DETAILED ACTION
Notice relating to Pre-AIA or AIA Status
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s original claims (dated 18 APRIL 2025), are the current ones being examined. The status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Examiner’s Note
It is noted to Applicant that Allowable subject matter has been indicated in related Applications 17/142,905 and 18/316,452. Applicant is suggested to try and incorporate similar Allowable content into the current Application’s claims to try and move prosecution forward to an Allowance. Applicant is also cautioned not to repeat allowable subject matter in a manner that could lead to a double patenting rejection. This is just a note and suggestion by the Examiner, any amendments made by Applicant will be searched thoroughly before a final indication on Allowability is made.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 at least claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10, 14, 16, 18, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,652,859 (herein the Patent) in view of Nelson et al., US 2013/0276129 and further in view of Perrin et al., US 2018/0198543. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application’s claims are only worded in a way that slightly attempts to differ them from the claims of the Patent while still leading to the same inventive outcome/concept.
Additionally, although the Patent discloses the majority of the currently claimed limitations, the Patent does not explicitly disclose a request to a server of a streaming service provider;
determining one or more system configuration parameters of a media device;
the media device is a mobile device; and
generating a report comprising demographic information about a user of the media device, and providing, via a network interface, the report to the server of the streaming service provider.
However, in a related art, Nelson does disclose a request to a server of a streaming service provider (request; page 2, paragraph 28, and wherein request to a streaming provider server; page 5, paragraph 48);
determining one or more system configuration parameters of a media device (based on received log, can identify and determine times and at least a system configuration parameter relating to IP address, when media was presented; page 6, paragraph 67, and Fig. 6, elements 604-606, and 612, and page 9, paragraph 89);
the media device is a mobile device (media receiver can include at least a mobile handset, such as a smartphone; page 2, paragraph 25, and Fig. 1, element 126); and
generating a report comprising demographic information about a user of the media device (can utilize the information in order to generate report; pages 6-7, paragraphs 68-70, and Fig. 7, and including demographical information; page 4, paragraph 46, and page 8, paragraph 81, and page 11, paragraph 114), and communication via a network interface with the server of the streaming service provider (communication with the provider server via at least networking interface; page 2, paragraph 23, and page 3, paragraphs 31-32, and pages 4-5, paragraph 48, and wherein to a streaming provider server; page 5, paragraph 48, and communication with a provider; page 11, paragraph 114).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Patent and Nelson to arrive at the claimed subject matter, by allowing at least requests, particular types of identified data, and report generation to be performed along with the already performed operations of the Patent, in order to provide improved systems and methods for using logs generated at media providers or distributors and logs generated at media receivers to identify media that is presented at individual media receivers (Nelson; page 1, paragraph 16).
The Patent in view of Nelson still does not explicitly disclose providing a report to a server.
However, in a related art, Perrin does disclose providing a report to a server (transmitting a generated report to a server, wherein the report includes at least demographic information associated with media presentations; page 7, paragraph 61, and page 10, paragraph 77, and page 11, paragraph 89).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the Patent, Nelson, and Perrin, to arrive at the claimed subject matter, by allowing the already generated report(s) of Nelson to be utilized and/or forwarded to particular servers for additional use, in order to provide an improved system and method for monitoring media, and, more particularly, to improve accuracy of media monitoring by adjusting for co-viewing (Perrin; page 1, paragraph 2, and page 7, paragraph 61).
Claims 1-20 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10-12, 15, and 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,328,351 (herein the Patent) in view of Nelson et al., US 2013/0276129 and further in view of Perrin et al., US 2018/0198543. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application’s claims are only worded in a way that slightly attempts to differ them from the claims of the Patent while still leading to the same inventive outcome/concept.
Additionally, although the Patent discloses the majority of the currently claimed limitations, the Patent does not explicitly disclose determining one or more system configuration parameters of a media device;
the media device is a mobile device; and
generating a report comprising demographic information about a user of the media device, and providing, via a network interface, the report to the server of the streaming service provider.
However, in a related art, Nelson does disclose determining one or more system configuration parameters of a media device (based on received log, can identify and determine times and at least a system configuration parameter relating to IP address, when media was presented; page 6, paragraph 67, and Fig. 6, elements 604-606, and 612, and page 9, paragraph 89);
the media device is a mobile device (media receiver can include at least a mobile handset, such as a smartphone; page 2, paragraph 25, and Fig. 1, element 126); and
generating a report comprising demographic information about a user of the media device (can utilize the information in order to generate report; pages 6-7, paragraphs 68-70, and Fig. 7, and including demographical information; page 4, paragraph 46, and page 8, paragraph 81, and page 11, paragraph 114), and communication via a network interface with the server of the streaming service provider (communication with the provider server via at least networking interface; page 2, paragraph 23, and page 3, paragraphs 31-32, and pages 4-5, paragraph 48, and wherein to a streaming provider server; page 5, paragraph 48, and communication with a provider; page 11, paragraph 114).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Patent and Nelson to arrive at the claimed subject matter, by allowing at least particular types of identified data and report generation to be performed along with the already performed operations of the Patent, in order to provide improved systems and methods for using logs generated at media providers or distributors and logs generated at media receivers to identify media that is presented at individual media receivers (Nelson; page 1, paragraph 16).
The Patent in view of Nelson still does not explicitly disclose providing a report to a server.
However, in a related art, Perrin does disclose providing a report to a server (transmitting a generated report to a server, wherein the report includes at least demographic information associated with media presentations; page 7, paragraph 61, and page 10, paragraph 77, and page 11, paragraph 89).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the Patent, Nelson, and Perrin, to arrive at the claimed subject matter, by allowing the already generated report(s) of Nelson to be utilized and/or forwarded to particular servers for additional use, in order to provide an improved system and method for monitoring media, and, more particularly, to improve accuracy of media monitoring by adjusting for co-viewing (Perrin; page 1, paragraph 2, and page 7, paragraph 61).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al., US 2013/0276129 in view of Corley et al., US 9,058,645.
Regarding claim 1, Nelson discloses a method comprising:
transmitting, via a network interface (with at least a networking interface for connection to a network like the internet; page 2, paragraph 23, and page 3, paragraphs 31-32, and pages 4-5, paragraph 48), a request to a server of a streaming service provider (SSP) (request; page 2, paragraph 28, and wherein request to a streaming provider server; page 5, paragraph 48);
in response to a presentation of a media clip on the media device, associating the media device to the media clip (can associate a media presentation with at least a device based on receiving and presenting the media; page 5, paragraphs 49-50, and Fig. 6, elements 604-612, and 614, and page 6, paragraph 67, and wherein with multiple types of media; page 1, paragraph 17);
based on meter data obtained from a metering device via the network interface (based on received media receiver logs, i.e. meter data, and wherein via at least a network interface; page 4, paragraph 38, and page 5, paragraphs 51-52), determining a time at which the media clip is presented and one or more system configuration parameters of the media device (based on received log, can identify and determine times and at least a system configuration parameter relating to IP address, when media was presented; page 6, paragraph 67, and Fig. 6, elements 604-606, and 612, and page 9, paragraph 89);
comparing the time at which the media clip is presented and the one or more system configuration parameters of the media device to a streaming session log obtained from the server of the SSP to identify a streaming session identifier that characterizes a streaming session in which the media clip was presented (can compare the media received log information, i.e. which includes at least timing and system configuration parameters relating to an IP address, with a service provider log that also includes at least timing information and IP address information; page 4, paragraphs 39-41, and wherein provider log sent/received via network; page 4, paragraph 38 and page 6, paragraph 61, and wherein based on the comparison, can identify a session related to media; page 4, paragraph 43, and page 3, paragraph 30); and
based on the meter data obtained from the metering device via the network interface, and the streaming session log obtained via the network interface from the SSP, associating a panelist identifier with the streaming session identifier corresponding to the streaming session (based on the data obtained and the determinations made, can store an association of a device identifier, i.e. panelist id, with a media identifier, i.e. streaming session identifier for a particularly timed session; page 3, paragraph 30, and page 4, paragraph 43, and Fig. 7, elements 704, 710, and 714, and pages 6-7, paragraphs 68-70).
Nelson does not explicitly disclose a request to generate a media clip that is distinct to a media device.
In a related art, Corley does disclose a request to generate a media clip that is distinct to a media device (based on request(s) with media content provided to service provider, and request with specific instructions to provider for generating media related to specific user/device; col. 7, lines 49-55, and col. 7, line 66 – col. 8, line 32, and col. 10, lines 48-65, and col. 9, line 65 – col. 10, line 3, and wherein with use of network interface; Fig. 6, element 608, and col. 12, lines 43-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Nelson and Corley, by allowing particular requests, such as taught in Corley to be utilized with the already present requests of Nelson, in order to provide an improved system and method for overcoming one or more deficiencies experienced in conventional approaches to watermarking by utilizing watermarking techniques performed by a component located at specific network locations (Corley; col. 2, lines 21- 32).
Regarding claim 2, Nelson in view of Corley discloses providing instructions to the SSP to watermark the media clip with a media identifier (Corley; watermarking instructions are provided to provider, and for watermarking in relation to identify media, i.e. a media identifier; col. 10, lines 48-65, and col. 11, lines 28-35, and wherein with network interface; Fig. 6, element 608, and col. 12, lines 43-50).
Regarding claim 4, Nelson in view of Corley discloses receiving, via the network interface and from the server of the SSP (Nelson; receiving with network interface from provider server; page 4, paragraph 38 and page 6, paragraph 61), data correlating the one or more system configuration parameters of the media device and the time at which the media clip is presented to the streaming session identifier (Nelson; log information received can have the media identification of the session associated/correlated to the media receiver parameter(s), i.e. IP address, and timestamps; page 4, paragraphs 39-41); and
determining the streaming session identifier by referring to the received data (Nelson; based on the comparison, can identify a session related to media; page 4, paragraph 43, and page 3, paragraph 30, and Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, Nelson in view of Corley discloses the one or more system configuration parameters of the media device comprise at least one of: internet protocol (IP) address, a model of the media device, an operating system of the media device, and a hardware identifier of the media device (Nelson; can include at least an IP address of the media device, identifier(s) for the media device and/or software information for the media device; page 4, paragraph 43, and page 5, paragraph 51, and page 6, paragraph 67, and Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Nelson in view of Corley discloses the media device is a mobile device (Nelson; media receiver can include at least a mobile handset, such as a smartphone; page 2, paragraph 25, and Fig. 1, element 126).
Claim 8, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 1. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon instructions that, upon execution by a processor, cause performance of operations (Nelson; with stored, processor executable instructions, and the stored instructions including those on a non-transitory computer readable medium; page 7, paragraphs 72-73).
Claim 9, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 2.
Claim 11, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 4.
Claim 12, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 5.
Claim 13, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 6.
Claim 15, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claims 1 and 8. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
a processor (Nelson; including at least a processor; page 7, paragraphs 71-72, and page 10, paragraph 106).
Claim 16, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 2.
Claim 18, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 4.
Claim 19, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 5.
Claim 20, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 6.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al., US 2013/0276129 in view of Corley et al., US 9,058,645 and further in view of Davis at el., 2016/0066005.
Regarding claim 3, Nelson in view of Corley discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1, as well as the meter data further comprises an identifier (Nelson; media receiver log can also include port identification information; page 1, paragraph 20, and page 2, paragraph 29, and Fig. 6, elements 608 and 610, and page 6, paragraph 67), and wherein comparing the time and the one or more system configuration parameters to the streaming session log (Nelson; can compare the media received log information, i.e. which includes at least timing and system configuration parameters relating to an IP address, with a service provider log that also includes at least timing information and IP address information; page 4, paragraphs 39-41, and wherein provider log sent/received via network; page 4, paragraph 38 and page 6, paragraph 61, and wherein based on the comparison, can identify a session related to media; page 4, paragraph 43, and page 3, paragraph 30) further comprises comparing the identifier to the streaming session log (Nelson; can compare the other identification information, i.e. port identification(s), as well; page 1, paragraph 20, and page 2, paragraph 29, and page 4, paragraphs 39-40).
Nelson in view of Corley does not explicitly disclose meter data further comprises a media identifier, wherein comparing further comprises: comparing the media identifier.
In a related art, Davis does disclose meter data further comprises a media identifier (media monitor table can include at least identification information about the media that was presented; Fig. 9, element 920, and page 8, paragraphs 75 and 77), wherein comparing further comprises: comparing the media identifier (can utilize the media identification information for comparing/matching; page 2, paragraph 24, and page 10, paragraphs 94 and 96).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Nelson, Corley, and Davis, by allowing additional information, such as media identifications, to be included and utilized with the already present information and matching performed by Nelson in view of Corley, in order to provide an improved system and method for understanding how users interact with streaming media, thereby giving valuable information to service providers, advertisers, content providers, media providers, manufacturers, and/or other entities (Davis; page 1, paragraph 16).
Claim 10, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 3.
Claim 17, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 3.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al., US 2013/0276129 in view of Corley et al., US 9,058,645 and further in view of Perrin et al., US 2018/0198543.
Regarding claim 7, Nelson in view of Corley discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1, as well as based on the streaming session identifier and the panelist identifier, generating a report comprising demographic information about a user of the media device (Nelson; can utilize the information in order to generate report; pages 6-7, paragraphs 68-70, and Fig. 7, and including demographical information; page 4, paragraph 46, and page 8, paragraph 81, and page 11, paragraph 114); and
communication via the network interface with the server of the SSP (Nelson; communication with the provider server via at least networking interface; page 2, paragraph 23, and page 3, paragraphs 31-32, and pages 4-5, paragraph 48, and wherein to a streaming provider server; page 5, paragraph 48).
While Nelson in view of Corley also discloses communicating with a particular service provider (Nelson; page 11, paragraph 114), Nelson in view of Corley does not explicitly disclose providing a report to a server.
In a related art, Perrin does disclose providing a report to a server (transmitting a generated report to a server, wherein the report includes at least demographic information associated with media presentations; page 7, paragraph 61, and page 10, paragraph 77, and page 11, paragraph 89).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Nelson, Corley, and Perrin, by allowing the already generated report(s) of Nelson in view of Corley to be utilized and/or forwarded to particular servers for additional use, in order to provide an improved system and method for monitoring media, and, more particularly, to improve accuracy of media monitoring by adjusting for co-viewing (Perrin; page 1, paragraph 2, and page 7, paragraph 61).
Claim 14, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY A FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)270-5680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6:00am - 3:00pm ET.
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, BENJAMIN BRUCKART can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/RANDY A FLYNN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights