DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 8-20 in the reply filed on 05/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The use of the terms WiFi, Bluetooth, YouTube, Netflix, Blu-ray each of which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized entirely wherever each appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-13, 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: when introducing MAC it should read “media access control (MAC)” in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12, 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: when introducing IP it should read “Internet Protocol (IP)” in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities: “the media content” should be “media content” therefor. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim is missing a period at the end. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
None of the instant claims invoke U.S.C. 112(f). At claim 15, each instance of “radio” is a structural modifier.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 contains the trademark/trade name WiFi. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe WiFi and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8-12, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2018/0270645 A1 to Seidman et al. (“Seidman”).
As to claims 8-12, see similar rejections to claims 15-19, respectively. The apparatus teaches the methods.
As to claim 15, Seidman discloses a meter (fig. 2, MAC Privacy Reverser 301), comprising:
a first communication radio configured to communicate on a network (para. 0004, radio based connectivity; para. 0042, the device id (MAC) privacy reverser 301 receives the packets to process their device ids (e.g., MAC addresses), i.e. receive radio);
a second communication radio configured to communicate on the network (para. 0004, radio based connectivity; para. 0042, The device id (MAC) listener 302 may poll for log updates containing device ids (MAC addresses) from the wireless access point 305, i.e. transmit radio); a processor (para. 0019, claim 17, processor);
and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor, cause performance of a set of operations comprising (para. 0019, claim 17, the disclosed invention is a method or a non-transitory computer storage medium including a plurality of instructions [executed by one or more processors] for performing a process for identifying mobile users in a site, the site including a plurality of wireless access points):
monitoring, at the first communication radio, network traffic to process at least one network traffic record (para. 0042, the device id (MAC) privacy reverser 301 receives, i.e. receive radio, the packets (i.e. network traffic) to process their device ids (e.g., MAC addresses); para. 0021, the unique device identifications (i.e. network traffic records) may be MAC addresses, IMEI and/or Bluetooth identifiers);
analyzing the at least one network traffic record to determine a parameter associated with the at least one network traffic record (para. 0042, the device id (MAC) privacy reverser 301 receives the packets (i.e. network traffic) to process their device ids (e.g., MAC addresses), i.e. MAC address being a parameter of the various identifications); and
filtering, based on a match of the parameter to a stored parameter associated with the second communication radio, the at least one network traffic record (para. 0060, the filter policy may represent a pre-determined device id (e.g., MAC address) (i.e. stored parameter) pattern determined to be false. An example of such a policy could be any address (i.e. the parameter) which matches XX:XX:XX:00:X9:09 (i.e. stored parameter) where X represents that the bits may be anything, i.e. as the MAC address of the IDs is filtered, this means the list of IDs [“network traffic records”] is consequently filtered; para. 0042, The device id (MAC) listener 302 may poll for log updates containing device ids (MAC addresses) from the wireless access point 305 (i.e. as the filter policy is within listener 302, it is associated with the radio)).
As to claim 16, Seidman further discloses the meter of claim 15, wherein the network traffic includes media content requested by a media device (para. 0042, The device id (MAC) [para. 0005, media access control (MAC)] listener 302 (i.e. media device) may poll for log updates containing device ids (MAC addresses) from the wireless access point 305).
As to claim 17, Seidman further discloses the meter of claim 15, wherein the media content is media streamed over the network (para. 0073, stream all packets to controller 801, where a centralized MAC [para. 0005, media access control (MAC)] privacy reverser 807 performs processing).
As to claim 18, Seidman further discloses the meter of claim 15, wherein the parameter associated with the at least one network traffic record is a MAC address (para. 0042, the device id (MAC) privacy reverser 301 receives the packets (i.e. network traffic) to process their device ids (e.g., MAC addresses), i.e. MAC address being a parameter).
As to claim 19, Seidman further discloses the meter of claim 15, wherein the parameter associated with the at least one network traffic record is at least one of a source MAC address (para. 0032, the disclosed invention is a system and/or process associated with one or more wireless access point devices that includes a device identification (e.g., MAC address) listener that receives a device identifications (e.g., MAC addresses) from data packets received by any one of the associated wireless access point device (i.e. source of the data meaning source MAC addresses)), a destination MAC address, an IP address of a source or a destination of the network traffic, a port name of the source or the destination of the network traffic, application related data indicative of the network traffic (para. 0021, The unique device identifications may be MAC addresses, IMEI and/or Bluetooth identifiers, i.e. each may be an application), or data indicative of an origin device of the at least one network traffic record (para. 0032, the disclosed invention is a system and/or process associated with one or more wireless access point devices that includes a device identification (e.g., MAC address) listener that receives a device identifications (e.g., MAC addresses) from data packets received by any one of the associated wireless access point device (i.e. source of the data meaning origin))
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2018/0270645 A1 to Seidman et al. (“Seidman”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0317270 A1 to Besehanic.
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 20. The apparatus teaches the method.
As to claim 20, Seidman further discloses the meter of claim 15, wherein filtering, based on the match of the parameter to the stored parameter associated with the second communication radio, the at least one network traffic record comprises: removing, from the at least one network traffic record, a network traffic record that matches the stored parameter associated with the second communication radio, wherein the stored parameter associated with the second communication radio is the MAC address of the second communication radio (para. 0035, a filter policy removes sporadic rarely seen device identifiers (e.g., MAC addresses) based on their dwell-times, removes device identifiers (e.g., MAC addresses) that conform to a specific pattern [para. 0060, the filter policy may represent a pre-determined device id (e.g., MAC address) pattern determined to be false. An example of such a policy could be any address which matches XX:XX:XX:00:X9:09 where X represents that the bits may be anything.], and/or removes locally administered device identifiers (e.g., MAC addresses)).
Seidman does not expressly disclose the set of the operations further comprising: transmitting, from the meter, the at least one network traffic record to a central facility of an audience measurement entity.
Besehanic discloses at para. 0029: The network communications monitor creates a log and/or a record of the network communications, identifies a device associated with the network communications (e.g., a device that originated and/or is to receive the network communication), and electronically transmits the log and/or the record to the network activity measurement system (e.g., to an audience measurement such as The Nielsen Company (US), LLC). In examples disclosed herein, the network communications monitor determines a device identifier of the identified device based on a MAC address of the device involved in the network communications.
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the monitor as taught by Besehanic into the invention of Seidman. The suggestion/motivation would have been to identify media devices (Besehanic, para. 0002). Including the monitor as taught by Besehanic into the invention of Seidman was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Besehanic.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2018/0270645 A1 to Seidman et al. (“Seidman”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2017/0257893 A1 to ZONG et al. (“Zong”).
As to claim 14, Seidman does not expressly disclose the method of claim 8, wherein monitoring, at the first communication radio, the network traffic to process the at least one network traffic record comprises: using a network parameter to process the network traffic, the network parameter including at least one of a WiFi service set identifier (SSID), an access code, a WiFi key, or a WiFi password.
Zong discloses smart terminal 110 may execute a corresponding decoding method to extract the SSID and password of the Wi-Fi network from the received information (para. 0027).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the extraction as taught by Zong into the invention of Seidman. The suggestion/motivation would have been to connect to Wi-Fi (Zong, para. 0027). Including the extraction as taught by Zong into the invention of Seidman was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Zong.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20060140175 A1 discloses at para. 0137: Each WiFi phone 20, second communication terminal corresponding to the coupling list, receives the first packet (S251), extracts a MAC address from the first packet, and determines whether or not the extracted MAC address is matched with that of the coupled terminal stored in itself (S255). In other words, the WiFi phone 20 determines whether or not the MAC address a sender extracted from the first packet is matched with that of the coupled terminal stored in its own flash memory 27
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR J GHOWRWAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5691. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, ASAD NAWAZ can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
/OMAR J GHOWRWAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights