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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 02/26/2026.
Claims 3,6-7,10,13-14,17,20,28 have been canceled.
Claims 1-2,4-5,8-9,11-12,15-16,18-19,21-27, 29 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 02/26/2026 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to the “Double Patenting Rejection”, Applicant filed a terminal disclaimer on May 14, 2025, with respect to U.S. Patent No. 12,028,578. Accordingly, the “Double Patenting Rejection” is withdrawn.
With regard to claims 1-2,4-5,8-9,11-12,15-16,18-19,21-27, 29 rejections under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argues that “in the recent PTAB decision in Ex Parte Desjardins (Appeal 2020-003882), the claims were eligible because they explicitly recited steps for training a model that solved a technical problem ("catastrophic forgetting"). Claim 1 of the present application is analogous to the patent-eligible claims of Desjardins. In particular, claim 1 recites a specific, technical method of training a machine learning model to solve a problem rooted in computer network technology (non-covered impressions), thereby improving the technological functioning of an audience measurement computing system and its underlying databases. In Desjardins, the applicant did not just claim "training a model." Rather, they claimed a specific method of parameter adjustment to preserve task performance across sequential training. Similarly, claim 1 recites a highly specific data pipeline designed to solve the technological gap of "non-covered" digital impressions-a problem that arises when network identifiers fail to match identity databases (page5/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. The instant claims bear no similarity to the Ex Parte Desjardins Holdings decision, because the instant claim merely training a machine learning model to adjust parameter to preserve task performance across sequential training of an audience measurement, that solve the gap of "non-covered" digital impressions in the manner in which it is received, whereas Ex Parte Desjardins (claims to a method of training a machine learning model were directed to improvements in the machine learning technology itself and additionally included data structure elements reciting adjustments in values to plurality of performance parameters while preserving prior values). Additional examples are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a).
The instant invention does nothing that could even be remotely similar to the claims of Ex Parte Desjardins. As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem.
Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-2,4-5,8-9,11-12,15-16,18-19,21-27, 29 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “a key holding of Desjardins is that the claim language itself must reflect the technological improvement described in the specification. Claim 1 achieves this by explicitly reciting how the machine learning output is used to execute a tangible system improvement. It does not stop at generating a mathematical probability. Rather, it recites "adjusting the unique audience total based on the non-coverage factor... thereby improving an audience estimate accuracy for the streaming media”. Furthermore, claim 1 actively alters a computer data structure based on this improvement by "updating census impression counts in an audience metrics database of the audience measurement computing system to increase the accuracy with which the census impression counts correspond to a true count..." Therefore, the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under the basis that claim 1 is directed to "Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity" relating to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities commits the same error overturned in Desjardins. Claim 1 ties the machine learning model to specific network hardware (streaming meters, panelist devices), specific data structures (encoded media tags), and a specific database update that corrects a technological blindspot in digital measurement. Therefore, under the framework of Ex Parte Desjardins, claim 1 integrates the use of a machine learning model or any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and is fully patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant submits that claim 1 is patent eligible. And for the same reasons, Applicant submits that the other independent claims and all dependent claims are patent eligible (page 6/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. The instant claims bear no similarity to the Ex Parte Desjardins Holdings decision, because the instant claim merely training a machine learning model to adjust parameter to preserve task performance across sequential training of an audience measurement, that solve the gap of "non-covered" digital impressions in the manner in which it is received, whereas Ex Parte Desjardins (claims to a method of training a machine learning model were directed to improvements in the machine learning technology itself and additionally included data structure elements reciting adjustments in values to plurality of performance parameters while preserving prior values). Additional examples are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). Ex Parte Desjardins, in which the specification identified the improvement to machine learning technology by explaining how the machine learning model is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about 2 previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting,” and that the claims reflected the improvement identified in the specification. Indeed, enumerated improvements identified in the Desjardins specification included disclosures of the effective learning of new tasks in succession in connection with specifically protecting knowledge concerning previously accomplished tasks; allowing the system to reduce use of storage capacity; and the enablement of reduced complexity in the system. Such improvements were tantamount to how the machine learning model itself would function in operation and therefore not subsumed in the identified mathematical calculation.
As thus, the instant invention does nothing that could even be remotely similar to the claims of Ex Parte Desjardins. As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem.
Furthermore, the recitation of claim 1 of "adjusting the unique audience total based on the non-coverage factor... thereby improving an audience estimate accuracy for the streaming media” and “updating census impression counts in an audience metrics database of the audience measurement computing system to increase the accuracy with which the census impression counts correspond to a true count..." ……. is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method ( adjusting the unique audience total based on the non-coverage factor... thereby improving an audience estimate accuracy for the streaming media) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
As such, the examiner finds that any improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to a business process. Second, under Step 2a, Prong 2, the improvement to a technology or technological field must be rooted in the additional element. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself.
In the instant case the only additional elements are “computing system comprising a server, streaming meters, Internet, database, panelist devices, a network interface memory, processor, machine learning model, which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b.
Thus, any improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea, is an improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are not patent eligible (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.).
Thus, the Office Action DID not commits the same error overturned in Desjardins. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-2,4-5,8-9,11-12,15-16,18-19,21-27, 29 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “With regard to dependent claims 21, 24, and 27, specifically, Applicant submits that these claims are also patent eligible because they demonstrate a concrete technical improvement to the machine learning model itself, and by extension to the entire audience measurement computing system. Claim 21, which is representative of claims 21, 24, and 27, recites "determining an accuracy of the machine learning model by comparing the probabilities of the occurrences of the demographic classifications against information data for the panelists stored in a database of the audience measurement computing system; and based on a determination that the accuracy of the machine learning model is less than a predefined threshold, triggering a training of an updated version of the machine learning model using other streaming meter data obtained from the streaming meters and other media tags from other impression requests obtained from the client devices." This recites a specific, automated feedback mechanism in which the system continuously evaluates the performance of its own machine learning model against ground-truth panelist data and, when the model's accuracy degrades below a defined threshold, automatically triggers retraining using fresh data from both the streaming meters and the client devices. As the specification explains, "[i]f the feedback indicates that the accuracy of the deployed model is less than a threshold or other criterion, training of an updated model can be triggered using the feedback and an updated training data set, updated features, etc., to generate an updated, deployed model." Specification at paragraph [0056]. This is not a generic invocation of machine learning, but rather a system that monitors, evaluates, and conditionally improves the technical performance of the computing system's own predictive model. The threshold-based triggering mechanism dictates precisely when and how the system reallocates computational resources to retrain the model, ensuring that the demographic classification probabilities - and consequently, the downstream coviewing adjustments, non-coverage factor corrections, and census impression count updates - remain technically accurate over time as new data flows in from the distributed streaming meters and client devices. This self-improving capability is a technical improvement to the functioning of the audience measurement computing system itself and is therefore patent eligible (page 6/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. Determining an accuracy of the machine learning model by comparing the probabilities of the occurrences of the demographic classifications against information data for the panelists stored in a database of the audience measurement computing system; and based on a determination that the accuracy of the machine learning model is less than a predefined threshold, triggering a training of an updated version of the machine learning model using other streaming meter data obtained from the streaming meters and other media tags from other impression requests obtained from the client devices does not alter nor change the machine learning model itself. The machine learning model still functions in the stands way a machine learning model is intended to function.
The recitation of using a trained machine learning model in the limitations merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “using a trained machine learning model” limits the identified judicial exceptions to generate filtered accurate data,” this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (neural networks) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
The machine learning do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied , are patent ineligible under 35 USC § 101. As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem.
The use of computing system, machine learning model, database fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method (reallocates computational resources to retrain the model, ensuring that the demographic classification probabilities - and consequently, the downstream coviewing adjustments, non-coverage factor corrections, and census impression count updates - remain technically accurate over time as new data flows in from the distributed streaming meters and client devices in order to improve audience measurement) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
As such, the examiner finds that any improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to a business process. Second, under Step 2a, Prong 2, the improvement to a technology or technological field must be rooted in the additional element. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements are “ computing system, machine learning model, database, meter”, which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b.
Thus, any improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea, is an improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are not patent eligible (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.).
Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-2,4-5,8-9,11-12,15-16,18-19,21-27, 29 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
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, 4-5,8-9, 11-12, 15-16, 18-19 and 21-27, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The analysis for this determination is explained below:
Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 21-23, 29 are directed to a machine (i.e. an apparatus); claims 8-9, 11-12, 24-26 are directed to a manufacturer (i.e. a non-transitory computer medium); and claims 15-16, 18-19 and 27-28 are directed to a method (i.e. a process).
The claimed invention is directed to at least one judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 for instance recite(s) the following abstract idea of: “ a plurality of streaming meters located at panelist households remotely, wherein the streaming meters are configured to monitor activities of panelists at the panelist households, collect streaming meter data comprising streaming events, and transmit the streaming meter data, wherein the streaming events include events from streaming applications executed by connected televisions to present streaming media and indicate exposure of panelists to the streaming media,wherein the streaming meter; obtaining the streaming meter data over and from the streaming meters; obtaining, from a plurality impression requests that indicate exposure to the streaming media and comprise media tags that include identifying information for users that were exposed to the streaming media, wherein the streaming media comprises monitoring instructions that, transmit the impression requests; based on the obtained impression requests, logging media tag impressions corresponding to the exposure to the streaming media; encoding features in the media tags for use, wherein the features comprises two or more of designated market area data, client type, daypart, or household demographics data received from a database proprietor reformatting the streaming meter data to match an alphanumeric format of the reformatted media tags, the alphanumeric format being an input parameter; training using the reformatted streaming meter data and the media tags having the encoded features, wherein the training configures to use input data in the form of one or more of streaming meter data or media tags to generate probabilities of occurrences of demographic classifications of audience members who have viewed particular streaming media with which the input data is associated; retraining over time based on additional streaming meter data obtained from the streaming meters and further based on additional media tags from additional impression requests obtained; executing to generateprobabilities of occurrences of demographic classifications of audience members who have viewed the streaming media; generating a coviewing factor based on panel data; generatingdatabased on the coviewing factor, wherein the viewer assignment output data includes an estimate for a total number of audience members in each of a plurality of demographic classifications that were exposed to the streaming media; determining a unique audience total for the streaming media based on probabilities of the occurrences of the demographic classifications, wherein the unique audience total determined based on the probabilities does not account for non -covered impressions of the streaming media logged by the database proprietor that the database proprietor can not match to known household demographic data ; determining a non-coverage factor based on the viewer assignment output data; adjusting the unique audience total based on the non-coverage factor so that the adjusted audience total reflects unique audience totals for both covered impressions that the database proprietor has matched to known household demographic data and the non- covered impressions that the database proprietor, thereby improving an audience estimate accuracy for the streaming media; generating a report including the adjusted unique audience total and based on the report, updating census impression counts in an audience metrics database of the audience to increase with which the census impression counts correspond to a true count of census impressions from a base of subscribers of the database proprietor”.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of “ server, Internet, database, device, a network interface memory, processor, machine learning model”. The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the additional elements of “ server, Internet, database, device, a network interface memory, processor, machine learning model”, to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraphs162-167); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
transmit the streaming meter data over the Internet to the server, wherein…;
obtaining the streaming meter data over the Internet and from the streaming meters
obtaining, from a plurality of client devices and over the Internet, impression requests that indicate exposure to the streaming media and comprise media tags that include identifying information for users that were exposed to the streaming media, wherein the streaming media comprises monitoring instructions that, upon receipt by the client devices, are executed by web browsers of the client devices to cause the client devices to transmit the impression requests to the server;
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e.MPEP Step 2B=No).
For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 8, 15.
The dependent claims 2,3-5,9,11-12,15-16,18-19, 21-28 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), by adding the additional steps of: determining which ones of the media tags include identifying information that matches stored identification data for the panelists, wherein reformatting the media tags comprises reformatting the media tags determined to include identifying information that matches the stored identification data for the panelists (claims 2, 9 and 16); determining the non-coverage factor by dividing a count of the covered impressions to a count of measurable impressions, the measurable impressions including the covered impressions and the non-covered impressions, the count of the covered impressions and the count of the measurable impressions included in the viewer assignment outputdata (claims 4, 11, 18 ); aggregating a covered impressions total and a covered unique audience total from the viewer assignment outputdata; combining the non-coverage factor with the aggregated covered impressions and unique audience total; deriving non-coverage frequency by dividing the covered impressions total by the covered unique audience total; and adjusting the unique audience total by dividing the total impressions total by the non- coverage frequency (claims 5,12,19); determining an accuracy by comparing the probabilities of the occurrences of the demographic classifications against information data for the panelists stored in a database of the audience measurement computing system; and based on a determination that the accuracy is less than a predefined threshold, triggering a training of an updated version of using other streaming meter data obtained from the streaming meters and other media tags from other impression requests obtained from the client devices (claim 21); updating census impression counts in an audience metrics database of the audience measurement based on the adjusted unique audience total in the generated report (claim 22); wherein the streaming events in the streaming meter data include streaming events from look-alike streaming applications installed on the connected televisions, wherein the look-alike streaming applications are associated with target streaming applications for a media campaign, and wherein reformatting the streaming meter data to match the alphanumeric format of the reformatted media tags comprises reformatting the streaming events that correspond to the look- alike streaming applications to match the alphanumeric format of the reformatted media tags;(claim 23); determining an accuracy by comparing the probabilities of the occurrences of the demographic classifications against information data for the panelists stored in a database of the audience measurement; and based on a determination that the accuracy is less than a predefined threshold, triggering a training of an updated version using other streaming meter data obtained from the streaming meters and other media tags from other impression requests (claim 24); updating census impression counts in an audience metrics database of the audience measurement based on the adjusted unique audience total in the generated report (claims 25 and 28); wherein the streaming events in the streaming meter data include streaming events from look-alike streaming applications installed on the connected televisions, wherein the look-alike streaming applications are associated with target streaming applications for a media campaign, and wherein reformatting the streaming meter data to match the alphanumeric format of the reformatted media tags comprises reformatting the streaming events that correspond to the look- alike streaming applications to match the alphanumeric format of the reformatted media tags (claim 26); determining an accuracy by comparing the probabilities of the occurrences of the demographic classifications against information data for the panelists stored in a database of the audience measurement; and based on a determination that the accuracy is less than a predefined threshold, triggering a training of an updated version using other streaming meter data obtained from the streaming meters and other media tags from other impression requests obtained (claim 27); transmitting the report to another computing device via the network interface (claim 29) which is considered part of the abstract idea and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2B=No).
Thus, the dependent claims further narrows the abstract idea and/or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent claims 1,8 and 15.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or 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.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2,4-5,8-9,11-12,15-16,18-19,21-27,29 recite subject matter that would be allowable if the applicant were to be able to overcome the Claim rejection under 35 USC § 101 and Double patenting rejection. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, none of the cited reference discloses the claimed features of independent of claims 1,8,15 As such, the examiner, has been unable to find prior art that discloses the combination of the independent claims claimed features. Thus, the claims contain subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant to be able to overcome the Claim rejections under 35 USC § 101 and the Double patenting rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure.
Lipap et al, Us Pub No: 2016/0379246 A, teaches methods and apparatus to estimate an unknown audience size from reordered demographic impressions.
Tucker, US Pub No: 2023/0096891 A1, teaches determining demographic classification for census level impression counts and unique audience sizes.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 files within TWO MONTHS from 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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [ Mon-Thursday 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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 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.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622