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
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4, 2025 has been entered.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Terminal Disclaimer
3. The Terminal Disclaimer filed on December 18, 2024, disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration dates of the Patent Number 11,842,362 and 11,468,459 has been reviewed and is accepted. The Terminal Disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, which is illustrative of the all independent claims and analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a system for measuring audiences of online media. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites the a system for measuring audiences of online media and using multi-market calibration of convenience panel data to reduce behavioral bias, comprises the following limitations: obtaining first panel data…, obtaining second panel data associated…, obtaining third panel data…, wherein the third panel data is generated at least in part…, calibrating first panel data associated with the first market based on the second data associated with the second market and the third panel data associated with the second market to determine calibrated first panel data associated with the first market, and outputting the calibrated first panel data associated with the first market, as drafted, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of managing personal behavior or relationships or interaction between people (including social activities: determining the behavior of individuals, households, etc. on online media). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites the steps of: wherein the third panel data is generated at least in part…, and calibrating first panel data associated with the first market based on the second data associated with the second market and the third panel data associated with the second market to determine calibrated first panel data associated with the first market, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor/automatically”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of “obtaining first panel data associated with media impressions in a first market”, “obtaining second panel data associated with media impressions in a second market”, “obtaining third panel data associated with media impressions in the second market”, and “using data obtained from a plurality of meters that monitor media presentation devices in respective media presentation environments of the second market.” The claim also recites that the steps of “obtaining first panel data…, obtaining second panel data associated…, obtaining third panel data…, wherein the third panel data is generated at least in part…, calibrating first panel data associated with the first market based on the second data associated with the second market and the third panel data associated with the second market to determine calibrated first panel data associated with the first market, and outputting the calibrated first panel data associated with the first market” are performed by a processor.
Moreover, the claim recites the additional elements “obtaining first panel data associated with media impressions in a first market”, “obtaining second panel data associated with media impressions in a second market”, “obtaining third panel data associated with media impressions in the second market”, and “using data obtained from a plurality of meters that monitor media presentation devices in respective media presentation environments of the second market” are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional limitations do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the meters/ presentation devices, they are merely used as general means for collecting and outputting data. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified by the courts Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Further, the steps of “obtaining first panel data…, obtaining second panel data associated…, obtaining third panel data…, wherein the third panel data is generated at least in part…, calibrating first panel data associated with the first market based on the second data associated with the second market and the third panel data associated with the second market to determine calibrated first panel data associated with the first market, and outputting the calibrated first panel data associated with the first market”, are recited as being performed by a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processor, a memory, and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding 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).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The additional elements “obtaining first panel data associated with media impressions in a first market”, “obtaining second panel data associated with media impressions in a second market”, “obtaining third panel data associated with media impressions in the second market”, and “using data obtained from a plurality of meters that monitor media presentation devices in respective media presentation environments of the second market” were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “obtaining first panel data associated with media impressions in a first market”, “obtaining second panel data associated with media impressions in a second market”, “obtaining third panel data associated with media impressions in the second market”, and “using data obtained from a plurality of meters that monitor media presentation devices in respective media presentation environments of the second market” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and outputting data and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a processor to perform limitations “obtaining first panel data…, obtaining second panel data associated…, obtaining third panel data…, wherein the third panel data is generated at least in part…, calibrating first panel data associated with the first market based on the second data associated with the second market and the third panel data associated with the second market to determine calibrated first panel data associated with the first market, and outputting the calibrated first panel data associated with the first market”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
The Berkheimer Memorandum mandates that an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
(1) a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s);
(2) a citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s);
(3) a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); or
(4) a statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s), which satisfies the requirements set forth in MPEP § 2144.03.
In this case, the present Specification described in figure 12 and para [0083[ of using a general-purpose computer and available commercial products to perform the method. Thus, the applicant provides (1) a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements.
Regarding independent claims 8 and 14, Alice Corp. establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent claim 8 directed to a method, independent claim 14 directed to a medium, are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent method claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent- ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 9, and 15, the claim simply refines the abstract idea because it recites the limitations determining calibration weights to apply to the first panel data based at least in part on the demographic characteristics associated with the third panel data…, that falls under the category of organizing human activity as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 3, 10, and 16, the claim simply refines the abstract idea because it recites the limitations determining calibration weights to apply to the first panel data based at least in part on the second behavioral distribution associated with the second panel data…, that falls under the category of Organizing human activity and Mental process as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 4 and 17, the claim simply refines the abstract idea because it recites determining the first behavioral distribution…, determining the second behavioral distribution…, and determining the third behavioral distribution, that falls under the category of Organizing human activity and Mental process as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 5, 11, and 18, the claim simply refines the abstract idea because it recites establishing a calibration behavioral distribution…, determining calibration wights to apply to the first panel data…, and wherein calibrating the first panel data includes applying the determined calibration withs to the first panel data, that falls under the category of Organizing human activity and Mental process as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 6, 12, and 19, the claim simply refines the abstract idea because it recites establishing an additional calibration behavioral distribution…, and determining additional calibration weights to apply to additional first panel data…, that falls under the category of Organizing human activity and Mental process as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 7, 13, and 20, the claim simply refines the abstract idea because it recites calibrating the additional first panel data associated with the first market based on the additional calibration weights, that falls under the category of Organizing human activity and Mental process as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Therefore, the dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the outcome of the two-part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not draw to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Novelty and Non-Obviousness
6. No prior arts were applied to the claims because the Examiner is unaware of any prior arts, alone or in combination, which disclose at least the limitations of “obtaining third panel data associated with media impressions in the second market during the first measurement period, wherein the third panel data is generated at least in part using data obtained from a plurality of meters that monitor media presentation devices in respective media presentation environments of the second market, and wherein the third panel data includes demographic characteristics associated with the respective media presentation environments; calibrating the first panel data associated with the first market based on the second panel data associated with the second market and the third panel data associated with the second market to determine calibrated first panel data associated with the first market” recited in claims 1, 8, and 14.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
7. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
II. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more (See details above).
1. In response to the Applicant’s arguments “Claim 1 does not recite a Method of Organizing Human Activity”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the claim recites a system for measuring audiences of online media and using multi-market calibration of convenience panel data to reduce behavioral bias. The Specification, para [0018] described that “The method implements multi-market calibration of convenience panel data to reduce behavioral bias. As noted above, some audience measurement systems for measuring audiences of online media (e.g., website visits, online advertisements, online programming, etc.) utilize impression data obtained from probabilistic panels and/or convenience panels. Probabilistic panels can include individuals, households, etc., who are recruited (e.g., via telephone and/or in-person interviews) to meet specified demographic targets (e.g., corresponding to a demographic distribution of a target population). The claims comprises the steps: obtaining first panel data associated with media impression in a first market…, obtaining second panel data associated with media impression in a second market…, obtaining third panel data associated with media impression in the second market…, calibrating first panel data associated with the first market based on the second data associated with the second market and the third panel data associated with the second market to determine calibrated first panel data associated with the first market, and outputting the calibrated first panel data associated with the first market, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover the performance of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between popple including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions (determining the behavior of individuals, households, etc. on online media). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2. In response to the Applicant’s arguments “Claim 1 integrated into a practical application”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
the claim recites the additional elements “obtaining first panel data associated with media impressions in a first market”, “obtaining second panel data associated with media impressions in a second market”, “obtaining third panel data associated with media impressions in the second market”, and “using data obtained from a plurality of meters that monitor media presentation devices in respective media presentation environments of the second market” are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional limitations do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the meters/ presentation devices, they are merely used as general means for collecting and outputting data.
Further, the steps of “obtaining first panel data…, obtaining second panel data associated…, obtaining third panel data…, wherein the third panel data is generated at least in part…, calibrating first panel data associated with the first market based on the second data associated with the second market and the third panel data associated with the second market to determine calibrated first panel data associated with the first market, and outputting the calibrated first panel data associated with the first market”, are recited as being performed by a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processor, a memory, and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding 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).
While the disclosure states that “Example audience measurement systems disclosed herein provide technical solutions to the technical problems associated with unrepresentative probabilistic panel data for a given market. In particular, disclosed example audience measurement systems implement multi-market calibration of convenience panel data to reduce behavioral bias. To solve the problem of unrepresentative probabilistic panel data for a given market, some disclosed example audience measurement systems utilize behavior characteristics, such as in the form of behavior distributions, to calibrate convenience panel data. For example, some disclosed example audience measurement systems utilize a behavioral distribution determined for probabilistic panel data from another market (e.g., referred to herein as a calibration market) as an initial seed to calibrate a behavioral distribution determined for convenience panel data associated with the given target market. Such disclosed example audience measurement systems then iteratively combine the calibrated behavioral distribution determined from a prior iteration (which was initially seeded with the probabilistic panel behavior distribution determined for the calibration market) with a new behavior distribution determined for the convenience panel data from the given target market to determine a new calibrated behavioral distribution for the convenience panel data in the given target market” (para [0020]), there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer nor to any other technology. At best, the claimed combination amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea of audience measurement and to calibrate convenience panel data, rather than to any technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Thus, even when considering the elements in combination, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
3. In response to the Applicant’s arguments “Claim 1 Provides an Inventive Concept”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “obtaining first panel data associated with media impressions in a first market”, “obtaining second panel data associated with media impressions in a second market”, “obtaining third panel data associated with media impressions in the second market”, and “using data obtained from a plurality of meters that monitor media presentation devices in respective media presentation environments of the second market” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and outputting data and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a processor to perform limitations “obtaining first panel data…, obtaining second panel data associated…, obtaining third panel data…, wherein the third panel data is generated at least in part…, calibrating first panel data associated with the first market based on the second data associated with the second market and the third panel data associated with the second market to determine calibrated first panel data associated with the first market, and outputting the calibrated first panel data associated with the first market”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Accordingly, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
8. All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
10. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang et al. (US 2015/0106190) disclose techniques for identifying customers and their purchasing segments in advance so that advertising impressions can be correlated to the consumers that are being reached by an advertising campaign. A predetermined consumer panel may be characterized by purchasing segment and any other suitable demographics, and tracking techniques such as cookies tied to specific web properties may be used to track online activity by members of the consumer panel.
Matthews et al. (US 2018/0184168) disclose systems and methods for identifying information that will enable a merchant to better target a promotion to a user, and requesting the information from the user in a query.
Bruich (US 2014/0297404) discloses a system for obtaining metrics for online advertising uses multiple sources of user data, including panel data, social networking system data, and user data from other online service providers.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner NGA B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6796. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-5PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached on (571) 272-6737. 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.
/NGA B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 September 29, 2025