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 responsive to application No. 18/999,465 filed on 05/02/2025. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 08/13/2026 is/are considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims(s) 1, 8, and 15 recite:
A computing system comprising a processor and a memory, the computing system configured to perform a set of acts comprising:
obtaining cross-platform panel data indicative of panelists exposed to a subset of media content via a television platform, a digital platform, or both the television platform and the digital platform, wherein the panelists exposed to the subset of media content via the television platform are exposed when the subset of media content is accessed on at least one television media access device by at least one panelist of the panelists exposed, and wherein the panelists exposed to the subset of media content via the digital platform are exposed when the subset of media content is accessed on at least one Internet-enabled device by the at least one panelist of the panelists exposed;
determining, using the cross-platform panel data, an overlap multiplier for the subset of media content;
obtaining census data comprising a first audience metric indicative of exposure to the subset of media via the television platform and a second audience metric indicative of exposure to the subset of media via the digital platform;
determining a first audience reach corresponding to a duplicated version of the subset of media via the television platform based on the first audience metric and a second audience reach corresponding to a duplicated version of the subset of media via the digital platform based on the second audience metric;
determining, using the overlap multiplier, the first audience metric, and the second audience reach, a deduplication factor representing an overlap between the television platform and the digital platform; and
determining, using the deduplication factor, the first audience metric, and the second audience reach, a deduplicated cross-platform audience metric indicative of exposure to the subset of media across the television platform and the digital platform.
Including, but not limited to the limitation(s) recited above, as drafted, the limitation(s), under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation under methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computing system”, “processor”, “memory”, “computer-implemented”, “non-transitory computer-readable medium…” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed through human activity. For example, but for the “computing system”, “processor”, “memory”, “computer-implemented”, “non-transitory computer-readable medium…” language; obtaining, determining…, etc in the context of this claim encompasses obtaining exposure data, census data, and calculating audience exposure to media content. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation under methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions), but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally Applicants own specification, also PGPUB (US 2025/0260868) recites in:
[0003] Audience measurement of media (e.g., content and/or advertisements presented by any type of medium, such as television, in theater movies, radio, Internet, etc.) is typically carried out by monitoring media exposure of panelists that are statistically selected to represent particular demographic groups. Audience measurement companies, such as The Nielsen Company (US), LLC, enroll households and persons to participate in measurement panels. By enrolling in these measurement panels, households and persons agree to allow the corresponding audience measurement company to monitor their exposure to information presentations, such as media output via a television, a radio, a computer, a smart device, etc. Using various statistical methods, the collected media exposure data is processed to determine the size and/or demographic composition of the audience(s) for media of interest. The audience size and/or demographic information is valuable to, for example, advertisers, broadcasters, content providers, manufacturers, retailers, product developers and/or other entities. For example, audience size and demographic information is a factor in the placement of advertisements, in valuing commercial time slots during a particular program and/or generating ratings for piece(s) of media.
Please also see Examiner’s response to Applicant’s arguments below in regards to the 101.
Dependent claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 further define how data is collected, via measuring impressions, but do not amount to significantly more for similar reason(s) as recited above as they still fall under methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions). Additionally, the recitation of generic computer components, such as “software meters”, “Internet-enabled devices”, “beacon instructions”, do not add more to the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 4-7, 11-14, 18-20 which further define the obtaining and determining steps, do not amount to significantly more for similar reason(s) as recited above as they still fall under methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions).
In regards to claims 1-20, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – using “computing system”, “processor”, “memory”, “computer-implemented”, “non-transitory computer-readable medium…” to perform the obtaining and determining steps. The “computing system”, “processor”, “memory”, “computer-implemented”, “non-transitory computer-readable medium…” in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of obtaining, determining…) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “computing system”, “processor”, “memory”, “computer-implemented”, “non-transitory computer-readable medium…” to perform both the steps above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A) In response to Applicant’s arguments in P.9-11 regarding “…claim 1 should be withdrawn for at least these reasons because it is not a method of organizing human activity under the first prong of Step 2A, whether considered as a "commercial" or "legal interaction[]."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s specifications also PGPUB (US 2025/0260868) recite:
[0003] Audience measurement of media (e.g., content and/or advertisements presented by any type of medium, such as television, in theater movies, radio, Internet, etc.) is typically carried out by monitoring media exposure of panelists that are statistically selected to represent particular demographic groups. Audience measurement companies, such as The Nielsen Company (US), LLC, enroll households and persons to participate in measurement panels. By enrolling in these measurement panels, households and persons agree to allow the corresponding audience measurement company to monitor their exposure to information presentations, such as media output via a television, a radio, a computer, a smart device, etc. Using various statistical methods, the collected media exposure data is processed to determine the size and/or demographic composition of the audience(s) for media of interest. The audience size and/or demographic information is valuable to, for example, advertisers, broadcasters, content providers, manufacturers, retailers, product developers and/or other entities. For example, audience size and demographic information is a factor in the placement of advertisements, in valuing commercial time slots during a particular program and/or generating ratings for piece(s) of media.
[0009] Example methods, apparatus, and articles of manufacture disclosed herein enable determining audience duplication in cross-platform media campaigns. Examples disclosed herein may analyze television-based media campaigns delivered via televisions, and Internet-based media campaigns delivered via personal computers and/or mobile devices such as mobile phones, smart phones, tablet devices (e.g., an Apple iPad), multi-media phones, etc. Examples disclosed herein may be used to provide media providers with campaign exposure information to enable such media providers to make more informed decisions about where to spend, for example, advertising dollars, and/or how to distribute advertisements. Such examples are beneficial to marketers, product manufacturers, service companies, advertisers, and/or any other individual or entity that pays for advertising opportunities within the media campaign.
[0015] To track television media impressions, a TV measurement entity 108 of the illustrated example recruits audience members to be part of a television (TV) audience member panel 110a by consenting to having their television viewing activities monitored. In some examples, the TV audience member panel 100a is implemented using Nielsen's National People Meter (NPM) panel. The TV measurement entity 108 of the illustrated example maintains a television panel database 112 to store panel member information such as demographics, media preferences and/or other personal or non-personal information suitable for describing characteristics, preferences, locations, etc. of audience members exposed to television media. To measure impressions of television media (e.g., television media including advertisements and/or programming), the TV measurement entity 108 monitors the viewing habits of members of the television audience member panel 110a and records impressions against different television media to which the television audience member 110a are exposed in the example television panel database 112.
[0019] In the illustrated example, an audience measurement entity (AME) 102 operates the TV measurement entity 108. To track digital media impressions, the AME 102 of the illustrated example partners with a total digital measurement entity 116 having registered users of their services. In the illustrated example, the AME 102 partners with the total digital measurement entity 116, which may be, for example, a social network site (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc.), a multi-service site (e.g., Yahoo!, Google, Experian, etc.), an online retailer site (e.g., Amazon.com, Buy.com, etc.) and/or any other web service(s) site that maintain(s) user registration records. In some examples, when users register with the total digital measurement entity 116 to use one or more of its online services, the users agree to a terms of service (ToS) and/or online privacy policy of the total digital measurement entity 116 stating that some Internet usage information is used to track Internet viewing/usage activities.
[0028] Producers of media interested in reach measures of their cross-platform media campaigns may obtain television impression information or television reach measurements from the TV measurement entity 108 and separately obtain digital impression information or digital reach measures from the total digital measurement entity 116. However, such separately collected measures contain overlapping audience members 120. In such examples, the TV measurement entity 108 tracks television campaign impressions for the panel audience members 110a, and the total digital measurement entity 116 separately tracks digital campaign impressions for its registered users, some of which overlap with the panel audience members 110a. As such, when the TV measurement entity 108 logs a television-based impression for a TV audience panel member 110a in connection with a particular media campaign, and the total digital measurement entity 116 logs a digital media-based impression in connection with the same media campaign for the same TV audience panel member 110a that happens to also be a registered user of the total digital measurement entity 116, the resulting television reach measure generated by the TV measurement entity 108 and the resulting digital reach measure generated by the total digital measurement entity 116 are based on duplicate impressions for the same audience members exposed to the same media campaigns, albeit via different media delivery types (e.g., television and digital platforms).
Although claims do not explicitly recite advertising, the claims as structured do reflect the purpose of what the claimed invention is intended to be used for as specified Applicant’s specifications recited above. One can see they fall under commercial or legal interactions” sub-grouping, under MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
B) In response to Applicant’s arguments on P.12-13 that “Therefore, at the least, at Step 2A, Prong Two, claim 1 recites a technological improvement in the audience measurement field… Therefore, amended claim 1's recitations are directed to an improvement to computer functionality in the audience measurement technical field.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s specifications recite:
[0030] In the illustrated example of FIG. 1, the example AME 102 includes a duplication manager 130 to provide producers of cross-platform media (e.g., television and digital campaigns including advertisements and content) with reach measures of their media to unique television audience members 110a exposed to the television media via the television media access devices 104, and to unique Internet audience members exposed to the online media as measured using impressions collected by the Internet service database proprietor 122. To improve the accuracy of reach measures, the example duplication manager 130 determines a television audience reach (e.g., from the example TV metrics calculator 109) and a total digital audience reach (e.g., form the example total digital metrics calculator 117). As disclosed above, in some instances, audience members may be uniquely identified in each respective platform. For example, if a user watches an episode of “Comedy Show” during broadcast via a television media access device 104 and then re-watches the episode three days later via an online service, then traditional techniques for estimating total unique audience would (1) credit the episode with a first impression for TV exposure and a second impression for digital exposure, and (2) double-count the user in the total audience count of audience members exposed to the cross-platform media. Thus, adding the TV audience to the total digital audience does not accurately provide a total audience for the cross-platform media. To deduplicate total audience in cross-platform media campaigns, the example duplication manager 130 uses example Equation 3 below to calculate the deduplicated total audience (DDTA) for the cross-platform media.
[0010] Monitoring entities, such as television measurement entities, online measurement entities, total digital measurement entities, etc., track impressions of media and provide audience metrics based on the impressions. An impression refers to a recordation of a presentation of an item of media (e.g., from a media campaign) to an audience member. As used herein, the “audience” of a designated item of media refers to the number of persons who have viewed the designated item of media. An “audience member” of an audience refers to an individual person within the audience. Whereas the calculation of the audience of a media item may, in some examples disclosed herein, count a single audience member multiple times, the “unique audience” of a media is an audience of the media item in which each audience member is represented only once. “Reach” refers to the amount of a population that corresponds to the measured audience. For example, if the measured audience is 500 and the population of an area is 1,000, the reach for a given media campaign is ½ or 50% of the population.
[0035] Multi-platform media campaigns may often include double-counted audience members due to the audience measurement entity not knowing which unique members were exposed to multiple instances of the same media across multiple platforms. In some examples, the audience measurement entity knows which panelists are exposed to instances of cross-platform media. However, a panel is limited to those panelists who are enrolled, while non-panelists may represent the entire population of a country to acquire audience measurements of the entire population. Accordingly, the example methods and apparatus disclosed herein utilize panelist data in combination with census data (e.g., impression data that includes logged impression for the audience population being measured without regard to such audience including panelists or non-panelists) to estimate deduplicated unique audiences. The example duplication manager 130 utilizes audience metrics associated with the panelist data from the example CPH panel database 114 to determine an overlap multiplier (OR). In the illustrated example, the overlap multiplier (OR) is an odds ratio. The odds ratio is a measure of association that provides a way of increasing (or decreasing) an overlap percentage regardless of a change in the number of audience members exposed to the media campaign via one platform or both platforms. The example duplication manager 130 then calculates the duplication factor (DF) using the overlap multiplier (OR) and the audience reaches of the two platforms. For example, the duplication manager 130 may use Equation 4 above to calculate the duplication factor (DF). The duplication manager 130 then uses the duplication factor (DF) to calculate the deduplicated total audience (DDTA) of the cross-platform media campaign.
[0067] In the example Table 2 above, the duplicated audience reaches for the TV platform (Reach.sub.TV) and the total digital platform (Reach.sub.digital) are provided by the metrics manager 205 based on, for example, the number of impressions for media associated with the TV platform and the total digital platform, respectively, within the population of an audience to be measured (UE=1000). However, because the impressions include panelists (e.g., from the TV measurement entity 108) and non-panelists (e.g., census impressions from the total digital measurement entity 116), the example metrics manager 205 is unable to provide granular metrics, such as, for example, (1) the number of audience members who were exposed to the media campaign via the TV platform and the total digital platforms, (2) the number of audience members who were exposed to the media campaign via the TV platform and not the total digital platform, (3) the number of audience members who were exposed to the media campaign via the total digital platform and not the TV platform, and (4) the number of people within the population to be measured who were not exposed to the media campaign.
[0100] From the foregoing, it will be appreciated that the above disclosed methods, apparatus and articles of manufacture facilitate estimating deduplicated total audiences for cross-platform media campaigns. Disclosed examples determine metrics, such as audience size, reach, etc. for the TV platform and the total digital platforms. In some examples, the metrics are determined based on panelist information (e.g., from the CPH panel database). In some examples, the metrics are determined based on panelist and non-panelist (e.g., census) information. Disclosed examples utilize the determined metrics to determine an overlap multiplier from panelist information. Disclosed examples also use the determined metrics for panelists and non-panelists and an overlap multiplier corresponding to the media campaign to determine a deduplication factor representing an overlap between the TV and total digital platforms. The above-disclosed methods, apparatus and articles of manufacture deduplicate total audience across the TV and total digital platforms to report accurate audience measurements.
Even accepting [0030] as Applicant does, the specification itself defines “improvement” as accurately counting unique audience members ([0010], [0035], [0067], [0100]) for commercial reporting to media producers [0028]. Assuming arguendo, that it is an improvement in audience measurement, it is not an improvement in the operation of the processor or memory and/or improvement to computer functionality. [0030] may provide improved data, it does not provide improved computer functionality. [0010] Improving “Reach” would improve a business metric. [0035] and [0067] provides better counting of the population exposure. [0100] provides a better metric/report accuracy. All of which do not directly provide a technical improvement to computer functionality.
C) In regards to Applicant’s assertions regarding the Ex Parte Desjardins, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In the case of Ex Parte Desjardins, it was identified under Step 2A Prong one that the claims recited an abstract idea. But in Step 2A Prong Two, there was an improvement of overcoming the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems. The improvement in Desjardins actually improves the functioning of the computer/system itself, where overcoming the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” improved how the machine learning model itself functions in operation. Whereas, Applicant’s claimed invention doesn’t make the processor, memory, or databases operate differently or better as computing devices. The improvement may be accuracy of data in counting for commercial reporting, which is an improvement on the abstract idea’s output, not in how the processor, memory, or database functions. Thus, Applicant’s invention does not provide an improvement in computer functionality.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON K LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1446. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached on 571-272-7527. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JASON K LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights