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 .
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-40 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,060. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application recites similar features and limitations as the patented application. Both applications and patent recites similar features regarding adjustments factors for de-duplication of audience metrics.
Present Application 18/882,270
Patent 12,096,060
21. A computing system comprising a processor and a memory, the computing system configured to perform a set of operations comprising:
generating a first adjustment factor using panel data, wherein the first adjustment factor is a first factor selected from the group consisting of: an online panel adjustment factor, an over- the-top (OTT) adjustment factor, an independence probability adjustment factor, or an internet protocol (IP) match adjustment factor;
generating a second adjustment factor using the panel data, wherein the second adjustment factor is a second, different factor selected from the group;
generating an aggregated adjustment factor based on the first adjustment factor and the second adjustment factor; and
generating a deduplicated reach for a media item based on a comparison of the aggregated adjustment factor to historical data.
1. An apparatus, comprising: online panel factor generator circuitry to generate an online panel adjustment factor based on television panel data and digital panel data obtained from an Internet-connectable over-the-top device;
over-the-top (OTT) factor generator circuitry to generate an OTT adjustment factor based on the television panel data and a portion of the digital panel data, the portion of the digital panel data corresponding to OTT panel data obtained from Internet-connectable over-the-top devices including the Internet-connectable over-the-top device, the OTT adjustment factor representative of an amount of duplication of impressions among a television audience represented in the television panel data and a digital audience represented in the digital panel data;
independence probability factor generator circuitry to generate an independence probability adjustment factor corresponding to a combination of a television audience probability and a digital audience probability, the combination representative of the television audience, the digital audience, and an audience overlap from the television audience represented in the television panel data and the digital audience represented in the digital panel data; and
a convergence circuitry to:
generate an aggregated adjustment factor based on the online panel adjustment factor, the OTT adjustment factor, and the independence probability adjustment factor; and
generate a deduplicated reach corresponding to a media item based on a comparison of the aggregated adjustment factor to historical data.
.
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 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:
“generating a first adjustment factor (i.e. normalizing internet media) using panel data (i.e. watermarking for broadcast media), the panel data based on, 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:
“wherein the first adjustment factor is an internet protocol (IP) match adjustment factor, based on IP address matches between IP addresses”.
“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”
Pugh teaches the specific features of:
“wherein the first adjustment factor is an internet protocol (IP) match adjustment factor (i.e. IP address matches based on profiles), based on IP address matches between IP addresses” (i.e. comparing IP address of work machines (p. 0076, 0090).
“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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 12/17/2025