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
1. The following is a non-final, First Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner’s note:
2. The primary reference Shepard et al. (U.S. 2018/0249211) was published on 8/30/2018, which means it qualifies as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as of 8/30/2019 because the exceptions do not apply even though it is the same Assignee and shares common inventors as this application because the applicant filing date is 4/15/2020. Shepard also went abandoned on 3/02/2020, which is also before the applicant’s filing date.
Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 as a whole recites a combination of limitations that has been found as define over prior art of record {the combination of Sheppard et al. (U.S. 2018/0249211), Pecjak et al. (U.S. 8,874,652), Liffiton et al. (U.S. 2011/0015992)} and the other prior art of record teaches elements of the claimed invention. However, it would be hind-sight reasoning to combine the individual elements disclosed in the prior-art in order to achieve Applicant's claimed invention}.
Further, please note that claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under double patenting and 101 below.
Double Patenting
3. Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable respectively over claims independent claims 1 and 2 of US Patent 12/271,925 B2. See table below.
Instant Application: case 19/086,355
US Patent 12,271,925 B2
Claims 1, 8 and 15: A computing system comprising a processor and a memory, the computing system configured to perform a set of operations comprising:
receiving, from audience measurement meters via a network, meter data collectively indicative of a panel reach measurement for a media content item at a first time and panel marginal rating measurements for the media content item at the first time;
obtaining return path data indicative of first population marginal rating measurements for the media content item at the first time and second populating marginal rating measurements for the media content item at a second time;
performing a plurality of process iterations using the panel reach measurement, the panel marginal rating measurements, and the first population marginal rating measurements to converge on a pseudo universe estimate for the media content item;
determining a panel representation value for the media content item using the pseudo universe estimate;
storing the panel representation value in a database for reuse in a subsequent reach determination;
accessing the panel representation value stored in the database; performing a plurality of process iterations using the panel representation value stored in the database and the second population marginal rating measurements to converge on a reach estimate for the media content item at the second time; and
outputting the reach estimate for the media content item.
Claims 1 and 2: A computing system to determine reach of media from marginal rating measurements, the computing system comprising:
a plurality of audience measurement meters configured to detect user exposure to media by capturing signals emitted externally by televisions, wherein the plurality of audience measurement meters comprise respective cameras to detect a presence of a user in respective media presentation locations; and
an audience measurement system configured to perform a set of acts comprising:
receiving, from the plurality of audience measurement meters via a network, meter data collectively indicative of a panel reach measurement for a television show at a first time and first panel marginal rating measurements for the television show at the first time,
obtaining, from a media provider via the network, return path data indicative of first population marginal rating measurements for the television show at a first time and second population marginal rating measurements for the television show at the second time,
performing a first plurality of process iterations to iteratively converge on a pseudo universe estimate for the television show at the first time based on the panel reach measurement for the television show at the first time, the first marginal rating measurements for the television show at the first time, and the first population marginal rating measurements for the television show at the first time,
determining a panel representation value for the television show based on the pseudo universe estimate and the panel reach measurement,
storing the panel representation value in a database for reuse in subsequent reach determinations,
performing a second plurality of process iterations to iteratively converge on a reach estimate for the television show at a second time based on the panel representation value stored in the database and the second population marginal rating measurements for the television show at the second time, and
outputting the reach estimate for the television show at the second time.
In summary, independent claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent 12,271,925 B2 teach all the features of independent claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application as indicated in the table above. Although claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent 12,271,925 B2 has additional underlined features (bold limitations in the table above) such as {e.g., a plurality of audience measurement meters configured to detect user exposure to media by capturing signals emitted externally by televisions, wherein the plurality of audience measurement meters comprise respective cameras to detect a presence of a user in respective media presentation locations; and an audience measurement system configured to perform a set of acts….}; however, it has been held that deleting elements when the function of element is not desired is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 Section II. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent 12,271,925 B2 the to arrive at the claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application because the person of ordinary skill would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
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 obviousness-type 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); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
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.
4. The claimed invention (Claim 1-20) is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract idea including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mathematical Relationships/Formulas”, which have been identified/found by the courts as abstract ideas in new 101 memos of the subject matter eligibility in MPEP 2106.04(a). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it/they is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications:
5. Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a statutory Category?
Claims 1-7: Yes, these claims are system, which recite a processor and a memory….., and therefore are directed to the statutory class of machine and article of manufacture.
Claims 8-14: Yes. These are methods, and therefore are directed to the statutory class of process.
Claims 15-20: Yes. These claims recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein instructions……, which is interpreted as a system because it recites a processing device, and therefore are directed to the statutory class of machine.
6. Step 2A prong 1, Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B:
Independent claim 1 (Step 2A, Prong I): is directed to abstract of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mathematical Relationships/Formulas”:
Claim 1, the limitations 2-4 and part of limitation 7 of obtaining return path data indicative of first population marginal rating measurements for the media content item at the first time and second populating marginal rating measurements for the media content item at a second time (limitation 2); performing a plurality of process iterations using the panel reach measurement, the panel marginal rating measurements, and the first population marginal rating measurements to converge on a pseudo universe estimate for the media content item (limitation 3); determining a panel representation value for the media content item using the pseudo universe estimate (limitation 4); and performing a plurality of process iterations using the panel representation value and the second population marginal rating measurements to converge on a reach estimate for the media content item at the second time (part of limitation 7) fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea because these steps mainly describe the concepts of commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions).
Further, limitations 3-4 and 7 mentioned above of performing a plurality of process iterations using the panel reach measurement, the panel marginal rating measurements, and the first population marginal rating measurements to converge on a pseudo universe estimate for the media content item (limitation 3); determining a panel representation value for the media content item using the pseudo universe estimate (limitation 4); and performing a plurality of process iterations using the panel representation value and the second population marginal rating measurements to converge on a reach estimate for the media content item at the second time (part of limitation 7) also fall within “Mathematical Relationships/Formulas” (reflected at least in equations 1-13 in Applicant’s specification US 2025/0217846 A1 in at least paragraphs 0016-0044, paragraphs 0062-0078).
Independent claim 1, Step 2A (Prong II): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. This judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional underlined elements {e.g., a computing system comprising a processor coupled to a memory, the computing system configured to perform; a network, a database} to perform abstract steps/limitations 3-4 and 7 mentioned above. These additional element(s) in all of the steps/limitations is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components { e.g., a computing system comprising a processor coupled to a memory, the computing system configured to perform; a network, a database }. Accordingly, these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, in claim 1, the limitations 1, 5, 6, part of limitation 7 and limitation 8 of receiving, from audience measurement meters via a network, meter data collectively indicative of a panel reach measurement for a media content item at a first time and panel marginal rating measurements for the media content item at the first time (limitation 1); storing the panel representation value in a database for reuse in a subsequent reach determination (limitation 5); accessing the panel representation value stored in the database (limitation 6 and part of limitation 7); and outputting the reach estimate for the media content item (limitation 8) are merely receiving data/ gathering data, storing data and displaying data/transmitting data, which is considered as “insignificant extra solution activities”; thus, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the additional element in limitation 1 of “audience measurement meters” is recited as a source, where information (e.g., meter data…..) is being received from, which is considered as general link to technological environment; thus, does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Again, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components {e.g., a computing system comprising a processor coupled to a memory, the computing system configured to perform; a network, a database } to perform the identified steps/limitations 3-4 and 7 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; thus, are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For the above- mentioned reasons, viewed the claim as a whole, the additional elements/additional steps/additional limitations individually and in combination do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Independent claim 1 (step 2B): The additional underlined elements in claim 1 (e.g., a computing system comprising a processor coupled to a memory, the computing system configured to perform; a network, a database) are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. In other word, the additional underlined elements {e.g., a computing system comprising a processor coupled to a memory, the computing system configured to perform; a network, a database } are amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) of steps/limitations 3-4 and 7 mentioned above; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in claim 1, the limitations 1, 5, 6, part of limitation 7 and limitation 8 of receiving, from audience measurement meters via a network, meter data collectively indicative of a panel reach measurement for a media content item at a first time and panel marginal rating measurements for the media content item at the first time (limitation 1); storing the panel representation value in a database for reuse in a subsequent reach determination (limitation 5); accessing the panel representation value stored in the database (limitation 6 and part of limitation 7); and outputting the reach estimate for the media content item (limitation 8) are merely receiving data/ gathering data, storing data and displaying data/transmitting data, which is considered as “insignificant extra solution activities”; thus, are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the additional element in limitation 1 of “audience measurement meters” is recited as a source, where information (e.g., meter data…..) is being received from, which is considered as general link to technological environment; thus, is not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
When reevaluating the limitations 1, 5, 6, part of limitation 7 and limitation 8 mentioned above of receiving, from audience measurement meters via a network, meter data collectively indicative of a panel reach measurement for a media content item at a first time and panel marginal rating measurements for the media content item at the first time (limitation 1); storing the panel representation value in a database for reuse in a subsequent reach determination (limitation 5); accessing the panel representation value stored in the database (limitation 6 and part of limitation 7); and outputting the reach estimate for the media content item (limitation 8) in step 2B here, receiving data/ gathering data, storing data and transmitting data/displaying data via a processor is also well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer to receive data/gather data/storing data/transmit information/send information/present information/display information through an unspecified generic computer does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. According to MPEP 2106.05 (d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields are e.g., "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”.
Thus, evidence have been provided above to show these additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity according to MPEP 2106.07 (a) (III). Viewed as a whole, even in combination, the above steps again do not amount to significantly more because these steps in combination merely applying the abstract idea to a generic computer and insignificant extra solution activity. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
As per claims 8 and 15: Alice Corp. also establishes that the same/similar analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, a method claim 8 and a non-transitory computer storage medium claim 15 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same/similar reasons as claim 1. The components (a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed cause a computing system to perform…; a computing system/the computing system, a network, a database, audience measurement meters) described in claims 8 and 15 add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the identified abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claims 1, 8 and 15 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Note that dependent claims {2,9,16} and {3,10,17} are dependency of independent claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively. The limitations in the dependent claims {2,9,16} and {3,10,17} of “the audience measurement meters comprises sensors that detect a presence of a user in a respective media presentation location, wherein the respective sensors comprise respective camera” are considered as general link to technological environment; thus, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Please note again that in independent claims 1, 8 and 15, the additional element “the audience measurement meters” is merely recited as a source (which is outside of the scope of the claims 1, 8 and 15), where information (e.g., meter data…..) is being received from. Therefore, again, “the audience measurement meters” is considered as general link to technological environment. As a result, whichever functions are performed by the audience measurement meters are also considered as general link to technological environment. Therefore, the limitations in claims {2,9,16} and {3,10,17} just mentioned above do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Again, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combinations adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art that is pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure
7. The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sheppard et al. (U.S. 2018/0249211), wherein teaches Methods, apparatus, systems, and articles of manufacture are disclosed to to estimate population reach from marginal ratings. An example apparatus includes an interface to access marginal ratings of the media for a recorded audience, marginal ratings of the media for a population audience, and reach of the media for the recorded audience; a reach determiner to iteratively estimate a reach of the media for the population audience based on the marginal ratings for the recorded audience, the marginal ratings for the population audience, and the reach for the recorded audience; and the interface to output the estimated reach for the population audience.
Pecjak et al. (U.S. 8,874,652), wherein teaches Panel and census data representing accesses by sets of users with multiple types of media platforms to media content associated with multiple media entities is accessed. An overlap in the accessed panel data that represents users who have accessed media content associated with the media entity with more than one of the multiple types of media platforms is determined. Based on the accessed panel data, the determined overlap in the accessed panel data, and the accessed census data, an overlap function that estimates an overlap in the accessed census data is derived. The derived overlap function is applied to census data associated with a media entity to estimate an overlap in the census data associated with the media entity. The overlap in the census data represents users who have accessed media content associated with the media entity with more than one of the multiple types of media platforms.
Liffiton et al. (U.S. 2011/0015992), wherein teaches Methods and systems associated with online advertising campaigns are described. For example, systems and methods are described, which provide estimated advertising campaign statistics (e.g., in real-time) based on hypothetical online advertising campaign parameters entered by users. In certain implementations, the described systems combine pre-processed log data with real-time algorithms to estimate statistics for online advertising campaigns, which target a particular set of digital documents that display advertisements.
McKay et al; (US 2020/0288267 A1), wherein teaches A consumer sensing and audience measurement system that utilizes the mobile phone carried by the consumer as a proxy for the consumer's location inside a building and consumer attributes. Actions include monitoring wireless communications being provided by one or more mobile devices. A first broadcast identifier indicated in wireless communications can be identified during a first time period. A first location corresponding to the first broadcast identifier can be determined based on a strength associated with wireless communications that indicate the first broadcast identifier. A second broadcast identifier can be identified in the monitored wireless communications during a second time period. A second location corresponding to the second broadcast identifier can be determined based on a strength associated with wireless communications that indicate the second broadcast identifier. A likelihood that the first broadcast identifier and the second broadcast identifier are associated with a same particular mobile device can be determined.
Papakostas et al; (US 2016/0232538 A1), wherein teaches Methods and apparatus to credit media presentations for online media distributions are disclosed. Example methods and apparatus determine a presenter of a media session based on a user agent identifier extracted from a proxy record associated with the media session, and in response to determining that the user agent identifier does not identify a publisher, identify a first domain referenced by a URL associated with the media session, and, in response to determining that the first domain matches a domain pattern associated with a publisher and does not match a domain in a list of hosting domains, classify the media of the media session as being published by the publisher associated with the matching domain pattern, the publisher being different from the presenter.
Nagarajara et al; (US 10,045,082 B2), wherein teaches Methods and apparatus to correct errors in measuring audiences of over-the-top media are disclosed. In some examples, the methods and apparatus identify a first set of data from a first data source, the first set of data different from a second set of data from a second data source. In some examples, the methods and apparatus generate a third set of data based on the second set of data from the second data source. In some examples, the methods and apparatus generate a model based on a difference between the first set of data and the third set of data. In some examples, the methods and apparatus apply the model to the first set of data. In some examples, the methods and apparatus assign viewership to an impression associated with the first set of data by imputing viewership associated with the second set of data to the first set of data.
Sullivan et al; (US 2018/0249214 A1), wherein teaches Methods, apparatus, systems, and articles of manufacture are disclosed to generate synthetic respondent level data. An example method includes generating, by executing an instruction with a processor, a seed panel, the seed panel including monitored panelists selected based on a population associated with return path data; comparing, by executing an instruction with the processor, a target rating to a current rating corresponding to the seed panel; and adjusting, by executing an instruction with the processor, the seed panel based on the comparison.
Morovati Lopez et al; (US 2019/0370860 A1), wherein teaches Methods and apparatus to generate corrected online audience measurement data are disclosed. An example apparatus includes an impressions collector to receive a first audience count indicative of first impressions attributed to a first media category for a demographic group, a second audience count indicative of second impressions attributed to a second media category accessed by the demographic group, and a third audience count indicative of third impressions attributed to the first media category and the second media category accessed by the demographic group, the first audience count including a duplicated audience count; a factor generator to calculate a deduplication factor using the first audience count, the second audience count, and the third audience count; an audience calculator to determine a corrected audience count of the first media category to correct the duplicated audience count; and a ratings data generator to generate ratings information for the first media category.
Splaine et al; (US 2014/0337104 A1), wherein teaches Methods and apparatus to determine impressions using distributed demographic information are disclosed. An example method includes obtaining media impression information from a client device for a media impression, obtaining demographic information corresponding to the client device from at least three database proprietors, and determining a demographic characteristic associated with the media impression based on the demographic information obtained from the at least three database proprietors.
Further, see other art cited in PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thuy Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-272-4585 and fax number is 571-273-4585. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30 am to 5: 00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. The FAX 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.
/THUY N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622.
Prosecution Insights