Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 12/6/2024. 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 2 of US Patent 10785519 (hereafter “Patent’519”) in view of Hebeler, JR. et al (US 2004/0019675, hereafter “Hebeler”).
As to claim 1, Patent’519 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by a processor, cause performance of a set of operations to monitor use of a media presentation application installed on a mobile device (see Claim 2’s parent claim 1, “An apparatus to monitor media that is presented via a mobile device”), the set of operations comprising:
determining that the media presentation application is being executed by the mobile device (see Claim 2’s parent claim 1, “an application monitor to determine when media presentation software is being executed by the mobile device”);
but does expressly disclose wherein the media presentation application is configured to access media over the Internet and present the media, based on the determination that the media presentation application is being executed by the mobile device, determining a duration of usage of the media presentation application; and transmitting, over a network to a remote server of an audience measurement entity, an identifier of the media presentation application and the duration of usage of the media presentation application. Hebeler discloses a media presentation application is configured to access media over the Internet and present the media, based on a determination that the media presentation application is being executed by the mobile device, determining a duration of usage of the media presentation application; and transmitting, over a network to a remote server of an audience measurement entity, an identifier of the media presentation application and the duration of usage of the media presentation application (see citation in 102 rejection to claim 1 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’519 with Hebeler. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to report session duration to a remote system (Hebeler, [0066]).
As to claim 8, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claims 2-4, 7-11, 14. 16-18 and 20, see Hebeler, as cited in the 102 rejection to the respective claims as set forth below.
As to claim 5 and 12, see Patent’519, Claim 2.
As to claim 6, 13, and 19, see Patent’519, Claim 2.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of US Patent 11765411 (hereafter “Patent’411”) in view of Hebeler, JR. et al (US 2004/0019675, hereafter “Hebeler”).
As to claim 1, Patent’411 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by a processor, cause performance of a set of operations to monitor use of a media presentation application installed on a mobile device (see Claim 7’s parent claim 1, “method for monitoring media presented by a mobile device within and outside of a panelist household, the mobile device having installed a media presentation application for presenting the media and a metering application for monitoring the media,”), the set of operations comprising:
determining that the media presentation application is being executed by the mobile device (see Claim 7’s parent claim 1, “detecting, by executing the metering application with one or more processors of the mobile device, when the media presentation application is being executed by the mobile device”);
but does expressly disclose wherein the media presentation application is configured to access media over the Internet and present the media, based on the determination that the media presentation application is being executed by the mobile device, determining a duration of usage of the media presentation application; and transmitting, over a network to a remote server of an audience measurement entity, an identifier of the media presentation application and the duration of usage of the media presentation application. Hebeler discloses a media presentation application is configured to access media over the Internet and present the media, based on a determination that the media presentation application is being executed by the mobile device, determining a duration of usage of the media presentation application; and transmitting, over a network to a remote server of an audience measurement entity, an identifier of the media presentation application and the duration of usage of the media presentation application (see citation in 102 rejection to claim 1 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’411 with Hebeler. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to report session duration to a remote system (Hebeler, [0066]).
As to claim 8, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claims 2-4, 7-11, 14. 16-18 and 20, see Hebeler, as cited in the 102 rejection to the respective claim as set forth below.
As to claim 5 and 12, see Patent’519, Claim 2.
As to claim 6, 13, and 19, see Patent’519, Claim 2.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of US Patent 12200282 (hereafter “Patent’282”) in view of Hebeler, JR. et al (US 2004/0019675, hereafter “Hebeler”).
As to claim 1, Patent’282 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by a processor, cause performance of a set of operations to monitor use of a media presentation application installed on a mobile device (see Claim 2’s parent claim 1, “A method for monitoring media presented by a mobile device”), the set of operations comprising:
determining that the media presentation application is being executed by the mobile device (see Claim 2, “detecting, by executing instructions with the one or more processors of the mobile device, when a media presentation application installed on the mobile device is being executed by the mobile device”);
but does expressly disclose wherein the media presentation application is configured to access media over the Internet and present the media, based on the determination that the media presentation application is being executed by the mobile device, determining a duration of usage of the media presentation application; and transmitting, over a network to a remote server of an audience measurement entity, an identifier of the media presentation application and the duration of usage of the media presentation application. Hebeler discloses a media presentation application is configured to access media over the Internet and present the media, based on a determination that the media presentation application is being executed by the mobile device, determining a duration of usage of the media presentation application; and transmitting, over a network to a remote server of an audience measurement entity, an identifier of the media presentation application and the duration of usage of the media presentation application (see citation in 102 rejection to claim 1 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’282 with Hebeler. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to report session duration to a remote system (Hebeler, [0066]).
As to claim 8, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claims 2-4, 7-11, 14. 16-18 and 20, see Hebeler, as cited in the 102 rejection to the respective claim as set forth below.
As to claim 5 and 12, see Patent’519, Claim 2.
As to claim 6, 13, and 19, see Patent’519, Claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
7. Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Hebeler, JR. et al (US 2004/0019675, hereafter “Hebeler”).
As to claim 1, Hebeler discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by a processor, cause performance of a set of operations to monitor use of a media presentation application installed on a mobile device (Figure 1; [0046], “FIG. 1 illustrates a media data usage system 100 in which a user 102 is presented with media data by means of a user system 104. The user system 104 is coupled with a network 106 in order to access media data and/or present media data to the user 102. The user system 104 incorporates a local source of media data 105 from which the user system 104 also obtains media data for presentation to the user 102”, therefore the entity of the user system 104 that performs the function of “access media data and/or present media data to the user 102” is equivalent to a media presentation application, see [0050], “each object 108 is dedicated to monitoring usage of media data presented by means of only one type of user agent, such as a particular browser, player, etc.”; [0052], “In certain embodiments the object 108 gathers data at the board level (for example, a sound card), while in other embodiments it gathers data at the network level. In still other embodiments it gathers data at the operating system level, while in still further embodiments it gathers data at the application level (for example, a player, viewer or other application)”, expressly disclosing a media presentation application (i.e., a user agent such as a browser, player) installed on the user system which is to be monitored at its application level. Hebeler also discloses that the user system can be a “mobile device”, see [0047], “The user system 104 incorporates a media usage monitoring processor 107 which implements a media data usage monitoring service within the user system 104”. See [0019], “The term "user system" as used herein means any software, devices, or combinations thereof which are useful for requesting, receiving, or presenting media data for a user, including, but not limited to, computers, televisions, radios, personal digital assistants”, wherein radios, personal digital assistants are examples of a mobile device), wherein the media presentation application is configured to access media over the Internet and present the media (see citation above, and [0017], “The term "media data" as used herein means data which is widely accessible, whether over-the-air, or via cable, satellite, network, internetwork (including the Internet”), the set of operations comprising:
determining that the media presentation application is being executed by the mobile device ([0031], “gathering data reflecting usage of media data by a user of a user system. The system comprises a plurality of media data usage gathering objects each for collecting data reflecting usage of a respectively different portion of and/or user agent for, a plurality of media data received by the user system; and a session object to merge predetermined ones of the plurality of media data usage gathering objects corresponding to a respective user session and/or RCL session”, wherein detecting usage of media data by a user of a user system indicates determining that the entity of the user system that functions to obtain the media and present the media to the user is being executed on the user system, which can be a mobile system, see citation in rejection to the preceding limitation. See also [0066], “The processor 107 instantiates the micro-level report object 111 which serves to merge session objects and/or other objects into itself, and/or to encapsulate data, for supply to one or more reporting systems for producing media usage reports. In certain embodiments, the object 111 merges one or more session objects representing the media data usage of a single user into a corresponding micro-level report object, while in others the object 111 merges session objects into a micro-level report object representing media data usage by multiple identified users. In certain embodiments the object 111 merges one or more session objects representing media data usage within a predetermined time span, while in other embodiments the object 111 merges session objects in response to a request from a reporting system 112 coupled with the user system 104 either through the network 106 or via a different communication medium”, disclosing that these session objects are merged into a report object for supply to one or more reporting systems over the network. See also claims 22-24 and [0051], “the object 108 collects content metadata accompanying or associated with the media data. In other embodiments combinations of the foregoing are employed. In certain embodiments the attributes of the object 108 include times or durations of the events or state information.” Here, detecting a session start is equivalent to determining that the media presentation application is being executed by the mobile device. Also see [0050], “each object 108 is dedicated to monitoring usage of media data presented by means of only one type of user agent, such as a particular browser, player, etc”; [0052], “embodiments it gathers data at the application level (for example, a player, viewer or other application)”; and [0081], “the processor incorporated in user system 204 serves to create and manage multiple instances of media data usage gathering objects 208, 208', 208", ... 208n corresponding to object 108 of FIG. 1 which run concurrently and/or at various differing times in order to track usage of different respective media data types and/or user agents. For example, if user 202 opens a browser, in certain embodiments the processor instantiates a browser usage data gathering object to track its usage. If an audio and/or video player is also opened while the browser is in use, the processor instantiates a player usage data gathering object to track its usage separately from the browser. The same is also done in order to track usage of other types of user agents such as a chat application”, expressly disclosing that the media presentation application’s execution on the mobile device is determined);
based on the determination that the media presentation application is being executed by the mobile device, determining a duration of usage of the media presentation application (see citation above in rejection to the preceding limitation, wherein the determined objects corresponding to a respective user session and./or RCL session are determined and merged. These predetermined session/RCL objects include “Session start”, “Session stop”, “Session duration”, “Session content”, “Session metadata” etc., see [0026], “The terms "resource control location session" and "RCL session" as used herein each means the presentation of media data from a single resource control location to a user over a continuous time period”, defining a resource control location session; [0027], “The term "user session" as used herein means one or more resource control location sessions of a single user grouped according to predetermined criteria”, defining a user session as one or more RCL session grouped together; see [0057]-[0065], e.g., [0057], “one or more of the following attributes are included in the session objects:”; [0058], “"Session start": the time that an RCL is first accessed by the user system and the media data is delivered thereto, or else when such media data is first presented to the user”; [0059], “”Session stop": the time that the user system ceases to access the RCL, or else when presentation of its media data to the user ceases”; [0060], “Session duration": the duration of a user session, which may be measured as the length of time between Session start and Session stop”. Here, the determined session objects such as “Session duration” is a duration of a user session which indicates a duration of usage of the entity of the user system that functions to obtain and present media (media presentation application). It is to be noted that the claim does not require a specific period for a duration of usage of the media presentation application, therefore any duration when the media presentation application is being used reads on the claimed “a duration of usage of the media presentation application”); and
transmitting, over a network to a remote server of an audience measurement entity, an identifier of the media presentation application and the duration of usage of the media presentation application (see citation above in the preceding limitations, e.g., [0066], disclosing that “session duration” is one of the determined objects merged into the session object to be sent to the reporting system by the user system over the network. Because the object for gathering usage data (to be merged and sent to the remote server) can be application-specific, an identifier of the specific media presentation application is implied in order to differentiate from other media presentation applications whose usage data are also obtained, see [0081, “the processor incorporated in user system 204 serves to create and manage multiple instances of media data usage gathering objects 208, 208', 208", ... 208n corresponding to object 108 of FIG. 1 which run concurrently and/or at various differing times in order to track usage of different respective media data types and/or user agents. For example, if user 202 opens a browser, in certain embodyments the processor instantiates a browser usage data gathering object to track its usage. If an audio and/or video player is also opened while the browser is in use, the processor instantiates a player usage data gathering object to track its usage separately from the browser. The same is also done in order to track usage of other types of user agents such as a chat application”. It is to be noted that the claimed “an identifier of the media presentation application” is not limited to any specific type therefore Examiner interprets as any type. Also see [0051, “the object 108 collects content metadata accompanying or associated with the media data. In other embodiments combinations of the foregoing are employed. In certain embodiments the attributes of the object 108 include times or durations of the events or state information.”; and [0028]. “The term "content metadata" as used herein means data providing information about media data, including but not limited to, its resource control location, artist, author, title, dates, relationships to other media data, format, associated user agent, rating, description of its content, and/or the like”).
As to claim 8, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 2, Hebeler discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, the set of operations further comprising:
determining that the media presentation application is being used to access the media over the Internet and present the media (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., detecting and recording the “Session start” for media accessed by the media presentation over the internet and presented to a user);
based on the determination that the media presentation application is being used to access the media over the Internet and present the media (see citation in rejection to claim 1, based on detecting and recording the “Session start” for media accessed by the media presentation over the internet and presented to a user):
determining media identifying information associated with the media, determining a media session duration over which the media is presented by the mobile device (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., [0057]-0065], e.g., “Session start”, “Session stop”, “Session duration”, and “(4) "Session content": the type and identity of the presented or accessed media data”, wherein the “Session duration” can be determined based on “Session start” and “Session End”. Also see [0051], “In certain embodiments, the data gathered by object 108 represents media usage events such as the opening or closing of a user agent, a request for or receipt of new or different content or resource control location channel, …, the object 108 polls for predetermined media data state information, such as currently received content or currently accessed resource control location and/or the state of a user agent. Depending on the embodiment, the object 108 records either changes in state and/or the state itself. In further embodiments, the object 108 collects content metadata accompanying or associated with the media”; [0028], “The term "content metadata" as used herein means data providing information about media data, including but not limited to, its resource control location, artist, author, title, dates, relationships to other media data, format, associated user agent, rating, description of its content, and/or the like”, wherein the “resource control location” can also be identifying information associated with the media. See also [0005], “Based upon the receipt and identification of media data, the rating or popularity of various web sites, channels and specific media data may be estimated”; see also [0093], wherein the gathered media data includes its URL), and
transmitting, over the network to the remote server of the audience measurement entity, the media identifying information and the media session duration (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., [066], wherein the session object are merged into reports to be sent over the network to the remote server).
As to claim 9, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 3, Hebeler discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2, the set of operations further comprising:
tagging the media identifying information with the media session duration, wherein the media session duration comprises a start time and end time, wherein transmitting the media identifying information and the media session duration comprises transmitting the tagged media identifying information (see citation in rejection to claim 1 and claim 2 above, wherein the merged session objects including the determined objects such as “Session start”, “Session end”, and “Session duration” together with the media’s identification information “Session content”, and also resource control location (RCL) or its URL. Therefore, the media identifying information such as “Session content” is considered to be tagged with the other determined objects such as the “session start”, “session end” and “Session duration” in the merged session object to be transmitted to the reporting server over the network. It is to be noted that the claim does not require a specific way to tag).
As to claim 10, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, Hebeler discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2, wherein determining that the media presentation application is being used to access the media over the Internet and present the media comprises determining that the media presentation application is in a playback mode ([0046], “FIG. 1 illustrates a media data usage system 100 in which a user 102 is presented with media data by means of a user system 104. The user system 104 is coupled with a network 106 in order to access media data and/or present media data to the user 102. The user system 104 incorporates a local source of media data 105 from which the user system 104 also obtains media data for presentation to the user 102. The local source 105 may be, for example, a hard drive or other storage device or devices which store prerecorded media data and/or media data downloaded via network 106 and stored in local source 105 for later presentation to user 102. The user system may also serve to obtain a combination of media data both via network 106 and from local source 105 for simultaneous presentation to user 102 or combined in a stream of audio and/or video media data”, wherein determining to play the pre-downloaded data from the local storage instead of the Internet is considered determining a playback mode. See also [0050], “each object 108 is dedicated to monitoring usage of media data of only one format, such as jpg image data, avi data, streaming media data to be reproduced by a certain player type”).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 7, Hebeler discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the processor is a processor of the mobile device (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Fig. 1; [0019], “The term "user system" as used herein means any software, devices, or combinations thereof which are useful for requesting, receiving, or presenting media data for a user, including, but not limited to, computers, televisions, radios, personal digital assistants”, wherein radios, personal digital assistants are examples of a mobile device).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 of this title, 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 negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
9. Claims 5-6, 12-13 and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hebeler, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peiffer et al (US 2003/0131350).
As to claim 5, Hebeler discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 2, but does not expressly disclose wherein determining the media identifying information comprises collecting at least one of a signature or a code based on the media.
Peiffer discloses determining media identifying information comprises collecting at least one of a signature or a code based on a media ([0007], “A television measurement system of the sort taught by Thomas et al. may employ codes written into either the video or audio components of the composite broadcast signal, and also may extract signatures from either the video or audio portion of that signal. Moreover, one may configure a system of this sort to extract signatures from a program signal even when an identifying label or code is read. An arrangement of this sort can provide signature data to provide "fill-in" identification at times between sequential transmissions of an audio code”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Hebeler with Peiffer. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to provide "fill-in" identification at times between sequential transmissions of an audio code (Peiffer, [0007]).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 6, Hebeler in view of Peiffer discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2, the set of operations further comprising:
receiving audio of the media being presented by the mobile device, wherein determining the media identifying information comprises determining the media identifying information using the received audio (see citation in rejection to claim 5 above, e.g., Peiffer, [0007], “A television measurement system of the sort taught by Thomas et al. may employ codes written into either the video or audio components of the composite broadcast signal, and also may extract signatures from either the video or audio portion of that signal. Moreover, one may configure a system of this sort to extract signatures from a program signal even when an identifying label or code is read. An arrangement of this sort can provide signature data to provide "fill-in" identification at times between sequential transmissions of an audio code”).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 6.
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