DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1-20 are anticipated by the conflicting patented claims 1-20 as shown in the table below. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claims are narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP § 804 (II)(B)(1).
Instant Application 19/023,079
U.S. Patent No. 12,273,575
Claims 1, 8, 14
Claims 1, 8, 14
Claims 2, 9, 15
Claims 2, 9, 15
Claims 3, 10, 16
Claims 3, 10, 16
Claims 4, 11, 17
Claims 4, 11, 17
Claims 5, 12, 18
Claims 5, 12, 18
Claims 6, 13, 19
Claims 6, 13, 19
Claim 7, 20
Claim 7, 20
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 claim is directed to a judicial exception without reciting significantly more.
The claim is directed to an “audience measurement system” comprising a processor and memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the system to calculate an interval between tuning events, update a household subscription status based on a retention threshold, combine statutes of multiple households, and determine a subscription share measure for a streaming service.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations recite mathematical concepts (e.g., calculating an interval, determining a subscription share measure), mental processes (e.g., updating a status based on a threshold, aggregating statuses), and certain methods of organizing human activity such as commercial or market analysis (e.g., determining subscription share for a service). These fall within the abstract idea groupings identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Step 2A, Prong One).
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements, namely a generic processor, generic memory, and generic execution of instructions as recited at a high level of generality and merely invoke a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The claim does not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology, nor does it apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond linking it to a generic computing environment (Step 2A, Prong Two).
Further, the claim does not include additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The processor, memory, and associated operations represent well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components performing their typical functions, and the ordered combination of steps reflects no more than the automation of a fundamental business practice using generic computing components (Step 2B).
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claim into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 2-20 fail to remedy these deficiencies, thus claims 1-20 are considered to be directed to a non-statutory process.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rowe et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0026158) discloses a TV audience survey system for determining the TV viewing activities of a plurality of individuals in a household includes a master device and multiple tags, each tag assigned to an individual. The master device 105 generates (410) a plurality of TV broadcast records for the household in accordance with a first predefined schedule. In some implementations, the master device 105 is set to be always on. For example, the master device 105 is configured to check whether the TV 116 is broadcasting any program every 8-15 seconds. If no audio signal is detected, the TV 116 is presumed to be off and the master device 105 does nothing but wait for the next scheduled checkup time. If the master device 105 detects an audio signal broadcast from the TV 116, the master device 105 generates (410-1) an audio fingerprint using the detected audio signal. Next, the master device 105 generates (410-3) a TV broadcast record 226, which includes a record ID, the audio fingerprint, and a recording timestamp. In some implementations, the record ID is the IP address 126 of the household 180 or the like that can uniquely identify the household – see figs. 4A and 4B.
Hebeler, Jr. et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0043014) discloses an audience measurement system for gathering data reflecting usage of media data by a user by means of a user system. The user system preprocesses the gathered data into micro-level report objects – see abstract, paragraph 0047 and fig. 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NNENNA NGOZI EKPO whose telephone number is (571)270-1663. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 10:00am - 6:30pm, TH-F 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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 at 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 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.
NNENNA EKPO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/NNENNA N EKPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 March 11, 2026.