DETAILED ACTION
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 . In communications filed on 03/02/2026. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are amended. Claims 3,6, 8-9, 12,15, 17-18, and 21-27 are cancelled. Claims 31-35 newly added. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 10-11, 13-15, 16, 19-20, and 28-35 are pending in this examination.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. This examination is in response to US Patent Application No. 17/735,996.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant submits on pages 10-11 of remarks filed on 02/22/2021 regarding claims 1, and 10 that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand what an access token is. It is well-established that "[b]readth is not indefiniteness." MPEP § 2173.04 (citing In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689 (CCPA 1971)). The fact that the term "access token" encompasses various technical implementations does not prevent a person of ordinary skill from understanding the boundaries of the claimed invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand what an access token is, however, the applicant is using a broad term of access token ,and since it is not defined in the claim and specification , examiner unable to search for appropriate prior art, and maps the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Examiner maintains the rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 0, and 19 for newly added limitation have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The independent claims 1, and 10, recite “access token”, which renders the claim indefinite, because the claim does not clearly and directly define `what the access token is, and furthermore the specification in the paragraph [0053] states that […the data regarding the token service 208 includes an access token (T). The example token handler circuitry 304 can retrieve (e.g., access, receive) the access token (T)…]. However, this paragraph does not clearly define what access token( T) means , and a person skilled in the art cannot understand the scope of the limitation.
The dependent claims depending on the independent claims 1, and 10, do not cure the deficiency of claims 1, and 10 and are rejected under 35 USC 112, 2nd paragraph.
Examiner maps the claimed limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. —The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 10-11, 13-15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The dependent claims 1, and 10, contain ““access token” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant is kindly requested to show the examiner support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See MPEP 714.02 and 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure").
The dependent claims depending on the independent claims 1, and 10 do not cure the deficiency of claims 1, and 10, and are rejected under 35 USC 112, 1st paragraph.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first token service being configured to…”; “second token service being configured to….”; “data structures configured to…” in claim 1, and “ the first token service being configured to…” , “second token service being configured to…”, and data structures configured to…” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 10-11, 13-15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “a first token service being configured to…”; “second token service being configured to….”; in claim 1, and “ the first token service being configured to…” , “second token service being configured to…”in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claims limitation “a first token service being configured to…”; “second token service being configured to….” in claim 1, and “ the first token service being configured to…” , “second token service being configured to…” in claim 10.
invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The dependent claims depending on the independent claims 1, and 10 do not cure the deficiency of claims 1, and 10, and are rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 of this title, 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.
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, 7, 10-11, 16, 19-20, and 28-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. (US2012/0191790) issued to Abadir and in view of US Patent No. (US2014/0298025) issued to Burbank, and further in view of US Patent No. (US2018/0255151) issued to Seth, and in view of US Patent No. (US2018/0084313) issued to Splaine, and further in view of WO2021/262155 ( PENG JIAYU), hereinafter, “Peng”.
Regarding claim 1, Abadir discloses a computing system located within a cloud computing environment; comprising a processor coupled to a memory, the computing system configured to perform a set of acts comprising: [ see fig. 1 and corresponding text for more detail, ¶ 31. The push message server 104 is generally a server managed by either a publisher or a third party and is configured to manage distribution of push messages to one or more users at supported devices, such as mobile device 106. The push message server 104 includes a database 108 configured to aggregate and maintain data relating to user preferences for receiving push messages from the publisher 102, and optionally other publishers 103a-n. In some embodiments, the push message server 104 is managed by the publisher 102; in other embodiments, (such as that shown) the push message server 104 is not affiliated with any one particular publisher, and instead represents a central repository and clearinghouse for push message settings, providing a simple interface for publishers to access to distribute push messages to users], and
establishing trust with a first third-party publisher and a second third-party publisher, wherein the first third-party publisher and the second third-party publisher
[ see fig. 1 and corresponding text for more detail, ¶31, The push message server 104 is generally a server managed by either a publisher or a third party and is configured to manage distribution of push messages to one or more users at supported devices, such as mobile device 106. The push message server 104 includes a database 108 configured to aggregate and maintain data relating to user preferences for receiving push messages from the publisher 102, and optionally other publishers 103a-n. In some embodiments, the push message server 104 is managed by the publisher 102; in other embodiments, (such as that shown) the push message server 104 is not affiliated with any one particular publisher, and instead represents a central repository and clearinghouse for push message settings, providing a simple interface for publishers to access to distribute push messages to users], and [¶36, As illustrated in FIG. 1, one or more of the publisher 102, push message server 104, and mobile device 106 can be interconnected by a communicative connection, such as via the internet 140. Although in the drawing the push message server 104 is illustrated as a conduit of messages 145 between the publisher 102 and the mobile device 106, it is recognized that other messages can be transmitted among those devices directly], and
aggregating the first sketch data and the second sketch data so as to
sending a first sketch request for first sketch data to the first token service and a second sketch request for second sketch data to the second token service, wherein the first sketch request comprises the first access token and an indication of
Examiner Note: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to indicate that in order to aggregate the received sketch data from different publishers, you will provide the same steps and method to each publisher in order for them to transmit their data.
among a plurality of sources is disclosed. The system includes a push message server communicatively connected to a plurality of publishers. The push message server includes a push subscription database containing a plurality of records, each record associating a user identity with a push message publisher and a user preference for receiving push messages from the publisher. The push message server also includes a communication component configured to receive push messages from one or more of the plurality of publishers and, based on user subscriptions managed in the push subscription database, transmit the push messages to one or more subscribers].
Furthermore, Burbank discloses [¶48, After the AME 108 receives the ACR ID 128 including the device/user identifier(s) 124 in encrypted format, the AME 108 sends encrypted device/user identifier logs 136a-b to corresponding partner database proprietors (e.g., the partner database proprietors 104a-b). In the illustrated example, each of the encrypted device/user identifier logs 136a-b may include a single encrypted device/user identifier, or it may include numerous aggregate encrypted device/user identifiers received over time from one or more mobile devices. After receiving the encrypted device/user identifier logs 136a-b, each of the partner database proprietors 104a-b decrypts its respective encrypted device/user identifiers using its copy(ies) of the encryption key(s). The partner database proprietors 104a-b then look up their users corresponding to the decrypted device/user identifiers and collect corresponding user information 102a-b for those users for sending to the AME 108. For example, if the partner database proprietor 104a is a wireless service provider, the encrypted device/user identifier log 136a includes IMEI numbers, and the wireless service provider accesses its subscriber records to find users having IMEI numbers matching the IMEI numbers received in the encrypted device/user identifier log 136a. When the users are identified, the wireless service provider copies the users' user information to the user information 102a for delivery to the AME 108], and [¶¶28], 45].
Abadir does not explicitly disclose however, Burbank discloses use a first token service executing on a computing system of the first third-party publisher and a second token service executing on a computing system of the second third-party publisher, respectively, to communicate with a sketch service executing on the computing system located within the cloud computing environment, the first token service being configured to assert the sketch service via a first access token, and the second token service being configured to assert the sketch service via a second access token [¶48, After the AME 108 receives the ACR ID 128 including the device/user identifier(s) 124 in encrypted format, the AME 108 sends encrypted device/user identifier logs 136a-b to corresponding partner database proprietors (e.g., the partner database proprietors 104a-b). In the illustrated example, each of the encrypted device/user identifier logs 136a-b may include a single encrypted device/user identifier, or it may include numerous aggregate encrypted device/user identifiers received over time from one or more mobile devices. After receiving the encrypted device/user identifier logs 136a-b, each of the partner database proprietors 104a-b decrypts its respective encrypted device/user identifiers using its copy(ies) of the encryption key(s). The partner database proprietors 104a-b then look up their users corresponding to the decrypted device/user identifiers and collect corresponding user information 102a-b for those users for sending to the AME 108. For example, if the partner database proprietor 104a is a wireless service provider, the encrypted device/user identifier log 136a includes IMEI numbers, and the wireless service provider accesses its subscriber records to find users having IMEI numbers matching the IMEI numbers received in the encrypted device/user identifier log 136a. When the users are identified, the wireless service provider copies the users' user information to the user information 102a for delivery to the AME 108], and [¶¶28, 45]’ and
and wherein establishing trust with the first third-party publisher comprises: sending a first communication containing identity information of the sketch service to the first token service, receiving from the first token service first encrypted data comprising an encryption of the first access token from the first token service, decrypting the first encrypted data so as to obtain the access token, and sending the first access token to the first token service for assertion by the first token service ; and wherein establishing trust with the second third-party publisher comprises: sending a second communication containing identity information of the sketch service to the second token service, receiving, from the second token service second encrypted data comprising an encryption of the second access token from the second token service, decrypting the second encrypted data so as to obtain the second access token, and sending the second access token to the second token service for assertion by the second token service [¶48, After the AME 108 receives the ACR ID 128 including the device/user identifier(s) 124 in encrypted format, the AME 108 sends encrypted device/user identifier logs 136a-b to corresponding partner database proprietors (e.g., the partner database proprietors 104a-b). In the illustrated example, each of the encrypted device/user identifier logs 136a-b may include a single encrypted device/user identifier, or it may include numerous aggregate encrypted device/user identifiers received over time from one or more mobile devices. After receiving the encrypted device/user identifier logs 136a-b, each of the partner database proprietors 104a-b decrypts its respective encrypted device/user identifiers using its copy(ies) of the encryption key(s). The partner database proprietors 104a-b then look up their users corresponding to the decrypted device/user identifiers and collect corresponding user information 102a-b for those users for sending to the AME 108. For example, if the partner database proprietor 104a is a wireless service provider, the encrypted device/user identifier log 136a includes IMEI numbers, and the wireless service provider accesses its subscriber records to find users having IMEI numbers matching the IMEI numbers received in the encrypted device/user identifier log 136a. When the users are identified, the wireless service provider copies the users' user information to the user information 102a for delivery to the AME 108], and [¶¶28, 45]; and
and sending the [¶40, By being able to select or access multiple different types of device/user identifiers 124, the AME 108 increases the opportunities for collecting corresponding user information. For example, the AME 108 is not tied to requesting user information from a single source (e.g., only one of the partner database proprietors 104a-b). Instead, the AME 108 can leverage relationships with multiple partner database proprietors (e.g., the partner database proprietors 104a-b). If one or some partner database proprietors are unable or become unwilling to share user data, the AME 108 can request the user data from one or more other partner database proprietor(s)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Abadir, by incorporating “audience measurement entity (AME), and encryption process”, as taught by Burbank. One could have been motivated to do so in order to select or access multiple different types of device/user identifiers, the AME increases the opportunities for collecting corresponding user information, since the AME is not tied to requesting user information from a single source, and to provide secure communication, and privacy for the subscribers, the panelists, or the proprietors of the tracked content (e.g., only one of the partner database proprietors). Instead, the AME can leverage relationships with multiple partner database proprietors (e.g., the partner database proprietors) [ Burbank, ¶¶27-28, 40, 46, 49].
Abadir, and Burbank do not explicitly disclose. However, Seth discloses, Access token, [¶26, The beacon instructions cause monitoring data reflecting information about the access to the media to be sent from the client that downloaded the media to a monitoring entity. Typically, the monitoring entity is an audience measurement entity that did not provide the media to the client and who is a trusted third party for providing accurate usage statistics (e.g., The Nielsen Company, LLC). Advantageously, because the beaconing instructions are associated with the media and executed by the client browser whenever the media is accessed, the monitoring information is provided to the audience measurement company irrespective of whether the client is a panelist of the audience measurement company], and [¶61, When the example browser 110 requests the web page from the web server 106 (e.g., arrow (1) of FIG. 1), the example web server 106 returns the page content with beacon instructions (e.g., arrow (2) of FIG. 1). The example beacon instruction of FIG. 1 is provided by the AME 102 and/or modified from an instruction provided by the AME 102 to the web server 106, and includes a URL 112 that points to an AME server 114 and specifies, among other things, a media presentation and/or exposure resulting from providing the requested page from the web server 106, and an indication (e.g., the bolded text in the URL 112) of a web server or publisher (e.g., the web server 106) that provided the beacon instruction (e.g., arrow (3) of FIG. 1). In some examples, the web server 106 is controlled by the partner DP 104 or another database proprietor. In some such examples, the web server 106 includes an identifier or other indication of the partner DP 104 in the URL 112. If the browser 110 has previously stored a cookie corresponding to the AME 102 (e.g., an AME cookie) (and the cookie has not expired), the example browser 110 provides the AME cookie with the beacon request) [ see FIGs 1, .3, 6B 7A and corresponding text for beacon instruction and AME cookie, publisher].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Abadir, and Burbank by incorporating “beacon instructions, AME cookie, and DP cookie value”, as taught by Seth. One could have been motivated to do so in order to include the AME-to partner mapping as parameters in URL connection between the AME and partner DP servers. [ Seth, Figs.1-4, and corresponding text].
Abadir, and Burbank do not explicitly disclose:
While Seth discloses media as: [¶26, The beacon instructions cause monitoring data reflecting information about the access to the media to be sent from the client that downloaded the media to a monitoring entity. Typically, the monitoring entity is an audience measurement entity that did not provide the media to the client and who is a trusted third party for providing accurate usage statistics (e.g., The Nielsen Company, LLC). Advantageously, because the beaconing instructions are associated with the media and executed by the client browser whenever the media is accessed, the monitoring information is provided to the audience measurement company irrespective of whether the client is a panelist of the audience measurement company], and [¶61, When the example browser 110 requests the web page from the web server 106 (e.g., arrow (1) of FIG. 1), the example web server 106 returns the page content with beacon instructions (e.g., arrow (2) of FIG. 1). The example beacon instruction of FIG. 1 is provided by the AME 102 and/or modified from an instruction provided by the AME 102 to the web server 106, and includes a URL 112 that points to an AME server 114 and specifies, among other things, a media presentation and/or exposure resulting from providing the requested page from the web server 106, and an indication (e.g., the bolded text in the URL 112) of a web server or publisher (e.g., the web server 106) that provided the beacon instruction (e.g., arrow (3) of FIG. 1). In some examples, the web server 106 is controlled by the partner DP 104 or another database proprietor. In some such examples, the web server 106 includes an identifier or other indication of the partner DP 104 in the URL 112. If the browser 110 has previously stored a cookie corresponding to the AME 102 (e.g., an AME cookie) (and the cookie has not expired), the example browser 110 provides the AME cookie with the beacon request) [ see FIGs 1, .3, 6B 7A and corresponding text for beacon instruction and AME cookie, publisher].
Furthermore, Splaine discloses: [¶49, In the illustrated example of FIG. 2, the AME media analyzer 115 includes the communication receiver 200 to obtain Internet communication. In the illustrated example, the communication receiver 200 implements a web server to obtain a media feed from the media splitter 125 of FIG. 1 via the network 150. For example, the media feed can be pushed to the AME media analyzer 115 from the content publisher 110. In another example, the media feed can be pulled from the content publisher 110 by the AME media analyzer 115. The media feed may be formatted as an HTTP message. However, any other message format and/or protocol may additionally or alternatively be used such as, for example, a file transfer protocol (FTP), a real-time transport protocol (RTP), a real-time control protocol (RTCP), a simple message transfer protocol (SMTP), an HTTP secure (HTTPS) protocol, an HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) protocol, a continuous stream from the example content publisher 110, etc. Alternatively, the media feed may be playback from a standalone file obtained from the example content publisher 110. In some examples, the communication receiver 200 unpacks data from the Internet communication (e.g., extracts data payload from an HTTP message) to be analyzed by the AME media analyzer 115].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Abadir, Burbank, and Seth by incorporating “media feed in HTTP secure (HTTPS) protocol format”, as taught by Splaine. One could have been motivated to do so in order for secure communication between the content publisher and AME media analyzer [ Splaine ¶¶40, 49].
Abadir, Burbank, Seth, and Splaine do not explicitly disclose; however, Peng discloses:
generate deduplication,
[0008] Various aspects of the present disclosure relate to a method for deduplicating data sets corresponding to frequencies of user interaction with a plurality of providers, the method comprising the steps of: receiving, by a data processing system comprising one or more processors and one or more memories, a first set of two or more vector data structures from a first provider of the plurality of providers and a second set of two or more vector data structures from a second provider of the plurality of providers, wherein the vector data structures correspond to a plurality of frequencies, and wherein each of the vector data structures encode identifiers according to a frequency of interaction associated with the identifiers; and combining, by the data processing system, the first set of two or more vector data structures and the second set of two or more vector data structures into a deduplicated frequency distribution, wherein the deduplicated frequency distribution defines a total frequency of user interaction of users associated with the identifiers across both the first provider and the second provider.
[0017] Various aspects of the present disclosure also relate to a system for reducing data sets received from a plurality of providers, the system comprising: a network interface configured to communicate with a plurality of servers associated with the plurality of providers; and one or more processors coupled to the network interface and a memory, the memory comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive, via the network interface, a first set of private sketches from a first provider of the plurality of providers and a second set of private sketches from a second provider of the plurality of providers, the private sketches representing data sets of identifiers, the private sketches corresponding to a plurality of frequencies; generate a combined distribution using the first set of private sketches and the second set of private sketches, the combined distribution deduplicating the data sets represented by the first set of private sketches and by the second set of private sketches; and store, in a database, the combined distribution.
wherein the first and second sketch data comprise respective data structures configured to represent an underlying dataset of user data associated with the media without revealing personally identifiable information (PII) in response to a direct query
[0035-36] A group of providers may each interact with individuals in a population and may individually record the occurrence and frequency of said interactions. Here, an individual (used interchangeable with “user,” “client,” or “customer”) may be associated with a frequency representing the number of times the individual has interacted with a provider for a particular type of interaction (e.g., particular content campaign, particular content item, particular set of content items, particular type/format of content item, particular category of content, etc.). The data sets maintained by each provider are protected to ensure the privacy of the individuals with which the providers interact, and thus the providers are not at liberty to share the details of their recorded data sets with other providers in the group. Yet, the group of providers may be interested to understand the total distribution of interactions for individuals across the entire group of providers per each interaction frequency. For example, a provider or analyst may wish to know how many individuals in the population had a total of 3 interactions with the group of providers, or how many had a total of 5 or more interactions with the group of providers, and so on…. A private sketch is a data structure that provides encoded information regarding identities of users without revealing the identity of users included in the private sketch.
[0037-038] Providers are likewise limited from sharing anonymized data sets since providers would be able to re-identify individuals based on their universal identifier. One standard for data privacy in privatized data sets is to ensure data sets maintain differential privacy. Differential privacy generally stipulates that the privacy of a specific user included in the data set is roughly the same as the privacy of an individual not in the data set. Put another way, differential privacy obscures one’s ability to determine if a specific user was or was not included in a data set.
anonymized deduplication ; anonymizing the deduplicated combined sketch data so as to generate anonymized deduplicated combined sketch data
[0039] The present disclosure provides a solution to these problems by defining a protocol and associated methods for deduplicating data sets for per-frequency analysis in a data-exchange processing system. Generally, a group of providers each generate a pre-defined number of private sketches where each private sketch corresponds to a particular frequency of interaction between individuals and the provider. Each provider can then share their set of private sketches such that a total distribution can be generated. The total distribution anonymously categorizes individuals by the total number of interactions with the entire group of providers (i.e., total frequency), such that a provider or analyst can understand how many unique individuals have interacted with the group of providers one time, how many individuals have interacted with the group two times, and so on. Thus, a differentially private data exchange protocol can be utilized to reduce the size and complexity of exchanged data sets as well as to more accurately deduplicate data sets across the group of providers without exposing protected information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Abadir, Burbank, Seth , and Splaine by incorporating “deduplicating and anonymizing data sets, and ”, as taught by Peng. One could have been motivated to do so in order to implement methods, apparatuses, and systems of generating and combining private sketches of per- frequency reach data with increased accuracy and privacy while reducing size and complexity requirements of data exchange and storage [ Peng ¶¶ 8, 15, 34].
Regarding claim 2, Abadir, Burbank, Seth, and Peng do not explicitly disclose, and Splaine discloses wherein establishing trust with the first third-party publisher comprises establishing trust with the first third-party publisher using a transport layer security (TLS) handshake [¶49, In the illustrated example of FIG. 2, the AME media analyzer 115 includes the communication receiver 200 to obtain Internet communication. In the illustrated example, the communication receiver 200 implements a web server to obtain a media feed from the media splitter 125 of FIG. 1 via the network 150. For example, the media feed can be pushed to the AME media analyzer 115 from the content publisher 110. In another example, the media feed can be pulled from the content publisher 110 by the AME media analyzer 115. The media feed may be formatted as an HTTP message. However, any other message format and/or protocol may additionally or alternatively be used such as, for example, a file transfer protocol (FTP), a real-time transport protocol (RTP), a real-time control protocol (RTCP), a simple message transfer protocol (SMTP), an HTTP secure (HTTPS) protocol, an HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) protocol, a continuous stream from the example content publisher 110, etc. Alternatively, the media feed may be playback from a standalone file obtained from the example content publisher 110. In some examples, the communication receiver 200 unpacks data from the Internet communication (e.g., extracts data payload from an HTTP message) to be analyzed by the AME media analyzer 115].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Abadir, Burbank, Seth, and Peng by incorporating “media feed in HTTP secure (HTTPS) protocol format”, as taught by Splaine. One could have been motivated to do so in order for secure communication between the content publisher and AME media analyzer [ Splaine, ¶¶40, 49].
Regarding claims 11, and 20, these claims are interpreted and rejected for the same rational set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 7, Abadir, Seth, Splaine, and Peng do not explicitly disclose. However, Burbank discloses, obtaining the first sketch data from the first third-party publisher comprises: obtaining encrypted sketch data from the first third-party publisher; and decrypting the encrypted sketch data [¶48, After the AME 108 receives the ACR ID 128 including the device/user identifier(s) 124 in encrypted format, the AME 108 sends encrypted device/user identifier logs 136a-b to corresponding partner database proprietors (e.g., the partner database proprietors 104a-b). In the illustrated example, each of the encrypted device/user identifier logs 136a-b may include a single encrypted device/user identifier, or it may include numerous aggregate encrypted device/user identifiers received over time from one or more mobile devices. After receiving the encrypted device/user identifier logs 136a-b, each of the partner database proprietors 104a-b decrypts its respective encrypted device/user identifiers using its copy(ies) of the encryption key(s). The partner database proprietors 104a-b then look up their users corresponding to the decrypted device/user identifiers and collect corresponding user information 102a-b for those users for sending to the AME 108. For example, if the partner database proprietor 104a is a wireless service provider, the encrypted device/user identifier log 136a includes IMEI numbers, and the wireless service provider accesses its subscriber records to find users having IMEI numbers matching the IMEI numbers received in the encrypted device/user identifier log 136a. When the users are identified, the wireless service provider copies the users' user information to the user information 102a for delivery to the AME 108], and [¶¶28, 45].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Abadir, Seth, Splaine, and Peng by incorporating “encryption process”, as taught by Burbank. One could have been motivated to do so in order to provide secure communication, and privacy for the subscribers, the panelists, or the proprietors of the tracked content [ Burbank, ¶¶27-28, 46].
Regarding claims 10, and 19, these claims are interpreted and rejected for the same rational set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same rational set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 28, Abadir, Seth, Splaine, and Peng do not explicitly disclose, however, Burbank discloses: wherein: the first encrypted data is encrypted with a public key that is generated within the cloud computing environment; and encrypting the first encrypted data comprises decrypting the first encrypted data using a private key, wherein the private key is accessible within a trusted virtual machine generated by the cloud computing environment [¶48, After the AME 108 receives the ACR ID 128 including the device/user identifier(s) 124 in encrypted format, the AME 108 sends encrypted device/user identifier logs 136a-b to corresponding partner database proprietors (e.g., the partner database proprietors 104a-b). In the illustrated example, each of the encrypted device/user identifier logs 136a-b may include a single encrypted device/user identifier, or it may include numerous aggregate encrypted device/user identifiers received over time from one or more mobile devices. After receiving the encrypted device/user identifier logs 136a-b, each of the partner database proprietors 104a-b decrypts its respective encrypted device/user identifiers using its copy(ies) of the encryption key(s). The partner database proprietors 104a-b then look up their users corresponding to the decrypted device/user identifiers and, collect corresponding user information 102a-b for those users for sending to the AME 108. For example, if the partner database proprietor 104a is a wireless service provider, the encrypted device/user identifier log 136a includes IMEI numbers, and the wireless service provider accesses its subscriber records to find users having IMEI numbers matching the IMEI numbers received in the encrypted device/user identifier log 136a. When the users are identified, the wireless service provider copies the users' user information to the user information 102a for delivery to the AME 108], and [¶¶28, 45].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Abadir, Seth, Splaine, and Peng, by incorporating “encryption process”, as taught by Burbank. One could have been motivated to do so in order to provide secure communication, and privacy for the subscribers, the panelists, or the proprietors of the tracked content [ Burbank, ¶¶27-28, 46].
Regarding claim 29, Abadir, Burbank, Seth, and Peng do not explicitly disclose, and Splaine discloses wherein: the set of acts further comprises obtaining job information regarding media for which user data should be collected and aggregated [¶49, In the illustrated example of FIG. 2, the AME media analyzer 115 includes the communication receiver 200 to obtain Internet communication. In the illustrated example, the communication receiver 200 implements a web server to obtain a media feed from the media splitter 125 of FIG. 1 via the network 150. For example, the media feed can be pushed to the AME media analyzer 115 from the content publisher 110. In another example, the media feed can be pulled from the content publisher 110 by the AME media analyzer 115. The media feed may be formatted as an HTTP message. However, any other message format and/or protocol may additionally or alternatively be used such as, for example, a file transfer protocol (FTP), a real-time transport protocol (RTP), a real-time control protocol (RTCP), a simple message transfer protocol (SMTP), an HTTP secure (HTTPS) protocol, an HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) protocol, a continuous stream from the example content publisher 110, etc. Alternatively, the media feed may be playback from a standalone file obtained from the example content publisher 110. In some examples, the communication receiver 200 unpacks data from the Internet communication (e.g., extracts data payload from an HTTP message) to be analyzed by the AME media analyzer 115].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Abadir, Burbank, Seth, and Peng by incorporating “media feed in HTTP secure (HTTPS) protocol format”, as taught by Splaine. One could have been motivated to do so in order for secure communication between the content publisher and AME media analyzer [ Splaine, ¶¶40, 49].
Regarding claim 30, Abadir, Seth, Splaine, and Peng do not explicitly disclose, however, Burbank discloses, wherein the first sketch data provides summary information about the media without revealing personally identifiable information known by the first third-party publisher[¶48, After the AME 108 receives the ACR ID 128 including the device/user identifier(s) 124 in encrypted format, the AME 108 sends encrypted device/user identifier logs 136a-b to corresponding partner database proprietors (e.g., the partner database proprietors 104a-b). In the illustrated example, each of the encrypted device/user identifier logs 136a-b may include a single encrypted device/user identifier, or it may include numerous aggregate encrypted device/user identifiers received over time from one or more mobile devices. After receiving the encrypted device/user identifier logs 136a-b, each of the partner database proprietors 104a-b decrypts its respective encrypted device/user identifiers using its copy(ies) of the encryption key(s). The partner database proprietors 104a-b then look up their users corresponding to the decrypted device/user identifiers and, collect corresponding user information 102a-b for those users for sending to the AME 108. For example, if the partner database proprietor 104a is a wireless service provider, the encrypted device/user identifier log 136a includes IMEI numbers, and the wireless service provider accesses its subscriber records to find users having IMEI numbers matching the IMEI numbers received in the encrypted device/user identifier log 136a. When the users are identified, the wireless service provider copies the users' user information to the user information 102a for delivery to the AME 108], and [¶¶28, 45].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Abadir, Seth, Splaine, and Peng, by incorporating “encryption process”, as taught by Burbank. One could have been motivated to do so in order to provide secure communication, and privacy for the subscribers, the panelists, or the proprietors of the tracked content [ Burbank, ¶¶27-28, 46].
Regarding claim 31, Abadir, Seth, Splaine, and Peng do not explicitly disclose, however, Burbank discloses wherein the data structures comprise non- directly queryable data structures configured to return only a derived value in response to a request for information.
[¶40, By being able to select or access multiple different types of device/user identifiers 124, the AME 108 increases the opportunities for collecting corresponding user information. For example, the AME 108 is not tied to requesting user information from a single source (e.g., only one of the partner database proprietors 104a-b). Instead, the AME 108 can leverage relationships with multiple partner database proprietors (e.g., the partner database proprietors 104a-b). If one or some partner database proprietors are unable or become unwilling to share user data, the AME 108 can request the user data from one or more other partner database proprietor(s)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Abadir, Seth, Splaine, and Peng by incorporating “audience measurement entity (AME), and encryption process”, as taught by Burbank. One could have been motivated to do so in order to select or access multiple different types of device/user identifiers, the AME increases the opportunities for collecting corresponding user information, since the AME is not tied to requesting user information from a single source, and to provide secure communication, and privacy for the subscribers, the panelists, or the proprietors of the tracked content (e.g., only one of the partner database proprietors). Instead, the AME can leverage relationships with multiple partner database proprietors (e.g., the partner database proprietors) [ Burbank, ¶¶27-28, 40, 46, 49].
Regarding claim 32, Abadir, Seth, Splaine, and Burbank do not explicitly disclose, however Peng discloses wherein the deduplicated combined sketch data is generated by blocking double counting of individual audience members represented in both the first sketch data and the second sketch data.
[0036, Deduplication refers to removing entries that may be included multiple times in the data set. For example, a first provider may record interactions with each of Individual A and Individual B while a second provider records interactions with Individual A and Individual C, but when combining the two data sets, Individual A should only be recorded once such that a total of three individuals is recorded as the total reach across the first and second providers.], and [¶¶8, 17].
Regarding claim 33, Abadir, Seth, Splaine, and Burbank do not explicitly disclose, however Peng discloses, wherein the anonymizing the deduplicated combined sketch data comprises at least one of: removing a portion of the deduplicated combined sketch data that includes sensitive user data;
[0036, Deduplication refers to removing entries that may be included multiple times in the data set. For example, a first provider may record interactions with each of Individual A and Individual B while a second provider records interactions with Individual A and Individual C, but when combining the two data sets, Individual A should only be recorded once such that a total of three individuals is recorded as the total reach across the first and second providers.]
[¶54, due to legal restrictions on sharing protected personal information, the hospitals may not be allowed to share the identities of patients they have provided the service to, and thus are unable to share their data freely to calculate a deduplicated distribution of how often patients have received the service].
Regarding claim 34, Abadir, Seth, Splaine, and Burbank do not explicitly disclose, however Peng discloses, wherein the aggregating and anonymizing are performed within a verifiable execution environment.
[See fig. 1 and corresponding text for more details, data processing system, deduplication server]
Regarding claim 35, Abadir, Seth, Splaine, and Burbank do not explicitly disclose, however Peng discloses wherein the set of acts comprises: generating a configuration report within the verifiable execution environment; and providing the configuration report to the first token service or the second token service to verify the integrity of the sketch service
0060-61] The database 125 can be a database configured to store and/or maintain any of the information described herein. The database 125 can maintain one or more data structures which can contain or index each of the values, pluralities, or thresholds described herein. The database 125 can be accessed using one or more memory addresses or index values. The database 125 can be accessed by the components of the data processing system 105, or in some implementations the analyst device 120, via the network 110. In some implementations, the database 125 can exist external to the data processing system 105, and may be accessed via the network 110. The database 125 can be distributed across many different computer systems or storage elements, and may be accessed via the network 110 or a suitable computer bus interface. The data processing system 105 can store, in the database 125, the results of any or all computations, determinations, selections, identifications, generations, constructions, or calculations in one or more data structures indexed with appropriate values, each of which may be accessed by the data processing system 105 or the client devices 135 to perform any of the functionalities or functions described herein. The analyst device 120 can be a computing device configured to communicate via the network 110 to display data such as an indication provided by the data processing system 105 (e.g., an indication displaying the cardinality of the sets of client identifiers 132, the attributes 134, frequency values, or any other values described herein, etc… The analyst device 120 can transmit or receive one or more client identifiers 132 or one or more attributes 134 to the data processing system 105. The analyst device 120 may in some implementations communicate with at least one database 125 to store client identifiers 132 or attributes 134 in association with the respective analyst device 120].
Claims 4-5, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. (US2012/0191790) issued to Abadir and in view of US Patent No. (US2014/0298025) issued to Burbank, and further in view of US Patent No. (US2018/0255151) issued to Seth, and in view of US Patent No. (US2018/0084313) issued to Splaine, and further in view of WO2021/262155 ( PENG JIAYU), hereinafter, “Peng”, and further in view of US Patent No. (US8,370,489) issued to Mazumdar.
Regarding claim 4, Abadir, Burbank, Seth, Splaine, and Peng and do not explicitly disclose, however, Mazumdar wherein establishing trust with the first third-party publisher comprises recording a connection fully qualified domain name (FQDN) of the first third-party publisher during connection to the first third-party publisher [Col. 19 lines 10-31, For purposes of the following illustration, it is assumed that the advertisement 102 is tagged with the beacon instructions 214 (FIG. 2). Initially, the beacon instructions 214 cause the web browser of the client 202 or 203 to send a beacon request 304 to the impression monitor system 132 when the tagged ad is accessed. In the illustrated example, the web browser sends the beacon request 304 using an HTTP request addressed to the URL of the impression monitor system 132 at, for example, a first internet domain. The beacon request 304 includes one or more of a campaign ID, a creative type ID, and/or a placement ID associated with the advertisement 102. In addition, the beacon request 304 includes a document referrer (e.g., www.acme.com), a timestamp of the impression, and a publisher site ID (e.g., the URL http://my.advertiser.com of the ad publisher 302). In addition, if the web browser of the client 202 or 203 contains the panelist monitor cookie 218, the beacon request 304 will include the panelist monitor cookie 218. In other example implementations, the cookie 218 may not be passed until the client 202 or 203 receives a request sent by a server of the impression monitor system 132 in response to, for example, the impression monitor system 132 receiving the beacon request 304], and [ Col. 9 lines 41-67-Col. 10 lines 1-5’ Col. 12 lines 64-67- Col. 13 lines 1-29].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Abadir, Burbank, Seth, Splaine, and Peng by incorporating “beacon instruction”, as taught by Mazumdar. One could have been motivated to do so in order for when the panelist computer executes a web browser that is directed to a host website (e.g., www.acme.com) that displays one of the advertisements and/or content, the advertisement and/or content is tagged with identifier information (e.g., a campaign ID, a creative type ID, a placement ID, a publisher source URL, etc.) and beacon instructions. When the beacon instructions are executed by the panelist computer, the beacon instructions cause the panelist computer to send a beacon request to a remote server specified in the beacon instructions, the specified server is a server of the audience measurement entity, and the AME server is programmed to log the audience measurement data of the beacon request as an impression (e.g., an ad and/or content impressions depending on the nature of the media tagged with the beaconing instruction). [ Mazumdar, Col. 7 lines 36-67, Col. 12 lines 64-67- Col. 13 lines 1-29].
Regarding claim 5, Abadir, Burbank, Seth, Splaine, and Peng do not explicitly disclose, however, Mazumdar, wherein establishing trust with the first third-party publisher further comprises asserting a retrieved FQDN of the first third- party publisher against the connection FQDN of the first third-party publisher [Col. 19 lines 10-31, For purposes of the following illustration, it is assumed that the advertisement 102 is tagged with the beacon instructions 214 (FIG. 2). Initially, the beacon instructions 214 cause the web browser of the client 202 or 203 to send a beacon request 304 to the impression monitor system 132 when the tagged ad is accessed. In the illustrated example, the web browser sends the beacon request 304 using an HTTP request addressed to the URL of the impression monitor system 132 at, for example, a first internet domain. The beacon request 304 includes one or more of a campaign ID, a creative type ID, and/or a placement ID associated with the advertisement 102. In addition, the beacon request 304 includes a document referrer (e.g., www.acme.com), a timestamp of the impression, and a publisher site ID (e.g., the URL http://my.advertiser.com of the ad publisher 302). In addition, if the web browser of the client 202 or 203 contains the panelist monitor cookie 218, the beacon request 304 will include the panelist monitor cookie 218. In other example implementations, the cookie 218 may not be passed until the client 202 or 203 receives a request sent by a server of the impression monitor system 132 in response to, for example, the impression monitor system 132 receiving the beacon request 304], and [ Col. 9 lines 41-67-Col. 10 lines 1-5- Col. 12 lines 64-67- Col. 13 lines 1-29].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Abadir, Burbank, Seth, Splaine, and Peng by incorporating “beacon instruction”, as taught by Mazumdar. One could have been motivated to do so in order for when the panelist computer executes a web browser that is directed to a host website (e.g., www.acme.com) that displays one of the advertisements and/or content, the advertisement and/or content is tagged with identifier information (e.g., a campaign ID, a creative type ID, a placement ID, a publisher source URL, etc.) and beacon instructions. When the beacon instructions are executed by the panelist computer, the beacon instructions cause the panelist computer to send a beacon request to a remote server specified in the beacon instructions, the specified server is a server of the audience measurement entity, and the AME server is programmed to log the audience measurement data of the beacon request as an impression (e.g., an ad and/or content impressions depending on the nature of the media tagged with the beaconing instruction). [ Mazumdar, Col. 7 lines 36-67, Col. 12 lines 64-67- Col. 13 lines 1-29].
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same rational set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same rational set forth in claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen (US10699293) [Network Based System and Method for Managing and Implementing Online Commerce].
Cheng (US2017/0061483) [Method and System for Delivering Managed Messages].
MA (US20199/0130436) [ DYNAMICALLY MODIFYING DIGITAL CONTENT DISTRIBUTION CAMPAIGNS BASED ON TRIGGERING CONDITIONS AND ACTIONS].
Maycotte (US2014/0075018) [ [0004] Systems and methods of audience measurement are disclosed. The techniques described herein may enable a measurement system to track user interactions with various media properties including interactions made using different devices. Audience measurements may be performed across various media formats including audio, video, textual, and game content accessible via the Internet. User identification information, such as social networking profiles and e-mail addresses, may be used to associate interactions with people that are part of the audience. An audience of a particular property (e.g., a website) may be segmented based on various demographic, social, and/or behavioral factors. Audience profiles of multiple properties may also be aggregated, enabling a publisher to evaluate audience characteristics over multiple properties].
Praden (US2012/0124605) [ The invention relates to a method for monitoring an audience measurement relating to data. The data is broadcast, through a broadcast channel, from a broadcast device and to be received by at least one terminal. According to the invention, the method comprises steps in which the broadcast device broadcasts, through the broadcast channel, at least one piece of information relating to a request for measuring an audience of at least one content of the data, said audience report request; and at least one terminal sends back, through a return channel, to an audience report collecting device, as a response to the audience report request, an audience report relating to the at least one content of the broadcast data processed by the at least one terminal, said audience report response. The invention relates also to corresponding terminal and system comprising the broadcast device and the terminal, and a corresponding token likely to cooperate with a terminal].
Wood (US2019/0311396) [ Methods and apparatus are disclosed to determine informed holdouts for an advertisement campaign. An example storage medium includes instructions that, when executed, cause a machine to retrieve user identifiers associated with purchase instances; determine households that correspond to the user identifiers; identify a first and a second group type, the first group type exhibiting a first threshold of purchase behaviors, and the second group type exhibiting a second threshold of purchase behaviors; identify a first holdout group and a second holdout group, reduce computational lift calculation resource consumption by constraining the first holdout group to a first percentage, constraining the second holdout group to a second percentage, the first percentage equal to the second, the first and the second holdout groups are not to be exposed to an advertisement campaign; and determine a lift calculation for the advertisement campaign based on the first and the second holdout groups].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHRIAR ZARRINEH whose telephone number is (571)272-1207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:30pm.
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, Jorge Ortiz-Criado can be reached at 571-272-7624. 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.
/SHAHRIAR ZARRINEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Prosecution Insights