DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is responsive to amendments filed January 16th, 2026. Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 13, and 15-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 1/16/25, with respect to claims 2 and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 10/21/25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 101 filed 1/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10-16 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims present statutory subject matter. Beginning on page 11 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to the abstract idea. Specifically, Applicant argues on pages 11-12, “A human being cannot "call an application-programming interface (API)" exposed within a digital device.” Examiner asserts that Applicant’s argument is moot as the argued “call an application programming interface (API)” was not included in the previous rejection’s argued mental process abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Continuing on page 12 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues, citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F. 3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) “the step of “calling an API” is not merely automating human observation.” As stated above, Examiner asserts that Applicant’s argument is moot as the argued “call an application programming interface (API)” was not included in the previous rejection’s argued mental process abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant continues on page 12 of the provided remarks to argue that the claims are not directed to “certain methods of organizing human activity”. Specifically, Applicant argues the “claims at issue are directed to the technical means of obtaining data (including calling device-internal APIs), not to the business method of selling or using that data.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that while the claims recite the argued obtaining data they continue to recite the provision of a report to facilitate establishment of ratings statistics. These rating statistics, per the as-filed Specification, “monitor media presentation in representative households or other sites” (per para. 0001). Therefore, the claims recite the management of human affairs. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Further, Applicant argues “even if establishing ratings is a business result, the fact that the technical data (e.g., metering logs) facilitates that business result does not make the technical method including "...obtaining, by calling one or more application-programming interfaces (APIs) exposed in the media-presentation device, media-presentation data...." an abstract business practice.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts, as stated above, Examiner asserts that Applicant’s argument is moot as the argued “call an application programming interface (API)” was not included in the previous rejection’s argued abstract idea. Additionally, the fact that the method includes "...obtaining, by calling one or more application-programming interfaces (APIs) exposed in the media-presentation device, media-presentation data...." does not negate the recitation of an abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
On pages 13-14 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the claims are directed to a technological improvement. Citing paragraph 0013 of the as-filed Specification, Applicant argues “the claimed invention provides a specific technical solution: a “soft-meter” that helps to eliminate the need for external hardware by repurposing the internal software interfaces of the device itself.” Examiner begins by asserting that the argued “burdensome to install, costly to manufacture, and intrusive to maintain” is not a technical problem. Additionally, while Applicant argues that the present claims “repurpose the internal software interfaces of the device itself”, Examiner asserts that the additional elements are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
On page 14 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the use of APIs here is unconventional and specific. Applicant states “the claims do not merely recite the use of APIs for their standard purpose (e.g., to display media or to receive user input). Rather, claim 1 (for example) recites a “media-presentation device configured with soft-meter functionality” that uses “calling one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device” to obtain metering data.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the calling of an API is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function, per paragraph [0039] of US2015/0058946 A1 and paragraph [0108] of US2003/0061229 A1. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
On page 15 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the claims improve technical functionality. Citing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., Applicant argues that “the claims improve the media device by enabling it to function as a meter without the “significant costs and burdens” of physical hardware.” Examiner begins by asserting, as stated above, that the argued “significant costs and burdens” of physical hardware is not a technical problem. Additionally, the enabled functioning of a meter by obtaining data and producing a report is not analogous to the virus scanning claims found within Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.,. As stated above, the calling of an API is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function, per paragraph [0039] of US2015/0058946 A1 and paragraph [0108] of US2003/0061229 A1. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Continuing on pages 15-16 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the claimed API calls are not “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Specifically on page 15, Applicant argues “in the context of the claimed invention, the specific technical act of calling an API exposed in the device to obtain media- presentation data is not "extra-solution" activity. Rather, it is a core component of the claimed technical improvement that enables the elimination of external hardware. Because this step provides the necessary technical mechanism to achieve the soft-meter functionality, it is integral to the claim's practical application and cannot be dismissed as insignificant or peripheral.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and cites, MPEP 2106.05(g), “The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.” Per the cited MPEP section, the argued calling of an API is deemed pre-solution activity analogous to gathering data for use in a claimed process. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Finally, Applicant argues that the ordered combination is unconventional. Specifically, “Even if APIs are standard components of a media device, using them for the specific purpose of self-metering to replace external hardware is an unconventional technical arrangement.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the claims merely recite, “A media-presentation device configured with soft-meter functionality, the media-presentation device comprising: a media-input interface through which to receive media for presentation by the media- presentation device; a media-presentation interface through which to present the received media; a processor; non-transitory data storage; and a meter application including program instructions stored in the non-transitory data storage and executable by the processor; one or more application-programming interfaces (APIs)”. The claimed “a meter application including program instructions stored in the non-transitory data storage and executable by the processor; one or more application-programming interfaces (APIs)” is recited with a high-level of generality such that there is no change to the functioning of the executed media-presentation device. As stated above, the calling of an API is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function, per paragraph [0039] of US2015/0058946 A1 and paragraph [0108] of US2003/0061229 A1. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019). The 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 102 filed 1/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 16-18 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose the amended claim language. Beginning on page 17 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues Besehanic does not disclose “obtaining … by calling one or more APIs… media-presentation data”. Following a summary of the cited reference, Applicant argues “Applicant has not found in Besehanic a disclosure of the metadata extractor calling an API to obtain media-presentation data.” Per paragraph [00032] of the as-filed Specification, the calling of an API is described as the following, “the APIs define programmatic hooks within the media-presentation device 100 that other program logic in the media-presentation device 100 could use or “call” as a basis to trigger action, request and obtain information, and/or to carry out other useful functions.” This concept is found within cited Besehanic disclosure of the media monitor within paragraph [0039] as a “device or operating system provider’s media player application programming interface”. Per paragraph [0062], “the media monitor 108 does not collect metadata until a URL associated with media has been requested.” This request initiated with the media monitor to collect media information is believed to be analogous to the claimed subject matter. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant continues on page 18 of the provided remarks to argue Besehanic does not disclose “providing… a report based on the obtained media-presentation data” through the claimed mechanism. Specifically, Applicant argues “the report in Besehanic is based on extracted metadata tags, rather than on data obtained by interrogating device APIs.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts, per cited paragraphs [0025], “an audience measurement entity may generate media exposure metrics based on metadata extracted from the streaming media at the media presentation device and/or similar devices. A report is then generated based on the media exposure to indicate exposure measurements by device type. The report may also associate the media exposure metrics with demographic segments (e.g., age groups, genders, ethnicities, etc.) corresponding to the user(s) of the media device(s).” Therefore, the generated report is not based merely on metadata tags as argued by Applicant but analogous to the claimed subject matter. The 35 USC 102 rejection is maintained. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (device), 13 (method), and 20 (non-transitory computer-readable medium) and dependent claims 2-12, and 14-19, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a device (i.e. machine), claim 13 is directed to a method (i.e. process), and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. manufacture).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite soft-metering by a media-presentation device, wherein the media-presentation device comprises a media-input interface through which to receive media for presentation by the media-presentation device, and a media-presentation interface through which to present the received media, the method comprising: obtaining, by the media-presentation device, by calling one or more application-programming interfaces (APIs) exposed in the media-presentation device, media-presentation data regarding the presented media; and providing, by the media-presentation device, for receipt by a cloud-based computing system, a report based on the obtained media-presentation data, to facilitate establishment of ratings statistics (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are generating a report based on obtained media-presentation data to facilitate rating statistics, which is commercial interactions in the form of marketing. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are generating a report based on obtained media-presentation data to facilitate rating statistics, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are generating a report based on obtained media-presentation data to facilitate rating statistics, which are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgment, and evaluation. Additionally, the report could be generated utilizing pen & paper. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are generating a report based on obtained media-presentation data to facilitate rating statistics, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
In addition, dependent claims 2, 4-10, 12, 14, and 16-19 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the media presentation data; the user interaction supported by the system; information from over-the-top applications; identifying which media-input source is currently in use; providing close-caption text; information about the audio-output volume level; establishing audio signature data representing the presented media; and reporting for receipt the obtained identification of the one or more media-monitoring devices. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include commercial interactions such as marketing as well as mental processes. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas. Dependent claims 3, 11, and 15 will be discussed in Prong 2 analysis below.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “receive media for presentation; present the received media; obtaining, by the media-presentation device, by calling one or more application-programming interfaces (APIs) exposed in the media-presentation device, media-presentation data regarding the presented media; providing, by the media-presentation device, for receipt by a cloud-based computing system, a report” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “A media-presentation device configured with soft-meter functionality, the media-presentation device comprising: a media-input interface; a media-presentation interface; a processor; non-transitory data storage; a meter application including program instructions stored in the non-transitory data storage and executable by the processor; one or more application-programming interfaces (APIs); a cloud-based computing system; an external remote control; a remote-control API; an operating system API; over-the-top (OTT) applications; a media access API; a microphone-device; a local data interface; a local area network (LAN); A non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a meter application defining program instructions executable by a processor of a media-presentation device” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claims 2, 4-10, 12, 14, and 16-19 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 3-8, 10-12, and 15-19 additionally recite “obtaining the media-presentation data by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises calling the remote-control API to obtain, as at least a portion of the media-presentation data, the information about the presented media”, “obtaining the media-presentation data by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises obtaining, as at least part of the media-presentation data, the user identification information by calling the operating system API to cause the media-presentation device (i) to present through the media-output interface a prompt requesting user input indicating who is exposed to the presented media and (ii) to receive in response to the presented prompt the user input indicating who is exposed to the presented media”, “obtaining the media-presentation data by calling one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises calling the operating system API to obtain, as at least part of the media-presentation data, an indication of which of the OTT applications, if any, is currently running and providing content for presentation by the media-presentation device”, “obtaining the media-presentation data by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises calling the operating system API to obtain, as at least part of the media-presentation data, an indication of which media-input source is currently in use as a source of the presented media”, “obtaining the media-presentation data by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises calling the operating system API to obtain, as at least part of the media-presentation data, the closed-caption text”, “obtaining the media-presentation data by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises calling the operating system API to obtain, as at least part of the media-presentation data, the information about the audio-output volume level of the media-presentation device”, “obtaining the media-presentation data by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises (a) calling the media-access API to obtain audio of the presented media”, “receives acoustic audio output from a speaker of the media-presentation device and provides to the local data interface a digital representation of the received acoustic audio, and wherein obtaining the audio of the presented media comprises obtaining the digital representation of the received acoustic audio”, “(a) to broadcast on the LAN a discovery request seeking identification of one or more media-monitoring devices present on the LAN, (b) to obtain, in response to the broadcast, the identification of the one or more media-monitoring devices present on the LAN” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “remote-control API; operating system API; media presentation device; media access API; local data interface; local area network (LAN); meter application executable by the processor” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “A media-presentation device configured with soft-meter functionality, the media-presentation device comprising: a media-input interface; a media-presentation interface; a processor; non-transitory data storage; a meter application including program instructions stored in the non-transitory data storage and executable by the processor; one or more application-programming interfaces (APIs); a cloud-based computing system; an external remote control; a remote-control API; an operating system API; over-the-top (OTT) applications; a media access API; a microphone-device; a local data interface; a local area network (LAN); A non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a meter application defining program instructions executable by a processor of a media-presentation device” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claims 13-19; device claims 1-12; and non-transitory computer-readable medium claim 20 recite “A media-presentation device configured with soft-meter functionality, the media-presentation device comprising: a media-input interface; a media-presentation interface; a processor; non-transitory data storage; a meter application including program instructions stored in the non-transitory data storage and executable by the processor; one or more application-programming interfaces (APIs); a cloud-based computing system; an external remote control; a remote-control API; an operating system API; over-the-top (OTT) applications; a media access API; a microphone-device; a local data interface; a local area network (LAN); A non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a meter application defining program instructions executable by a processor of a media-presentation device”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0029 and 0039 and Figure 1. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “receive media for presentation; present the received media; obtaining, by the media-presentation device, by calling one or more application-programming interfaces (APIs) exposed in the media-presentation device, media-presentation data regarding the presented media; providing, by the media-presentation device, for receipt by a cloud-based computing system, a report” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed 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.
In addition, claims 2, 4-10, 12, 14, and 16-19 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 3-8, 10-12, and 15-19 additionally recite “obtaining the media-presentation data by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises calling the remote-control API to obtain, as at least a portion of the media-presentation data, the information about the presented media”, “obtaining the media-presentation data by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises obtaining, as at least part of the media-presentation data, the user identification information by calling the operating system API to cause the media-presentation device (i) to present through the media-output interface a prompt requesting user input indicating who is exposed to the presented media and (ii) to receive in response to the presented prompt the user input indicating who is exposed to the presented media”, “obtaining the media-presentation data by calling one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises calling the operating system API to obtain, as at least part of the media-presentation data, an indication of which of the OTT applications, if any, is currently running and providing content for presentation by the media-presentation device”, “obtaining the media-presentation data by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises calling the operating system API to obtain, as at least part of the media-presentation data, an indication of which media-input source is currently in use as a source of the presented media”, “obtaining the media-presentation data by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises calling the operating system API to obtain, as at least part of the media-presentation data, the closed-caption text”, “obtaining the media-presentation data by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises calling the operating system API to obtain, as at least part of the media-presentation data, the information about the audio-output volume level of the media-presentation device”, “obtaining the media-presentation data by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises (a) calling the media-access API to obtain audio of the presented media”, “receives acoustic audio output from a speaker of the media-presentation device and provides to the local data interface a digital representation of the received acoustic audio, and wherein obtaining the audio of the presented media comprises obtaining the digital representation of the received acoustic audio”, “(a) to broadcast on the LAN a discovery request seeking identification of one or more media-monitoring devices present on the LAN, (b) to obtain, in response to the broadcast, the identification of the one or more media-monitoring devices present on the LAN” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “remote-control API; operating system API; media presentation device; media access API; local data interface; local area network (LAN); meter application executable by the processor” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 10-16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Besehanic (U.S 2015/0319490 A1).
Claims 1, 13, and 20
Regarding Claim 1, Besehanic discloses the following:
A media-presentation device configured with soft-meter functionality, the media-presentation device comprising [see at least Paragraph 0013 for reference to methods, apparatus, systems, and articles of manufacture disclosed herein may be used to measure exposure to streaming media; Figure 1 and related text regarding the example system; Figure 2 and related text regarding the exemplary ‘media monitor’]
a media-input interface through which to receive media for presentation by the media-presentation device [see at least Paragraph 0064 for reference to the communication interface; Paragraph 0065 for reference to the communication interface communicating with the presentation device; Paragraph 0083 for reference to the interface circuit being implemented by any type of interface standard; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 502 ‘communication interface’; Figure 8 and related text regarding item 820 ‘interface’]
a media-presentation interface through which to present the received media [see at least Paragraph 0084 for reference to input devices permitting the use to enter data and commands into the processor; Paragraph 0084 for reference to input devices being implemented by for example a touchscreen; Figure 8 and related text regarding item 822 ‘input device(s)’]
a processor [see at least Paragraph 0070 for reference to the machine readable instructions comprising a program for execution by a processor; Paragraph 0081 for reference to the provided being hardware implemented by one or more integrated circuits, logic circuits, microprocessors or controllers from any desired family or manufacturer; Figure 8 and related text regarding item 812 ‘processor’
non-transitory data storage [see at least Paragraph 0079 for reference to the example processes of FIGS. 6 and 7 may be implemented using coded instructions (e.g., computer and/or machine readable instructions) stored on a non-transitory computer and/or machine readable medium such as a hard disk drive, a flash memory, a read-only memory, a compact disk, a digital versatile disk, a cache, a random-access memory and/or any other storage device or stored for any duration; Paragraph 0079 for reference to non-transitory computer readable medium is expressly defined to include any type of computer readable storage device and/or storage disk and to exclude propagating signals and to exclude transmission media]
a meter application including program instructions stored in the non-transitory data storage and executable by the processor to carry out soft-meter operations including [see at least Paragraph 0039 for reference to the presentation device including a media monitor implemented by metering functionality in a media player (e.g., a browser, a local application, etc.) that presents streaming media provided by the service provider; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 108 ‘media monitor’; Figure 2 and related text regarding ‘media monitor’]
(i) obtaining, by calling one or more application-programming interfaces (APIs) exposed in the media-presentation device, media-presentation data regarding the presented media [see at least Paragraph 0039 for reference to the media monitor being implemented according to a device or operating system provider’s media player application programming interface (API); Paragraph 0062 for reference to the media monitor does not collect metadata until a URL associated with media has been requested; Paragraph 0076 for reference to the example communication interface receiving metering data from the media monitor; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 704 ‘RECEIVE METERING DATA FROM MEDIA MONITOR’]
(ii) providing for receipt by a cloud-based computing system a report based on the obtained media-presentation data, to facilitate establishment of ratings statistics [see at least Paragraph 0025 for reference to methods, apparatus, systems, and articles of manufacture disclosed herein may also be used to generate reports indicative of media exposure metrics on one or more different types of streaming media devices; Paragraph 0039 for reference to the media monitor reports metering data to the central facility; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 110 ‘central facility’]
Regarding claims 13 and 20, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 13, Besehanic teaches a method for soft-metering by a media-presentation device [Paragraph 0013, 0025, & Figure 7]. Regarding claim 20, Baird teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium embodying a meter application defining program instructions executable by a processor [Paragraph 0079 & Figure 6-7]. Therefore, claims 13 and 20 are rejected as being unpatentable in view of Besehanic.
Claims 2 and 14
Regarding Claim 2, Besehanic discloses the following:
wherein the media-presentation data comprises data selected from the group consisting of identification of the presented media, identification of a channel of the presented media, identification of a source of the presented media, audio volume of presentation of the media, and user identification information indicating one or more individuals exposed to the presented media [see at least Paragraph 0019 for reference to attributes, such as an identifier of the media, a presentation time, a broadcast channel, etc., are collected for the reference signature, these attributes may then be associated with the monitored media whose monitored signature matched the reference signature; Paragraph 0035 for reference to media provided by the media provider(s) can provide any type(s) of media, such as audio, video, multimedia, etc.]
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 3 and 15
Regarding Claim 3, Besehanic discloses the following:
wherein the media-presentation device is controllable by an external remote control, and wherein the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises a remote-control API configured to enable the media-presentation device to provide the external remote control with information about the presented media [see at least Paragraph 0045 for reference to the player state detector monitors for commands from a remote control associated with the media presentation device; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 104 ‘presentation device’]
wherein obtaining the media-presentation data by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises calling the remote-control API to obtain, as at least a portion of the media-presentation data, the information about the presented media [see at least Paragraph 0039 for reference to the media monitor being implemented according to a device or operating system provider’s media player application programming interface (API); Paragraph 0045 for reference to the player state detector monitors the time the media is broadcast (e.g., streamed to the media device) compared to the time of playback to determining any time shifting events corresponding to player state events; Paragraph 0076 for reference to the example communication interface receiving metering data from the media monitor; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 704 ‘RECEIVE METERING DATA FROM MEDIA MONITOR’]
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4 and 16
Regarding Claim 4, Besehanic discloses the following:
wherein the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises an operating system API configured to support user interaction through the media-presentation interface [see at least Paragraph 0039 for reference to the media monitor being implemented according to a device or operating system provider’s media player application programming interface (API); Paragraph 0076 for reference to the example communication interface receiving metering data from the media monitor; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 704 ‘RECEIVE METERING DATA FROM MEDIA MONITOR’]
wherein obtaining the media-presentation data by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises obtaining, as at least part of the media-presentation data, the user identification information by calling the operating system API to cause the media-presentation device (i) to present through the media-output interface a prompt requesting user input indicating who is exposed to the presented media and (ii) to receive in response to the presented prompt the user input indicating who is exposed to the presented media [see at least Paragraph 0039 for reference to the media monitor being implemented according to a device or operating system provider’s media player application programming interface (API); Paragraph 0041 for reference to the people meter counts and/or identifies the audience members actively by prompting the audience members to register (e.g., login) or otherwise self-identify and/or to identify their number and/or certain corresponding demographic characteristics (e.g., male/female, age bracket, etc.); Paragraph 0076 for reference to the example communication interface receiving metering data from the media monitor; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 704 ‘RECEIVE METERING DATA FROM MEDIA MONITOR’]
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 6 and 18
Regarding Claim 6, Besehanic discloses the following:
wherein the media-input interface comprises a plurality of media-input sources, and wherein the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises an operating system API configured to provide an identification of which media-input source is currently in use [see at least Paragraph 0039 for reference to the media monitor being implemented according to a device or operating system provider’s media player application programming interface (API); Paragraph 0076 for reference to the example communication interface receiving metering data from the media monitor; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 704 ‘RECEIVE METERING DATA FROM MEDIA MONITOR’]
wherein obtaining the media-presentation data by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises calling the operating system API to obtain, as at least part of the media-presentation data, an indication of which media-input source is currently in use as a source of the presented media [see at least Paragraph 0039 for reference to the media monitor being implemented according to a device or operating system provider’s media player application programming interface (API); Paragraph 0041 for reference to the people meter counts and/or identifies the audience members actively by prompting the audience members to register (e.g., login) or otherwise self-identify and/or to identify their number and/or certain corresponding demographic characteristics (e.g., male/female, age bracket, etc.); Paragraph 0076 for reference to the example communication interface receiving metering data from the media monitor; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 704 ‘RECEIVE METERING DATA FROM MEDIA MONITOR’]
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 8
Regarding Claim 8, Besehanic discloses the following:
wherein the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises an operating system API configured to provide information about audio-output volume level of the media-presentation device [see at least Paragraph 0035 for reference to the media provided to the media provider including audio, video, multimedia, etc.; Paragraph 0039 for reference to the media monitor being implemented according to a device or operating system provider’s media player application programming interface (API); Paragraph 0076 for reference to the example communication interface receiving metering data from the media monitor; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 704 ‘RECEIVE METERING DATA FROM MEDIA MONITOR’]
wherein obtaining the media-presentation data by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises calling the operating system API to obtain, as at least part of the media-presentation data, the information about the audio-output volume level of the media-presentation device [see at least Paragraph 0035 for reference to the media provided to the media provider including audio, video, multimedia, etc.; Paragraph 0039 for reference to the media monitor being implemented according to a device or operating system provider’s media player application programming interface (API); Paragraph 0076 for reference to the example communication interface receiving metering data from the media monitor; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 704 ‘RECEIVE METERING DATA FROM MEDIA MONITOR’]
Claim 10
Regarding Claim 10, Besehanic discloses the following:
wherein the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises a media-access API configured to provide access to the presented media [see at least Paragraph 0039 for reference to the media monitor being implemented according to a device or operating system provider’s media player application programming interface (API); Paragraph 0076 for reference to the example communication interface receiving metering data from the media monitor; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 704 ‘RECEIVE METERING DATA FROM MEDIA MONITOR’]
wherein obtaining the media-presentation data by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises (a) calling the media-access API to obtain audio of the presented media and (b) establishing based on the obtained audio, as at least part of the media presentation data, audio signature data representing the presented media [see at least Paragraph 0035 for reference to the media provided to the media provider including audio, video, multimedia, etc.; Paragraph 0039 for reference to the media monitor being implemented according to a device or operating system provider’s media player application programming interface (API); Paragraph 0076 for reference to the example communication interface receiving metering data from the media monitor; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 704 ‘RECEIVE METERING DATA FROM MEDIA MONITOR’]
Claim 11
Regarding Claim 11, Besehanic discloses the following:
further comprising a local data interface, wherein a microphone-device coupled with the local data interface receives acoustic audio output from a speaker of the media-presentation device and provides to the local data interface a digital representation of the received acoustic audio [see at least Paragraph 0035 for reference to the media provided to the media provider including audio, video, multimedia, etc.; Paragraph 0084 for reference to the input devices are connected to the interface circuit and the input devices including a microphone; Figure 8 and related text regarding item 820 ‘interface circuit’ and item 822 ‘input devices’]
wherein obtaining the audio of the presented media comprises obtaining the digital representation of the received acoustic audio [see at least Paragraph 0035 for reference to the media provided to the media provider including audio, video, multimedia, etc.; Paragraph 0041 for reference to audio captured by a microphone associated with the presentation device and/or images (e.g., pictures, video) captured by a camera associated with the presentation device may be analyzed to monitor the audience members]
Claim 12
Regarding Claim 12, Besehanic discloses the following:
wherein the media-presentation device is connectable with a local area network (LAN), and wherein the meter application is further executable by the processor (a) to broadcast on the LAN a discovery request seeking identification of one or more media-monitoring devices present on the LAN, (b) to obtain, in response to the broadcast, the identification of the one or more media-monitoring devices present on the LAN, and (c) to report for receipt by the cloud-based computing system the obtained identification of the one or more media-monitoring devices present on the LAN [see at least Paragraph 0038 for reference to network(s) communicatively linking the service provider and the presentation device such as, for example, a local area network (LAN); Paragraph 0039 for reference to the media monitor reports metering data to the central facility; Paragraph 0076 for reference to the example communication interface receiving metering data from the media monitor; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 704 ‘RECEIVE METERING DATA FROM MEDIA MONITOR’]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besehanic (U.S 2015/0319490 A1) in view of Goli (U.S 2017/0064411 A1).
Claims 5 and 17
Regarding Claim 5, Besehanic discloses the following:
wherein the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises an operating system API configured to provide information indicating which of various applications installed on the media-presentation device is currently running and providing content for presentation by the media-presentation device [see at least Paragraph 0039 for reference to the media monitor being implemented according to a device or operating system provider’s media player application programming interface (API); Paragraph 0076 for reference to the example communication interface receiving metering data from the media monitor; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 704 ‘RECEIVE METERING DATA FROM MEDIA MONITOR’]
wherein obtaining the media-presentation data by calling one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises calling the operating system API to obtain, as at least part of the media-presentation data, an indication of which of the applications, if any, is currently running and providing content for presentation by the media-presentation device [see at least Paragraph 0039 for reference to the media monitor being implemented according to a device or operating system provider’s media player application programming interface (API); Paragraph 0045 for reference to the player state detector monitors the time the media is broadcast (e.g., streamed to the media device) compared to the time of playback to determining any time shifting events corresponding to player state events; Paragraph 0076 for reference to the example communication interface receiving metering data from the media monitor; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 704 ‘RECEIVE METERING DATA FROM MEDIA MONITOR’]
While Besehanic discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose wherein the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises an operating system API configured to provide information indicating which of various over-the-top (OTT) applications installed on the media-presentation device is currently running and providing content for presentation by the media-presentation device, wherein obtaining the media-presentation data by calling one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises calling the operating system API to obtain, as at least part of the media-presentation data, an indication of which of the OTT applications, if any, is currently running and providing content for presentation by the media-presentation device.
Regarding Claim 5, Goli discloses the following:
provide information indicating which of various over-the-top (OTT) applications installed on the media-presentation device is currently running and providing content for presentation by the media-presentation device [see at least Paragraph 0036 for reference to the AME on-site meter 114 corrects demographics, assigns viewer ship, and determines audience measurement data; Figure 2 and related text regarding the OTT service provider and AME on-site meter and AME server]
wherein obtaining the media-presentation data, as at least part of the media-presentation data, an indication of which of the OTT applications, if any, is currently running and providing content for presentation by the media-presentation device [see at least Paragraph 0036 for reference to the AME onsite meter determining audience measurement data based on a plurality of OTT devices; Paragraph 0039 for reference to the collected event data being used to determine audience measurement data; Paragraph 0048 for reference to the AME on-site meter transmitting audience measurement data to the AME server]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the obtaining of media presentation data of Besehanic to include the OTT applications of Goli. Doing so would enable the AME to acquire monitoring data (e.g., demographic impressions) of people (e.g., OTT device users) who would not otherwise have joined an audience measurement panel, as stated by Goli (Paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 5.
Claim(s) 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besehanic (U.S 2015/0319490 A1) in view of Zaletel (U.S 2017/0257414 A1).
Claims 7 and 19
While Besehanic discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose wherein the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises an operating system API configured to provide closed-caption text for presentation with the media, wherein obtaining the media-presentation data by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises calling the operating system API to obtain, as at least part of the media-presentation data, the closed-caption text.
Regarding Claim 7, Zaletel discloses the following:
wherein the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises an operating system API configured to provide closed-caption text for presentation with the media [see at least Paragraph 0036 for reference to the electronic device containing a voice detection system or service API, a Speech - To - Text (STT) system or service API, a Text - To - Speech (TTS) system or service API, a translation system or service, a pixel-motion detection system or service API; Paragraph 0042 for reference to Information acquired via the voice detection system or service API may be used to automatically add captions, bubbles or applicable information on video clips, photo graphs, the title screen, the credits screen or any other portion of the finalized composition; Paragraph 0043 for reference to the Speech - To - Text system or service API can be used to convert the spoken word portions of a recorded audio track of a video clip or the audio track of an audio recording into written text where possible for the purposes of automatically adding subtitles, closed – captioning or meta-data to a video clip or the final composition]
wherein obtaining the media-presentation data by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device comprises calling the operating system API to obtain, as at least part of the media-presentation data, the closed-caption text [see at least Paragraph 0042 for reference to Information acquired via the voice detection system or service API may be used to automatically add captions, bubbles or applicable information on video clips, photo graphs, the title screen, the credits screen or any other portion of the finalized composition; Paragraph 0043 for reference to the Speech - To - Text system or service API can be used to convert the spoken word portions of a recorded audio track of a video clip or the audio track of an audio recording into written text where possible for the purposes of automatically adding subtitles, closed – captioning or meta-data to a video clip or the final composition]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the media presentation data of Besehanic to include the closed-caption text of Zaletel. Doing so would assist a user in creating a composition in real-time that combines media from his or device with media from many devices, as stated by Zaletel (Paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 7.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besehanic (U.S 2015/0319490 A1) in view of Rattazzi (U.S 9,066,122 B1).
Claim 9
While Besehanic discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose wherein the information about the audio-output volume level of the media-presentation device comprises information about the media-presentation device being in a mute state in which the audio-output volume level is zero.
Regarding Claim 9, Rattazzi discloses the following:
wherein the information about the audio-output volume level of the media-presentation device comprises information about the media-presentation device being in a mute state in which the audio-output volume level is zero [see at least Col 5 lines 61-68 for reference to information transmitted to the content provider regarding the video advertisement including volume; Col 16 lines 65-68 and Col 17 lines 22-24 & 29-30 for reference to the video advertisement metrics including video noise level & video volume mute]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the audio information of Besehanic to include the volume mute level of Rattazzi. Doing so would improve the content selection process, and in particular to improve the revenue generated from the display of the content segments, as stated by Rattazzi (Col 2 lines 14-16).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lomborg, Stine, and Anja Bechmann. "Using APIs for data collection on social media." The Information Society 30.4 (2014): 256-265.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
WO 2021/097264 A1
Singh et al.
PERSONALIZED PRODUCT SERVICE
US 2012/0215903 A1
Fleischman et al.
Generating Audience Response Metrics And Ratings From Social Interest In Time-Based Media
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIN ELIZABETH GAVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 PM EST.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/KRISTIN E GAVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624