DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because claim 5 recites “a Local Are Network”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7, 8-14 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-7, 8-14 and 15-20 recite obtaining data and determining a score. The limitation of obtaining data is an observation; the limitation of determining a score is mathematical calculation. The obtaining data and determining a score, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting “network data”, “a mobile device usage data”, “a fixed device” and “network address”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
For example, but for the “a processor and a memory” (claims 8-14), the “computer readable storage medium comprising computer readable instructions that, when executed, cause a processor” (claims 15-20), the “obtaining data” and “providing the score for output” are well-understood, routine and conventional activities; the “determining a score” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually calculating the probability of presence based on a ratio of a number of matching messages transmitted by the mobile device and the fixed device, to a total number of messages transmitted by the mobile device during the given time block.
This is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 8-14 and 15-20 only recite one additional element – using a processor to perform the obtaining data, determining a score and providing the score for output. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1-7, 8-14 and 15-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform obtaining data, determining a score and providing the score for output amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 9 and 16, the additional element of “an Internet of Things (IOT) enabled television” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 3, 10 and 17, the additional element of “comparing the first audio sample with the second audio sample” is concepts performed in the human mind (including an evaluation, judgment, opinion). Adding one abstract idea to another abstract idea does not render the claim non-abstract. MPEP 2106.05.
Regarding dependent claims 4, 11 and 18, the additional element of “adjusting the score” is concepts performed in the human mind (including an evaluation, judgment, opinion). Adding one abstract idea to another abstract idea does not render the claim non-abstract. MPEP 2106.05.
Regarding dependent claims 5, 12 and 19, the additional element of “Local Area Network” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere using a generic computer network. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 6, 13 and 20, the additional element of the “LAN scan” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply “the LAN scan” using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 7 and 14, the additional element of “the score is a numerical value” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller et al. (US20150106198A1).
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses a method comprising ([Abstract] shows associating a plurality of devices with a user for targeting Internet content or advertising; para [0031] shows the same user 100 may access the Internet using a mobile device 102 or a home computer 106; para [0054] shows unique identifiers of user devices may be referred to as universal targeting identifiers (“UTIDs”)):
obtaining, via a network, network data specifying, for a mobile device of a plurality of mobile devices associated with the network at a media exposure location, a network address ([Abstract] shows receiving, from a plurality of Internet-enabled devices, a plurality of requests for electronic content or advertising; extracting, from each of the plurality of requests, a source IP address; para [0052] shows requests may originate from a mobile application; requests may be for video, and/or audio; para [0062] shows get the Users Location from IP address);
obtaining, via the network, mobile device usage data [browsing history] for the mobile device of the plurality of mobile devices, wherein the mobile device is associated with a fixed device and demographic segment pair (para [0007] shows the user's identity is often tied to a user profile (targeting profile) containing information about their demographics; para [0106] shows a user of a desktop computer may visit many websites and over time a profile of their interests are generated (e.g., a fixed device and demographic segment pair). The user may also use a mobile device to access the Internet. The two devices (i.e., the PC and the mobile device) may be linked together through a common profile, thereby allowing content and advertising to be targeted to any of these devices; para [0029] shows data can be behavioral targeting segments, demographic data; para [0037] shows to obtain browsing history, demographic data, etc., in response to interaction from user devices 102-110);
determining, for a given time block of a plurality of time blocks, a presence score (para [0025] shows to create statistical links between a user's desktop and their mobile phone; para [0069] shows calculating the week time block (“WTB”) and day time block (“DTB”) of an event; para [0076] shows identifying pairs of devices by aggregating all events together over a period of time by IP address, weighting the occurrences of events based on the week time block, summing these occurrences for all occurrences in that window, and generating a score for the pair of devices; all devices having events that occur against the same IP address in a given Day Timestamp may be pooled together and all the possible pairwise combinations of UTIDs may be computed. Thus, if the IP address for a given household shows devices A, B, C, and D, step 514 may include identifying pairs AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, and CD),
wherein the presence score is based on a ratio [percentage] of a number of matching messages transmitted via the network by the mobile device during the given time block, the matching messages including a network address of the mobile device that matches a network address of the fixed device during the time block, to a total number of network messages transmitted via the network by the mobile device during the given time, wherein each time block of the plurality of time blocks is associated with a respective duration of time, and wherein the given time block is associated with a media presentation by the fixed device at the media exposure location (Abstract] shows extracting, from each of the plurality of requests, a source IP address; para [0028] shows monitoring a unique identifier for a (mobile) device, observing how it appears on different IP addresses over time (e.g., monitoring a total number of network messages transmitted by the mobile device), comparing this to how other unique identifiers appear on different IP addresses over time, identifying pairs of identifiers that have a similar pattern (e.g., matching a network address of the mobile device to a network address of the fixed device) for a certain percentage (e.g., ratio) of the preceding X days (e.g., time block), and thus establishing a link or relationship between the two device identifiers; para [0075] shows grouping, over a predetermined time period, all requests received from devices originating from each source IP address; para [0076] shows generating a score for the pair of devices; para [0087] shows if two devices (A and B) have been seen consistently over the last three days, a subsequent step may make a binary decision that qualifies the relationship as a confident link); and
providing the presence score for output as a probability that a demographic segment associated with the fixed device and demographic segment pair is present at the media exposure location during the given time block (para [0028] shows identifying those times of day when a user is most likely to be on their home network rather than on a public network or accessing the internet from work; para [0029] shows validating this relationship by looking at behavioral targeting segments, demographic data; para [0081] shows a final confidence score may be a value between 0 and 100.)
Regarding claim 7, Miller as applied to claim 1 discloses the presence score is a numerical value (para [0081] shows score may be a value between 0 and 100.)
Regarding claims 8 and 14, claims 8 and 14 are directed to a system. System claims 8 and 14 require limitations that are similar to those recited in the method claims 1 and 7 to carry out the method steps. And since Miller anticipates the method including limitations required to carry out the method steps, therefore system claims 8 and 14 would have also been anticipated by Miller.
Furthermore, Miller discloses a processor; and a memory storing instruction that, upon execution by the processor, cause the system to perform operations (para [0116]).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is directed to a computer readable storage medium. Claim 15 requires limitations that are similar to those recited in the method claim 1 to carry out the method steps. And since Miller anticipates the method including limitations required to carry out the method steps, therefore claim 15 would have also been anticipated by Miller.
Furthermore, Miller discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising computer readable instructions that, when executed, cause a processor to perform operations (para [0116]).
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.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Gupta et al. (US20150019342A1).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Miller as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 fails to teach the fixed device is an Internet of Things (IOT) enabled television.
However, Gupta discloses the fixed device is an Internet of Things (IOT) enabled television ([Abstract] shows a recommendation engine that may monitor, aggregate, filter, and otherwise process relevant information associated with a user Internet of Things (IoT) environment to provide personal and context-aware recommendations; para [0037] shows IoT devices may include televisions.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Miller with the teaching of Gupta in order to monitor, aggregate, filter, and otherwise process relevant information associated with various IoT devices and other items in the IoT environment to provide personalized recommendations based on relevant real-time knowledge about various things in the IoT environment (Gupta; para [0002]).
Claims 3-4, 10-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Filev et al. (US20160073143A1).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Miller as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 fails to teach for the given time block: receiving, via the network, a first audio sample from the mobile device; receiving, via the network, a second audio sample from the fixed device; and comparing the first audio sample with the second audio sample.
However, Filev discloses for the given time block: receiving, via the network, a first audio sample from the mobile device; receiving, via the network, a second audio sample from the fixed device; and comparing the first audio sample with the second audio sample (para [0080] shows an analysis module 332 for analyzing user engagement data to determine demographic factors; para [0032] shows the second device itself uses a built-in microphone to receive audio input. The second device then uses this audio input to determine the media content being presented in the vicinity of the second device to confirm that the second device is in proximity to the first electronic device; para [0098] shows based on the media content identification information, the server can further determine the specific commercials presented during that interval of time.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Miller with the teaching of Filev in order to determine the specific commercials presented during that interval of time (Filev; para [0098]).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Miller-Filev as applied to claims 3, 10 and 17 discloses: based on the comparison of the first audio sample with the second audio sample, adjusting the presence score to thereby indicate an adjusted probability of presence of the demographic segment at the media exposure location during the given time block (Filev; para [0032] shows the second device itself uses a built-in microphone to receive audio input. The second device then uses this audio input to determine the media content being presented in the vicinity of the second device to confirm that the second device is in proximity to the first electronic device; para [0098] shows based on the media content identification information, the server can further determine the specific commercials presented during that interval of time.)
Claims 5-6, 12-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Eden et al. (US20140172557A1).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Miller as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 fails to teach the network is a Local Are Network at the media exposure location, and wherein the network data is obtained during a Local Area Network (LAN) scan.
However, Eden discloses the network is a Local Are Network at the media exposure location, and wherein the network data is obtained during a Local Area Network (LAN) scan (para [0016] shows to identify the baseline metrics related for user demographics and behaviors related to ecommerce; para [0125] shows to detect and uniquely identify mobile devices in the vicinity using communication protocols such as LAN Network; para [0133] shows these detectors scan using different protocols such as WiFi and detect the presence of any device in the area that will communicate with the detector.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Miller with the teaching of Eden in order to enable the system to develop a catalog of detected devices and the dates and times of each of the detections (Eden; para [0133]).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Miller-Eden as applied to claims 5, 12 and 19 discloses: transmitting, via the network and to the fixed device, an instruction to trigger the fixed device to perform the LAN scan, wherein the network data is obtained, via the network, from the fixed device (Eden; para [0212] shows an event can be triggered whenever that MAC address is detected by the user mobile device detector that creates an advertisement for the user for a morning coffee at a nearby coffee shop.)
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Besehanic (US20130159499A1) discloses in [Abstract] systems, methods, and apparatus to identify media presentation devices are disclosed. An example method includes receiving a domain name service query from a first device at a server, the first device and a second device being associated with a same public Internet protocol address.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAN DOAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm 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, Oscar Louie, can be reached at (571) 270-1684. 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.
/TAN DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445