DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-17 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent 12,212,811. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claims of the instant application are anticipated in every aspect by the limitations of the patented claims.
The analysis is as follows, with the matching limitations between the US Patent and the instant application, respectively:
US Patent
US12,212,811
Instant Application
18/985221
1. A computing system comprising:
at least one processor; and memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
obtaining, via a network, streaming meter data from a plurality of streaming meter devices,
the streaming meter data including streaming sessions detected by the plurality of streaming meter devices, wherein the plurality of streaming meter devices are located at a plurality of panelist households and
configured to monitor streaming media content output by media presentation devices at the panelist households;
identifying a subset of the streaming sessions as active streaming sessions based on a determination timing information for the subset of streaming sessions specified by the streaming meter data is within a threshold time of a current time;
obtaining, via the network, people meter data from a plurality of people meter devices located at the panelist households, wherein the people meter data associates exposure to media to specific audience members the panelist households present during presentation of the media;
determining demographics of the audience members based on the people meter data;
based on the active streaming sessions, the people meter data, and the demographics,
generating a viewing trend indicator of viewing trends of the streaming media content output by the media presentation devices during the active streaming sessions such that the viewing trend indicator correlates the viewing trends of the streaming media content with the demographics of the audience members ermined from the people meter data;
and transmitting the viewing trend indicator via the network to a server to facilitate insertion of targeted media content relating to the viewing trend indicator into media content distributed by a streaming service provider.
1. A computing system for using streaming meter data to generate viewing trends of streaming media, the computing system comprising:
a processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor, cause performance of a set of operations comprising:
obtaining, via a network, streaming meter data from a plurality of streaming meter devices,
the streaming meter data including streaming sessions detected by the plurality of streaming meter devices, wherein the plurality of streaming meter devices are located at a plurality of panelist households and
configured to monitor streaming media output by media presentation devices at the panelist households;
obtaining, via the network, people meter data from a plurality of people meter devices located at the panelist households, wherein the people meter data associates exposure to media to specific audience members of the panelist households present during presentation of the media;
determining demographics of the audience members based on the people meter data; and
based on the streaming sessions, the people meter data, and the demographics,
generating a viewing trend indicator of viewing trends of the streaming media output by the media presentation devices during the streaming sessions such that the viewing trend indicator correlates the viewing trends of the streaming media with the demographics of the audience members determined from the people meter data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis specific to Claim 1 is being presented below. However, the Applicants should please note that regarding claims 11 and 17, the analyses are similar to that of claim 1, and therefore those claims are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 1 recites “A computing system for using streaming meter data to generate viewing trends of streaming media, the computing system comprising:
(a) a processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program
instructions that, upon execution by the processor, cause performance of a set of operations comprising:
(c) obtaining, via a network, streaming meter data from a plurality of streaming meter devices, the streaming meter data including streaming sessions detected by the plurality of streaming meter devices, wherein the plurality of streaming meter devices are located at a plurality of panelist households and configured to monitor streaming media output by media presentation devices at the panelist households;
(d) obtaining, via the network, people meter data from a plurality of people meter devices located at the panelist households, wherein the people meter data associates exposure to media to specific audience members of the panelist households present during presentation of the media;
(e) determining demographics of the audience members based on the people meter data; and
(f) based on the streaming sessions, the people meter data, and the demographics,
generating a viewing trend indicator of viewing trends of the streaming media output by the media presentation devices during the streaming sessions such that the viewing trend indicator correlates the viewing trends of the streaming media with the demographics of the audience members determined from the people meter data.
Step 1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a system.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. Limitations (e)-(f) are limitations that, as drafted, reasonably constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind/performed by a human using pen and paper i.e., making mental/written comparisons, observations and calculations. For example, the steps, in the context of the claims, encompass a user reading/making notes of information and writing a result.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, besides the abstract idea, the claim recites the additional elements of (a)-(d). Elements (a)-(b) are additional elements of the claim that are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computer components performing generic functions of a computer, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
An evaluation of whether the limitations (c)-(d) are “insignificant extra-solution activity” is then performed. Note that because the Step 2A Prong Two analysis excludes consideration of whether a limitation is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 55), this evaluation does not take into account whether or not the limitations are well-known. See October 2019 Update at Section III.D. When so evaluated, in regards to limitations (c)-(d), the claim does not put any limits on how the information is obtained.
When so evaluated, limitations (c)-(d), then, merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data, which the courts have identified as functions that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claim do no more than automate the mental process that a person can use to perform. There is no change to computers and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract idea, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int'l v. 1BG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer's functionality). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and simply adding extra-solution activity, which does integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim is ineligible.
Additionally, the rejected dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and therefore are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: WO2012/055023 to Gallant et al., US20200177966 to Kerkes, US20180192105 to Loheide et al. and US20140280554 to Webb et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENEA DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9524 and whose email address is CHENEA.SMITH@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHENEA DAVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421