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
Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.1141
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 2, 2026 has been entered.
This action is a Non-Final action on the merits in response to communications filed on 09/02/2026.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 13 and 15 have been amended. Claims 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17 and 19-20 have been cancelled. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1, 2,4, 5, 8, 9,11, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 21 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been considered.
Applicant argues, “ Accordingly, claims 1 and 8 as amended do not recite a method of organizing human activity.” (pgs. 13-14)
The claims encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity related to related to managing personal behavior and sales/marketing behaviors (Spec ¶0004). For instance, steps of sending a list of applications to be monitored, obtaining panelist to application data, receiving application reporting/usage data collected by an application meter, determining a primary viewer, associating demographics and generating a viewing report involves sales/marketing behavior and personal behavior collecting usage data. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Activity.
As the Specification indicates the claimed invention is related to audience measurement to collect viewing/usage data (marketing behaviors) that can be used in media/market research and targeting (see ¶0002-¶0004). Additionally, steps such as collecting application usage data and determining a primary user covers managing personal behavior, where the managing can be the identifying of the primary user.
Applicant argues, “ … that the claims as a whole integrate any such exception into a practical application.” (pgs. 14-15)
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a processor, a memory and a mobile device. Claim 8 recites the additional elements of computing system and a mobile device. Claim 15 recites the additional elements of a mobile device and a computing system comprising a processor and memory. These are generic computer components performing generic computer functionality (Spec ¶0087, various computer types).
For instance regarding claims 1 and 8, the steps of obtaining a device identifier of a mobile device, obtaining from a mobile panelist to application designation data, obtaining data identifying usage on the mobile device, sending a list of applications to be monitored, receiving application reporting data collected by an application meter on mobile device, accessing the panelist to application stored data and obtaining demographics for the primary viewer are data gathering activities. The steps of storing the panelist to application data is generic functionality. The steps of determining a primary viewer and associating the demographics with the usage of the application calculating a date of the usage from timestamp info is collecting and analyzing data. The step of generating a viewing report is displaying the result of the collecting and analyzing data.
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues, “ Even assuming that amended claim 1 recites an abstract idea, the claim satisfies the criteria for eligibility because it integrates the exception into a practical application.” (pgs. 9-10)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements of a processor, a memory, a mobile device and a computing system. These are generic computer components performing generic computer functionality (Spec ¶0087, various computer types).
For instance, the steps of obtaining a device identifier of a mobile device, obtaining from a mobile panelist to application designation data, obtaining data identifying usage on the mobile device, receiving application reporting data collected by an application meter on mobile device, accessing the panelist to application stored data and obtaining demographics for the primary viewer are data gathering activities. The steps of storing the panelist to application data is generic functionality. The steps of determining a primary viewer and associating the demographics with the usage of the application is collecting and analyzing data. The step of generating a viewing report is displaying known data. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues, “The specification identifies a concrete technical problem and explains the mechanism by which to solve it…The claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement-automated, non-intrusive audience measurement-by including the specific steps to achieve it.” (pgs. 15-16)
As stated previously stated the claims are directed to abstract concept of Certain Methods of Human activity and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The independent claims do not provide for an improvement in a technology or a technical field. The claims appear to be an improved business process for monitoring usage of various applications.
Applicant argues similar to Example 40, “The same analysis applies to claims 1 and 8 as amended: the individually recited receiving and retrieving acts must be assessed as part of the ordered combination, which as a whole is directed to a particular improvement in collecting and reporting audience measurement data…” (pgs. 16-17)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike Example 40, the instant application is directed to steps such as steps of sending a list of applications to be monitored, obtaining panelist to application data, receiving application reporting/usage data collected by an application meter, determining a primary viewer, associating demographics and generating a viewing report involves performed by generic computer components. These limitations are related to abstract concepts that are not integrated into a practical application. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, there is no indication of an improvement in a technology or a technical field.
Applicant argues regarding the application meter, “ This is not generic data
gathering; it is a specific technical component with defined subcomponents and defined
operations. ” (pgs. 17-18)
Examiner notes that the embedded application meter is a commonly used tool for tracking usage data. The associated limitation with the embedded application meter demonstrates collecting and analyzing data through detecting presentation media, extracting media-identifying metadata and correlating data to generate reporting data.
Applicant argues, “Claims 1 and 8 as amended are analogous to the eligible Claim 1 of Example 42: they recite a specific ordered combination of provisioning, receiving, computing and reporting steps that together achieve a concrete improvement-automated, non-intrusive audience measurement…” (pgs. 18-19)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rationale of Example 42 is not analogous to the instant claims. As previously noted these limitations are related to abstract concepts that are not integrated into a practical application. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant argues, “Should the Examiner reach Step 2B, Applicant submits that the rejection's conclusion that the additional elements amount to well-understood, routine, conventional activity is not supported by the cited authority.” (pgs. 21-22)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a processor, a memory, a mobile device and a computing system are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, the steps of obtaining a device identifier of a mobile device; obtaining from the mobile device via a network communication panelist to application data; receiving application reporting data collected by an application meter on mobile device, etc. are considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant argues, “ The same reasoning applies here: the ordered combination of provisioning, receiving, computing and retrieving acts recited by claims 1 and 8 as amended is a non-conventional arrangement that provides the technical improvement described in the specification-automated, non-intrusive audience measurement.” (pgs. 22-23)
In Bascom the court found that although the additional elements were generic computer elements when considered individually, when considered in combination an inventive concept was found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements. The claims in Bascom did not merely recite the abstract idea of
filtering content along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet, or to perform it on a set of generic computer components. The inventive concept is in the technical feature of network technology in a filtering system by associating individual accounts with their own filtering scheme and elements while locating the filtering.
Here, the computing system comprising a mobile device (generic computer components) is performing steps such as steps of sending a list of applications to be monitored, obtaining panelist to application data, receiving application reporting/usage data collected by an application meter, determining a primary viewer, associating demographics and generating a viewing report involves performed by generic computer components. These limitations are related to an abstract concept that is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims do not amount to significantly more nor do they provide an inventive concept.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 , 11 and 18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims (1, 8 and 15 respectively), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
obtaining a device identifier of [a mobile device] of a panelist household, wherein the device identifier is stored in a memory of [the mobile device];
sending, to [the mobile device], a list of applications to be monitored, wherein the mobile device compares the list of applications to be monitored to applications installed on [the mobile device] to detect multiple applications installed on the mobile device that are to be monitored;
obtaining, from [the mobile device via a network communication], panelist-to-application data designating, for each of multiple applications installed on [the mobile device], a respective primary viewer for the application, wherein the panelist-to-application data is collected from a user of [the mobile device via a graphical user interface];
storing the panelist-to-application data in a database in association with the device identifier of [the mobile device];
receiving, from [the mobile device], application reporting data collected by an application meter on the mobile device, the application reporting data identifying usage on [the mobile device] of a given application of the multiple applications, the application reporting data comprising a start timestamp of the usage, an end timestamp of the usage, and media-identifying metadata extracted by the application meter from media presented by the given application;
accessing, using the device identifier, the panelist-to-application data stored in the database;
determining, using the panelist-to-application data, a primary viewer for the given application;
obtaining demographics for the primary viewer for the given application;
associating the demographics for the primary viewer for the given application with the usage of the given application on [the mobile device];
calculating, from the start timestamp and the end timestamp, a date of the usage and a duration of the usage of the given application;
retrieving, from a reference database using the media-identifying metadata, reference metadata identifying the media presented by the given application;
generating a viewing report using the demographics associated with the usage of the given application on [the mobile device], the date of the usage, the duration of the usage, and the reference metadata, in combination with demographics associated with other usages of other mobile devices.
The limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Certain Methods of Organizing Human activity related to managing personal behavior and sales/marketing behaviors (Spec ¶0004), but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a processor and memory). For instance, steps of sending a list of applications to be monitored, obtaining panelist to application data, receiving application reporting/usage data collected by an application meter, determining a primary viewer, associating demographics and generating a viewing report involves sales/marketing behavior and personal behavior collecting usage data. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Activity.
Independent Claim 8 and Claim 15 substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1 and also include the abstract ideas identified above. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claim 2 is directed to prompting a user to designate primary viewers (data gathering activity) , Claim 4 is directed to an application meter for collecting data, Claim 6 is directed to correlate to device and Claim 21 is directed to application meter forgoes collection of application reporting data for an application. Claims 9, 11 and 13 and Claims 16 and 18 substantially recite the subject matter of Claims 2, 4 and 6 and encompass the same abstract concept.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a processor, a memory and a mobile device. Claim 8 recites the additional elements of computing system and a mobile device. Claim 15 recites the additional elements of a mobile device with a memory and multiple applications installed and where applications having application meter embedded. These are generic computer components performing generic computer functionality (Spec ¶0087, various computer types).
For instance regarding claims 1 and 8, the steps of obtaining a device identifier of a mobile device, obtaining from a mobile panelist to application designation data, obtaining data identifying usage on the mobile device, sending a list of applications to be monitored, receiving application reporting data collected by an application meter on mobile device, accessing the panelist to application stored data and obtaining demographics for the primary viewer are data gathering activities. The steps of storing the panelist to application data is generic functionality. The steps of determining a primary viewer and associating the demographics with the usage of the application calculating a date of the usage from timestamp info is collecting and analyzing data. The step of generating a viewing report is displaying the result of the collecting and analyzing data. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In regards to Claim 15 the steps of obtaining a device identifier of a mobile device, obtaining from a mobile panelist to application designation data, obtaining data identifying usage on the mobile device, receiving application reporting data collected by the application meter identifying usage of given application, accessing the panelist to application data stored, obtaining demographics for primary viewer of application is data gathering activity. The steps of determining a primary view for the given application, associating the demographics for the primary viewer for given application and generating a viewing report using demographics associated with usage involve collecting and analyzing data then displaying results. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a processor, a memory, a mobile device and a computing system are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, the steps of obtaining a device identifier of a mobile device; obtaining from the mobile device via a network communication panelist to application data; receiving application reporting data collected by an application meter on mobile device, etc. are considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 1, 2,4, 5, 8, 9,11, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 21 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Leff et al. (US 2008/0228598) discloses to improve targeting of advertisements, a monitoring application (code), running on server, monitors each user's activity on site. Monitoring application records a user's activity when logged-in to site (via their computer device) and records data reflecting each user's activities.
Kloba et al. (US 2005/0070259) discloses tracking the usage of applications on a mobile client device. Usage data corresponding to the occurrence of at least one user-initiated event on the mobile client device is stored and usage data is transferred to the server.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights