DETAILED ACTION
Notice relating to Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 14 JANUARY 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference(s) and/or citations being used in the current rejection.
Examiner’s Note
It is noted to Applicant that Allowable subject matter has been indicated in related Applications 15/219,259 and 16/120,149. Applicant is suggested to try and incorporate similar Allowable content into the current Application’s claims to try and move prosecution forward to an Allowance. Applicant is also cautioned not to repeat allowable subject matter in a manner that could lead to a double patenting rejection. This is just a note and suggestion by the Examiner, any amendments made by Applicant will be searched thoroughly before a final indication on Allowability is made.
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, 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 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 2, 4-9, 11, 13-15, 17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldrey et al., US 2012/0158461 in view of Mohammed et al., US 2014/0025660 and further in view of Julian, US 2014/0237496, Vos et al., US 2014/0108130, and Rao et at., US 2015/0262207.
Regarding claim 2, Aldrey discloses a method, comprising:
obtaining, via a user interface (with at least a user interface(s)/GUI(s); page 4, paragraph 51, and page 9, paragraph 94), an advertising campaign from a user, the advertising campaign configured to target a plurality of consumers (obtaining campaign from a user, wherein the campaign is for targeting particular user(s); pages 9-10, paragraphs 97-98, and page 10, paragraph 104);
obtaining first data associated with a consumer included in the plurality of consumers from a first data source, and second data associated with the consumer from a second data source (system can obtain tracking data of user(s), wherein the data is obtained from a plurality of devices/networks/sources, i.e. including at least a first and second; page 4, paragraphs 52-53);
generating consumer behavior data using the first data and the second data (data is compiled and formatted, i.e. used to generate, data about the user(s); page 4, paragraph 53, and wherein related to behavior(s); page 4, paragraph 52, and page 5, paragraph 54, and page 13, paragraph 134);
receiving viewer data for the plurality of consumers, wherein the viewer data comprises a device identifier and a list of one or more media items that were played on a device associated with the consumer (data can also include viewing data, which includes at least content, i.e. one or more, that was viewed on particular devices, and the devices can be identified via a device identifier; page 5, paragraph 54);
obtaining a request from the user for information relative to the consumer in view of the advertising campaign (can request information about the advertising campaign, such as checking on the progress of a campaign, i.e. information relative to consumer(s)/user(s) such as gender/age/education, etc.; page 11, paragraph 112); and
in response to obtaining the request for information, generating a report based on at least the first data, the second data, and the viewer data and sending the report to the user via the user interface (can be presented with a screen, i.e. generated data, pertaining to the campaign, which includes impressions, graphs, and other information derived from collected information such as the first, second, and viewer data; page 11, paragraph 112, and page 12, paragraph 114, and page 9, paragraph 97, and again with at least a user interface(s)/GUI(s); page 4, paragraph 51, and page 9, paragraph 94).
While Aldrey also discloses first data from a first data source and second data from a second data source (system can obtain tracking data of user(s), wherein the data is obtained from a plurality of devices/networks/sources, i.e. including at least a first and second; page 4, paragraphs 52-53), Aldrey does not explicitly disclose using second data from a second data source to validate at least some of first data from a first data source, the second data to be used as a truth set to perform a calibration of the first data from the first data source, including to correct for one or more biases in the first data from the first data source including a household-level aggregation bias arising from shared devices, the calibration to generate calibrated first data;
using the calibrated first data;
viewer data with each media item including at least a program or episode identifier and temporal metadata; and
generating an element of a consumer graph, the element comprising an association of consumer behavior data to viewer data for a consumer.
In a related art, Mohammed does disclose generating an element of a consumer graph, the element comprising an association of consumer behavior data to viewer data for a consumer (graph can be generated/constructed with at least a user element, which shows associations between behavioral data, i.e. visits/likes, and viewing data, i.e. watched on movie/streaming service; page 6, paragraphs 56-57, and Fig. 3, and page 8, paragraph 74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Aldrey and Mohammed, by allowing graphs of user data to be constructed from monitored/gathered information, in order to provide an improved system and method for secure collection, use, management, and/or distribution of personal information relating to a user (Mohammed; page 1, paragraph 5).
Aldrey in view of Mohammed does not explicitly disclose using second data from a second data source to validate at least some of first data from a first data source, the second data to be used as a truth set to perform a calibration of the first data from the first data source, including to correct for one or more biases in the first data from the first data source including a household-level aggregation bias arising from shared devices, the calibration to generate calibrated first data;
using the calibrated first data; and
viewer data with each media item including at least a program or episode identifier and temporal metadata.
In a related art, Julian does disclose using second data from a second data source to validate at least some of first data from a first data source (validation of data from one source, with data from a different source; page 1, paragraph 4, and pages 6-7, paragraph 45, and page 10, paragraph 65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Aldrey, Mohammed, and Julian, by allowing multiple data sources to be utilized for verifying other received data, in order to provide an improved system and method for digital advertising measurement and verification of audience segments and/or user data (Julian; page 1, paragraph 1).
While Aldrey in view of Mohammed and Julian does again disclose first data from a first data source and second data from a second data source (Aldrey; system can obtain tracking data of user(s), wherein the data is obtained from a plurality of devices/networks/sources, i.e. including at least a first and second; page 4, paragraphs 52-53, and Julian; validation of data from one source, with data from a different source; page 1, paragraph 4, and pages 6-7, paragraph 45, and page 10, paragraph 65), Aldrey in view of Mohammed and Julian does not explicitly disclose data to be used as a truth set to perform a calibration of other data, including to correct for one or more biases in the other data, including a household-level aggregation bias arising from shared devices, the calibration to generate calibrated data;
using the calibrated data; and
viewer data with each media item including at least a program or episode identifier and temporal metadata.
In a related art, Vos does disclose data to be used as a truth set to perform a calibration of other data, including to correct for one or more biases in the other data, the calibration to generate calibrated data (can utilize calibration panel data/log, i.e. truth set based on official/true data, for performing calibration of other data; page 4, paragraph 33, and page 5, paragraph 48, and wherein for adjusting at least a bias in first data; page 4, paragraph 41, and page 5, paragraph 46-47); and
using the calibrated data (using the calibrated data; page 5, paragraph 49, and pages 5-6, paragraph 52, and Fig. 2, elements 220 and 222).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Aldrey, Mohammed, Julian, and Vos by allowing certain data sources to be utilized for corrections/adjustments of other received data, in order to provide an improved system and method for determining performance of a campaign by adjusting for errors in a determined distribution by at least compensating for a first error factor associated with a known error bias (Vos; see abstract, and page 1, paragraph 5).
Aldrey in view of Mohammed and Julian and Vos does not explicitly disclose bias including a household-level aggregation bias arising from shared devices; and
viewer data with each media item including at least a program or episode identifier and temporal metadata.
In a related art, Rao does disclose correcting bias including a household-level aggregation bias arising from shared devices (correction of bias based on shared device(s) between multiple persons of a household; page 3, paragraph 38, and page 7, paragraph 60, and page 22, paragraph 147, and page 23, paragraph 155); and
viewer data with each media item including at least a program or episode identifier and temporal metadata (with user identifiers; page 11, paragraph 85, and program identifiers and timestamps, i.e. temporal type metadata; page 37, paragraph 262, and page 38, paragraphs 266-267).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Aldrey, Mohammed, Julian, Vos, and Rao by allowing correction of certain biased data, and allowing monitored data to contain particular types of information, in order to provide an improved system and method for monitoring media and compensating impression data for misattribution and/or noncoverage by a database proprietor (Rao; page 1, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 4, Aldrey in view of Mohammed, Julian, Vos, and Rao discloses the first source is a first-party source and the second source is a third-party source (Aldrey; from various sources; page 4, paragraphs 52-53, and Mohammed; sources can include a local, i.e. first-party source, as well as other third-party sources; page 5, paragraph 48).
Regarding claim 5, Aldrey in view of Mohammed, Julian, Vos, and Rao discloses the first data is a consumer graph and the second source is a panel (Aldrey; at least some data, i.e. first and/or second, can include panel information such as demographics and viewing history related information; page 11, paragraph 110, and page 14, paragraph 142; and Mohammed; at least some data, i.e. first and/or second, can include panel information such as demographics and viewing information; page 8, paragraph 78, and page 4, paragraph 45, and page 9, paragraph 83, and/or graph information such as an interest graph and entity graph; page 8, paragraphs 79 and 81).
Regarding claim 6, Aldrey in view of Mohammed, Julian, Vos, and Rao discloses the consumer graph comprises a plurality of nodes and each node includes aggregated consumer data associated with a consumer (Mohammed; graph(s) with connected nodes, including collected/aggregated information relating to a user, such as interests, friends, family, etc.; page 9, paragraphs 82-83).
Regarding claim 7, Aldrey in view of Mohammed, Julian, Vos, and Rao discloses the report includes one or more metrics associated with the advertising campaign, the first data, the second data, and the viewer data (Aldrey; including information on at least performance metrics for the campaign in relation to the obtained/tracked data; page 11, paragraph 112, and page 12, paragraph 119, and page 14, paragraph 145).
Regarding claim 8, Aldrey in view of Mohammed, Julian, Vos, and Rao discloses the one or more metrics include at least one of incremental reach, media interface associated with the viewer data, and demographic metrics (Aldrey; including information on at least performance metrics for the campaign, including at least demographics, devices/platforms associated with it, etc.; page 11, paragraph 112, and page 12, paragraph 119, and page 14, paragraph 145).
Regarding claim 9, Aldrey in view of Mohammed, Julian, Vos, and Rao discloses the media interface comprises at least one of a linear format, a streaming format, and a digital format (Aldrey; can be at least linear, i.e. television show; page 7, paragraph 74, and/or digital media stream; page 1, paragraph 19, and/or streaming, i.e. for advertising in-stream; page 10, paragraph 100).
Claim 11, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 2. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
one or more processors (Aldrey; with at least processing system; page 12, paragraph 125); and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to perform operations (Aldrey; processor executable instructions accessed from memory/storage which can include non-transitory computer-readable mediums; pages 12-13, paragraphs 125-126).
Claim 13, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 4.
Claim 14, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 5.
Claim 15, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claims 7, 8, and 9.
Claim 17, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable media , is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claims 2 and 11.
Claim 19, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable media , is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 4.
Claim 20, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable media , is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 5.
Claim 21, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable media , is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claims 7, 8, 9, and 15.
Claims 3, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldrey et al., US 2012/0158461 in view of Mohammed et al., US 2014/0025660, Julian, US 2014/0237496, Vos et al., US 2014/0108130, and Rao et at., US 2015/0262207, and further in view of Bruich, US 2014/0304061.
Regarding claim 3, Aldrey in view of Mohammed, Julian, Vos, and Rao discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 2.
Aldrey in view of Mohammed, Julian, Vos, and Rao does not explicitly disclose one or more of first data, second data, and viewer data is de-identified by creating a hashed identifier, where each hashed identifier is associated with the first data and the second data, or the viewer data.
In a related art, Bruich does disclose one or more of first data, second data, and viewer data is de-identified by creating a hashed identifier, where each hashed identifier is associated with the first data and the second data, or the viewer data (hashed user data is created and utilized/associated with sources of information/data by the system in order to obscure viewing and user ID information, i.e. de-identified; page 2, paragraph 13, and pages 4-5, paragraphs 35-37, and page 5, paragraph 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Aldrey, Mohammed, Julian, Vos, Rao, and Bruich by allowing monitored/collected user information to be de-identified, in order to provide an improved system and method for determining the advertising reach and impressions of an advertisement, broken out by demographic groups without exposing actual data known by each data source (Bruich; page 1, paragraph 8).
Claim 12, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 3.
Claim 18, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable media, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 3.
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldrey et al., US 2012/0158461 in view of Mohammed et al., US 2014/0025660, Julian, US 2014/0237496, Vos et al., US 2014/0108130, and Rao et at., US 2015/0262207, and further in view of Archibong et al., US 2013/0268973.
Regarding claim 10, Aldrey in view of Mohammed, Julian, Vos, and Rao discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 2, as well as in response to the one or more media items being played on the device and a second device associated with the consumer, associating the viewer data relative to the device and the second device (Aldrey; content can be viewed partially on one device as well as other device(s), wherein the individual can be identified as viewing the content based on the identifiers; page 5, paragraph 54).
Aldrey in view of Mohammed, Julian, Vos, and Rao does not explicitly disclose deduplicating viewer data.
In a related art, Archibong does disclose deduplicating viewer data (system can take collected/monitored viewer data and deduplicate it; page 6, paragraph 48, and page 7, paragraph 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Aldrey, Mohammed, Julian, Vos, Rao, and Archibong, by allowing data to be organized and sorted/filtered such that redundant/duplicate counting of data was not performed, in order to provide an improved system and method for discovering content watched, "liked", or scheduled to be watched (Archibong; page 1, paragraph 18).
Claim 16, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY A FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)270-5680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6:00am - 3:00pm 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, BENJAMIN BRUCKART can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/RANDY A FLYNN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424