DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments, see Page(s) 9-12, filed 07/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-21 under USC 102 & 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Papakostas et al. (US 2012/0042005 A1) and further in view of Schwartz, JR. et al. (US 2013/0061251 A1) detailed below in the current action below.
Terminal Disclaimer
3. The terminal disclaimer filed on 07/16/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent #: 12,096,322 & 11,510,037 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
4. Claim(s) 2-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) evaluation application context and media information and classifying an exposure to media according to the application’s background status.
The limitations include details such as application state, media output, a common time and the resulting exposure classification that align with recognized abstract ideas like mental processing groupings, collecting and organizing information.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of the claim(s) include generic computer component, such as “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “instructions”, “one or more processors”, “the application” and “media output” are used as generic tools to perform the organizing and collection of data associated with the abstract idea. Although the Specification appears to identify a real problem in mobile audience measurement: conventional techniques may fail to properly account for media that continues to play when the associated application is no longer the foreground application. The decisive problem is that Claim 2 does not recite a particular way of solving the technical problem. It does not require integrating an OS API, analyzing bandwidth patterns, detecting background execution records, comparing application event timestamps, detecting continued audio output, matching media signatures, identifying the responsible application for network activity or budling overlapping foreground/background sessions. The claim therefore overs the idea of the solution but not the technological mechanisms producing the solution. Nor does the claim transform into another article, use a particular machine in a meaningful limiting manner or otherwise impose a concrete technological implantation. The computer is predominately used to gather and classify the audience’s measurement information.
The claim(s) do/does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because absent of the abstract idea, additional elements, considered individually or in combination, such as the processor, the medium, application operating modes, the media only applies the exposure classification rule when the computer determines that an application is operating in the background. That improves the informational accuracy of an audience measurement result, but the claim does not recite an unconventional technical medium that improves the computer or media delivery technology. There is no inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claim(s) 3, 8, 11, 13, 17 & 19 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 6-8, 10, 14-16, 20-21 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Papakostas et al. (US 2012/0042005 A1) and further in view of Schwartz, JR. et al. (US 2013/0061251 A1).
Re Claim 2, 10 & 16, Papakostas teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause at least: (Papakostas; FIG. 1-7; Background, Summary, ¶ [0053]- [0062]; A non-transitory computer readable medium, executed by a processor.)
identifying first media output by the application at the first identified time; and (Papakostas; FIG. 1-7; Background, Summary, ¶ [0010]- [0020], [0053]- [0062]; Identifies content and records session data.)
crediting exposure to the identified first media as background media at the first identified time. (Papakostas; FIG. 1-7; Background, Summary, ¶ [0010]- [0040], [0053]- [0062]; Monitors content/advertisement exposure and associated the activity with the panelist/device.)
Papakostas does not explicitly suggest determining that an application is operating in a background mode at a first identified time; is operating in the background mode at the first identified time,
However, in analogous art, Schwartz, JR. teaches determining that an application is operating in a background mode at a first identified time; (Schwartz, JR.; FIG. 1-4; Background, ¶ [0027]- [0058], [0100]- [0104]; An application operating in a background mode at an identifiable time.)
based on identifying that the application is operating in the background mode at the first identified time, (Schwartz, JR.; FIG. 1-4; Background, ¶ [0027]- [0058], [0100]- [0104]; Identifiable presentable content/media has an associated time.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify Papakostas in view of Schwartz, JR. to determine background modes for the reasons of managing foreground and background related work in an application. (Schwartz, JR. Abstract)
Re Claim 6 & 20, Papakostas-Schwartz, JR. discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 2, wherein the application is a first application, wherein the instructions further cause, when executed by the one or more processors, crediting exposure to media associated with a second application independently of crediting exposure to the identified first media as background media, the second application is operating in the foreground mode at the first identified time while the first application is operating in the background mode. (Schwartz, JR.; FIG. 1-4; ¶ [0027]- [0084], [0100]- [0110]; The embodiment(s) detail various applications, operational times in various modes.)
Re Claim 7, 15 & 21, Papakostas-Schwartz, JR. discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 2, wherein the instructions further cause, when executed by the one or more processors, determining that the application has stopped operating in the background mode by determining that an event corresponds to a resource demand that supersedes a resource demand of the application. (Schwartz, JR.; FIG. 1-4; ¶ [0041]- [0044], [0047], [0061]- [0072]; Determining resource demand for the application, stopping background process.)
Re Claim 8, Papakostas-Schwartz, JR. discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 2,
wherein the instructions further cause, when executed by the one or more processors, crediting exposure to the identified first media as background media during a time duration between a request and a previous event corresponding to a start time of a second application executing in a foreground execution mode. (Schwartz, JR.; FIG. 1-4; ¶ [0027]- [0084]; The embodiment(s) detail identifying media during various time periods in a background and foreground state.)
Re Claim 14, Papakostas-Schwartz, JR. discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the application is a first application, and wherein the instructions further cause, when executed by the at least one processor, the apparatus to credit exposure to media associated with a second application independently of crediting exposure to the identified first media as background media, the second application is operating in the foreground mode at the first identified time while the first application is operating in the background mode. (Schwartz, JR.; FIG. 1-4; ¶ [0027]- [0084], [0100]- [0110]; The embodiment(s) detail various applications, background and foreground modes at various times of operation.)
Claim(s) 4, 12, 18 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Papakostas et al. (US 2012/0042005 A1), in view of Schwartz, JR. et al. (US 2013/0061251 A1) and further in view of Luna et al. (US 2012/0158908 A1).
Re Claim 4, 12 & 18, Papakostas-Schwartz, JR. discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 2, yet does not explicitly suggest wherein the application is a first application, wherein the instructions further cause, when executed by the one or more processors, determining that the application is operating in the background mode by determining that a record for the first application occurs within a time period associated with a foreground execution session of a second application.
However, in analogous art, Luna teaches wherein the application is a first application, wherein the instructions further cause, when executed by the one or more processors,
determining that the application is operating in the background mode by determining that a record for the first application occurs within a time period associated with a foreground execution session of a second application. (Luna; FIG. 1, 20; ¶ [0378]- [0379], [0515]- [0520]; The detecting of temporal operation of applications operating in a foreground, background mode.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify Papakostas-Schwartz, JR. in view of Luna to detect when a switch from background to foreground mode for the reasons of optimizing connection and data transmissions. (Luna Abstract)
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 EST.
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, Nicholas R Taylor can be reached at 571-272-3889. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights