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 communication filed 11/19/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination, the rejection cited as stated below.
Double Patenting
2. 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of US Patent No. 9332035 (hereafter “Patent’035”) in view of Sze et al (US 20120311017).
As to claim 1, Patent’035 discloses a client device comprising:
a network interface; a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor (Claim 17’ parent claim 14, implied by “a client device to …streaming media”), cause performance of a set of operations comprising:
accessing media for presentation on the client device (Claim 17’ parent claim 14, “a client device to…detect an ID3 tag associated with streaming media…”);
retrieving metadata associated with the media and including a media identifier for the media (Claim 17’ parent claim 14, “detect an ID3 tag associated with streaming media; extract data from a first field of the ID3 tag… process the data from the first field of the ID3 tag to generate a first request directed to a first internet domain, the first internet domain based on the data, the first request including a media identifier from a second field of the ID3 tag… the media identifier identifying the streaming media;”; Claim 17, “the instructions when executed cause the client device to extract the ID3 tag from a metadata stream of the streaming media”);
transmitting, via the network interface and to a first server located at a first domain, a first request including the media identifier (Claim 17’ parent claim 14, “process the data from the first field of the ID3 tag to generate a first request directed to a first internet domain, the first internet domain based on the data, the first request including a media identifier from a second field of the ID3 tag…the media identifier identifying the streaming media; send, in response to the detection of the ID3 tag, the first request to the first internet domain”);
receiving, via the network interface, a redirect message specifying a second domain different from the first domain (Claim 17’ parent claim 14, “receive a redirection message from the first internet domain; send, in response to the redirection message, a second request to a second internet domain specified by the redirection message”); and
based on receiving the redirect message, transmitting, via the network interface and to a second server located at the second domain, a second request (Claim 17’ parent claim 14, “receive a redirection message from the first internet domain; send, in response to the redirection message, a second request to a second internet domain specified by the redirection message”),
but does not expressly disclose based on a monitoring instruction included in the media, or that the request includes user-identifying data corresponding to at least one of the client device or a user of the client device, or that the redirect message instructing to provide the media identifier to the second domain, or that the second request includes the media identifier.
Sze discloses based on a monitoring instruction included in the media, and also that a first request includes user-identifying data corresponding to at least one of the client device or a user of the client device, that the redirect message instructing to provide the media identifier to the second domain, and that the second request includes the media identifier (see citations in the 102 rejection to claim 1 as set forth below).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Patent’035 with Sze. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to send tracking information to the first server (Sze, [0056]).
As to claim 10, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claims 2, 5-9, 11, 13-15 and 17-20, see Sze, as cited and explained in the 102 rejections to the respective claims as set forth below.
As to claim 3, see Patent’035, Claim 17, “cause the client device to extract the ID3 tag from a metadata stream of the streaming media”, wherein the metadata stream of the streaming media indicates a separate and associated sub-stream from the remaining streaming media.
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, see Patent’035, Claim 17, “cause the client device to extract the ID3 tag from a metadata stream of the streaming media”; and Claim 17’s parent claim 14, “extract data from a first field of the ID3 tag”.
**------------------------------**
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of US Patent No. 9503784 (hereafter “Patent’784”) in view of Sze et al (US 20120311017).
As to claim 1, Patent’784 discloses a client device comprising:
a network interface; a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor (Claim 18’ parent claim 15, implied by “a client device to…streaming media”), cause performance of a set of operations comprising:
accessing media for presentation on the client device (Claim 18’ parent claim 15, “a client device to…detect an IDs tag associated with a streaming media…”);
retrieving metadata associated with the media and including a media identifier for the media (Claim 18’ parent claim 15, “detect an ID3 tag associated with streaming media; extract data from a first field of the ID3 tag; process the data from the first field of the ID3 tag to generate a first request directed to a first internet domain, the first internet domain based on the data the first request including a media identifier from a second field of the ID3 tag… the media identifier identifying the streaming media”; Claim 18, “cause the client device to extract the ID3 tag from a metadata stream of the streaming media”);
transmitting, via the network interface and to a first server located at a first domain, a first request including the media identifier (Claim 18’ parent claim 15, “process the data from the first field of the ID3 tag to generate a first request directed to a first internet domain, the first internet domain based on the data the first request including a media identifier from a second field of the ID3 tag… the media identifier identifying the streaming media… send, in response to the detection of the ID3 tag, the first request to the first internet domain”),
but does not expressly disclose based on a monitoring instruction included in the media, or that the first request includes user-identifying data corresponding to at least one of the client device or a user of the client device, or receiving, via the network interface, a redirect message specifying a second domain different from the first domain and based on receiving the redirect message, transmitting, via the network interface and to a second server located at the second domain, a second request.
Sze discloses based on a monitoring instruction included in the media, and also that a first request includes user-identifying data corresponding to at least one of the client device or a user of the client device, receiving, via the network interface, a redirect message specifying a second domain different from the first domain and based on receiving the redirect message, transmitting, via the network interface and to a second server located at the second domain, a second request (see citations in the 102 rejection to claim 1 as set forth below).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Patent’784 with Sze. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to send tracking information to the first server (Sze, [0056]).
As to claim 10, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claims 2, 5-9, 11, 13-15 and 17-20, see Sze, as cited and explained in the 102 rejections to the respective claims as set forth below.
As to claim 3, see Patent’784’, Claim 18, “cause the client device to extract the ID3 tag from a metadata stream of the streaming media”, wherein the metadata stream of the streaming media indicates a separate and associated sub-stream from the remaining streaming media.
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, see Patent’035, Claim 18, “cause the client device to extract the ID3 tag from a metadata stream of the streaming media”; and Claim 18’s parent claim 15, “extract data from a first field of the ID3 tag”.
***------------------------***
5. Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of US Patent No. 10356455 (hereafter “Patent’455”) in view of Sze et al (US 20120311017).
As to claim 1, Patent’455 discloses a client device comprising:
a network interface; a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor (Claim 18’ parent claim 15, implied by “a client device to…streaming media”), cause performance of a set of operations comprising:
accessing media for presentation on the client device (Claim 18’ parent claim 15, “a client device to…detect metadata associated with a streaming media…”);
retrieving metadata associated with the media and including a media identifier for the media (Claim 18’ parent claim 15, “detect metadata associated with streaming media; extract data from a first field of the metadata; process the data from the first field of the metadata to generate a first request directed to a first internet domain, the first internet domain based on the data the first request including a media identifier from a second field of the metadata… the media identifier identifying the streaming media”; Claim 18, “cause the client device to extract the metadata from a metadata stream of the streaming media”);
transmitting, via the network interface and to a first server located at a first domain, a first request including the media identifier (Claim 18’ parent claim 15, “process the data from the first field of the metadata to generate a first request directed to a first internet domain, the first internet domain based on the data the first request including a media identifier from a second field of the metadata… the media identifier identifying the streaming media… send, in response to the detection of the metadata, the first request to the first internet domain”),
but does not expressly disclose based on a monitoring instruction included in the media, or that the first request includes user-identifying data corresponding to at least one of the client device or a user of the client device, or receiving, via the network interface, a redirect message specifying a second domain different from the first domain and based on receiving the redirect message, transmitting, via the network interface and to a second server located at the second domain, a second request.
Sze discloses based on a monitoring instruction included in the media, and also that a first request includes user-identifying data corresponding to at least one of the client device or a user of the client device, receiving, via the network interface, a redirect message specifying a second domain different from the first domain and based on receiving the redirect message, transmitting, via the network interface and to a second server located at the second domain, a second request (see citations in the 102 rejection to claim 1 as set forth below).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Patent’455 with Sze. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to send tracking information to the first server (Sze, [0056]).
As to claim 10, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claims 2, 5-9, 11, 13-15 and 17-20, see Sze, as cited and explained in the 102 rejections to the respective claims as set forth below.
As to claim 3, see Patent’455, Claim 18, “cause the client device to extract the metadata from a metadata stream of the streaming”, wherein the metadata stream of the streaming indicates a separate and associated sub-stream from the remaining streaming.
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 3.
6. Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Patent’455 in view of Sze, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dahl et al (US 2008/0021874).
As to claim 4, Patent’455 in view of Sze discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose that the metadata is stored within an ID3 tag associated with the media presented on the client device. Dahl discloses a concept for metadata to be stored within an ID3 tag associated with a media (Dahl, [0023], “MP3 format streams can include the metadata in ID3 tags in the header or at the end of the file”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Patent’455 in view of Sze with Dahl. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to enable using MP3 format streams (Dahl, [0023]).
****-------------------****
7. Claims 1-2, 5-11, and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of US Patent No. 10687100 (hereafter “Patent’100”) in view of Sze et al (US 20120311017).
As to claim 1, Patent’100 discloses a client device comprising:
a network interface; a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor (Claim 9’ parent claim 8, implied by a “streaming media presented at a client device”), cause performance of a set of operations comprising:
accessing media for presentation on the client device (Claim 9’s parent claim 8, “means for retrieving metadata associated with streaming media presented at a client device”);
retrieving metadata associated with the media and including a media identifier for the media (Claim 9’ parent claim 8, “means for retrieving metadata associated with streaming media presented at a client device, the metadata located in an ID3 tag, the means for retrieving to extract data from a first field of the metadata… the first request including a media identifier from a second field of the metadata”);
transmitting, via the network interface and to a first server located at a first domain, a first request including the media identifier and user-identifying data (Claim 9’ parent claim 8, “means for communicating a first request to the first internet domain, the first request including a media identifier from a second field of the metadata and user-identifying data… the media identifier identifying the streaming media”);
receiving, via the network interface, a redirect message instructing the client device specifying a second domain different from the first domain (Claim 9’ parent claim 8, “the means for communicating to receive a redirection message from the first internet domain, the means for communicating to send, in response to the redirection message, a second request to a second internet domain specified by the redirection message, the means for communicating to provide second user-identifying data to the second internet domain”); and
based on receiving the redirect message, transmitting, via the network interface and to a second server located at the second domain, a second request (see citation in the preceding limitation),
but does not expressly disclose based on a monitoring instruction included in the media, or that the user-identifying data corresponds to at least one of the client device or a user of the client device, or that the redirect message instructing to provide the media identifier to the second domain, or that the second request includes the media identifier.
Sze discloses based on a monitoring instruction included in the media, and also that a first request includes user-identifying data corresponding to at least one of the client device or a user of the client device, that the redirect message instructing to provide the media identifier to the second domain, and that the second request includes the media identifier (see citations in the 102 rejection to claim 1 as set forth below).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Patent’100 with Sze. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to send tracking information to the first server (Sze, [0056]).
As to claim 10, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claims 2, 5-9, 11, 13-15 and 17-20, see Sze, as cited and explained in the 102 rejections to the respective claims as set forth below.
8. Claims 3-4 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Patent’100 in view of Sze, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dahl et al (US 2008/0021874).
As to claim 3, Patent’100 in view of Sze discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose a metadata stream, separate from and associated with the media. Dahl discloses a concept of a metadata stream, sperate from and associated with a media ([0023], “MP3 format streams can include the metadata in ID3 tags in the header or at the end of the file”, wherein “in the header” indicates separate from and associated with a media).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Patent’100 in view of Sze with Dahl. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to enable using MP3 format streams (Dahl, [0023]).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, see Patent’100, Claim 9’s parent claim 8, “the metadata located in an ID3 tag, the means for retrieving to extract data from a first field of the metadata”.
*****-----------------*****
9. Claims 1-2, 5-11 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of US Patent No. 11197046 (hereafter “Patent’046’) in view of Sze et al (US 20120311017).
As to claim 1, Patent’046 discloses a client device comprising:
a network interface; a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor (Claim 20’ parent claim 13, implied by “streaming media… media presented to a user, and cookie data, the metadata and the cookie data provided by a client device”), cause performance of a set of operations comprising:
accessing media for presentation on the client device (Claim 20’ parent claim 13, “accessing, at a database proprietor, metadata identifying media presented to a user”);
retrieving metadata associated with the media and including a media identifier for the media (Claim 20’ parent claim 13, “accessing, at a database proprietor, metadata identifying media presented to a user, and cookie data, the metadata and the cookie data provided by a client device”);
transmitting, via the network interface and to a first server located at a first domain, a first request including the media identifier and user-identifying data (Claim 20’ parent claim 13, “in response to a processor determining that the cookie data identifies the user to the database proprietor: determining a user identifier used by the database proprietor to identify the user; and providing the metadata and the user identifier to a central facility”, wherein providing data to a central facility is a type of request such as a data writing request. It is to noted that the claim does not require a specific type of the request);
receiving, via the network interface, a redirect message instructing the client device specifying a second domain different from the first domain (Claim 20’ parent claim 13, “in response to the processor determining that the cookie data does not identify the user to the database proprietor, sending a redirect message instructing the client device to retransmit the metadata to a next-hop location”); and
based on receiving the redirect message, transmitting, via the network interface and to a second server located at the second domain, a second request (see citation in the preceding limitation),
but does not expressly disclose based on a monitoring instruction included in the media, or if the claimed limitations were to be construed narrowly to require a request for content, then Patent’046 does not expressly disclose a first request for content and a second request for content either.
Sze discloses based on a monitoring instruction included in the media, and also a first request for content, and a second request for content upon receiving a redirect message (see citations in the 102 rejection to claim 1 as set forth below).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Patent’046 with Sze. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to send tracking information to the first server (Sze, [0056]).
As to claim 10, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claims 2, 5-9, 11, 13-15 and 17-20, see Sze, as cited and explained in the 102 rejections to the respective claims as set forth below.
10. Claims 3-4 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Patent’046 in view of Sze, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dahl et al (US 2008/0021874).
As to claim 3, Patent’046 in view of Sze discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose a metadata stream, separate from and associated with the media. Dahl discloses a concept of a metadata stream, sperate from and associated with a media ([0023], “MP3 format streams can include the metadata in ID3 tags in the header or at the end of the file”, wherein “in the header” indicates separate from and associated with a media).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Patent’046 in view of Sze with Dahl. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to enable using MP3 format streams (Dahl, [0023]).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, see Patent’046, Claim 20, “wherein the metadata is formatted using an ID3 format”.
******---------------******
11. Claims 1-2, 5-11 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of US Patent No. 11563994 (hereafter “Patent’994”) in view of Sze et al (US 20120311017).
As to claim 1, Patent’994 discloses a client device comprising:
a network interface; a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor (Claim 7), cause performance of a set of operations comprising:
accessing media for presentation on the client device (Claim 7, “retrieve metadata associated with streaming media presented at a client device”);
retrieving metadata associated with the media and including a media identifier for the media (Claim 7, “retrieve metadata associated with streaming media presented at a client device by extracting data from a first field of the metadata… transmit a first request to the first internet domain, the first request including a media identifier from a second field of the metadata”);
transmitting, via the network interface and to a first server located at a first domain, a first request including the media identifier and user-identifying data (Claim 7, “transmit a first request to the first internet domain, the first request including a media identifier from a second field of the metadata and user-identifying data… the user-identifying data being accessible at the first internet domain, the media identifier includes information to identify the streaming media”);
receiving, via the network interface, a redirect message specifying a second domain different from the first domain (Claim 7, “receive a redirection message from the first internet domain; send, in response to the redirection message, a second request to a second internet domain specified by the redirection message”); and
based on receiving the redirect message, transmitting, via the network interface and to a second server located at the second domain, a second request (see citation above),
but does not expressly disclose based on a monitoring instruction included in the media, or that the user-identifying data corresponds to at least one of the client device or a user of the client device, or that the redirect message instructing to provide the media identifier to the second domain, or that the second request includes the media identifier.
Sze discloses based on a monitoring instruction included in the media, and also that a first request includes user-identifying data corresponding to at least one of the client device or a user of the client device, that the redirect message instructing to provide the media identifier to the second domain, and that the second request includes the media identifier (see citations in the 102 rejection to claim 1 as set forth below).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Patent’994 with Sze. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to send tracking information to the first server (Sze, [0056]).
As to claim 10, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claims 2, 5-9, 11, 13-15 and 17-20, see Sze, as cited and explained in the 102 rejections to the respective claims as set forth below.
12. Claims 3-4 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Patent’994 in view of Sze, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dahl et al (US 2008/0021874).
As to claim 3, Patent’994 in view of Sze discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose a metadata stream, separate from and associated with the media. Dahl discloses a concept of a metadata stream, sperate from and associated with a media ([0023], “MP3 format streams can include the metadata in ID3 tags in the header or at the end of the file”, wherein “in the header” indicates separate from and associated with a media).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Patent’994 in view of Sze with Dahl. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to enable using MP3 format streams (Dahl, [0023]).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, Patent’994 in view of Sze and Dahl discloses the client device of claim 1, wherein the metadata is stored within an ID3 tag associated with the media presented on the client device (Dahl, [0023], “MP3 format streams can include the metadata in ID3 tags in the header or at the end of the file”).
*******-------------*******
13. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of US Patent No. 11968413 (hereafter “Patent’413”) in view of Sze et al (US 20120311017).
As to claim 1, Patent’413 discloses a client device comprising:
a network interface; a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor (Claim 17’ parent claim 15, implied by accessing with a browser of a client device, streaming media), cause performance of a set of operations comprising:
accessing media for presentation on the client device (Claim 17’ parent claim 15, “streaming media…accessing, with a browser of a client device, a website including a monitoring instruction, the monitoring instruction to cause a transmission of a first request by the client device”);
based on a monitoring instruction included in the media, retrieving metadata associated with the media and including a media identifier for the media (Claim 17’ parent claim 15, “website including a monitoring instruction, the monitoring instruction to cause a transmission of a first request by the client device… extracting, by executing an instruction with programmable circuitry of the client device, data from a first field of an 1D3 tag, the 1D3 tag located in streaming media accessed by the browser of the client device via the website… the first request including a media identifier from a second field of the 1D3 tag, the media identifier identifying the streaming media”);
transmitting, via the network interface and to a first server located at a first domain, a first request including the media identifier (Claim 17’ parent claim 15, “generating, by executing an instruction with the programmable circuitry, the first request directed to a first internet domain based on the data from the first field of the 1D3 tag, the first request including a media identifier from a second field of the 1D3 tag, the media identifier identifying the streaming media; sending, after detection of the 1D3 tag, the first request from the client device to the first internet domain”);
receiving, via the network interface, a redirect message specifying a second domain different from the first domain (Claim 17’ parent claim 15, “after receiving a redirection message from the first internet domain, sending a second request to a second internet domain specified by the redirection message, the second request including the media identifier and a second identifier, the second identifier identifying at least one of (1) a user of the client device or (2) the client device”); and
based on receiving the redirect message, transmitting, via the network interface and to a second server located at the second domain, a second request (see citation in the preceding limitation),
but does not expressly disclose that the request includes user-identifying data corresponding to at least one of the client device or a user of the client device, or that the redirect message instructing to provide the media identifier to the second domain.
Sze discloses that a first request includes user-identifying data corresponding to at least one of the client device or a user of the client device, that the redirect message instructing to provide the media identifier to the second domain (see citations in the 102 rejection to claim 1 as set forth below).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Patent’413 with Sze. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to send tracking information to the first server (Sze, [0056]).
As to claim 10, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claims 2, 5-9, 11, 13-15 and 17-20, see Sze, as cited and explained in the 102 rejections to the respective claims as set forth below.
As to claim 3, see Patent’413, Claim 17, “extracting the ID3 tag from a metadata stream of the streaming media”,, wherein the metadata stream of the streaming media indicates a separate and associated sub-stream from the remaining streaming media.
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, see Patent’413, Claim 17, “extracting the ID3 tag from a metadata stream of the streaming media”; and Claim 17’s parent claim 15, “extracting, by executing an instruction with programmable circuitry of the client device, data from a first field of an 1D3 tag, the 1D3 tag located in streaming media accessed by the browser of the client device via the website”).
********-----------********
13. Claims 1-2, 5-11 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of US Patent No. 12184913 (hereafter “Patent’913”) in view of Sze et al (US 20120311017).
As to claim 1, Patent’913 discloses a client device comprising:
a network interface; a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor (Claim 4’ parent claim 1), cause performance of a set of operations comprising:
accessing media for presentation on the client device (Claim 4’ parent claim 1, “accessing metadata identifying media presented on a client device”);
retrieving metadata associated with the media and including a media identifier for the media (Claim 4’ parent claim 1, “accessing metadata identifying media presented on a client device, wherein the metadata identifying media presented on the client device is associated with user-identifying data corresponding to at least one of the client device or a user of the client device”);
but does not expressly disclose based on a monitoring instruction included in the media, or transmitting, via the network interface and to a first server located at a first domain, a first request including the media identifier; receiving, via the network interface, a redirect message specifying a second domain different from the first domain; and based on receiving the redirect message, transmitting, via the network interface and to a second server located at the second domain, a second request. Sze discloses based on a monitoring instruction included in the media, and also transmitting, via the network interface and to a first server located at a first domain, a first request including the media identifier; receiving, via the network interface, a redirect message specifying a second domain different from the first domain; and based on receiving the redirect message, transmitting, via the network interface and to a second server located at the second domain, a second request (see citations in the 102 rejection to claim 1 as set forth below).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Patent’913 with Sze. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to send tracking information to the first server (Sze, [0056]).
As to claim 10, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claims 2, 5-9, 11, 13-15 and 17-20, see Sze, as cited and explained in the 102 rejections to the respective claims as set forth below.
14. Claims 3-4 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Patent’913 in view of Sze, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dahl et al (US 2008/0021874).
As to claim 3, Patent’913 in view of Sze discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose a metadata stream, separate from and associated with the media. Dahl discloses a concept of a metadata stream, sperate from and associated with a media ([0023], “MP3 format streams can include the metadata in ID3 tags in the header or at the end of the file”, wherein “in the header” indicates separate from and associated with a media).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Patent’913 in view of Sze with Dahl. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to enable using MP3 format streams (Dahl, [0023]).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, Patent’913 in view of Sze and Dahl discloses the client device of claim 1, wherein the metadata is stored within an ID3 tag associated with the media presented on the client device (Patent’913, claim 4, “wherein the metadata identifying media is stored within an ID3 tag associated with the media presented on the client device”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
15. 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.
16. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
17. Claims 1-2, 5-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sze et al (US 20120311017).
As to claim 1, Sze discloses a client device comprising:
a network interface;
a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor (Fig. 6), cause performance of a set of operations comprising:
accessing media for presentation on the client device ([0054], “The data flow 250 begins with submission, by the user device 106, of interaction data 252 to ad server D 218 when a user clicks on the selected ad. The submission of the interaction data 252 to the ad server D 218 can be caused, for example, by the interaction tracking data that the ad server D 218 included in the ad content 220 that was provided to the user device”, indicating that the media (i.e., ad) is accessed for presentation on the client device);
based on a monitoring instruction included in the media, retrieving metadata associated with the media and including a media identifier for the media ([0054], “The data flow 250 begins with submission, by the user device 106, of interaction data 252 to ad server D 218 when a user clicks on the selected ad”; [0055], “Interaction data 252 are data that specify that user interaction with the selected advertisement (or another content item) has occurred. The interaction data 252 can include a resource request that specifies a URL of the requested resource. The interaction data 252 can also include interaction tracking data for one or more different servers that track user interactions with the selected advertisement”, wherein a media id of the selected advertisement is included in the request in order to determine the selected advertisement. Also see [0062]-[0063]; [0069] teaching a unique ID for each selected ad in the user request, wherein retrieving metadata associated with the ad and including the ad id is implied in order to include the ad id in the user submission/request. See also [0070], “As described above, unique identifiers can also be generated on a per-user device basis…., each unique identifier can be included in a URL of the content item”. In addition to the media identifier, User-identifying data, e.g., information related to the user device such as a cookie, are also included in the user request/submission, see [0056], “The interaction data 252 provide information to ad server D 218, including information such as a time of interaction and information relating to the user device 106, such as the cookie on the user device 106. The ad server D 218 can store the interaction data 252 in the ad data store 222 and provide redirect data 254 (e.g., a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) 302 status code) to the user device 106.”);
transmitting, via the network interface and to a first server located at a first domain, a first request including the media identifier and user-identifying data corresponding to at least one of the client device or a user of the client device (see citation in the preceding limitation. It is to be noted that the claim does not require a specific type of domain, therefore any portion of a network or sub-network can be considered a domain);
receiving, via the network interface, a redirect message instructing the client device to provide the media identifier to a second domain different from the first domain ([0056], “The interaction data 252 provide information to ad server D 218, including information such as a time of interaction and information relating to the user device 106, such as the cookie on the user device 106. The ad server D 218 can store the interaction data 252 in the ad data store 222 and provide redirect data 254 (e.g., a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) 302 status code) to the user device 106”; [0057], “The redirect data 254 can direct the user device 106 to ad server B 210, for example, based on the interaction tracking data that was included in (or provided with) the ad location data 214. The user device 106 provides the interaction data 252 (or other data) to the ad server B 210, such that ad server B 210 is informed of the user interaction with the selected ad. The ad server B 210 logs the user interaction with the selected ad. For example, ad server B 210 can store the interaction data 252 and/or information about the user device 106 in a data store, such as the ad data store 212. In tum, ad server B 210 can provide redirect data 256 to the user device 106”. See [0050], “The ad location data 214 are data that specify a location (e.g., a URL or another network location) from which the user device 106 can obtain the selected ad,” indicating that Server B 210 and Server D218 are in different network location/domain); and
based on receiving the redirect message, transmitting, via the network interface and to a second server located at the second domain, a second request including the media identifier (see citation in the preceding limitation above).
As to claim 10, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 2, Sze discloses the client device of claim 1, wherein retrieving the metadata comprises extracting the metadata from the media (see citation in rejection to claim 1 and [0033], “The resources can include content, such as words, phrases, images and sounds, that may include embedded information (such as meta-information in hyperlinks) and/or embedded instructions (such as JavaScript scripts). Units of content that are presented in (or with) resources are referred to as content items”; see [0048], “The web page data 206 include data that represent (and cause presentation of) a web page and a portion of code that upon execution causes the user device 106 to submit an ad request 208 (e.g., a request for selection of an advertisement to be presented with a resource) to ad server B 210”. Since the request that includes the ad id is automatically generated once the user clicks on the ad resource content item, the ad id is automatically extracted from the content item, see [0062], “For example, ad server B 210 can provide the unique identifier to ad server D 218 when providing the ad location data to the user device 106, such as through a reserved key-value pair that is included in the URL of the ad content request”; [0070], “As described above, unique identifiers can also be generated on a per-user device basis…., each unique identifier can be included in a URL of the content item”, wherein a URL can be considered metadata of the content item; see also [0054], “The data flow 250 begins with submission, by the user device 106, of interaction data 252 to ad server D 218 when a user clicks on the selected ad. The submission of the interaction data 252 to the ad server D 218 can be caused, for example, by the interaction tracking data that the ad server D 218 included in the ad content 220 that was provided to the user device”).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 5, Sze discloses the client device of claim 1, wherein the first server is associated with an audience measurement entity, and wherein the second server is associated with a database proprietor (see citation in rejection to claim 1, wherein the server performing user interaction tracking can be considered an audience measurement entity, such as the Server D 218, and the server that is associated with another server that provides requested data stored in a database can be considered a server associated with a database proprietor, such as the Server B 210, see [0058]).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 6, Sze discloses the client device of claim 1, wherein accessing the media for presentation on the client device comprises accessing the media for presentation using a browser application installed on the client device (Fig. 2A, “Web page data”; see [0034], “web browser”).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 7, Sze discloses the client device of claim 1, wherein the client device is a mobile phone, and wherein the user-identifying data includes a device identifier corresponding to the mobile
phone ([0034], “A user device 106 is an electronic device that is under control of a user and is capable of requesting and receiving resources over the network 102. Example user devices 106 include personal computers, mobile communication devices”; [0099], “a computer can be embedded in another
device, for example, a mobile telephone”. See citation in rejection to claim 1, wherein the user-identifying data is such as a cookie. See [0064], wherein the cookie is unique identifier that “the particular ad server has created for the user device” therefore can be considered a device identifier corresponding to the mobile phone. See also [0070], “As described above, unique identifiers can also be generated on a per-user device basis. Thus, a reference to the unique identifier can indicate to each the data processing apparatus which user device was used to interact with the content item and/or which content request resulted in the user interaction. In some implementations, each unique identifier can be included in a URL of the content item”; and [0074], “The example URL also includes unique identifiers (e.g., 12345 and 56455) with which the respective ad servers can identify the content item with which a user interacted, and the user device from which the content item was interacted).
As to claim 8, Sze discloses the client device of claim 1, wherein the redirect message further instructs the client device to provide second user-identifying data, associated with the second domain, to the second domain, wherein the second user-identifying data is different from the user-identifying data, and wherein the second request further includes the second user-identifying data ([0057], “The redirect data 254 can direct the user device 106 to ad server B 210, for example, based on the interaction tracking data that was included in (or provided with) the ad location data 214. The user device 106 provides the interaction data 252 (or other data) to the ad server B 210, such that ad server B 210 is informed of the user interaction with the selected ad. The ad server B 210 logs the user interaction with the selected ad. For example, ad server B 210 can store the interaction data 252 and/or information about the user device 106 in a data store, such as the ad data store 212. In tum, ad server B 210 can provide redirect data 256 to the user device 106”, wherein the Server D 218‘s redirecting the user device to the Server B 210 instructs the user device to request from the Server B 210 instead, wherein user-identifying data such as a network address associated with the client device to be used by (therefore associated with) the Server B210 to reply, is implied to be provided with the request, in order for the Server B 210 to reply to the correct user device. Alternatively, as disclosed, the interaction data 252 are also provided in the redirected request to the Server B 210, wherein the interaction data can include a cookie specific to each server, see [0065], “interaction data that include a server specific cookie”, wherein the server specific cookie is user-identifying data, associated with the second domain).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 9, Sze discloses the client device of claim 1, wherein the redirect message further instructs the client device to provide the user-identifying data to the second domain, and wherein the second request further includes the user-identifying data ([0057], “The redirect data 254 can direct the user device 106 to ad server B 210, for example, based on the interaction tracking data that was included in (or provided with) the ad location data 214. The user device 106 provides the interaction data 252 (or other data) to the ad server B 210, such that ad server B 210 is informed of the user interaction with the selected ad. The ad server B 210 logs the user interaction with the selected ad. For example, ad server B 210 can store the interaction data 252 and/or information about the user device 106 in a data store, such as the ad data store 212. In tum, ad server B 210 can provide redirect data 256 to the user device 106.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. Claims 3-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sze, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dahl et al (US 2008/0021874).
As to claim 3, Sze discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, including retrieving the metadata comprises extracting the metadata (see citation in rejection to claim 2, e.g., [0033], “The resources can include content, such as words, phrases, images and sounds, that may include embedded information (such as meta-information in hyperlinks)”; [0030], “user interactions with other types of content items ( e.g., audio files and video files) can also be tracked in a manner similar to that described”), but does not expressly disclose that a metadata stream, separate from and associated with the media. Dahl discloses a concept of a metadata stream, sperate from and associated with a media ([0023], “MP3 format streams can include the metadata in ID3 tags in the header or at the end of the file”, wherein “in the header” indicates separate from and associated with a media).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Sze with Dahl. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to enable using MP3 format streams (Dahl, [0023]).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, Sze in view of Dahl discloses the client device of claim 1, wherein the metadata is stored within an ID3 tag associated with the media presented on the client device (Dahl, [0023], “MP3 format streams can include the metadata in ID3 tags in the header or at the end of the file”).
Conclusion
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.
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