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 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. [12/088,876, herein after refers '876].
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation of “obtaining, using viewing behavior for a seed panel, transition data representative of channel-switching probabilities for each of multiple channels during respective sub-durations of a duration of time; generating synthetic respondent level data representative of synthetic panelists for the duration of time using the transition data; and determining, using viewing constraints, weights for the synthetic panelists that satisfy viewing constraints” corresponds to claim limitation of “obtaining, using viewing behavior for the seed panel, a transition matrix, wherein the transition matrix is representative of channel-switching probabilities for each of multiple channels during respective sub-durations of a duration of time; generating synthetic respondent level data by assigning viewing to each of multiple synthetic panelists for the duration of time using a respective initial channel and respective channel-switching probabilities of the transition matrix; and determining, using viewing constraints, weights for the synthetic panelists that satisfy viewing constraints” of claim 1 of ‘876. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitation of claim 1 is met by claim 1 of ‘876.
Regarding claim 2, the claim limitation of “wherein generating the synthetic respondent level data representative of the synthetic panelists for the duration of time using the transition data comprises assigning viewing to each synthetic panelist of the synthetic panelists, and wherein assigning viewing to each synthetic panelist comprises: determining a channel that the respective synthetic panelist views at a first sub-duration; and determining a second channel that the respective synthetic panelist views at a second sub- duration using a channel-switching probability for the channel and the first sub-duration” corresponds to claim limitation of “generating synthetic respondent level data by assigning viewing to each of multiple synthetic panelists for the duration of time using a respective initial channel and respective channel-switching probabilities of the transition matrix; and wherein assigning viewing to each synthetic panelist comprises: determining a channel that the respective synthetic panelist views at a first sub-duration; and determining a second channel that the respective synthetic panelist views at a second sub- duration using a channel-switching probability for the channel and the first sub-duration” of claim 2 of ‘876. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitation of claim 2 is met by claim 2 of ‘876.
Regarding claim 3, the claim limitation of claim 3 is same as the claim limitation of claim 3 of ‘876.
Regarding claim 4, the claim limitation of claim 4 is same as the claim limitation of claim 4 of ‘876.
Regarding claim 5, the claim limitation of claim 5 is same as the claim limitation of claim 5 of ‘876.
Regarding claim 7, the claim limitation of claim 7 is same as the claim limitation of claim 6 of ‘876.
Regarding claim 8, the claim limitation of “obtaining, using viewing behavior for a seed panel, transition data representative of channel-switching probabilities for each of multiple channels during respective sub-durations of a duration of time; generating synthetic respondent level data representative of synthetic panelists for the duration of time using the transition data; and determining, using viewing constraints, weights for the synthetic panelists that satisfy viewing constraints” corresponds to claim limitation of “obtaining, using viewing behavior for the seed panel, a transition matrix, wherein the transition matrix is representative of channel-switching probabilities for each of multiple channels during respective sub-durations of a duration of time; generating synthetic respondent level data by assigning viewing to each of multiple synthetic panelists for the duration of time using a respective initial channel and respective channel-switching probabilities of the transition matrix; and determining, using viewing constraints, weights for the synthetic panelists that satisfy viewing constraints” of claim 8 of ‘876. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitation of claim 8 is met by claim 8 of ‘876.
Regarding claim 9, the claim limitation of “wherein generating the synthetic respondent level data representative of the synthetic panelists for the duration of time using the transition data comprises assigning viewing to each synthetic panelist of the synthetic panelists, and wherein assigning viewing to each synthetic panelist comprises: determining a channel that the respective synthetic panelist views at a first sub-duration; and determining a second channel that the respective synthetic panelist views at a second sub- duration using a channel-switching probability for the channel and the first sub-duration” corresponds to claim limitation of “generating synthetic respondent level data by assigning viewing to each of multiple synthetic panelists for the duration of time using a respective initial channel and respective channel-switching probabilities of the transition matrix; and wherein assigning viewing to each synthetic panelist comprises: determining a channel that the respective synthetic panelist views at a first sub-duration; and determining a second channel that the respective synthetic panelist views at a second sub- duration using a channel-switching probability for the channel and the first sub-duration” of claim 9 of ‘876. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitation of claim 9 is met by claim 9 of ‘876.
Regarding claim 10, the claim limitation of claim 10 is same as the claim limitation of claim 10 of ‘876.
Regarding claim 11, the claim limitation of claim 11 is same as the claim limitation of claim 11 of ‘876.
Regarding claim 12, the claim limitation of claim 12 is same as the claim limitation of claim 12 of ‘876.
Regarding claim 14, the claim limitation of claim 14 is same as the claim limitation of claim 14 of ‘876.
Regarding claim 15, the claim limitation of “obtaining, using viewing behavior for a seed panel, transition data representative of channel-switching probabilities for each of multiple channels during respective sub-durations of a duration of time; generating synthetic respondent level data representative of synthetic panelists for the duration of time using the transition data; and determining, using viewing constraints, weights for the synthetic panelists that satisfy viewing constraints” corresponds to claim limitation of “obtaining, using viewing behavior for the seed panel, a transition matrix, wherein the transition matrix is representative of channel-switching probabilities for each of multiple channels during respective sub-durations of a duration of time; generating synthetic respondent level data by assigning viewing to each of multiple synthetic panelists for the duration of time using a respective initial channel and respective channel-switching probabilities of the transition matrix; and determining, using viewing constraints, weights for the synthetic panelists that satisfy viewing constraints” of claim 15 of ‘876. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitation of claim 15 is met by claim 15 of ‘876.
Regarding claim 16, the claim limitation of “wherein generating the synthetic respondent level data representative of the synthetic panelists for the duration of time using the transition data comprises assigning viewing to each synthetic panelist of the synthetic panelists, and wherein assigning viewing to each synthetic panelist comprises: determining a channel that the respective synthetic panelist views at a first sub-duration; and determining a second channel that the respective synthetic panelist views at a second sub- duration using a channel-switching probability for the channel and the first sub-duration” corresponds to claim limitation of “generating synthetic respondent level data by assigning viewing to each of multiple synthetic panelists for the duration of time using a respective initial channel and respective channel-switching probabilities of the transition matrix; and wherein assigning viewing to each synthetic panelist comprises: determining a channel that the respective synthetic panelist views at a first sub-duration; and determining a second channel that the respective synthetic panelist views at a second sub- duration using a channel-switching probability for the channel and the first sub-duration” of claim 16 of ‘876. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitation of claim 16 is met by claim 16 of ‘876.
Regarding claim 17, the claim limitation of claim 17 is same as the claim limitation of claim 17 of ‘876.
Regarding claim 18, the claim limitation of claim 18 is same as the claim limitation of claim 18 of ‘876.
Regarding claim 20, the claim limitation of claim 20 is same as the claim limitation of claim 20 of ‘876.
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, 4-8, 12-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eldering et al. (US 2002/0123928 A1, hereinafter refers as Eldering).
Regarding claim 1, Eldering discloses a computing system comprising a processor and a memory, the computing system configured to perform a set of acts comprising:
obtaining, using viewing behavior for a seed panel, transition data representative of channel-switching probabilities for each of multiple channels during respective sub-durations of a duration of time (in view of applicant’s specification, the seed panel is the monitored viewer’s data in the network, Fig. 7, el. 710, el. 712, the subscribers channel selections data includes channel switched data are tracked and forwarded to viewing characterization and profile system, and Fig. 10 and 12 indicates that a sub-duration time [e.g., 6am-9am] of a duration of a day , the number of time subscribers switch the channels, para. 92, para. 106);
generating synthetic respondent level data representative of synthetic panelists for the duration of time using the transition data (Fig. 7, el. 740, el. 742-762, to generate subscribers demographic profile data based on the subscribers channel selections and also applying the heuristic rules);
and determining, using viewing constraints, weights for the synthetic panelists that satisfy viewing constraints (para. 123, Fig. 7, applying a difference weight on user’s channel selections data such as channel change or other subscriber viewing profile data [refers as viewing constraints] to determine the subscribers demographic profile).
Regarding claim 4, Eldering discloses wherein the viewing constraints are derived from viewing data for a plurality of media devices (Fig. 7, subscriber viewing profile data are derived as illustrated in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, Eldering discloses wherein the viewing data for the plurality of media devices comprises return path data (Fig. 7, el. 710).
Regarding claim 6, Eldering discloses wherein the return path data includes data received from at least one media device of the plurality of media devices while the at least one media device is streaming (Fig. 10-11, Fig. 14, Fig. 7, Fig 17A-17C, e.g., the channel selection data of part subscriber’s viewership data [also how long did the subscriber watched] on HBO [streaming video] by each subscriber while the streaming video is streaming are tracked and forwarded to the system, para. 90-92, para. 97-98).
Regarding claim 7, Eldering discloses wherein the acts further comprising generating an output file including demographics for the synthetic panelists (Fig. 7, el. 760).
Regarding claim 8, the instant claim is analyzed with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the instant claim is analyzed with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 12 the instant claim is analyzed with respect to claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, the instant claim is analyzed with respect to claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, the instant claim is analyzed with respect to claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, the instant claim is analyzed with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, the instant claim is analyzed with respect to claim 5.
Regarding claim 19 the instant claim is analyzed with respect to claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, the instant claim is analyzed with respect to claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAI Y CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5679. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM -4:30 PM.
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.
/CAI Y CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425