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
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 12/05/2025.
Claims 1-20 have been canceled.
Claims 41-43 have been added.
Claims 21-43 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 12/05/2025 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claims 21-40 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argues that “ in SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., the court concluded the claim recited using a plurality of network monitors to analyze specific network traffic data and integrate generated reports from the monitors to identify hackers and intruders on the network constituted an improvement in computer network technology. Since the claim improves technology, the claim imposes meaningful limits on any recited judicial exception, and the claim would be eligible under the 2019 PEG at least at Step 2A Prong Two." (2019 Guidelines, p. 11.), McDONELL. Likewise, here, the claims that recite determining, based on network monitoring at the panelist site, that, at the given time, the panelist site was receiving a non-zero packet-data flow that had a bit rate too low to be program-content streaming, and additionally the claims that recite that the network monitoring is carried out by a meter at the panelist site, are similarly patent eligible, by similarly constituting an improvement in computer technology. Furthermore, here too, the human mind is not equipped to carry out such network monitoring of packet-data communication. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the § 101 rejections should be withdrawn (page 3/9)”.
Examiner disagrees. The instant claims bear no similarity to the SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc; Holdings decision, because the instant claims are directed to monitoring of data and matching the received data, where the network monitoring the network traffic that show active records is received for low bit rate to be program content streaming and then match the reference signature with the digital media digital signature, whereas the claims in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (claims to detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets were found to be an improvement in computer network technology and not directed to an abstract idea). The instant invention does nothing that could even be remotely similar to the claims of SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc .
As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 21-40 under 35 USC § 101 rejection is maintained.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Applicant argues that “In the office action dated April 10, 2025, the Examiner stated that the Examiner disagreed with this argument. But the Examiner did not set forth a substantive basis for that expressed disagreement. The Examiner stated that controlling advertisement-exposure monitoring records and storing the updated information is a method of organizing human activity. (See 4/10/25 Office Action, pp. 2-3.) But the Examiner did not establish why that would be a method of organizing human activity. Furthermore, Applicant's claims did not and do not recite "controlling advertisement-exposure monitoring records and storing the updated information," so the Examiner's assertion about "controlling advertisement-exposure monitoring records and storing the updated information" did not address the claim language. In addition, the examples of "commercial or legal interactions" set forth in M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(a)(2) do not encompass the presently claimed subject matter. At best, if one were to point to the Ultramercial case, for instance, at issue there was what the Federal Circuit deemed to be "using advertising as an exchange or currency" (namely, displaying an ad in exchange for access to copyrighted media) - which is clearly not akin to what is recited by Applicant's claims. In the office action dated April 10, 2025, after Applicant has presented this argument about M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(a)(2) and Ultramercial, the Examiner did not discuss or seek to rebut the argument. Applicant therefore maintains the argument. Accordingly, Applicant submits that claim 21 does not recite an abstract idea, and therefore that claim 21 is patent eligible at Step 2A, Prong 1(page 4/9)”.
Examiner disagrees. Examiner is unclear as to why Applicant discussing the Final office Action that was mailed 04/10/2025 instead of responding to the most recent NON office action that was mailed on 09/11/2025, which is based on Applicant’s response received on 05/16/2025. The Non final Office Action did response to Applicant’s arguments along with the claims set that was presented on 05/16/2025.
The most recent Non-final Office Action that was mailed on 09/11/2025, addressed Applicant argument with regard to claims 21-40, as fallows “ Applicant argues that “claims 1-20 have been canceled and replaced them with new claims 21-40, of which claims 21, 28, and 35 are independent and the remainder are dependent. The claims as now written do not recite an advertisement or advertising. The Examiner couched the § 101 rejections as being based on the Examiner's view that the claims fell with the "Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas on grounds that the claims recited what the Examiner characterized as 'commercial interactions of advertising...." As the new claims do not recite an advertisement or advertising, Applicant submits that the § 101 rejections are now moot. Applicant therefore submits that the claims should be allowed (page 1/1)” . Examiner disagrees. New claims 21-40, of which claims 21, 28, and 35 are independent and the remainder are dependent as now written recite media. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, media include an advertisement or advertising; and as evidence by Applicant’s specification “one technical issue with this process is that some streaming media that is received by and presented at a panelist site may not be of a form that is deemed to be typical of streaming media, i.e., may not be deemed to have a pattern of streaming, but it may still be commercially worthwhile to monitor panelist exposure to that streaming media. An example of such streaming media is streaming advertisements that may be inserted interstitially within streaming program content (paragraph 18)”. As thus, new claims 21-40 fell with the "Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas on grounds that the claims recited and characterized as 'commercial interactions of advertising....". Therefore, the claim rejection of new claims 21-40 under 35 USC § 101 stands and maintained.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments with regard to “ In the office action dated April 10, 2025, the Examiner stated that the Examiner disagreed with this argument. But the Examiner did not set forth a substantive basis for that expressed disagreement. The Examiner stated that controlling advertisement-exposure monitoring records and storing the updated information is a method of organizing human activity. (See 4/10/25 Office Action, pp. 2-3.) But the Examiner did not establish why that would be a method of organizing human activity. Furthermore, Applicant's claims did not and do not recite "controlling advertisement-exposure monitoring records and storing the updated information," so the Examiner's assertion about "controlling advertisement-exposure monitoring records and storing the updated information" did not address the claim language. In addition, the examples of "commercial or legal interactions" set forth in M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(a)(2) do not encompass the presently claimed subject matter. At best, if one were to point to the Ultramercial case, for instance, at issue there was what the Federal Circuit deemed to be "using advertising as an exchange or currency" (namely, displaying an ad in exchange for access to copyrighted media) - which is clearly not akin to what is recited by Applicant's claims. In the office action dated April 10, 2025, after Applicant has presented this argument about M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(a)(2) and Ultramercial, the Examiner did not discuss or seek to rebut the argument. Applicant therefore maintains the argument. Accordingly, Applicant submits that claim 21 does not recite an abstract idea, and therefore that claim 21 is patent eligible at Step 2A, Prong 1” is inappropriate and moot. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 21-40 under 35 USC § 101 rejection is maintained.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Applicant argues that “ In the office action, the Examiner contended that the terms "system", "network" and "site" are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept, as the Examiner contended that those terms amount to "no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components." But that argument was also not correct. Again, the claim does not merely recite "apply a computer to engage in advertising." Rather, the claim specifically recites using packet- data flow rate as a basis to trigger searching for a digital signature match that would establish that media presented at a given time was an advertisement. At a minimum, this technical advance amounts to significantly more than anything that might be an "abstract" idea. In the office action dated April 10, 2025, after Applicant presented this argument, the Examiner argued that "[u]sing packet-data flow rate as a basis to trigger searching for a digital signature match that would establish that media presented at a given time was an advertisement fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself." (4/10/25 Office Action, p. 3.) But the Examiner provided no support for the Examiner's assertion that the recited feature fails to improve a technology or technical field. Indeed, determining based on packet-flow monitoring as a basis to trigger searching for a digital signature match is a technological advance, and the Examiner did not rebut that point( page 6/9)”.
Examiner disagrees. Once again, Examiner is unclear as to why Applicant discussing the Final office Action that was mailed 04/10/2025 instead of responding to the most recent NON office action that was mailed on 09/11/2025, which is based on Applicant’s response received on 05/16/2025. The Non final Office Action did response to Applicant’s arguments along with the claims set that was presented on 05/16/2025.
In the most recent Non-final Office Action that was mailed on 09/11/2025, Applicant ‘s argument with regard to claims 21-40, as fallows “ Applicant argues that “claims 1-20 have been canceled and replaced them with new claims 21-40, of which claims 21, 28, and 35 are independent and the remainder are dependent. The claims as now written do not recite an advertisement or advertising. The Examiner couched the § 101 rejections as being based on the Examiner's view that the claims fell with the "Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas on grounds that the claims recited what the Examiner characterized as 'commercial interactions of advertising...." As the new claims do not recite an advertisement or advertising, Applicant submits that the § 101 rejections are now moot. Applicant therefore submits that the claims should be allowed (page 1/1)”. There was no arguments presented with regard to Step 2A, Prong Two.
Nevertheless, to clear the record, the recitation of claim 21 of : receiving, by a computing system, digital query signature data representing media presented at a given time at a panelist site; determining by the computing system, based on network-monitoring at the panelist site, that, at the given time, the panelist site was receiving a non-zero packet-data flow that had a bit rate too low to be program-content streaming; and responsive to at least the determining, searching by the computing system through reference signature data for a match, between the reference signature data and the digital query signature data, that would establish that the media presented at the given time was media represented by the matching reference signature data is directed to is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric power group). As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
Also, as evidence by Applicant’s specification “one technical issue with this process is that some streaming media that is received by and presented at a panelist site may not be of a form that is deemed to be typical of streaming media, i.e., may not be deemed to have a pattern of streaming, but it may still be commercially worthwhile to monitor panelist exposure to that streaming media. An example of such streaming media is streaming advertisements that may be inserted interstitially within streaming program content (paragraph 18)”. As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
The use of computing system and network fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method ("[u]sing packet-data flow rate as a basis to trigger searching for a digital signature match that would establish that media presented at a given time was an advertisement) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
As such, the examiner finds that any improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to a business process. Second, under Step 2a, Prong 2, the improvement to a technology or technological field must be rooted in the additional element. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements are “ computing system and network “ which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b Thus, any improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea, is an improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are not patent eligible (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). Thus, the rejection has been maintained. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 21-40 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Interview Summary
For Applicant’s concern of why “ the use of the network-monitoring to determine that the panelist site was receiving a non-zero packet-data flow that had a bit rate too low to be program-content streaming is NOT itself a technical advance. And the use of network-monitoring as a basis to determine that the panelist site was receiving a non-zero packet-data flow that had a bit- rate too low to be program-content streaming is NOT a technical advance” “ . Please, refer to section Step 2A, Prong one and Prong Two, above.
For Applicant’s concern of “ how, the recitation of using network monitoring to determine that a panelist site was receiving non-zero packet-data flow that had a bit rate too low to be program content streaming (which the claim recites is a basis to trigger searching for matching signatures) is an improvement in computer network technology. As in the SRI case, since the claimed invention improves technology, the claim imposes meaningful limits on any recited judicial exception, and therefore the claim is eligible”. Applicant therefore maintains that the § 101 rejections were in error and should be withdrawn, and that the claims should be allowed (page 8/9)”.
As mentioned above, the instant claims bear no similarity to the SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc; Holdings decision, because the instant claims are directed to monitoring of data and matching the received data, where the network monitoring the network traffic that show active records is received for low bit rate to be program content streaming and then match the reference signature with the digital media digital signature, whereas the claims in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (claims to detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets were found to be an improvement in computer network technology and not directed to an abstract idea). The instant invention does nothing that could even be remotely similar to the claims of SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc . As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 21-40 under 35 USC § 101 rejection is maintained.
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 21-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The analysis for this determination is explained below:
Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claim(s) 21-27, 41 are directed to a method (i.e. a process); claim (s) 28-34, 42 are directed to a system (i.e. an apparatus); and claims 35- 40, 43 are directed to a manufacturer (i.e. a non transitory computer medium).
The claimed invention is directed to at least one judicial exception (i.e a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The analysis is as follows: Claim 1, for instance recite(s) the following abstract idea of: “receiving, digital query signature data representing media presented at a given time at a panelist site; determining, based on monitoring at the panelist site, that, at the given time, the panelist site was receiving a non-zero packet-data flow that had a bit rate too low to be program-content streaming; and responsive to at least the determining, searching through reference signature data for a match, between the reference signature data and the digital query signature data, that would establish that the media presented at the given time was media represented by the matching signature data ”.
As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of (advertising, marketing “media”), or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content and collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric power group). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of: “computing system, network,”. The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the additional elements of “computing system, network”, to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraphs 113,119 and 123); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
receiving, by a computing system, digital query signature data representing media presented at a given time at a panelist site;
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e.MPEP Step 2B=No).
For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 8 and 15.
Dependent claims 22-27,29-34,36-40 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” by adding the additional steps of “ monitoring at the panelist site, that the given time was during a temporary break from the panelist site receiving a packet-data flow that had a bit rate high enough to be program-content streaming, wherein the searching through the reference signature data for the match is further responsive to the additional determining (claims 22,29, 36); monitoring at the panelist site, (i) that the given time was during a temporary break from the panelist site receiving from a first source Internet Protocol (IP) address a packet-data flow that had a bit rate high enough to be program-content streaming and (ii) that packet data received by the panelist site during the temporary break was from a second source IP address different than the first source IP address, wherein the searching through the advertisement reference signature data for the match is further responsive to the additional determining (claims 23,30,37); monitoring at the panelist site, (i) that the given time was during a temporary break from the panelist site receiving a packet-data flow that had a bit rate high enough to be program-content streaming and that had first ownership metadata, and (ii) that packet data received by the panelist site during the temporary break had second ownership metadata different than the first ownership metadata, wherein the searching through the advertisement reference signature data for the match is further responsive to the additional determining (24,31,38); monitoring at the panelist site, that, at the given time, packet-data flow between the panelist site and an external Internet Protocol (IP) address included at least a predetermined threshold high rate of back-and-forth messaging, wherein the searching through the advertisement reference signature data for the match is further responsive to the additional determining (25, 32, 39); determining by the that the panelist site subscribes to an advertisement-supported streaming media service, wherein the searching through the advertisement reference signature data for the match is further responsive to the additional determining (claims 26, 33, 40); determining and searching, finding that the digital query signature data does not match linear broadcast reference signature data (claims 27, 34, 39); which is considered part of the abstract idea and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2B=No).
Thus, the dependent claim (s), further narrows the abstract idea and/or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent claims 21, 28 and 35.
Accordingly, the claim (s) fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-40 would be allowable if the applicant were to be able to overcome the Claim rejection under 35 USC § 101 and Double patenting rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, none of the cited reference discloses the claimed features of independent claims. As such, the examiner, has been unable to find prior art that discloses the combination of the claimed features of “determining by the computing system, based on network-monitoring at the panelist site, that, at the given time, the panelist site was receiving a non-zero packet-data flow that had a bit rate too low to be program-content streaming; and responsive to at least the determining, searching by the computing system through reference signature data for a match, between the reference signature data and the digital query signature data, that would establish that the media presented at the given time was media represented by the matching reference signature data of independent claims”.
As thus, claims 21-40 recite subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the Applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Schenker et al, US Pub No: 2019/0058907 A1, teaches methods and apparatus to generate reference signatures from streaming media.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 files within TWO MONTHS from 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 mailing date of this final.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [ Mon-Thursday 8-6 pm ].
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application 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.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622