DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,035,002 in view of Davis et al (US PG Pub No. 2016/0066005).
Claims 1, 8 and 15 corresponds to claims 1 and 3. Instant claims differ by
limitations identifying one or more stored media data pairs in a media database, the one or more stored media data pairs corresponding to one or more streaming media data pairs included in the set of streaming media data pairs obtained from the media provider.
In similar field of endeavor, Davis et al teaches identifying one or more stored media data pairs in a media database (i.e. storing user identifying information and/or demographics such that received user identifiers can be translated into demographic information) (Para. 0066), the one or more stored media data pairs corresponding to one or more streaming media data pairs included in the set of streaming media data pairs obtained from the media provider (i.e. identify demographic information in association with the received user/device identifier(s)) (Fig. 7; Para. 0066, 0087-88, 0090). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claimed invention for the purpose of quickly and accurately identifying information to provide valuable information to service providers and/or advertisers.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 corresponds to claim 2.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 corresponds to claim 3.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 corresponds to claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al (US PG Pub No. 2016/0066005), in view of Guo et al (US PG Pub No. 2015/0058120).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15 an audience measurement computing system (Figure 1; Abstract) comprising:
a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the audience measurement computing system to perform operations (Fig. 13 and Para. 0069) comprising:
obtaining a set of streaming media data pairs from a media provider [130], the set of streaming media data pairs corresponding to respective times (i.e. user and/or device identifiers, streaming data is identified and time stamped) at which a media presentation device [151, 154] accessed streaming media transmitted by the media provider [130] (i.e. data table generated in response to streaming device(s) streaming data) (Fig. 8-9; Para. 0034, 0072-74);
identifying one or more stored media data pairs in a media database (i.e. storing user identifying information and/or demographics such that received user identifiers can be translated into demographic information) (Para. 0066), the one or more stored media data pairs corresponding to one or more streaming media data pairs included in the set of streaming media data pairs obtained from the media provider (i.e. identify demographic information in association with the received user/device identifier(s)) (Fig. 7; Para. 0066, 0087-88, 0090);
identifying one or more panelists associated with the one or more stored media data pairs (i.e. a user and/or device identifier to identify a panelist and/or panelist device associated with a media presentation) (Para. 0064, 0087);
determining that the one or more panelists are associated with the one or more streaming media data pairs included in the set of streaming media data pairs obtained from the media provider (Para. 0087, 0090); and assigning demographic data corresponding to the one or more panelists with the one or more streaming media data pairs (the media monitoring information includes a user and/or device identifier to identify a panelist and/or panelist device associated with a media presentation. The user and/or device identifier enables correlation of the media monitoring events with a particular panelist and/or panelist demographic) (Para. 0087, 0090).
The reference is unclear with respect to determining a probability and based on the probability.
In similar field of endeavor, Guo et al teaches concept of determining a probability and based on the probability (Para. 0027). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Davis by specifically determining a probability and based on the probability before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the common knowledge purpose of accurately calculating an outcome associated with a media presentation to provide valuable information to service providers and/or advertisers.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected wherein the set of streaming media data pairs comprises a plurality of streaming media data pairs, each streaming media data pair comprising an identification of the streaming media (920, 930) transmitted by the media provider [130] and a timestamp (910) corresponding to an access of the streaming media (Figure 9; Para. 0075).
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected wherein assigning the demographic data corresponding to the one or more panelists with the one or more streaming media data pairs based on the probability comprises: determining that the probability is above a probability threshold (Davis: Para. 0087, 0090 and Guo: Para. 0027).
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected wherein assigning the demographic data corresponding to the one or more panelists with the one or more streaming media data pairs based on the probability comprises, for each of the one or more panelists: mapping a panelist identifier onto respective demographic data associated with the panelist in a panelist database (Davis: Figures 9, 11; Para. 0087, 0090 and Guo: Para. 0027).
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected wherein the media presentation device comprises: a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a smartphone, a tablet, or a television (Davis: Figures 1-2; Para. 0032).
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected wherein identifying that the one or more stored media data pairs correspond to the one or more streaming media data pairs comprises: determining that at least one stored media data pair matches at least one streaming media data pair (Davis: Figures 9, 11; Abstract, Para. 0087, 0090).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected wherein identifying that the one or more stored media data pairs correspond to the one or more streaming media data pairs further comprises:
determining that a second stored media data pair different from the at least one stored media data pair matches a second streaming media data pair; based on the determination, determining a correspondence criteria between the one or more stored media data pairs and the one or more streaming media data pairs (Fig. 9, 11 and 12; Abstract, Para. 0083-84, 0087, 0096); and
based on the correspondence criteria, identifying the one or more stored media data pairs as corresponding to the one or more streaming media data pairs (Fig. 9, 11 and 12; Abstract, Para. 0083-84, 0087, 0090, 0096).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUNAL LANGHNOJA whose telephone number is (571)270-3583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM - 5:00PM ET.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571) 272-7527. 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.
/KUNAL LANGHNOJA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425