DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statements submitted are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaswamy et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0070797 (hereinafter Ramaswamy) combined with Monaghan et al, U.S. Patent No. 9,955,359 (hereinafter Monaghan) in further view of Jain et al, U.S. Patent No. 9,696,336 (hereinafter Jain).
Regarding claim 1, Ramaswamy discloses a system (from Figure 1, see 118) comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising: tracking (from paragraph 0007, see Location information may be collected using any of several known systems such as, for example, location code emitters and broadcast positioning systems. Location code emitters are typically configured to emit location codes associated with respective areas within which the location code emitters are disposed. The codes may be, for example, acoustic codes, audio codes, RF codes, IR codes, Bluetooth.RTM. codes, etc., that are detected by PPMs worn or carried by audience members. More specifically, the location codes may be automatically and continuously or intermittently detected and collected by a PPM as the PPM is moved from area to area) a first location of a first portable metering device (from Figure 1, see 104A) and a second location of a second portable metering device (from Figure 1, see 104B) over a period of time based on a plurality of distance values (from Figure 4A, see Distance x) associated with one or more surrounding devices (from Figure 1, see 112A, 104B, 112N, 114C, 112C, 104C, 114B, 128) at a media exposure measurement location (from Figure 1, see 100) where consumers (from Figure 1, see 106) are exposed to media (from paragraph 0003, see Consuming media presentations (i.e., audio and/or video presentations) generally involves listening to audio information and/or viewing video information. Media presentations may include, for example, radio programs, music, television programs, movies, still images, etc).
Still on the issue of claim 1, Ramaswamy does not teach comparing the first location and the second location over the period of time and based on the comparison, flagging meter data obtained by the first metering device and the second metering device over the period of time as corrupted meter data. All the same, Monaghan discloses comparing the first location and the second location over the period of time (from abstract, see The system monitors the locations of individuals using devices that communicate with a network, and maintain statistics for analytical purposes, and can provide services, such as special promotions and discounts. The system can determine whether a single person is carrying multiple devices, e.g., a user carrying a cellphone (including a smartphone) and a tablet or a laptop). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ramaswamy with comparing the first location and the second location over the period of time as taught by Monaghan. This modification would have improved marketing and retail functions by providing information about movement patterns as suggested by Monaghan.
Further regarding claim 1, the combination of Ramaswamy and Monaghan does explicitly teach based on the comparison, flagging meter data obtained by the first meeting device and the second metering device over the period of time as corrupted meter data. All the same, Jain discloses based on the comparison (from Figure 8, see 812), flagging (from Figure 8, see 813) meter data (from abstract, see During a media session, the portable computing device collects media exposure data) obtained by the first meeting device (from Figure 6, see Device1) and the second metering device (from Figure 6, see Device2) over the period of time as corrupted meter data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Ramaswamy and Monaghan wherein based on the comparison, flagging meter data obtained by the first meeting device and the second metering device over the period of time as corrupted meter data as taught by Jain. This modification would have improved reliability by ensuring the panelists are correctly using the portable metering devices as suggested by Jain.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ramaswamy and Monaghan discloses wherein the first location of the first portable metering device substantially matches the second location of the second portable metering device over the period of time (from Monaghan, see lines 30 through 35 of column 11, For example, a single user will likely have a substantially identical path because one user is carrying multiple devices).
Regarding claim 3, Ramaswamy discloses wherein the one or more surrounding devices comprise a beacon device (from Figure 1, see 114) disposed proximate to a media presentation device (from Figure 1, see 112) at the media exposure measurement location (from Figure 1, see 100).
Regarding claim 4, Ramaswamy discloses wherein the plurality of distance values (from Figure 4A, see Distance X) are determined based on a ping signal (from Figure 4A, see RF) transmitted by the beacon device, the ping signal comprising an identification of the beacon device.
Regarding claim 5, Ramaswamy discloses:
(i) the first location of the first portable metering device (from Figure 1, see 104A) is determined based on a first distance value (from Figure 4A, see Distance x) of the plurality of distance values, the first distance value indicative of a distance between the first portable metering device and a first surrounding device of the one or more surrounding devices (from Figure 1, see 112A, 104B, 112N, 114C, 112C, 104C, 114B, 128); and
(ii) the second location of the second portable metering device (from Figure 1, see 104B) is determined based on a second distance value (from Figure 4A, see Distance x) of the plurality of distance values, the second distance value indicative of a distance between the second portable metering device and a second surrounding device of the one or more surrounding devices (from Figure 1, see 112A, 104B, 112N, 114C, 112C, 104C, 114B, 128).
Regarding claim 8, Ramaswamy discloses the first surrounding device is the second portable metering device (from Figure 1, see 104B), and the second surrounding device is the first portable metering device (from Figure 1, see 104A).
Regarding claim 7, Ramaswamy discloses the first surrounding device and the second surrounding device are the same device (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of references as modified by Jain discloses generating an alert (from Figure 8, see 813) indicating that the meter data obtained by the first metering device and the second metering device over the period of time as the corrupted meter data; and providing the alert for output (see Figure 5A) on an output device.
Regarding claim 9, Ramaswamy discloses a non-transitory machine readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause a processor to perform operations comprising:
tracking (from paragraph 0007, see Location information may be collected using any of several known systems such as, for example, location code emitters and broadcast positioning systems. Location code emitters are typically configured to emit location codes associated with respective areas within which the location code emitters are disposed. The codes may be, for example, acoustic codes, audio codes, RF codes, IR codes, Bluetooth.RTM. codes, etc., that are detected by PPMs worn or carried by audience members. More specifically, the location codes may be automatically and continuously or intermittently detected and collected by a PPM as the PPM is moved from area to area) a first location of a first portable metering device (from Figure 1, see 104A) and a second location of a second portable metering device (from Figure 1, see 104B) over a period of time based on a plurality of distance values (from Figure 4A, see Distance x) associated with one or more surrounding devices (from Figure 1, see 112A, 104B, 112N, 114C, 112C, 104C, 114B, 128) at a media exposure measurement location (from Figure 1, see 100) where consumers (from Figure 1, see 106) are exposed to media (from paragraph 0003, see Consuming media presentations (i.e., audio and/or video presentations) generally involves listening to audio information and/or viewing video information. Media presentations may include, for example, radio programs, music, television programs, movies, still images, etc).
Still on the issue of claim 9, Ramaswamy does not teach comparing the first location and the second location over the period of time and based on the comparison, flagging meter data obtained by the first metering device and the second metering device over the period of time as corrupted meter data. All the same, Monaghan discloses comparing the first location and the second location over the period of time (from abstract, see The system monitors the locations of individuals using devices that communicate with a network, and maintain statistics for analytical purposes, and can provide services, such as special promotions and discounts. The system can determine whether a single person is carrying multiple devices, e.g., a user carrying a cellphone (including a smartphone) and a tablet or a laptop). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ramaswamy with comparing the first location and the second location over the period of time as taught by Monaghan. This modification would have improved marketing and retail functions by providing information about movement patterns as suggested by Monaghan.
Further regarding claim 9, the combination of Ramaswamy and Monaghan does explicitly teach based on the comparison, flagging meter data obtained by the first meeting device and the second metering device over the period of time as corrupted meter data. All the same, Jain discloses based on the comparison (from Figure 8, see 812), flagging (from Figure 8, see 813) meter data (from abstract, see During a media session, the portable computing device collects media exposure data) obtained by the first meeting device (from Figure 6, see Device1) and the second metering device (from Figure 6, see Device2) over the period of time as corrupted meter data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Ramaswamy and Monaghan wherein based on the comparison, flagging meter data obtained by the first meeting device and the second metering device over the period of time as corrupted meter data as taught by Jain. This modification would have improved reliability by ensuring the panelists are correctly using the portable metering devices as suggested by Jain.
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Regarding claim 17, Ramaswamy discloses a method comprising:
tracking (from paragraph 0007, see Location information may be collected using any of several known systems such as, for example, location code emitters and broadcast positioning systems. Location code emitters are typically configured to emit location codes associated with respective areas within which the location code emitters are disposed. The codes may be, for example, acoustic codes, audio codes, RF codes, IR codes, Bluetooth.RTM. codes, etc., that are detected by PPMs worn or carried by audience members. More specifically, the location codes may be automatically and continuously or intermittently detected and collected by a PPM as the PPM is moved from area to area) a first location of a first portable metering device (from Figure 1, see 104A) and a second location of a second portable metering device (from Figure 1, see 104B) over a period of time based on a plurality of distance values (from Figure 4A, see Distance x) associated with one or more surrounding devices (from Figure 1, see 112A, 104B, 112N, 114C, 112C, 104C, 114B, 128) at a media exposure measurement location (from Figure 1, see 100) where consumers (from Figure 1, see 106) are exposed to media (from paragraph 0003, see Consuming media presentations (i.e., audio and/or video presentations) generally involves listening to audio information and/or viewing video information. Media presentations may include, for example, radio programs, music, television programs, movies, still images, etc).
Still on the issue of claim 17, Ramaswamy does not teach comparing the first location and the second location over the period of time and based on the comparison, flagging meter data obtained by the first metering device and the second metering device over the period of time as corrupted meter data. All the same, Monaghan discloses comparing the first location and the second location over the period of time (from abstract, see The system monitors the locations of individuals using devices that communicate with a network, and maintain statistics for analytical purposes, and can provide services, such as special promotions and discounts. The system can determine whether a single person is carrying multiple devices, e.g., a user carrying a cellphone (including a smartphone) and a tablet or a laptop). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ramaswamy with comparing the first location and the second location over the period of time as taught by Monaghan. This modification would have improved marketing and retail functions by providing information about movement patterns as suggested by Monaghan.
Further regarding claim 17, the combination of Ramaswamy and Monaghan does explicitly teach based on the comparison, flagging meter data obtained by the first meeting device and the second metering device over the period of time as corrupted meter data. All the same, Jain discloses based on the comparison (from Figure 8, see 812), flagging (from Figure 8, see 813) meter data (from abstract, see During a media session, the portable computing device collects media exposure data) obtained by the first meeting device (from Figure 6, see Device1) and the second metering device (from Figure 6, see Device2) over the period of time as corrupted meter data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Ramaswamy and Monaghan wherein based on the comparison, flagging meter data obtained by the first meeting device and the second metering device over the period of time as corrupted meter data as taught by Jain. This modification would have improved reliability by ensuring the panelists are correctly using the portable metering devices as suggested by Jain.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLISA ANWAH whose telephone number is 571-272-7533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8.30 AM to 6 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn Edwards can be reached on 571-270-7136. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-8300 for After Final communications.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2600.
/OLISA ANWAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Olisa Anwah
Patent Examiner
March 20, 2026