DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a final action in reply to the response filed on June 24, 2026.
Claims 1-2, 6-10 and 30-31 have been amended.
Claims 1-2, 6-10, 13-15 and 30-31 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Amendments
The rejection of claims 1-2, 6-10, 13-15 and 30-31 under 35 USC § 112(b) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 6-10, 13-15 and 30-31 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained. Please see the Response to Arguments.
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 1-2, 6-10, 13-15 and 30-31 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. Per MPEP 2106.03 Eligibility Step 1: The Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter [R-07.2022]. Step 1 is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Herein, claims 1-2 and 6-8 falls within statutory class of a machine, claims 9-10 and 13-15 falls within statutory category of a process and claims 30-31 falls within statutory class of an article of manufacturing. Hence, the claims qualify as potentially eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C §101. With Step 1 being directed to a statutory category, per MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception [R-07.2022].
Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test). The 2019 PEG makes two changes in Step 2A: It sets forth new procedure for Step 2A (called “revised Step 2A”) under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. The two-prong inquiry is as follows: Prong One: evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If claim recites an exception, then Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea indicated by non-boldface font and additional limitations indicated by boldface font:
Claim 1:
a processor; and at least one memory having stored thereon program instructions that upon execution by the processor, cause performance of a set of operations comprising:
communicate with an external data source to obtain external data, the external data including information on a potential panelist from the panelist data;
determine a category of the potential panelist representing a type of response to the request to join a panel, wherein the category represents refusers;
match the refusers from the panelist data to the external data to identify the potential panelist from the panelist data;
generate weighting information on the potential panelist using a weighting model and to update the weighting model based at least in part on whether the potential panelist already had a weight generated by the weighting model, wherein to generate the weighting information on the potential panelist using the weighting model, the set of operations further comprises:
determine that the weight generated by the weighting model for the potential panelist should be regenerated based on the potential panelist being matched as a refuser for the panel wherein the potential panelist had previously refused to join the panel, the previous request to join the panel in a previous request to join the panel different than the request to join the panel; and;
reweight the weight generated by the weighting model with a different weight as the weighting information on the potential panelist, wherein the weighting model is updated by the reweighting of the weight;
calculate a correction factor based on the weighting information;
apply the correction factor to update the panelist data to obtain adjusted panelist data, the adjusted panelist, the adjusted panelist data having reduced non-response error as compared to the panelist data; generate a report including the adjusted panelist data; and
provide the report including adjusted panelist data having the reduced non-response error.
Claim 9:
communicating with an external data source to obtain external data, the external data including information on a potential panelist from the panelist data;
determining a category of the potential panelist representing a type of response to the request to join a panel, wherein the category represents refusers;
matching the refusers from the panelist data to the external data to identify the potential panelist from the panelist data as a refuser for the panel;
generating weighting information on the potential panelist using a weighting model and to update the weighting model based at least in part on whether the potential panelist already had a weight generated by the weighting model, wherein generating the weighting information on the potential panelist using the weighting model, the set of operations further comprises:
determining that the potential panelist had previously refused to join the panel in a previous request to join the panel, the previous request to join the panel different than the request to join the panel; and
reweighting the weight generated by the weighting model with a different weight as the weighting information on the potential panelist, wherein the weighting model is updated by the reweighting of the weight;
calculating a correction factor based on the weighting information;
applying the correction factor to the panelist data to obtain adjusted panelist data;
generating a report including the adjusted panelist data; and
providing the report including adjusted panelist data having the reduced non-response error.
Claim 30:
communicating, by the one or more processor, with an external data source to obtain external data, the external data including information on a potential panelist from the panelist data;
determining a category of the potential panelist representing a type of response to the request to join a panel, wherein the category represents refusers:
matching, by the one or more processor, the refusers from the panelist data to the external data to identify the potential panelist from the panelist data as a refuser for the panel;
generating, by the one or more processor, weighting information on the potential panelist using a weighting model and to update the weighting model based at least in part on whether the potential panelist already had a weight generated by the weighting model, wherein generating the weighting information on the potential panelist using the weighting model, the set of operations further comprises:
determining that the potential panelist had previously refused to join the panel in a previous request to join the panel different than the request to join the panel, the previous request to join the panel; and
reweighting the weight generated by the weighting model with a different weight as the weighting information on the potential panelist, wherein the weighting model is updated by the reweighting of the weight;
calculating, by the one or more processor, a correction factor based on the weighting information; applying, by the one or more processor, the correction factor to the panelist data to obtain adjusted panelist data;
generating, by the one or more processor, a report including the adjusted panelist data; and
providing, by the one or more processor, the report including adjusted panelist data having the reduced non-response error.
Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within Mental Processes: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The processor and memory is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computing and processing system. This processor and memory is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing devices each comprising at least a processor and memory. Further, processor configured to cause receiving/determining/transmitting data is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More [R-07.2022] is directed to Step 2B. Therein, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of a processor and memory. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, executing all the steps/functions by a user/service subsystem is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic processor and memory type structure at paragraphs 0083: “ The processor circuitry 512 of the illustrated example includes a local memory 513 (e.g., a cache, registers, etc.). The processor circuitry 512 of the illustrated example is in communication with a main memory including a volatile memory 514 and a non-volatile memory 516 by a bus 518. The volatile memory 514 may be implemented by Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory (SDRAM), Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM), RAMBUS® Dynamic Random Access Memory (RDRAM®), and/or any other type of RAM device. The non-volatile memory 516 may be implemented by flash memory and/or any other desired type of memory device.” See also paragraphs 0081-0082 and 0090.
Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims). The same rationale applies to claims 9 and 30. The dependent claims 2, 6-8, 10, 13-15 and 31 do not cure the above stated deficiencies, and in particular, the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2, 10 and 31 further limit the abstract idea by displaying of a prompt to request the potential panelist to join the panel (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 6 and 13 further limit the abstract idea by accessing data from a storage, wherein the data from the storage used to identify the potential panelist (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 7 and 14 further limit the abstract idea by generating a report on the potential panelist based on the updated panelist data, wherein the potential panelist is representative of at least one of a non-responder or a refuser (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea. And claims 8 and 15 further limit the abstract idea by updating the weighting model based on the weighting information (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). The identified recitation of the dependents claims falls within the Mental Processes: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101. Thus, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant argues that “amended claim 1’s recitations involves an “audience measurement computing system “ – are directed to improvements to a computing system in the audience measurement technical field” (Remarks, pages 8-11).
In response to Applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The processor and memory is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving/determining/transmitting data i.e., analyzing panelist data and reporting the adjusted panelist data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Considering the claims as a whole, these additional limitations merely add generic computer activities i.e., receiving/determining/generating/transmitting. The recited processor and memory, merely links the abstract idea to a computer environment. In this way, the processor and memory involvement is merely a field of use which only contributes nominally and insignificantly to the recited method, which indicates absence of integration. Claims 1, 9 and 30 uses the processor and memory as a tool, in its ordinary capacity, to carry out the abstract idea. Claims 1, 9 and 30 uses the weighting model as a tool, in its ordinary capacity of normalizing/smoothing data, to carry out the abstract idea. As to this level of computer involvement, mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not necessarily indicate a patent-eligible improvement in computer technology. Considered as a whole, the claimed method does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or the audience measurement technical field. With regard that the claims are similar to Ex parte Desjardins, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner has carefully reviewed the specifications and the claims and is unable to find some technical way that there is an improvement or technical solution to the audience measurement technical field. Further, a processor configured to cause receiving/determining/transmitting data to a device is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception. As per MPEP 2106.05 (a) II. Improvements to any other technology or technical field please see the examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to shown an improvement to technology such as gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADJA CHONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3939. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 2:00 pm ET, 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, RUTAO WU can be reached on 571.272.6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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://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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NADJA N CHONG CRUZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights