DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to communications filed 4/22/2026. Claims 1, 21, and 31 are amended. Claims 2, 7-8, 11-20, 22, 27-28 and 32-40 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-6, 9-10, 21, 23-26 and 29-31 are pending in this action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-6, 9-10, 21, 23-26 and 29-31 have been fully considered but are not persuasive (please see rejection below).
In response to Applicant’s arguments on page 10 that “The Examiner characterized "detecting, by an audio sensor of a meter device, one or more audio signals comprising watermarks" as a mental process, suggesting a person could "hear an audible watermark signal." See Office Action, page 5. This mischaracterizes the nature of audio watermark detection. Amended claim 1 now explicitly recites "computing, using content recognition, audio fingerprints based on the one or more audio signals detected by the audio sensor" and "matching the audio fingerprints against a reference database of fingerprinted clips to identify the watermarks." These are computational signal processing operations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. A person cannot compute audio fingerprints or match them against a reference database of fingerprinted clips. As described in the specification, "content recognition is performed during viewing, which can include audio fingerprinting. For example, the audio fingerprinting algorithm is capable of recognizing relatively short clips streamed by the SSP 102 (e.g., 3, 6, or 10 second audio clips, etc.)." See Specification, paragraph [0042].
Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner has oversimplified the claim limitations by characterizing them generally as a "mental process" without accounting for the specific technical requirements of the claims. Amended claim 1 recites a specific computational architecture that executes audio fingerprint computation and database matching operations. These features cannot practically be performed in the human mind. As such, amended claim 1 does not fall within the mental process grouping”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant should please note that the limitation of “detecting, by an audio sensor of a meter device, one or more audio signals comprising watermarks associated with the respective media identifiers during presentation of the respective media files by the media presentation device”, as claimed, simply requires audio signals to be detected, the audio signals having watermarks. The limitation does not claim that the watermarks are detected, but simply that the audio signals, which have the watermarks, are detected. And detecting audio signals, i.e., by way of hearing them, reasonably constitutes a mental process that can be performed by a human. This is not a mischaracterization of the nature of audio watermark detection since this limitation does not claim to detect the watermarks.
Additionally, the newly added limitations of “computing, using content recognition, audio fingerprints based on the one or more audio signals detected by the audio sensor”, “matching the audio fingerprints against a reference database of fingerprinted clips to identify the watermarks” and “thereby enabling data associated with panelists to be effectively controlled for privacy” are not sufficient to overcome the rejection of record. While audio fingerprinting is known in the art, there are no limits placed on the computing of the fingerprints as claimed. Therefore, a human may reasonably use pen and paper to compute audio fingerprints using any method, and match those fingerprints to any database. Furthermore, while the claimed report is generated based on anonymized data, there are no claimed limits on how the data is anonymized, or no technical or technological improvements on how the claimed report is generated .
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, 3-6, 9-10, 21, 23-26 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis specific to Claim 1 is being presented below. However, the Applicants should please note that the analysis for claim 21 is similar to that of claim 1 and therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 1 recites “A computing system comprising:
(i) at least one processor; and
(ii) a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
(a) generating a media identifier by inserting a randomly selected watermark into each media file of a plurality of media files requested by a media presentation device, the randomly selected watermark inserted at a randomly determined time of a time interval of each media file, wherein each media identifier is generated by an audience measurement entity (“AME”);
(b) detecting, by an audio sensor of a media device, one or more audio signals comprising watermarks associated with the respective media identifiers during presentation of the respective media files by the media presentation device;
(iii) computing, using content recognition, audio fingerprints based on the one or more audio signals detected by the audio sensor”;
(iv) matching the audio fingerprints against a reference database of fingerprinted clips to identify the watermarks;
(c) storing, in the memory, a respective time at which each media file was presented by the media presentation device based on the watermarks detected in the one or more audio signals;
(d) receiving, via a transceiver communicatively coupled to a network, a streaming session log from a streaming service provider (“SSP”), wherein at least one of the streaming session log received from the SSP, the media identifiers generated by the AME. And panelist identifiers generated by the AME, is associated with anonymized data which is anonymized by an intermediary to facilitate blind matching thereby enabling data associated with panelists to be effectively controlled for privacy;
(e) after receiving the anonymized data, using the anonymized data to compare the media identifier generated by the AME, and panelist identifiers generated by the AME and at times at which the media files were presented to the streaming session log generated by the SSP;
(f) identifying one or more streaming sessions in which the media file associated with the respective media identifiers were presented at the respective times based on the comparison of the anonymized data;
(g) generating, based on the anonymized data, a report by aggregating information about panelist demographics and streaming session identifiers associated with the plurality of streaming sessions to protect the identities of panelists and prevent the SSP from targeting information to panelists; and
(h) transmitting, via the transceiver communicatively coupled to the network, the comprising the aggregated information to the SSP.
Step 1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a system.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. Limitations (b), (iii)-(iv), and (e)-(g) are limitations that, as drafted, reasonably constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind/performed by a human using pen and paper i.e., making mental/written comparisons, observations and calculations. For example, the steps, in the context of the claims, encompass a user hearing a song, computing identifiers for the song and matching those identifiers to a log of identifiers, making notes of viewed information by mentally computing or comparing data and making mental conclusions/determinations about the data.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, besides the abstract idea, the claim recites the additional elements of (i)-(ii), an audio sensor of a media device, (a), (c)-(d) and (h). Elements (i)-(ii) and an audio sensor of a media device are additional elements of the claim that are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer components performing generic functions of a computer, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
An evaluation of whether the limitations (a), (c)-(d) and (h) are “insignificant extra-solution activity” is then performed. Note that because the Step 2A Prong Two analysis excludes consideration of whether a limitation is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 55), this evaluation does not take into account whether or not the limitations are well-known. See October 2019 Update at Section III.D. When so evaluated, in regards to limitation (a), the claim does not put any limits on the media file, or how the watermark is inserted into the media file. When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Applicant’s originally disclosure, the generation by insertion is performed by an encoder, with its plain meaning being recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computing component.
And while audio fingerprinting is known in the art, there are no limits placed on the computing of the fingerprints as claimed. Therefore, a human may reasonably use pen and paper to compute audio fingerprints using any method, and match those fingerprints to any database. Furthermore, while the claimed report is generated based on anonymized data, there are no claimed limits on how the data is anonymized, or no technical or technological improvements on how the claimed report is generated .
When so evaluated, limitations (c)-(d) and (h) merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting (or not transmitting) and storing data, which the courts have identified as functions that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and simply adding extra-solution activity, which does integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim is ineligible.
Additionally, the rejected dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and therefore are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENEA DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9524 and whose email address is CHENEA.SMITH@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/CHENEA DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights