DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination filed May 7th, 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/07/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 101 filed 04/09/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-13 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims present statutory subject matter. Beginning on page 12 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that Examiner’s previous analysis regarding Step 2A Prong 1 is moot in view of the claim amendments. Applicant specifically argues amendment of “the terms “soft-metering”, “providing”, and “a report based on the obtained media-presentation data, to facilitate establishment of rating statistics” renders the previous rejection moot. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the claims still recite “meter functionality” as well as a meter application conducting “meter media presentation” which similar to the previous rejection, are both managing personal behavior as well as functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgement, and evaluation. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Continuing on page 12 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “the Examiner’s discussion of the additional steps of the eligibility analysis is not moot as well, because the discussion hinged on the Examiner’s assertion that the abstract idea was recited by terms that are no longer in the independent claims.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts, per MPEP 2106.04(d)(II) “The analysis under Step 2A Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon (including products of nature). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application”. Therefore, Prong 2 analysis is not “hinged on the Examiner’s assertion that the abstract idea was recited” as argued by Applicant, but the above determination of whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Finally, on pages 12-13 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the claims are directed to a technological improvement. Specifically, on page 13, Applicant argues “The claimed invention provides a specific technical solution, helping 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). The 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 14-17, filed 04/09/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Besehanic (U.S 2015/0319490 A1) in view of Bosworth (U.S 2016/0323162 A1).
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 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: metering media presentation, by the media-presentation device, calling one or more application-programming interfaces (APIs) exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain, media-presentation data regarding the presented media (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 metering media presentation, which is managing personal behavior. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are metering media presentation, 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 metering media presentation, which are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgment, and evaluation. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are metering media presentation, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
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 managing personal behavior 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; calling one or more application-programming interfaces (APIs) exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain media-presentation data regarding the presented media” 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 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); 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 “by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media comprises calling the remote-control API to obtain, as at least a portion of the media-presentation data, the information about the presented media”, “by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media 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”, “by calling one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media 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”, “by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media 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”, “by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media comprises calling the operating system API to obtain, as at least part of the media-presentation data, the closed-caption text”, “by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media 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”, “by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media 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); 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); 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; calling one or more application-programming interfaces (APIs) exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain media-presentation data regarding the presented media” 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 “by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media comprises calling the remote-control API to obtain, as at least a portion of the media-presentation data, the information about the presented media”, “by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media 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”, “by calling one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media 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”, “by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media 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”, “by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media comprises calling the operating system API to obtain, as at least part of the media-presentation data, the closed-caption text”, “by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media 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”, “by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media 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 § 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) 1-4, 6, 8, 10-16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besehanic (U.S 2015/0319490 A1) in view of Bosworth (U.S 2016/0323162 A1).
Claims 1, 13, and 20
Regarding Claim 1, Besehanic discloses the following:
A media-presentation device configured with 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 meter media presentation [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’]
one or more application-programming interfaces (APIs) exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain 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’]
While Besehanic discloses the limitations above, a meter application including program instructions stored in the non-transitory data storage and executable by the processor to meter media presentation by calling one or more application-programming interfaces (APIs) exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain media-presentation data regarding the presented media.
However, Bosworth discloses the following:
a meter application including program instructions stored in the non-transitory data storage and executable by the processor to meter media presentation by calling one or more application-programming interfaces (APIs) exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain media-presentation data regarding the presented media [see at least Paragraph 0029 for reference to example media device includes a monitoring instruction executor to execute the monitoring instructions, wherein the monitoring instruction executor communicates with the central facility to report monitoring information; Paragraph 0036 for reference to monitoring instruction executor executes instructions (e.g., Java, java Script, and/or any other computer language or script) that, when executed, cause the media device to collect metadata corresponding to presented media and to send the metadata to the central facility via an API call defined by the central facility; Paragraph 0037 for reference to the monitoring instruction executor uses an API call to initiate a session with the central facility, where subsequent API calls from the monitoring instruction executor are provided to the central facility and/or processed within the central facility within the context of the session; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 135 ‘monitoring instruction executor’ of item 130 ‘media device’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the metering information of Besehanic to include the API calling of Bosworth. Doing so would assist in statistically determining the size and demographics of an audience of interest, as stated by Bosworth (Paragraph 0003).
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 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 and Bosworth.
Claims 2 and 14
While the combination of Besehanic and Bosworth disclose the limitations above, 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
While the combination of Besehanic and Bosworth disclose the limitations above, 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 metering media presentation by the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media 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’]
While Besehanic discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose wherein metering media presentation by the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media.
However, Bosworth discloses the following:
wherein metering media presentation by the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media [see at least Paragraph 0029 for reference to example media device includes a monitoring instruction executor to execute the monitoring instructions, wherein the monitoring instruction executor communicates with the central facility to report monitoring information; Paragraph 0036 for reference to monitoring instruction executor executes instructions (e.g., Java, java Script, and/or any other computer language or script) that, when executed, cause the media device to collect metadata corresponding to presented media and to send the metadata to the central facility via an API call defined by the central facility; Paragraph 0037 for reference to the monitoring instruction executor uses an API call to initiate a session with the central facility, where subsequent API calls from the monitoring instruction executor are provided to the central facility and/or processed within the central facility within the context of the session; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 135 ‘monitoring instruction executor’ of item 130 ‘media device’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the metering information of Besehanic to include the API calling of Bosworth. Doing so would assist in statistically determining the size and demographics of an audience of interest, as stated by Bosworth (Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4 and 16
While the combination of Besehanic and Bosworth disclose the limitations above, 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 metering media presentation by the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media 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’]
While Besehanic discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose wherein metering media presentation by the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media.
However, Bosworth discloses the following:
wherein metering media presentation by the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media [see at least Paragraph 0029 for reference to example media device includes a monitoring instruction executor to execute the monitoring instructions, wherein the monitoring instruction executor communicates with the central facility to report monitoring information; Paragraph 0036 for reference to monitoring instruction executor executes instructions (e.g., Java, java Script, and/or any other computer language or script) that, when executed, cause the media device to collect metadata corresponding to presented media and to send the metadata to the central facility via an API call defined by the central facility; Paragraph 0037 for reference to the monitoring instruction executor uses an API call to initiate a session with the central facility, where subsequent API calls from the monitoring instruction executor are provided to the central facility and/or processed within the central facility within the context of the session; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 135 ‘monitoring instruction executor’ of item 130 ‘media device’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the metering information of Besehanic to include the API calling of Bosworth. Doing so would assist in statistically determining the size and demographics of an audience of interest, as stated by Bosworth (Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 6 and 18
While the combination of Besehanic and Bosworth disclose the limitations above, 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 metering media presentation by the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media 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’]
While Besehanic discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose wherein metering media presentation by the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media.
However, Bosworth discloses the following:
wherein metering media presentation by the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media [see at least Paragraph 0029 for reference to example media device includes a monitoring instruction executor to execute the monitoring instructions, wherein the monitoring instruction executor communicates with the central facility to report monitoring information; Paragraph 0036 for reference to monitoring instruction executor executes instructions (e.g., Java, java Script, and/or any other computer language or script) that, when executed, cause the media device to collect metadata corresponding to presented media and to send the metadata to the central facility via an API call defined by the central facility; Paragraph 0037 for reference to the monitoring instruction executor uses an API call to initiate a session with the central facility, where subsequent API calls from the monitoring instruction executor are provided to the central facility and/or processed within the central facility within the context of the session; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 135 ‘monitoring instruction executor’ of item 130 ‘media device’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the metering information of Besehanic to include the API calling of Bosworth. Doing so would assist in statistically determining the size and demographics of an audience of interest, as stated by Bosworth (Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 8
While the combination of Besehanic and Bosworth disclose the limitations above, 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 metering media presentation by the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media 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’]
While Besehanic discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose wherein metering media presentation by the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media.
However, Bosworth discloses the following:
wherein metering media presentation by the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media [see at least Paragraph 0029 for reference to example media device includes a monitoring instruction executor to execute the monitoring instructions, wherein the monitoring instruction executor communicates with the central facility to report monitoring information; Paragraph 0036 for reference to monitoring instruction executor executes instructions (e.g., Java, java Script, and/or any other computer language or script) that, when executed, cause the media device to collect metadata corresponding to presented media and to send the metadata to the central facility via an API call defined by the central facility; Paragraph 0037 for reference to the monitoring instruction executor uses an API call to initiate a session with the central facility, where subsequent API calls from the monitoring instruction executor are provided to the central facility and/or processed within the central facility within the context of the session; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 135 ‘monitoring instruction executor’ of item 130 ‘media device’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the metering information of Besehanic to include the API calling of Bosworth. Doing so would assist in statistically determining the size and demographics of an audience of interest, as stated by Bosworth (Paragraph 0003).
Claim 10
While the combination of Besehanic and Bosworth disclose the limitations above, 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 metering media presentation by the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media 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’]
While Besehanic discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose wherein metering media presentation by the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media.
However, Bosworth discloses the following:
wherein metering media presentation by the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media [see at least Paragraph 0029 for reference to example media device includes a monitoring instruction executor to execute the monitoring instructions, wherein the monitoring instruction executor communicates with the central facility to report monitoring information; Paragraph 0036 for reference to monitoring instruction executor executes instructions (e.g., Java, java Script, and/or any other computer language or script) that, when executed, cause the media device to collect metadata corresponding to presented media and to send the metadata to the central facility via an API call defined by the central facility; Paragraph 0037 for reference to the monitoring instruction executor uses an API call to initiate a session with the central facility, where subsequent API calls from the monitoring instruction executor are provided to the central facility and/or processed within the central facility within the context of the session; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 135 ‘monitoring instruction executor’ of item 130 ‘media device’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the metering information of Besehanic to include the API calling of Bosworth. Doing so would assist in statistically determining the size and demographics of an audience of interest, as stated by Bosworth (Paragraph 0003).
Claim 11
While the combination of Besehanic and Bosworth disclose the limitations above, 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
While the combination of Besehanic and Bosworth disclose the limitations above, 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(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 Bosworth (U.S 2016/0323162 A1), as applied in claims 2 and 14, in view of Goli (U.S 2017/0064411 A1).
Claims 5 and 17
While the combination of Besehanic and Bosworth disclose the limitations above, 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 metering media presentation by one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media 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 metering media presentation by calling one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media 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.
However, Bosworth discloses the following:
wherein metering media presentation by the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media [see at least Paragraph 0029 for reference to example media device includes a monitoring instruction executor to execute the monitoring instructions, wherein the monitoring instruction executor communicates with the central facility to report monitoring information; Paragraph 0036 for reference to monitoring instruction executor executes instructions (e.g., Java, java Script, and/or any other computer language or script) that, when executed, cause the media device to collect metadata corresponding to presented media and to send the metadata to the central facility via an API call defined by the central facility; Paragraph 0037 for reference to the monitoring instruction executor uses an API call to initiate a session with the central facility, where subsequent API calls from the monitoring instruction executor are provided to the central facility and/or processed within the central facility within the context of the session; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 135 ‘monitoring instruction executor’ of item 130 ‘media device’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the metering information of Besehanic to include the API calling of Bosworth. Doing so would assist in statistically determining the size and demographics of an audience of interest, as stated by Bosworth (Paragraph 0003).
While Bosworth 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 metering media presentation by calling one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media 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 metering media presentation, 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 Bosworth (U.S 2016/0323162 A1), as applied in claims 2 and 14, in view of Zaletel (U.S 2017/0257414 A1).
Claims 7 and 19
While the combination of Besehanic and Bosworth disclose the limitations above, they do 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 metering media presentation by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media 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 metering media presentation by calling the one or more APIs exposed in the media-presentation device to obtain the media-presentation data regarding the presented media 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 Bosworth (U.S 2016/0323162 A1), as applied in claim 8, in view of Rattazzi (U.S 9,066,122 B1).
Claim 9
While the combination of Besehanic and Bosworth disclose the limitations above, they do 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.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
US 2008/0172681 A1
Donald et al.
METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR METERING COMPUTER-BASED MEDIA PRESENTATION
US 2011/0081008 A1
Lawson et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR RUNNING A MULTI-MODULE TELEPHONY APPLICATION
AU 2006304933 A1
Conklin et al.
Methods And Apparatus For Metering Portable Media Players
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
Prosecution Insights