Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/479,594

METHODS AND APPARATUS TO ADAPTIVELY COLLECT MARKET RESEARCH DATA

Final Rejection §101
Filed
Oct 02, 2023
Examiner
KASSIM, HAFIZ A
Art Unit
3623
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Nielsen Consumer LLC
OA Round
4 (Final)
44%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 44% of resolved cases
44%
Career Allow Rate
148 granted / 338 resolved
-8.2% vs TC avg
Strong +54% interview lift
Without
With
+53.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
367
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
40.9%
+0.9% vs TC avg
§103
32.6%
-7.4% vs TC avg
§102
7.8%
-32.2% vs TC avg
§112
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 338 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
DETAILED ACTION This office action is made final. Claims 33-34 and 36-45 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Status of Claims Applicant’s amendment date 01/05/2026, amended claims 33-34 & 36-37; newly claims added 40-45. Response to Amendment The previously pending rejection to claims 33-34 and 36-39, under 35 USC 101 (Alice), will be maintained. Applicant’s arguments received on date 01/05/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Moreover, any new grounds of rejection have been necessitated by Applicant's amendments to the claims. Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101: Applicant asserts that “Claim 33 sets forth patent eligible subject matter, as "the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement[s]" in the specification. See Desjardins, p. 8. Independent claim 37 is similarly statutory.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike claim in Desjardins, the pending claims recite a series of abstract elements employed to perform a non-technical, business process. The additional elements of claims 33 and 37 are limited to a machine learning algorithm, robotic devices, interface circuitry, machine-readable instructions, a processor circuit, one non-transitory machine-readable medium, node devices, and a network and a limitation for accessing data, the combination of additional elements neither integrates the abstract elements into a practical application nor amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. 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 33-34 and 36-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 33-34 and 36-45 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claims 33 and 37 recite an abstract idea. Claims 33 and 37 include “generate a first sample size audit based on a first quantity of data sources at a first time, the first sample size audit; the first sample size audit instruction to capture first data associated with a first sample size corresponding to the first quantity of data sources; access the first data received in the first set; determine, based on the first data, that a second quantity of data sources are available, the second quantity different than the first quantity; determine that a difference between the first quantity of the data sources and the second quantity of the data sources satisfies a threshold; generate a second sample size audit instruction based on the difference satisfying the threshold, the second sample size audit instruction corresponding to a second sample size, the second sample size based on (a) a target error margin, (b) a z-value of items in a population distribution of the second quantity of the data sources, and ( c) a standard deviation of the population distribution; and execute the second sample size audit instruction to capture second data associated with the second quantity of the data sources the second quantity of the data sources having the second sample size”. The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the elements above recite mental processes-concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and certain methods of organizing human activity-managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) because the elements describe a process for collecting market research data. As a result, claims 33 and 37 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. Claims 34, 36, and 38-45 further describe the process for collecting market research data. As a result, claims 34, 36, and 38-45 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 33 and 37. With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claims 33 and 37 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 33 and 37 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 33 and 37 include a machine learning algorithm, robotic devices, interface circuitry, machine-readable instructions, a processor circuit, one non-transitory machine-readable medium, node devices, and a network. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 33 and 37 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two. Claims 40-41 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claims 33 and 37. As a result, claims 40-41 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 33 and 37. Claims 34, 36, 38-39, and 42-45 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 34, 36, 38-39, and 42-45 include a machine learning algorithm, robotic devices, a processor circuit, node devices, and robotic data collector. When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 34, 36, 38-39, and 42-45 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two. With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claims 33 and 37 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 33 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 33 and 37 include a machine learning algorithm, robotic devices, interface circuitry, machine-readable instructions, a processor circuit, one non-transitory machine-readable medium, node devices, and a network. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, independent claims 33 and 37 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B. Claims 40-41 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claims 33 and 37. As a result, claims 40-41 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 33 and 37. Claims 34, 36, 38-39, and 42-45 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 34, 36, 38-39, and 42-45 include a machine learning algorithm, robotic devices, a processor circuit, node devices, and robotic data collector. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 34, 36, 38-39, and 42-45 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 33-34 and 36-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAFIZ KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8534. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri (8am - 5pm) EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /HAFIZ A KASSIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 03/02/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 02, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 02, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 24, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101
May 27, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 27, 2025
Response Filed
May 27, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §101
Aug 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 19, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 15, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Jan 05, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 02, 2026
Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602638
RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND RISK MANAGEMENT METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12586008
MANAGING HOTEL GUEST HOUSEKEEPING WITHIN AN AUTOMATED GUEST SATISFACTION AND SERVICES SCHEDULING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12561706
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANAGING VEHICLE OPERATOR PROFILES BASED ON RELATIVE TELEMATICS INFERENCES VIA A TELEMATICS MARKETPLACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12548038
Realtime Busyness for Places
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12541724
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TIME-SERIES FORECASTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
44%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+53.7%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 338 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month