Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-17, 18 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory non-obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, and 4-9 of copending Application No. 19/024,700. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of this application are rendered obvious by the claims of the copending Application No. 19/024,700.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the copending Application No. 19/027,816 and the applications are claiming common subject matter, mapping of claims as follows:
Instant Application No. 19/027,816
Copending Application No. 19/024,700
Claims 1, 10 and 18 maps to
Claim 1
Claims 3 and 12
Claim 4
Claims 4 and 13
Claim 5
Claim 5 and 14
Claim 6
Claims 6 and 15
Claim 7
Claims 7 and 16
Claim 8
Claims 8, 17 and 20
Claim 9
Claims 1, 10 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over corresponding claims as mapped in table below of U.S. Patent No. 8677385 in view of Doe (US 20080300965), in view of Ramaswamy (US 20070294729). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim same subject matter or they are obvious variation of claims in US Patent 8677385.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, mapping of claims as follows:
Instant Application No. 19/027,816
U.S. Patent No. 8677385
Claims 1, 10 and 18 maps to
Combination of claims 1 and 7
Combination of claims 1 and 7 of US Patent 8677385 claims inventive steps same as of the inventive steps in claims 1 and 12 of instant application. However, claim 1 of US Patent 8677385 does not claim limitations, “generating a viewership report for the television content using the audience-member viewing probability and the demographic information for the audience member, wherein the computing system is located remotely from the second household.”
Doe discloses, generating a viewership report for the television content using the audience-member viewing probability and the demographic information for the audience member (Par. 0053, one or more viewing probabilities calculated by the viewing probability engine 114 take into consideration any number of characteristics derived from the characteristic imputation engine 112 such as, but not limited to, household size, number of televisions in the household, time-of-day tuning, genre of programs viewed, sex, and/or age. For each household television, the viewing probability engine 114 calculates and allocates a probability of viewing minutes for each household audience member, which may be accumulated to derive viewership. Par. 0024, An audience summary manager 116 is communicatively connected to the viewing probability engine 114 to provide a user with formulas, charts, tables, and/or other formatted output indicative of audience viewing probability information, i.e. generating viewership reports from data provided by viewing probability engine).
It would have been obvious to modify the claim of the U.S. Patent No. 8677385 to include above limitation as taught by Doe, to understanding audience behavior that allows marketing entities to more effectively target the audience with marketing materials that are likely to have an impact, as disclosed in Doe par. 0003.
Doe does not disclose, wherein the computing system is located remotely from the second household.
Ramaswamy discloses, wherein the computing system is located remotely from the second household (Par. 0022, fig. 1, processing server 175 utilizes audience measurement data received from content exposure meter (i.e. located in viewer household) 150 to determine which content was presented and/or consumed at and/or via the example media device 105 to form content exposure data for the media device 105 and/or for a collection of one or more media devices 105, as shown audience exposure processing server or entity is located remotely from the location of meter device in household).
It would have been obvious to modify the claim of the U.S. Patent No. 8677385 in view of Doe to include above limitation as taught by Ramaswamy rationale for locating audience measurement entity remote from the media service provider household would be to keep the audience measurement entity in secure environment to avoid any interference in its operation.
Claims 1, 10 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over corresponding claims as mapped in table below of U.S. Patent No. 9055334 in view of Doe (US 20080300965), in view of Ramaswamy (US 20070294729). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim same subject matter or they are obvious variation of claims in US Patent 9055334.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, mapping of claims as follows:
Instant Application No. 19/027,816
U.S. Patent No. 9055334
Claims 1, 10 and 18 maps to
Combination of claims 1 and 7
Combination of claims 1 and 7 of US Patent 9055334 claims inventive steps same as of the inventive steps in claims 1 and 12 of instant application. However, combination of claims 1 and 7 of US Patent 9055334 does not claim limitations, “generating a viewership report for the television content using the audience-member viewing probability and the demographic information for the audience member, wherein the computing system is located remotely from the second household.”
Doe discloses, generating a viewership report for the television content using the audience-member viewing probability and the demographic information for the audience member (Par. 0053, one or more viewing probabilities calculated by the viewing probability engine 114 take into consideration any number of characteristics derived from the characteristic imputation engine 112 such as, but not limited to, household size, number of televisions in the household, time-of-day tuning, genre of programs viewed, sex, and/or age. For each household television, the viewing probability engine 114 calculates and allocates a probability of viewing minutes for each household audience member, which may be accumulated to derive viewership. Par. 0024, An audience summary manager 116 is communicatively connected to the viewing probability engine 114 to provide a user with formulas, charts, tables, and/or other formatted output indicative of audience viewing probability information, i.e. generating viewership reports from data provided by viewing probability engine).
It would have been obvious to modify the claim of the U.S. Patent No. 9055334 to include above limitation as taught by Doe, to understanding audience behavior that allows marketing entities to more effectively target the audience with marketing materials that are likely to have an impact, as disclosed in Doe par. 0003.
Doe does not disclose, wherein the computing system is located remotely from the second household.
Ramaswamy discloses, wherein the computing system is located remotely from the second household (Par. 0022, fig. 1, processing server 175 utilizes audience measurement data received from content exposure meter (i.e. located in viewer household) 150 to determine which content was presented and/or consumed at and/or via the example media device 105 to form content exposure data for the media device 105 and/or for a collection of one or more media devices 105, as shown audience exposure processing server or entity is located remotely from the location of meter device in household).
It would have been obvious to modify the claim of the U.S. Patent No. 9055334 in view of Doe to include above limitation as taught by Ramaswamy rationale for locating audience measurement entity remote from the media service provider household would be to keep the audience measurement entity in secure environment to avoid any interference in its operation.
Claims 1, 10 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over corresponding claims as mapped in table below of U.S. Patent No. 9521456 in view of Doe (US 20080300965), in view of Ramaswamy (US 20070294729). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim same subject matter or they are obvious variation of claims in US Patent 9521456.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, mapping of claims as follows:
Instant Application No. 19/027,816
U.S. Patent No. 9521456
Claims 1, 10 and 18 maps to
Combination of claims 1 and 9
Combination of claims 1 and 9 of US Patent 9521456 claims inventive steps same as of the inventive steps in claims 1 and 12 of instant application. However, combination of claim 1 and 9 of US Patent 9521456 does not claim limitations, “generating a viewership report for the television content using the audience-member viewing probability and the demographic information for the audience member, wherein the computing system is located remotely from the second household.”
Doe discloses, generating a viewership report for the television content using the audience-member viewing probability and the demographic information for the audience member (Par. 0053, one or more viewing probabilities calculated by the viewing probability engine 114 take into consideration any number of characteristics derived from the characteristic imputation engine 112 such as, but not limited to, household size, number of televisions in the household, time-of-day tuning, genre of programs viewed, sex, and/or age. For each household television, the viewing probability engine 114 calculates and allocates a probability of viewing minutes for each household audience member, which may be accumulated to derive viewership. Par. 0024, An audience summary manager 116 is communicatively connected to the viewing probability engine 114 to provide a user with formulas, charts, tables, and/or other formatted output indicative of audience viewing probability information, i.e. generating viewership reports from data provided by viewing probability engine).
It would have been obvious to modify the claim of the U.S. Patent No. 9521456 to include above limitation as taught by Doe, to understanding audience behavior that allows marketing entities to more effectively target the audience with marketing materials that are likely to have an impact, as disclosed in Doe par. 0003.
Doe does not disclose, wherein the computing system is located remotely from the second household.
Ramaswamy discloses, wherein the computing system is located remotely from the second household (Par. 0022, fig. 1, processing server 175 utilizes audience measurement data received from content exposure meter (i.e. located in viewer household) 150 to determine which content was presented and/or consumed at and/or via the example media device 105 to form content exposure data for the media device 105 and/or for a collection of one or more media devices 105, as shown audience exposure processing server or entity is located remotely from the location of meter device in household).
It would have been obvious to modify the claim of the U.S. Patent No. 9521456 in view of Doe to include above limitation as taught by Ramaswamy rationale for locating audience measurement entity remote from the media service provider household would be to keep the audience measurement entity in secure environment to avoid any interference in its operation.
Claims 1, 10 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over corresponding claims as mapped in table below of U.S. Patent No. 9942607 in view of Doe (US 20080300965), in view of Ramaswamy (US 20070294729). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim same subject matter or they are obvious variation of claims in US Patent 9942607.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, mapping of claims as follows:
Instant Application No. 19/027,816
U.S. Patent No. 9942607
Claims 1, 10 and 18 maps to
Combination of claims 5 and 12
Combination of claims 5 and 12 of US Patent 9942607 claims inventive steps same as of the inventive steps in claims 1 and 12 of instant application. However, combination of claim 5 and 12 of US Patent 9942607 does not claim limitations, “the first program identification data and the associated audience identification data collected from a first household, obtaining second program identification data for a television of a second household, generating a viewership report for the television content using the audience-member viewing probability and the demographic information for the audience member, wherein the computing system is located remotely from the second household.”
Doe discloses, the first program identification data and the associated audience identification data collected from a first household, obtaining second program identification data for a television of a second household (Par. 0020, system 100 to facilitate set-top box modeling using data from panelist households (e.g., households that have a people meter). the system 100 includes a set of households 102 include a first subset of non-panelist households 104 households with STBs only) and a second subset of panelist households 106 (e.g., households that have agreed to be monitored and, thus, have both an STB and People Meter.RTM. (PM)). The second set of households 106 are statistically selected to participate (i.e. panelist households, in an audience measurement study and provide both behavior data (e.g., channel changes, volume changes, time-of-day viewing information, etc.) and personalized consumer data (e.g., demographic data related to the household). Par. 0021, The data collected from the STBs of the non-panelist households 104 and/or the panelist households 106 may be stored in one or more memory devices, such as one or more databases. Data collected from the non-panelist household STBs 104 includes behavior information such as, but not limited to, dates and times of viewing a selected channel),
generating a viewership report for the television content using the audience-member viewing probability and the demographic information for the audience member (Par. 0053, one or more viewing probabilities calculated by the viewing probability engine 114 take into consideration any number of characteristics derived from the characteristic imputation engine 112 such as, but not limited to, household size, number of televisions in the household, time-of-day tuning, genre of programs viewed, sex, and/or age. For each household television, the viewing probability engine 114 calculates and allocates a probability of viewing minutes for each household audience member, which may be accumulated to derive viewership. Par. 0024, An audience summary manager 116 is communicatively connected to the viewing probability engine 114 to provide a user with formulas, charts, tables, and/or other formatted output indicative of audience viewing probability information, i.e. generating viewership reports from data provided by viewing probability engine).
It would have been obvious to modify the claim of the U.S. Patent No. 9942607 to include above limitation as taught by Doe, to understanding audience behavior that allows marketing entities to more effectively target the audience with marketing materials that are likely to have an impact, as disclosed in Doe par. 0003.
Doe does not disclose, wherein the computing system is located remotely from the second household.
Ramaswamy discloses, wherein the computing system is located remotely from the second household (Par. 0022, fig. 1, processing server 175 utilizes audience measurement data received from content exposure meter (i.e. located in viewer household) 150 to determine which content was presented and/or consumed at and/or via the example media device 105 to form content exposure data for the media device 105 and/or for a collection of one or more media devices 105, as shown audience exposure processing server or entity is located remotely from the location of meter device in household).
It would have been obvious to modify the claim of the U.S. Patent No. 9942607 in view of Doe to include above limitation as taught by Ramaswamy rationale for locating audience measurement entity remote from the media service provider household would be to keep the audience measurement entity in secure environment to avoid any interference in its operation.
Claims 1, 10 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over corresponding claims as mapped in table below of U.S. Patent No. 10231012 in view of Doe (US 20080300965), in view of Ramaswamy (US 20070294729). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim same subject matter or they are obvious variation of claims in US Patent 10231012.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, mapping of claims as follows:
Instant Application No. 19/027,816
U.S. Patent No. 10231012
Claims 1, 10 and 18 maps to
Combination of claims 1 and 5
Combination of claims 1 and 5 of US Patent 10231012 claims inventive steps same as of the inventive steps in claims 1 and 12 of instant application. However, combination of claim 1 and 5 of US Patent 10231012 does not claim limitations, “the first program identification data and the associated audience identification data collected from a first household, obtaining second program identification data for a television of a second household, generating a viewership report for the television content using the audience-member viewing probability and the demographic information for the audience member, wherein the computing system is located remotely from the second household.”
Doe discloses, the first program identification data and the associated audience identification data collected from a first household, obtaining second program identification data for a television of a second household (Par. 0020, system 100 to facilitate set-top box modeling using data from panelist households (e.g., households that have a people meter). the system 100 includes a set of households 102 include a first subset of non-panelist households 104 households with STBs only) and a second subset of panelist households 106 (e.g., households that have agreed to be monitored and, thus, have both an STB and People Meter.RTM. (PM)). The second set of households 106 are statistically selected to participate (i.e. panelist households, in an audience measurement study and provide both behavior data (e.g., channel changes, volume changes, time-of-day viewing information, etc.) and personalized consumer data (e.g., demographic data related to the household). Par. 0021, The data collected from the STBs of the non-panelist households 104 and/or the panelist households 106 may be stored in one or more memory devices, such as one or more databases. Data collected from the non-panelist household STBs 104 includes behavior information such as, but not limited to, dates and times of viewing a selected channel),
generating a viewership report for the television content using the audience-member viewing probability and the demographic information for the audience member (Par. 0053, one or more viewing probabilities calculated by the viewing probability engine 114 take into consideration any number of characteristics derived from the characteristic imputation engine 112 such as, but not limited to, household size, number of televisions in the household, time-of-day tuning, genre of programs viewed, sex, and/or age. For each household television, the viewing probability engine 114 calculates and allocates a probability of viewing minutes for each household audience member, which may be accumulated to derive viewership. Par. 0024, An audience summary manager 116 is communicatively connected to the viewing probability engine 114 to provide a user with formulas, charts, tables, and/or other formatted output indicative of audience viewing probability information, i.e. generating viewership reports from data provided by viewing probability engine).
It would have been obvious to modify the claim of the U.S. Patent No. 10231012 to include above limitation as taught by Doe, to understanding audience behavior that allows marketing entities to more effectively target the audience with marketing materials that are likely to have an impact, as disclosed in Doe par. 0003.
Doe does not disclose, wherein the computing system is located remotely from the second household.
Ramaswamy discloses, wherein the computing system is located remotely from the second household (Par. 0022, fig. 1, processing server 175 utilizes audience measurement data received from content exposure meter (i.e. located in viewer household) 150 to determine which content was presented and/or consumed at and/or via the example media device 105 to form content exposure data for the media device 105 and/or for a collection of one or more media devices 105, as shown audience exposure processing server or entity is located remotely from the location of meter device in household).
It would have been obvious to modify the claim of the U.S. Patent No. 10231012 in view of Doe to include above limitation as taught by Ramaswamy rationale for locating audience measurement entity remote from the media service provider household would be to keep the audience measurement entity in secure environment to avoid any interference in its operation.
Claims 1, 10 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over corresponding claims as mapped in table below of U.S. Patent No. 10924802 in view of Doe (US 20080300965), in view of Ramaswamy (US 20070294729). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim same subject matter or they are obvious variation of claims in US Patent 10924802.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, mapping of claims as follows:
Instant Application No. 19/027,816
U.S. Patent No. 10924802
Claims 1, 10 and 18 maps to
Combination of claims 1 and 7
Combination of claims 1 and 7 of US Patent 10924802 claims inventive steps same as of the inventive steps in claims 1 and 12 of instant application. However, combination of claim 1 and 7 of US Patent 10924802 does not claim limitations, “the first program identification data and the associated audience identification data collected from a first household, obtaining second program identification data for a television of a second household, generating a viewership report for the television content using the audience-member viewing probability and the demographic information for the audience member, wherein the computing system is located remotely from the second household.”
Doe discloses, the first program identification data and the associated audience identification data collected from a first household, obtaining second program identification data for a television of a second household (Par. 0020, system 100 to facilitate set-top box modeling using data from panelist households (e.g., households that have a people meter). the system 100 includes a set of households 102 include a first subset of non-panelist households 104 households with STBs only) and a second subset of panelist households 106 (e.g., households that have agreed to be monitored and, thus, have both an STB and People Meter.RTM. (PM)). The second set of households 106 are statistically selected to participate (i.e. panelist households, in an audience measurement study and provide both behavior data (e.g., channel changes, volume changes, time-of-day viewing information, etc.) and personalized consumer data (e.g., demographic data related to the household). Par. 0021, The data collected from the STBs of the non-panelist households 104 and/or the panelist households 106 may be stored in one or more memory devices, such as one or more databases. Data collected from the non-panelist household STBs 104 includes behavior information such as, but not limited to, dates and times of viewing a selected channel),
generating a viewership report for the television content using the audience-member viewing probability and the demographic information for the audience member (Par. 0053, one or more viewing probabilities calculated by the viewing probability engine 114 take into consideration any number of characteristics derived from the characteristic imputation engine 112 such as, but not limited to, household size, number of televisions in the household, time-of-day tuning, genre of programs viewed, sex, and/or age. For each household television, the viewing probability engine 114 calculates and allocates a probability of viewing minutes for each household audience member, which may be accumulated to derive viewership. Par. 0024, An audience summary manager 116 is communicatively connected to the viewing probability engine 114 to provide a user with formulas, charts, tables, and/or other formatted output indicative of audience viewing probability information, i.e. generating viewership reports from data provided by viewing probability engine).
It would have been obvious to modify the claim of the U.S. Patent No. 10924802 to include above limitation as taught by Doe, to understanding audience behavior that allows marketing entities to more effectively target the audience with marketing materials that are likely to have an impact, as disclosed in Doe par. 0003.
Doe does not disclose, wherein the computing system is located remotely from the second household.
Ramaswamy discloses, wherein the computing system is located remotely from the second household (Par. 0022, fig. 1, processing server 175 utilizes audience measurement data received from content exposure meter (i.e. located in viewer household) 150 to determine which content was presented and/or consumed at and/or via the example media device 105 to form content exposure data for the media device 105 and/or for a collection of one or more media devices 105, as shown audience exposure processing server or entity is located remotely from the location of meter device in household).
It would have been obvious to modify the claim of the U.S. Patent No. 10924802 in view of Doe to include above limitation as taught by Ramaswamy rationale for locating audience measurement entity remote from the media service provider household would be to keep the audience measurement entity in secure environment to avoid any interference in its operation.
Claims 1, 10 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over corresponding claims as mapped in table below of U.S. Patent No. 11528530 in view of Doe (US 20080300965), in view of Ramaswamy (US 20070294729). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim same subject matter or they are obvious variation of claims in US Patent 11528530.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, mapping of claims as follows:
Instant Application No. 19/027,816
U.S. Patent No. 11528530
Claims 1, 10 and 18 maps to
Combination of claims 1 and 6
Combination of claims 1 and 6 of US Patent 11528530 claims inventive steps same as of the inventive steps in claims 1 and 12 of instant application. However, combination of claim 1 and 6 of US Patent 11528530 does not claim limitations, “the first program identification data and the associated audience identification data collected from a first household, obtaining second program identification data for a television of a second household, generating a viewership report for the television content using the audience-member viewing probability and the demographic information for the audience member, wherein the computing system is located remotely from the second household.”
Doe discloses, the first program identification data and the associated audience identification data collected from a first household, obtaining second program identification data for a television of a second household (Par. 0020, system 100 to facilitate set-top box modeling using data from panelist households (e.g., households that have a people meter). the system 100 includes a set of households 102 include a first subset of non-panelist households 104 households with STBs only) and a second subset of panelist households 106 (e.g., households that have agreed to be monitored and, thus, have both an STB and People Meter.RTM. (PM)). The second set of households 106 are statistically selected to participate (i.e. panelist households, in an audience measurement study and provide both behavior data (e.g., channel changes, volume changes, time-of-day viewing information, etc.) and personalized consumer data (e.g., demographic data related to the household). Par. 0021, The data collected from the STBs of the non-panelist households 104 and/or the panelist households 106 may be stored in one or more memory devices, such as one or more databases. Data collected from the non-panelist household STBs 104 includes behavior information such as, but not limited to, dates and times of viewing a selected channel),
generating a viewership report for the television content using the audience-member viewing probability and the demographic information for the audience member (Par. 0053, one or more viewing probabilities calculated by the viewing probability engine 114 take into consideration any number of characteristics derived from the characteristic imputation engine 112 such as, but not limited to, household size, number of televisions in the household, time-of-day tuning, genre of programs viewed, sex, and/or age. For each household television, the viewing probability engine 114 calculates and allocates a probability of viewing minutes for each household audience member, which may be accumulated to derive viewership. Par. 0024, An audience summary manager 116 is communicatively connected to the viewing probability engine 114 to provide a user with formulas, charts, tables, and/or other formatted output indicative of audience viewing probability information, i.e. generating viewership reports from data provided by viewing probability engine).
It would have been obvious to modify the claim of the U.S. Patent No. 10924802 to include above limitation as taught by Doe, to understanding audience behavior that allows marketing entities to more effectively target the audience with marketing materials that are likely to have an impact, as disclosed in Doe par. 0003.
Doe does not disclose, wherein the computing system is located remotely from the second household.
Ramaswamy discloses, wherein the computing system is located remotely from the second household (Par. 0022, fig. 1, processing server 175 utilizes audience measurement data received from content exposure meter (i.e. located in viewer household) 150 to determine which content was presented and/or consumed at and/or via the example media device 105 to form content exposure data for the media device 105 and/or for a collection of one or more media devices 105, as shown audience exposure processing server or entity is located remotely from the location of meter device in household).
It would have been obvious to modify the claim of the U.S. Patent No. 11528530 in view of Doe to include above limitation as taught by Ramaswamy rationale for locating audience measurement entity remote from the media service provider household would be to keep the audience measurement entity in secure environment to avoid any interference in its operation.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 12-14 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory non-obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12335565. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of this application are rendered obvious by the claims of the US Patent No. 12335565.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the US Patent No. 12335565 and the applications are claiming common subject matter, mapping of claims as follows:
Instant Application No. 19/027,816
US Patent No. 12335565
Claims 1, 10 and 18 maps to
Claim 1 and 15
Claims 3 and 12
Claim 3
Claims 4 and 13
Claim 4
Claim 5 and 14
Claim 6
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 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 through 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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 10-12, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Doe (US 20080300965), in view of Ramaswamy (US 20070294729).
Regarding claim 1, Doe discloses, A computing system of an audience measurement entity, the computing
system comprising a processor and a memory, the computing system configured to perform a set of operations comprising:
obtaining, via a network, audience member behavior data developed based on first program identification data and audience identification data, the first program identification data and the audience identification data collected from a first household (Par. 0020, system 100 to facilitate set-top box modeling using data from panelist households (e.g., households that have a people meter). the system 100 includes a set of households 102 include a first subset of non-panelist households 104 households with STBs only) and a second subset of panelist households 106 (e.g., households that have agreed to be monitored and, thus, have both an STB and People Meter.RTM. (PM)). The second set of households 106 are statistically selected to participate (i.e. panelist households, in an audience measurement study and provide both behavior data (e.g., channel changes, volume changes, time-of-day viewing information, etc.) and personalized consumer data (e.g., demographic data related to the household));
obtaining second program identification data for a television of a media service provider household, wherein the second program identification data is provided to the audience measurement entity by a media service provider (Par. 0017, A set-top box installed by a service provider (e.g., a cable-television service provider, a satellite-television service provider, etc., Par. 0021, The data collected from the STBs of the non-panelist households 104 and/or the panelist households 106 may be stored in one or more memory devices, such as one or more databases. Data collected from the non-panelist household STBs 104 includes behavior information such as, but not limited to, dates and times of viewing a selected channel ), allows a media researcher and/or a marketing entity to ascertain specific subscriber behavior information, i.e. STB installed by cable service provider collecting the identification of viewing of selected channel that is provided to viewing model engine 108 (i.e. audience measurement entity is obtaining channel viewing data from media service provider as STBs are installed in households by cable service provider) as shown in fig. 1, disclosed in par. 0023), STBs are installed by cable service provider ), and wherein the second program identification data is obtained without the audience measurement entity operating a metering device at the media service provider household (Par. 0019, acquisition and use of non-panelist set-top box behavior data (i.e., data from set-top boxes that are not associated with a People Meter.RTM. and/or not associated with a statistically selected household) from households that have not agreed to participate in a study (i.e., non-panelist households) without acquiring any personalized consumer data, i.e. non-panelist household viewing behavior collected without operating people meter);
identifying audience members of the media provider household, wherein identifying the audience members comprises determining, for a given audience member of the audience members, respective demographic data (Par. 0077-0078, fig. 10, data fusion with alternate interest group data, having similar behavior pattern (i.e. content viewing behavior), interest group contains data of behavior and associated demographics, such data may include a readership survey in which participants' magazine purchase behaviors are monitored and classification data is obtained including, but not limited to, name, address, profession, family size, ethnicity. If a corresponding match is found (block 1010), the behavior based data (e.g., set-top box data 104, i.e. set-top box data of non-panelist STB, which is a STBs installed in households by cable provider) and the characteristics (e.g., demographics) from the interest group data 118 associated with one or more matching pattern(s) are provided to the example data fusion engine 408, i.e. collect demographic information from interest group data for audience of the household in which STBs are installed by cable provider);
determining, for the given audience member of the media service provider household, using a model that is trained with the audience member behavior data, an audience-member viewing probability for television content identified in the second program identification data, the audience-member viewing probability representing a likelihood that the given audience member viewed the television content (Par. 0078 fig. 11, calculation of viewing probabilities of household members of non-panelist set-top box behavior (i.e. viewing of television channels identified in service provider household having STBs); and
generating a viewership report for the television content using the audience-member viewing probability and the demographic data for the given audience member (Par. 0053, one or more viewing probabilities calculated by the viewing probability engine 114 take into consideration any number of characteristics derived from the characteristic imputation engine 112 such as, but not limited to, household size, number of televisions in the household, time-of-day tuning, genre of programs viewed, sex, and/or age. For each household television, the viewing probability engine 114 calculates and allocates a probability of viewing minutes for each household audience member, which may be accumulated to derive viewership. Par. 0024, An audience summary manager 116 is communicatively connected to the viewing probability engine 114 to provide a user with formulas, charts, tables, and/or other formatted output indicative of audience viewing probability information, i.e. generating viewership reports from data provided by viewing probability engine).
Doe does not disclose, wherein the computing system is located remotely from the media service provider household.
Ramaswamy discloses, wherein the computing system is located remotely from the media service provider household (Par. 0022, fig. 1, processing server 175 utilizes audience measurement data received from content exposure meter (i.e. located in viewer household) 150 to determine which content was presented and/or consumed at and/or via the example media device 105 to form content exposure data for the media device 105 and/or for a collection of one or more media devices 105, as shown audience exposure processing server or entity is located remotely from the location of meter device in household).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Doe, by teaching of the computing system of the audience measurement entity is located remotely from the media service provider household, as taught by Ramaswamy, rationale for locating audience measurement entity remote from the media service provider household would be to keep the audience measurement entity in secure environment to avoid any interference in its operation.
Regarding claim 2, The computing system of claim 1,
Doe further discloses, wherein the demographic data comprises an age and a gender (Par. 0079, The viewing probability calculator 504 associates this calculation with associated demographics information (block 1106), such as provided by the people meter database 109, to calculate viewing probabilities for a household member by sex, age, genre, and/or daypart (block 1108).).
Regarding claim 3, The computing system of claim 1,
Doe further discloses, wherein the first program identification data and the audience identification data are collected from the first household using a meter in the first household (Par. 0020, system 100 to facilitate set-top box modeling using data from panelist households (e.g., households that have a people meter). the system 100 includes a set of households 102 include a first subset of non-panelist households 104 households with STBs only) and a second subset of panelist households 106 (e.g., households that have agreed to be monitored and, thus, have both an STB and People Meter.RTM. (PM)). The second set of households 106 are statistically selected to participate (i.e. panelist households, in an audience measurement study and provide both behavior data (e.g., channel changes, volume changes, time-of-day viewing information, etc.) and personalized consumer data (e.g., demographic data related to the household)).
Regarding claim 6, The computing system of claim 1,
Doe further discloses, wherein the audience-member viewing probability is based on a channel of the television content (Par. 0062, the probability of a 6-11 year old viewing a general entertainment channel (i.e. based on a general type of entertainment channel) will likely be higher during the 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM slot than between the 11:00 PM to 1:00 AM slot).
Regarding claim 7, The computing system of claim 6,
Doe further discloses, wherein the audience-member viewing probability is based further on a time of the television content or a genre of the television content (Par. 0062, the probability of a 6-11 year old viewing a general entertainment channel will likely be higher during the 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM (i.e. based on time of the television content) slot than between the 11:00 PM to 1:00 AM slot).
Regarding claim 9, The computing system of claim 1,
Doe further discloses, wherein the demographic data is collected prior to obtaining the second program identification data. (Par. 0077, compares patterns of behavior in the set-top box data (i.e. non-panelist participants) with similar patterns that may exist in the interest group data 118 (block 1018), subset of such data may include a readership survey in which participants' (i.e. non-panelist participants who’s demographic is not collected by using meters) magazine purchase behaviors are monitored and classification data is obtained including, but not limited to, name, address, profession, family size, ethnicity, etc, i.e. a readership survey in which participants' (i.e. non-panelist participants who’s demographic is not collected by using meters) is done before hand and available for comparison for viewing data collected from non-panelist households).
Regarding claim 10, Doe in view of Ramaswamy meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Doe meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, Doe meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, Doe meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 16, Doe meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, Doe in view of Ramaswamy meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Doe meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 24. The computing system of claim 1,
Doe further discloses, wherein the set of the operations further comprising:
determining, for each other audience member of the media service provider household, using the model that is trained with the audience member behavior data, a respective other audience-member viewing probability for the television content identified in the second program identification data, the respective other audience-member viewing probability representing a respective likelihood that the respective other audience member viewed the television content (Par. 0053, For each household television, the viewing probability engine 114 calculates and allocates a probability of viewing minutes for each household audience member, Par. 0062, in the illustrated example of FIG. 6, a quarter-hour segment 600 of data was compiled for a household containing a male P1 (person 1, age 25-34) and a female P2 (person 2, age 18-24). An example time column 602 lists rows of time having minute-level resolution, in which each row of time within the column 602 corresponds to a calculated viewing probability. In particular, the quarter-hour segment 600 includes a P1 (person 1) column 604 and a P2 (person 2) column 606. In the illustrated example of FIG. 6, the calculated probability, during the selected quarter-hour between 4:01 PM and 4:15 PM, is 0.8 for P1 and 0.5 for P2),
wherein the respective other audience-member viewing probability is different than the audience-member viewing probability representing the likelihood that the given audience member viewed the television content (Par. 0053, For each household television, the viewing probability engine 114 calculates and allocates a probability of viewing minutes for each household audience member, Par. 0062, in the illustrated example of FIG. 6, a quarter-hour segment 600 of data was compiled for a household containing a male P1 (person 1, age 25-34) and a female P2 (person 2, age 18-24). An example time column 602 lists rows of time having minute-level resolution, in which each row of time within the column 602 corresponds to a calculated viewing probability. In particular, the quarter-hour segment 600 includes a P1 (person 1) column 604 and a P2 (person 2) column 606. In the illustrated example of FIG. 6, the calculated probability, during the selected quarter-hour between 4:01 PM and 4:15 PM, is 0.8 for P1 and 0.5 for P2, i.e. user P1 and user P2 has different probability of likelihood that each user viewed television content); and
wherein generating the viewership report for the television content using the audience-member viewing probability and the demographic data for the given audience member further comprises generating the viewership report for the television content using the respective other audience-member viewing probability representing the respective likelihood that the respective other audience member viewed the television content and the respective demographic data for the other audience members of the media service provider household (Par. 0062, fig. 6, 7, a quarter-hour segment 600 of data was compiled for a household containing a male P1 (person 1, age 25-34) and a female P2 (person 2, age 18-24). An example time column 602 lists rows of time having minute-level resolution, in which each row of time within the column 602 corresponds to a calculated viewing probability. In particular, the quarter-hour segment 600 includes a P1 (person 1) column 604 and a P2 (person 2) column 606. In the illustrated example of FIG. 6, the calculated probability, during the selected quarter-hour between 4:01 PM and 4:15 PM, is 0.8 for P1 and 0.5 for P2, i.e. compiling data (i.e. report of viewership) containing each household with male and female member, in fig. 6 and 7 shows the viewership report for each user P1 and user P2 has different probability of likelihood that each user viewed television content).
Regarding claim 25, Doe meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 24.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Doe (US 20080300965), in view of Ramaswamy (US 20070294729), in further view of Wright (US 20090055854).
Regarding claim 4, The computing system of claim 3,
Doe in view of Ramaswamy does not disclose, wherein the meter is communicatively coupled to a sensor that detects a presence of audience members in a viewing area of the first household.
Wright discloses, wherein the meter is communicatively coupled to a sensor that detects a presence of audience members in a viewing area of the first household (Par. 0021, The meter(s) may include various sensors to detect people in a room, and/or acoustic signals, such as audio signals emitted by a television and/or audience member voice signals spoken by persons in the viewer's household).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Doe in view of Ramaswamy, by teaching of the meter is communicatively coupled to a sensor that detects a presence of audience members in a viewing area of the first household, as taught by Wright, to identify people who are exposed the content in passive manner by voice or image identification, as disclosed in Wright par. 0043.
Regarding claim 13, Doe in view of Ramaswamy in further view of Wright meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 4.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Doe (US 20080300965), in view of Ramaswamy (US 20070294729), in further view of Marci et al. (US 20100211439).
Regarding claim 5, The computing system of claim 1,
Doe in view of Ramaswamy does not disclose, wherein the model is a fuzzy logic model, a Naive Bayes model, or a regression model.
Marci further discloses, wherein the model is a fuzzy logic model, a Naive Bayes model, or a regression model (Par. 0130, The system can further include a database of audience engagement to a variety of historic media. statistical analyses for creating predictive models, the preferred predictor model can include, regression analyses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Doe in view of Ramaswamy, by teaching of wherein the model is a fuzzy logic model, a Naive Bayes model, or a regression model, as taught by Marci, to predict audience measurement based on statistical method to handle large amount of data, as disclosed in Marci par. 0130.
Regarding claim 14, Doe in view of Ramaswamy in further view of Marci meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 5.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Doe (US 20080300965), in view of Ramaswamy (US 20070294729), in further view of Keum et al. (US 20100138283).
Regarding claim 21, The computing system of claim 1,
Doe in view of Ramaswamy does not disclose, wherein the set of the operations further comprising: indicating, by a timer associated with the computing system, an expiration of a time period associated with the obtaining of the audience member behavior data.
Keum discloses, wherein the set of the operations further comprising:
indicating, by a timer associated with the computing system, an expiration of a time period associated with the obtaining of the audience member behavior data (Par. 0053, The audience research data collection method should be implemented such that all licensed IPTV service providers can obtain the customer's view pattern (i.e. audience member behavior) from any type of IPTV device. Par. 0071, The DefDuration node 320 includes a value of the time duration for collecting the audience research data. If the time duration expires, the audience research data collection is stopped, i.e. timer for collecting viewing data is set, in order to stop audience viewing data collection, checking the time/timer to stop the data collection when time duration is expired).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Doe in view of Ramaswamy, by teaching of indicating, by a timer associated with the computing system, an expiration of a time period associated with the obtaining of the audience member behavior data, as taught by Keum, to control the collection of audience data during the specific time window condition, as disclosed in Keum par. 0062.
Regarding claim 22, The computing system of claim 21,
Doe in view of Ramaswamy in further view of Keum discloses, wherein the set of the operations further comprising:
upon receiving a notification of the expiration of the time period associated with the obtaining of the audience member data, stopping the obtaining of the audience identification data (Keum Par. 0053, The audience research data collection method should be implemented such that all licensed IPTV service providers can obtain the customer's view pattern (i.e. audience member behavior) from any type of IPTV device. Par. 0071, The DefDuration node 320 includes a value of the time duration for collecting the audience research data. If the time duration expires (i.e. operation data collection nodes determines time period expiration = receiving indication/notification of expired time duration), the audience research data collection is stopped, i.e. timer for collecting viewing data is set, in order to stop audience viewing data collection, checking the time/timer to stop the data collection when time duration is expired).
Regarding claim 23, Doe in view of Ramaswamy in further view of Keum meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 21 and 22.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 17 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for objected the claim to be allowed:
The examiner has found that the prior arts of records does not appear to teach or suggest or render obvious the claimed limitations in combination with the specific added limitations as recited in dependent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKSHAY DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM to 6:00 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, JOHN W MILLER can be reached at (571)272-7353. 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.
/A.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2422
/MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights