
Furthermore, Gunther discloses:
The user device to perform monitoring the application software for the event data using the accessibility service application programming interface (subscribe to events emitted by the accessibility service, see [0024]).
Claim 17
Furthermore, Gunther discloses:
the instructions further cause the user device to perform sorting the accepted event data (accurate URLs, see [0080]) to be associated with the custom field data (e.g. window state change, view focus, keyboard up, text changed, see [0070-0079]).
Claims 21, 25
Furthermore, Gunther discloses:
the accepted event data further includes a user event time (timestamp, dwell time at the URL, see [0100, 0102]).
Claims 22, 24, 26
Furthermore, Cook teaches:
the at least one preset text-based rule is a regular expression corresponding to a credit card number (credit card number, see [0004]).
Claim 23
Furthermore, Gunther discloses:
The user device to perform sending a callback (callback, see [0053]) to the accessibility service application programming interface when at least one of the sequence of user events occurs.
Claim 27
Furthermore, Gunther discloses:
the application software includes a video streaming application (e.g. Netflix, Hulu, see [0038]).
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gunther et al. (US 2018/0332128), in view of Ray et al. (US 2024/0187706) and Cook (US 2015/0193638), and further in view of Harvey et al. (US 2011/0288907).
Claims 3, 16
Gunther, in view of Ray and Cook, discloses the limitations above. Gunther, in view of Ray and Cook, does not disclose:
The user device… download.
Harvey teaches:
The user device to perform installing a meter (meter, see [0058, 0206]) on the user device in response to receiving a permission to download.
Gunther, in view of Ray and Cook, discloses obtaining event data via an accessibility service, filtering the event data, generating media measurement information, reporting the media measurement information, a title of the video, and obtaining custom field data. Gunther, in view of Ray and Cook, does not disclose installing a meter, but Harvey does. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the system and method for the capture of mobile behavior, usage, or content exposure of Gunther, in view of Ray and Cook, with installing a meter of Harvey because a need exists for more effective and efficient systems to provide advertisers with accurate measurements of the efficacy of their advertising campaigns while promoting and protecting consumer privacy (see Harvey [0007]). Installing a meter will provide accurate measurements of content consumed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach categorically flagging entries in the event data corresponding to text entries in response to determining the entries match one preset text-based rule indicative of personally identifiable information.
Please see new mapping and revised rejection above with new reference Cook.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner hereby adopts the following definitions under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. In accordance with In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997), Examiner points to these other sources to support her interpretation of the claims.1 Additionally, these definitions are only a guide to claim terminology since claim terms must be interpreted in context of the surrounding claim language. Finally, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive in any way:
configuration “(1) (A) (software) The arrangement of a computer system or component as defined by the number, nature, and interconnections of its constituent parts.” “(C) The physical and logical elements of an information processing system, the manner in which they are organized and connected, or both. Note: May refer to hardware configuration or software configuration.” IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Edition, IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, Dec. 2000.
Conclusion
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from Examiner should be directed to Chrystina Zelaskiewicz whose telephone number is 571.270.3940. Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair <http://pair-direct.uspto.gov>. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
/CHRYSTINA E ZELASKIEWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
1 While most definition(s) are cited because these terms are found in the claims, Examiner may have provided additional definition(s) to help interpret words, phrases, or concepts found in the definitions themselves or in the prior art.