DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5 March 2026 has been entered.
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 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, prong 1:Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea because the following claim limitations recite an abstract idea: receiving, an encrypted identifier identifying a device or a user of the device, wherein the device presents online media that is accessed via the Internet (Mental process; a human-being being given an encoded identifier); determining, using the encrypted identifier, data indicative of digital media accessed on the device (Mental process: a human-being mentally determining using information from the identifier if media has been consumed on the identified device); sending, the data indicative of digital media accessed on the device (Mental process: a human-being reading a network access log for the day of the corresponding timestamp).
Claims 1, 8 and 15 contain the following common additional elements: wherein the receiving is from a server of an audience measurement entity via a first network communication and wherein the sending is to the server via a second network communication and wherein the digital media accessed on the device is digital media accessed on the device prior to receiving the encrypted identifier. Additionally, Claim 1 recites a computing system comprising a processor and a memory and Claim 8 recites a non transitory computer readable medium.
Step 2A, prong 2:The claim amounts to processing data and generating a response and therefore, fails to provide any improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. No technical solution is recited to a technical problem. Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because all the additional elements, even when considered under 112f, are all recited at a level of generality and are merely using computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B:Likewise, the claims fail to recite, both when viewing the additional elements alone and in combination the abstract idea, significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claims 1, 8 and 15 fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea because all the additional hardware elements, even when considered under 112f, are all recited at a level of generality and are merely using computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea and the wherein clause merely describes a condition on the data. Thus, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are unpatentable under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, prong 1:Claims 2, 9 and 16 are directed to an abstract idea because the claims recite the following additional elements: wherein the computing system is a computing system of a database proprietor.
Step 2A, prong 2:The claims amount to processing data and generating a response and therefore, fails to provide any improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. No technical solution is recited to a technical problem. Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because all the additional elements, even when considered under 112f, are all recited at a level of generality and are merely using computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B:Likewise, the claims fail to recite, both when viewing the additional elements alone and in combination the abstract idea, significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claims 2, 9 and 16 fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea because all the additional hardware elements, even when considered under 112f, are all recited at a level of generality and are merely using computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, claims 2, 9 and 16 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are unpatentable under 35 USC 101.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, prong 1:Claims 4, 11 and 18 are directed to an abstract idea because the claims recite the following additional elements: wherein the online media is a video advertisement presented by the device via an application installed on the device.
Step 2A, prong 2:The claims amount to processing data and generating a response and therefore, fails to provide any improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. No technical solution is recited to a technical problem. Regarding claims 4, 11 and 118, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because all the additional elements, even when considered under 112f, are all recited at a level of generality and are merely using computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B:Likewise, the claims fail to recite, both when viewing the additional elements alone and in combination the abstract idea, significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claims 4, 11 and 18 fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea because all the additional elements, is merely describing the online media. Thus, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, claims 4, 11 and 18 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are unpatentable under 35 USC 101.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, prong 1:Claims 5, 12 and 19 are directed to an abstract idea because the claims recite the following additional elements: wherein the device is a mobile device or a television.
Step 2A, prong 2:The claims amount to processing data and generating a response and therefore, fails to provide any improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. No technical solution is recited to a technical problem. Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because all the additional elements, even when considered under 112f, are all recited at a level of generality and are merely using computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B:Likewise, the claims fail to recite, both when viewing the additional elements alone and in combination the abstract idea, significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claims 5, 12 and 19 fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea because all the additional hardware elements, even when considered under 112f, are all recited at a level of generality and are merely using computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, claims 5, 12 and 19 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are unpatentable under 35 USC 101.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, prong 1:Claims 6, 13 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea because the following claim limitations recite an abstract idea: wherein reception of the user information data indicative of digital media accessed on the device causes association of the user information data indicative of digital media accessed on the device with the device or the user of the device (Mental process: a human-being recording an association between the media and the device on paper).
Claims 6, 13 and 20 contain the following common additional elements: wherein the receiving is by the server.
Step 2A, prong 2:The claim amounts to processing data and generating a response and therefore, fails to provide any improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. No technical solution is recited to a technical problem. Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because all the additional elements, even when considered under 112f, are all recited at a level of generality and are merely using computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B:Likewise, the claims fail to recite, both when viewing the additional elements alone and in combination the abstract idea, significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claims 6, 13 and 20 fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea because all the additional hardware elements, even when considered under 112f, are all recited at a level of generality and are merely using computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea and the wherein clause merely describes a condition on the data. Thus, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, claims 6, 13 and 120 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are unpatentable under 35 USC 101.
Claims 7 and 14 are not directed to an abstract idea. The limitations “wherein: the device is a Wi-Fi capable device, and the encrypted identifier encrypts an identifier of the Wi-Fi capable device” are not directed to an abstract idea and represent a significant real world result so as to recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 8 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The art of record fails to disclose the recited limitations of receiving, from a server of an audience measurement entity via a first network communication, an encrypted identifier identifying a device or a user of the device, wherein the device presents online media that is accessed via the Internet; determining, using the encrypted identifier, data indicative of digital media accessed on the device, wherein the digital media accessed on the device is digital media accessed on the device prior to receiving the encrypted identifier; and sending, to the server via a second network communication, the data indicative of digital media accessed on the device. The closest art of record, as recited in the most recent Office Action, fails, at a minimum to recite where the digital media in question has been explicitly received prior to receiving the encrypted identifier, in the context of an audience measurement system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S MCNALLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469)295-9235. 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.
MICHAEL S. MCNALLY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2432
/Michael S McNally/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432