DETAILED ACTION
Claims 21-26, 28-33, 35-40 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/8/2026 has been entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 12/4/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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) 21-26, 28-33, 35-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goli et al. (US 2017/0180798) in view of Nagaraja Rao et al. (US 2017/0155956), and further in view of Pugh et al. (US 2014/0122703).
Claim 21, Goli teaches a computing system comprising a processor and a memory, the computing system configured to perform a set of operations comprising:
“IP addresses of televisions and IP addresses of digital media measurements" (i.e. IPTV) (p. 0033, 0040, 0047-0049);
generating a second adjustment factor using the panel data, wherein the second adjustment factor is a second, different factor selected from a group consisting of: an online adjustment factor, an over-the-top adjustment factor, and an independence probability adjustment factor (i.e. one of normalization of internet media) (p. 0047-0049, 0057);
generating an aggregated adjustment factor (i.e. unifying impression records) based on the first adjustment factor and the second adjustment factor (p. 0090, 0097); and
generating a deduplicated reach for a media item based on a comparison of the aggregated adjustment factor (i.e. utilizing time and weighting factors) to historical data (p. 0097).
Goli is not entirely clear in teaching the specific features of:
“generating a first adjustment factor using panel data, wherein the first adjustment factor is an internet protocol (IP) match adjustment factor representative of an overlap between television audiences and digital audiences based on matches between televisions associated with the television audiences and digital media measurements associated with the digital audiences”;
“generating a second adjustment factor using the panel data, wherein the second adjustment factor is a second, different factor selected from a group consisting of: an online adjustment factor”
Nagaraja Rao teaches the specific feature of:
“generating a first adjustment factor using panel data (i.e. overlap multiplier), wherein the first adjustment factor is an internet protocol (IP) match adjustment factor (i.e. digital) representative of an overlap between television audiences and digital audiences based on matches between televisions associated with the television audiences and digital media measurements associated with the digital audiences” (i.e. matches for de-duplication) (p. 0011-0012, 0028-0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided overlap detection as taught by Nagaraja Rao to the system of Goli to provide deduplication (p. 0028).
Pugh teaches the specific features of:
“generating a second adjustment factor using the panel data (i.e. site-centric data), wherein the second adjustment factor is a second, different factor selected from a group consisting of: an online adjustment factor” (i.e. site-centric data located in the network interpreted as ‘online’) (p. 0076-0090).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided IP matching as taught by Pugh to the system of Goli to determine two separate viewing populations (p. 0076).
Claim 22, Goli teaches The computing system of claim 21, wherein:
the set of operations further comprises generating a third adjustment factor using the panel data (i.e. one of normalization of internet media, live viewing, DVR viewing) (p. 0047-0049, 0057),
the third adjustment factor is a third factor that is different from the first factor and the second factor and is selected from the group (i.e. one of normalization of internet media, live viewing, DVR viewing) (p. 0047-0049, 0057), and
the aggregated adjustment factor is based further on the third adjustment factor (i.e. unifying impression records) (p. 0090, 0097).
Claim 23, Goli teaches The computing system of claim 21, wherein generating the deduplicated reach comprises generating, using a constrained minimization model (i.e. subtraction/dividing) and the historical data (i.e. impression data), a first coefficient for the first adjustment factor (i.e. count of people) and a second coefficient for the second adjustment factor (i.e. duration watched) (p. 0093-0097).
Claim 24, Goli teaches The computing system of claim 24, wherein generating the deduplicated reach further comprises applying the first coefficient to the first adjustment factor and applying the second coefficient to the second adjustment factor (i.e. weighting the coefficient to the impression data determines duplication) (p. 0093-0097).
Claim 25, Goli teaches The computing system of claim 21, wherein the first adjustment factor is the OTT adjustment factor (i.e. live viewing determination), and wherein the OTT adjustment factor is representative of an amount of duplication of impressions (i.e. weighting prior to accounting for duplication) among a television audience represented in television panel data and a digital audience represented in digital panel data (i.e. weighting of impression data affects classification and therefore determining duplicated impressions) (p. 0057, 0093-0097).
Claim 26, Goli teaches The computing system of claim 21, wherein the first adjustment factor is the independence probability adjustment factor (i.e. DVR or live viewing metrics), and wherein the independence probability adjustment factor is a combination of a television audience probability and a digital audience probability (i.e. broadcast and internet media) (p. 0047-0049, 0057).
Claim 28 is analyzed and interpreted as a method of claim 21.
Claim 29 is analyzed and interpreted as a method of claim 22.
Claim 30 is analyzed and interpreted as a method of claim 23.
Claim 31 is analyzed and interpreted as a method of claim 24.
Claim 32 is analyzed and interpreted as a method of claim 25.
Claim 33 is analyzed and interpreted as a method of claim 26.
Claim 35 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to” perform the step of claim 21. Goli teaches “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to” perform the step of claim 21 (p. 0078-0079).
Claim 36 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to” perform the step of claim 22. Goli teaches “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to” perform the step of claim 22 (p. 0078-0079).
Claim 37 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to” perform the step of claim 23. Goli teaches “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to” perform the step of claim 23 (p. 0078-0079).
Claim 38 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to” perform the step of claim 24. Goli teaches “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to” perform the step of claim 24 (p. 0078-0079).
Claim 39 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to” perform the step of claim 25. Goli teaches “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to” perform the step of claim 25 (p. 0078-0079).
Claim 40 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to” perform the step of claim 26. Goli teaches “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to” perform the step of claim 26 (p. 0078-0079).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-26, 28-33, 35-40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Claims 21-26, 28-33, 35-40 are rejected.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSHFIKH I ALAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1710. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00PM-9:00PM.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
MUSHFIKH I. ALAM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2426
/MUSHFIKH I ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 7/23/2026
Prosecution Insights