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 08/27/2025 and 01/05/2026 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;
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, using the overlap multiplier, the first audience metric, and the second audience metric, 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 metric, 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 in the form of advertising) 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 in the form of advertising), 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.
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 in the form of advertising). 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 the form of advertising).
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.
Double Patenting
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 6, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,313,752. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite similar subject matter which is obvious over one another.
For example, note the following relationship between the instant application claim and patented application claims.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 of the instant application corresponds to that of Claims 1, 6, and 11 of patented application.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 5, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,012,746. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite similar subject matter which is obvious over one another.
For example, note the following relationship between the instant application claim and patented application claims.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 of the instant application corresponds to that of Claims 1, 5, and 9 of patented application.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,558,667. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite similar subject matter which is obvious over one another.
For example, note the following relationship between the instant application claim and patented application claims.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 of the instant application corresponds to that of Claims 1, 8, and 15 of patented application.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,818,429. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite similar subject matter which is obvious over one another.
For example, note the following relationship between the instant application claim and patented application claims.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 of the instant application corresponds to that of Claims 1, 8, and 15 of patented application.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 9, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,206,943. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite similar subject matter which is obvious over one another.
For example, note the following relationship between the instant application claim and patented application claims.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 of the instant application corresponds to that of Claims 1, 9, and 16 of patented application.
Conclusion
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