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 .
This communication is in communication filed on 8/6/2025.
Claims 9-20 have been cancelled. Claims 1-8 and 21-32 are present for examination.
The Terminal Disclaimer have been accepted to overcome the Double Patenting Rejections over Patent no. 10,068,246.
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 1-8 and 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Taking claim 21 as representative, claim 21 recites:
Obtaining impression information including, for each one of a first set of first identifiers and a media identifier; obtaining, presence information including, for each one of a second set of second identifier corresponding to the second location identifier based on the second being present at one or more physical locations corresponding to the location identifier, identifying based on the first identifiers information and the second identifiers information ,a common subset both accessed the media corresponding to the media identifier and the one or more physical location and estimating based at least in part on the common subset media effectiveness, wherein the media effectiveness estimates an extent to which exposure to the media corresponding to the media identifier influences presence at the one or more physical locations.
The above limitations other their broadest reasonable interpretation recite identifying a common subset of a first and second identifier to a media exposure at a physical location. These concepts are related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claim 21 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, returning to representative claim 21, the claim does not recite any additional elements to transform the abstract idea of estimating media effectiveness on media exposure to the media corresponding to the media identifier influence presence at the physical locations. Any general purpose computer and memory available at the time the application was filed would have been able to perform the functions of the claims. The specification as published supports that view. See Application as filed on paragraphs 0081, 0082, 0083 and 0143. The introduction of a computer to implement an abstract idea is not a patentable application of the abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357—58. The computer implementation here is purely conventional and performs basic functions. Taking the limitations of the claims alone and in combination, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.
The courts have identified various examples of limitations as merely indicating a field of use/technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea, such as specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, specifying that the abstract idea of sending and receiving content executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field and to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of the claim is not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for at least the following reasons.
As discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, the additional computer-related elements recited on claim 21 merely invokes such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)()). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claim 31 the abstract idea of estimating media effectiveness on media exposure to the media corresponding to the media identifier influence presence at the physical locations executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually . In Alice Corp., the Court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” an determined that “the computer components...‘[a]dd nothing. ..that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, viewed as a whole, claim 21 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 21 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 22-26 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements do not recite a specific manner or impose a meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent system claim 1 and medium claim 27 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as method claim 21. Claims 1, and 27 further recite a memory, server and processor. Any general purpose computer, server and memory available at the time the application was filed would have been able to perform the functions of the claims. The specification as published supports that view. See Application as filed on paragraphs 0081, 0082, 0083, 0142 and 0143. The introduction of a computer to implement an abstract idea is not a patentable application of the abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357—58. The computer implementation here is purely conventional and performs basic functions.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 28-32 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements do not recite a specific manner or impose a meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 21-26 and 27-32 allowable over prior art of record.
The closest prior art of record:
Hammad et al. 2013/0246220 describes that “server computer may 402 transmits a request to the client device for the device’s location, i.e., by a ‘pull’ process.” Hammad et al., para. [0091]. Hammad et al. also describe that “In response, the client device may transmit its location to server computer 402.” Id. Thus, Hammad et al. describe that a server computer transmits, to a client device, a request for the device’s location, and that the client device responds by transmitting its location to the server computer that requested the location information. Heath (US 2013/0073388) teaches on paragraph 0011 client system (14) communicates with a main server system (12) {Id. at par. [0321]) that includes a database server (24) (Id. at FIG. 1). Heath describes that advertising data from an advertising database (52) of the database server (24) in the main server system (12) are updated at the client system (14). Id. at par. [0327], Heath also describes that the client system (14) makes a request from the database server (24). The combination of Hammad and Heath teach transmitting to a server the user’s device identifier’s location and updating an advertising database. The references alone or in combination fail to teach the limitations of claim 1, 21 and 27 of figure 16 “identifying, based on the first identifiers of the mobile impression information and the second identifiers of the mobile presence information, a common subset of mobile devices that both accessed the media corresponding to the media identifier and were present at the one or more physical locations and estimating, based at least in part on the common subset of the mobile devices, a media effectiveness estimates, wherein the media effectiveness estimates an extent to which exposure to the media corresponding to the media identifier influences presence at one or more physical locations”
Other references of record:
Teraoka (2015/0066586) describes tracking the number of views of a webpage and a number of behaviors that result in a profit for the webpage provider (Teraoka et al., abstract). Teraoka et al. describe calculating an evaluation value based on the number of views and the number of behaviors that result in a profit.
Bush (8,515,459) describes tracking media impressions on mobile devices; collecting location information of mobile device users when they visit a merchant store.
Business insider “Apple Wants More Advertisers to Use Its iphone Tracking System” teaches it allows advertisers to know that a specific iphone user is looking at a specific publication and can serve an ad targeting that user. The tracking is anonymous. It doesn’t show advertisers any personally identifying information. But does show them what you’re doing and what you’re interested in.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a Method of Organizing Human activity and therefore eligible. The Examiner disagrees with Applicant because the claims pertain to: identifying a common subset of a first and second identifier to a media exposure at a physical location. These concepts are related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, under Prong One of Step 2A .
Applicant argues that the claims provide “a non-conventional, technical improvement in the operation of a computer arising in the technical field of audience measurement that amounts” “to something more””. The Examiner disagrees with Applicant because the claims recite the additional elements of a memory, server and processor for performing conventional computer functions of storing, obtaining, identifying and estimating and are the functions are not significantly more to perform the abstract idea of audience measurement by identifying a common subset of a first and second identifier to a media exposure at a physical location, which is an abstract idea under prong 1 of 2A and the additional elements of a server, memory and processor for performing conventional, well understood, routine functions and are not significantly more as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under prong 2 of step 2A.
Conclusion
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 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 action.
Point of contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6715. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays thru Thursdays 8:30-6:30.
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, 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 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.
/RAQUEL ALVAREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621