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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendment/reconsideration filed 9/8/2026, the amendment/reconsideration has been considered. Claims 1-14 and 16-21 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments been fully considered but they are not all persuasive. The applicant argues the following issues.
(A) Double Patenting Rejection
Issue: The applicant argues that the Terminal Disclaimer filed on 9/8/2026 overcomes the current Double Patenting rejections.
Examiner agrees in light of the Terminal Disclaimer approved on 9/8/2026 and has therefore withdrawn the Double Patenting rejection.
(B) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Issue 1: The applicant argues with respect to independent claims such as claim 1 that the amended claims overcome the current rejections.
Applicant’s arguments are moot in light of the new ground of rejections set forth below.
Issue 2: The applicant argues with respect to the newly submitted dependent claim 21 that the references cited in the current rejection fails to teach new claim 21.
Applicant’s arguments are moot in light of the rejection to claim 21 as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claims 1-5, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alonso et al (US 2016/0119672) in view of Harkness et al (20100280641) and Zehnle et al (US 20040176061 A1, hereafter Zehnle).
As to claim 1, Alonso discloses a method comprising:
incrementing, based on an identification of a station identifier associated with a media station, a count for the station identifier ([0010], “A quantity of impressions or impression count, with respect to media, is the total number of times homes or individuals have been exposed to the media”, wherein the exposed media is represented by a station identifier associated with a media station, see [0026]-[0027], “When the media is presented on a media presentation device ( e.g., played through a television, a radio, a computing device, a cellular telephone, etc.), a meter (e.g., an example meter 112 and/or an example user control device meter 114) in the area of the presentation (e.g., the media exposure site 104) is exposed not only to the media, but also to the code(s) embedded in the media. In some examples, the code is extracted and registered (e.g., stored in a data structure such as a lookup table), and used by the media identifying information handler 108 to facilitate identifying registered media… The coding equipment inserts a code (e.g., inserts a station identifier and a time stamp) every two seconds. This code (station identifier and time stamp) can then be used to look up the corresponding media based on a broadcast schedule provided by the media provider/broadcaster”. Here the exposed media’s comprising one station identifier to be matched to the reference datastore indicates an increased count of 1 with a match. It is to be noted that the claimed “count” is not limited to a specific type or format, therefore examination interprets as any format),
wherein the identification of the station identifier is based on a meter determining that the media station was presented at a household (see citation above, and [0010]-[0011], “households”);
identifying, based on a determination that the count exceeds a threshold value, the media station associated with the station identifier (see citation in rejection to limitation 1 above, wherein the station identifier identifies the media station, based on a determination that the exposed media contains a station identifier, therefore the threshold is zero);
determining, based on the identifying, that the media station is receivable at the household (see citation in rejection to limitation 1 above, wherein the received media containing the station identifier extracted by the meter indicates that the media station represented by the station identifier is receivable at the household, see [0010]-[0011] regarding household. See also [0023] and [0016]); and
crediting, based on the determining, an impression of the media ((0037], “audience measurement entities may use media identifying information to identify media and credit the media with an impression”), but does not expressly disclose that the crediting is towards the media station. Harkness discloses a concept of crediting to a media station ([0298], “a media monitoring site (MMS) may be programmed to detect the pre-existing code flag information to credit the station identified therein”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Alonso and Harkness. The motivation/suggestion of the combination would have been to credit to a correct station (Harkness, [0298]).
However, Alonso in view of Harkness does not expressly disclose wherein the threshold value is a predetermined value stored in a database prior to the incrementing of the count for the station identifier. Zehnle discloses a threshold value being a predetermined value stored in a database prior to the incrementing of the count for the station identifier ([0041], “Alternatively, the characteristic data 242 may include a program selection count. The program selection count may represent a number of times that an operator has chosen a particular frequency, channel, artist, program type, or other program characteristic. The program selection count may be stored in the designation memory 216 for comparisons with the identifying information. When the selection count exceeds a pre-selected threshold, the receiver 200 may use the corresponding program as a designated program”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Alonso in view of Harkness with Zehnle. The motivation/suggestion of the combination would have been to use a number of times that an operator has chose a particular channel to designate a program if threshold is met (Zehnle, [0041]).
As to claim 10, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 2, Alonso-Harkness-Zehnle discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining a signature associated with media presented on the media station; and determining, using the signature, the station identifier (Alonso, [0027], wherein the codes comprising the station identifier and the time stamp is equivalent to a signature associated with media presented on the media station, which is used to determine the station identifier).
As to claim 3, Alonso-Harkness-Zehnle discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the crediting further comprises crediting the media presented on the media station, and wherein the media presented on the media station is identifiable using the signature (see citation in rejection to claim 1, wherein Alonso discloses crediting the media presented on the media station since sent by the media station and identified by the station identifier comprised in the codes which is equivalent to a signature).
As to claim 4, Alonso-Harkness-Zehnle discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining a watermark associated with media presented on the media station; and determining, using the watermark, the station identifier (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Alonso, [0026]-[0027], “watermarking”).
As to claim 5, Alonso-Harkness-Zehnle discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the crediting further comprises crediting the media presented on the media station (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Alonso, disclosing crediting the media presented), and wherein the media presented on the media station is identifiable using the watermark ([0026]-[0027], “watermarking”).
7. Claims 6-9, 11-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alonso-Harkness-Zehnle, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Narita et al (US 20060117353).
As to claim 6, Alonso-Harkness-Zehnle discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose comparing a geographic location of the household and information indicating a regional receivability of the media station. Narita discloses a concept of comparing a geographic location of a media receiving location and information indicating a regional receivability of a media station ([0014]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Alonso-Harkness-Zehnle with Narita. The motivation/suggestion of the combination would have been to update tunable media stations (Narita, [0014]).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 7, Alonso-Harkness-Zehnle discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose determining that the media station associated with the station identifier is not stored in a receivability table; and wherein the incrementing the count occurs based on a determination that the media station associated with the station identifier is not stored in the receivability table. Narita discloses a concept of determining that a media station associated with a station identifier is not stored in a data table; and updating a count based on a determination that the media station associated with the station identifier is not stored in the data table (Narita, abstract, if absent from a table, then register the station/channel, wherein adding a new entry in the table implies updating a count).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Alonso-Harkness-Zehnle with Narita. The motivation/suggestion of the combination would have been to update the channel information table with correct channel information (Narita, abstract).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 7, limitation 1.
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 7, limitation 2.
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 7, limitation 2.
As to claim 8, Alonso-Harkness-Zehnle-Narta discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising:
updating, after the determining that the media station is receivable, the receivability table with the media station associated with the station identifier (see citation in rejection to claim 1 and Narita, abstract, in combination).
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 9, Alonso-Harkness-Zehnle-Narita discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the receivability table is a list of media stations accessible to devices of the household (Narita, abstract).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claims 8 and 9.
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 7, limitation 1 and claim 9.
8. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alonso-Harkness-Zehnle, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wright et al (US 20210377602 A1, hereafter Wright).
As to claim 21, Alonso-Harkness-Zehnle discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, wherein, while the count for the station identifier does not exceed the threshold value, media identifying information collected at the household and associated with the station identifier is stored without the impression of the media station being credited (see citation and explanation in rejection to claim 1, wherein Alonso in view of Harkness discloses media identification information collected at the household and associated with the station identifier is stored and the impression of the media being credited. Zehnle discloses only when the count for the station identifier exceeds the threshold value, then the impression of the media station is credited to be designated as a designated program, implying that while the count does not exceed the threshold value then the impression media station is not credited to be designated as a designated program).
To enhance the rejection, Wright is brought in to further teach a concept that while a count for media assets identifier does not exceed a threshold value, media identifying information collected at a household and associated with the station identifier is stored without an impression of the media assets being credited ([0020], “determine a total count of different media assets that matched with the media signature. In some examples disclosed herein, the media exposure is not credited to the media asset of a reference signature if the total amount of matches for the media signature does not satisfy a threshold, which reduces the likelihood that the media exposure is credited to the wrong media asset, especially when the matching occurs in relatively short durations”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Alonso-Harkness-Zehnle with Wright. The motivation/suggestion of the combination would have been to reduce the likelihood that the media exposure is credited to the wrong media asset, especially when the matching occurs in relatively short durations (Wright, [0020]).
Prior Art Cited but not Applied in the Rejection
9. Below is a list of prior art reference(s) cited but not applied in the rejection:
a) Thomas et al (US 5481294), disclosing creating program-identifying tuning records that correspond to the programs/stations selected for viewing, functional equivalent of crediting an impression, wherein the subsequent use for audience measurement reports constitutes the crediting of the identified media station/program.
Conclusion
10. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUA FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5311. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-6.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUA FAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights