DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/27/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 7/8/2026 has been entered.
The objection to the specification is withdrawn based on Applicant’s amendments.
The objections to claims 2 and 12 for minor informalities are withdrawn based on Applicant’s amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejections of claims 3 and 13 are withdrawn based on Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-22 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 2, 8, and 12 are amended.
Claim 22 is new.
Claims 3 and 13 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the double patenting rejections have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant states that a terminal disclaimer will be considered when the claims are otherwise indicated as allowable. However, such terminal disclaimer has yet to be filed. Therefore, the double-patenting rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 11, and 17 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Roberts fails to teach or suggest “for at least one entry of the plurality of entries, replacing an attribute associated with a first video-asset-viewing device and a different attribute associated with a second video-asset-viewing device with a common substitute value”. Particularly, Applicant suggests that Roberts’s “entry” only contains data for one device and Robert’s replacement operation does not address attributes from two different devices.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it is important to note how the claim is interpreted. Claim 1 recites “for at least one entry of the plurality of entries, replacing an attribute associated with a first video-asset-viewing device and a different attribute associated with a second video-asset-viewing device with a common substitute value”. However, looking at Applicant’s disclosure, the specification is completely silent regarding “entries”. Since this term is not found within the specification, the Examiner then looked for any equivalents to “entries” and found the specification discloses “records” at par. 142 and Fig. 10. As seen in Example 1 of Fig. 10, a translation (replacing) is performed on the data records (entries), such that all data values (attributes) in the GEOGRAPHIC INFO column starting with 801, such as “80111” and “80112”, are replaced with the (common substitute) value “801XX”. Therefore, the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim is in light of the original disclosure, such as Fig. 10 and not any subsequent interpretation the Applicant may allege.
Regarding Applicant’s allegation that the “entry” of Roberts only contains data for one device, Roberts teaches a system that collects data from a plurality of Set Top Boxes (STBs), such as data indicating the channels or programs selected by each STB over time, for example the time of each selection of a different channel (par. 39-42, Fig. 1). Roberts further discloses editing the STB data using capping limits. For example, very long STB sessions may be capped after 75 minutes (par. 52-55). This is not a procedure performed on only one STB, as Applicant has suggested. Instead, Roberts’s disclosed procedures are for “STB data from multiple households, which may be a very large number of housholds or even a complete subscriber base” (par. 13). Fig. 5 element B shows an example element of STB data or in other words an “entry” of data. While the depicted element B is an entry for one STB, the household STB data and the capping procedure are related to a plurality of households having a plurality of STBs and used for STB audience analysis (par. 62-63). Therefore, Roberts teaches a plurality of entries for a plurality of devices.
Regarding Applicant’s allegation that Roberts’s replacement operation does not address attributes from two different devices, Roberts teaches that the STB data includes various attributes, such as “Day: Monday” or “Viewing time (VT): 75 minutes” (Fig. 5). These attributes are collected for a plurality of STBs (par. 39-42, Fig. 1). Therefore, the attributes are associated with a plurality of devices.
Applicant further argues Roberts’ system processes each STB’s data in isolation without any cross-device consideration.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, the capping limit procedures are performed for an entire audience, which may include thousands of STBs (par. 62-63). Further, the claim does not recite “cross-device consideration” and never recites when or how the attributes are replaced. Thus, this argument is irrelevant.
Applicant further argues Roberts does not teach that the attribute associated with the first device is different from the attribute associated with the second device.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Each entry may contain different attributes, such as viewing times of different amounts. Any attribute found to be above the capping limit, can then be replaced with the common substitute value. For example, if a first STB provides data with an attribute “Viewing time (VT): 75 minutes” (par. 61, Fig. 5) and a second STB provides a similarly "long" viewing session, such as 74 minutes (par. 57, Fig. 2). Each of these entries may be edited such that the viewing time attribute is replaced with a capped time of 30 minutes (par. 55 and 61, Fig. 5). Therefore, Roberts demonstrates the attribute associated with the first device is different from the attribute associated with the second device and “for at least one entry of the plurality of entries, replacing an attribute associated with a first video-asset-viewing device and a different attribute associated with a second video-asset-viewing device with a common substitute value”.
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 1-2, 4-12, and 14-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,627,356.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-35 of U.S. Patent No. 12,316,895.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-22 are an obvious variation of the patented claims.
U.S. Patent No. 11,627,356 and U.S. Patent No. 12,316,895 teach:
Application #19/191,184
U.S. Patent No. 11,627,356
U.S. Patent No. 12,316,895
1. A method comprising: receiving, by a computing system and from a plurality of video-asset-viewing devices, video-viewing-activity data comprising a plurality of entries;
for at least one entry of the plurality of entries, replacing an attribute associated with a first video-asset-viewing device and a different attribute associated with a second video-asset-viewing device with a common substitute value; and
determining, by the computing system,
a video-viewing-activity metric associated with the common substitute value.
1. A method comprising: receiving, by a computing system and from a plurality of video-asset-viewing devices, video-viewing-activity data;
… replacing
the attribute associated with a first video-asset-viewing device of the plurality of video-asset-viewing devices and the attribute associated with a second video-asset-viewing device of the plurality of video-asset-viewing devices with a common substitute value, wherein the attribute associated with the first video-asset-viewing device and the attribute associated with the second video-asset-viewing device are different; … and determining, …,
a video-viewing-activity metric associated with the common substitute value.
1. A method comprising: determining, by a computing system and based on video-viewing-activity data received from a plurality of video-asset-viewing devices, …;
replacing
an attribute associated with a first video-asset-viewing device of the plurality of video-asset-viewing devices and a different attribute associated with a second video-asset-viewing device of the plurality of video-asset-viewing devices with a common substitute value; and …
determining a video-viewing-activity metric associated with the common substitute value.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the video-viewing-activity metric is associated with the first video-asset-viewing device and the second video-asset-viewing device outputting a video asset comprises an advertisement.
1. … for each video-asset-viewing device of the plurality of video-asset-viewing devices: a time range during which the video-asset-viewing device outputted a video asset … determining, for the first video-asset-viewing device, a first plurality of time intervals collectively representing the time range during which the first video-asset-viewing device outputted the video asset; determining, for the second video-asset-viewing device, a second plurality of time intervals collectively representing the time range during which the second video-asset-viewing device outputted the video asset; and determining, based on the first plurality of time intervals and the second plurality of time intervals, a video-viewing-activity metric
1. … a first plurality of time intervals during which the first video-asset-viewing device outputted a video asset and a second plurality of time intervals during which the second video-asset-viewing device outputted the video asset …
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the video asset comprises an advertisement.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a mapping of a plurality of attributes to the common substitute value.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a mapping of a plurality of attributes to the common substitute value.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a mapping of a plurality of attributes to the common substitute value.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the common substitute value comprises a descriptor describing the attribute associated with the first video-asset-viewing device and the different attribute associated with the second video-asset-viewing device.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the common substitute value comprises a descriptor describing the attribute associated with the first video-asset-viewing device and the attribute associated with the second video-asset-viewing device.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the common substitute value comprises a descriptor describing the attribute associated with the first video-asset-viewing device and the different attribute associated with the second video-asset-viewing device.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: associating each time interval, of a first plurality
of time intervals during which the first video-asset-viewing device output a video asset, with the common substitute value.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising associating each time
interval of the first plurality of time intervals with the common substitute value.
1. … a first plurality of time intervals collectively representing the time range during which the first video-asset-viewing device outputted the video asset
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: associating each time interval of the first plurality of time intervals with the common substitute value.
1. … a first plurality of time intervals during which the first video-asset-viewing device outputted a video asset …
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the attribute associated with the first video-asset-viewing device comprises a textual value, and wherein the common substitute value comprises a different textual value.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the attribute associated with the first video-asset-viewing device comprises a textual value, and wherein the common substitute value comprises a different textual value.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the attribute associated with the first video-asset-viewing device comprises a textual value, and wherein the common substitute value comprises a different textual value.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: associating each time interval of a first plurality of time intervals during which the first video-asset-viewing device output a video asset, with an indication of a computing device that sends the video asset to the plurality of video-asset-viewing devices; and associating each time interval of a second plurality of time intervals, during which the second video-asset-viewing device output the video asset, with an indication of the computing device.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising associating each time interval of the first plurality of time intervals with an indication of a video asset delivery device configured to send the video asset to the plurality of video-asset-viewing devices, and associating each time interval of the second plurality of time intervals with an indication of the video asset delivery device.
1. … a first plurality of time intervals collectively representing the time range during which the first video-asset-viewing device outputted the video asset … a second plurality of time intervals collectively representing the time range during which the second video-asset-viewing device outputted the video asset
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising: associating each time interval of the first plurality of time intervals with an indication of a computing device that sends the video asset to the plurality of video-asset-viewing devices; and associating each time interval of the second plurality of time intervals with an indication of the computing device.
1. … a first plurality of time intervals during which the first video-asset-viewing device outputted a video asset and a second plurality of time intervals during which the second video-asset-viewing device outputted the video asset …
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the replacing the attribute and the different attribute is based on determining that the attribute associated with the first video-asset-viewing device and the different attribute associated with the second video-asset-viewing device satisfy a mapping of attributes to target values.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the replacing
is based on
determining that the attribute associated with the first video-asset-viewing device and the attribute
associated with the second video-asset-viewing device satisfy a mapping of attributes to target values.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the replacing the attribute and the different attribute is based on determining that the attribute associated with the first video-asset-viewing device and the different attribute associated with the second video-asset-viewing device satisfy a mapping of attributes to target values.
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, for a data-translation table, one or more user-defined parameters
comprising the
attribute associated with the first video-asset-viewing device, the different attribute associated with the second video-asset-viewing device, and the common substitute value; and generating, by the computing system and based on the one or more user-defined parameters, the data-translation table.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, …, one or more user-defined parameters for a data-translation table, wherein the one or more user-defined parameters comprise the attribute associated with the first video-asset-viewing device, the attribute associated with the second video-asset-viewing device, and the common substitute value; and generating, by the computing system and based on the one or more user-defined parameters, the data-translation table.
12. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, for a data-translation table, one or more user-defined parameters
comprising the attribute associated with the first video-asset-viewing device, the different attribute associated with the second video-asset-viewing device, and the common substitute value; and generating, by the computing system and based on the one or more user-defined parameters, the data-translation table.
Claims 11-12 and 14-22 are similar in scope to claims 1-2 and 4-10, see above mapping.
Regarding claim 1, 11, and 17, U.S. Patent No. 11,627,356 and U.S. Patent No. 12,316,895 do not explicitly disclose: the video-viewing-activity data comprising a plurality of entries, the replacing an attribute is for at least one entry of the plurality of entries, and determining the video-viewing-activity metric is by the computing system. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found this to be an obvious variation of the patented claims because entries in a database or table are a common form of storing data and it is understood that the method steps are performed by a computing system.
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 22, U.S. Patent No. 11,627,356 does not explicitly disclose: the video asset comprises an advertisement. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found this to be an obvious variation of the patented claims because advertisements are a common form of video asset.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10, 16, and 20-21 would be allowable if the above double patenting rejections were to be overcome and further if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 11, 14-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roberts et al. (US 2006/0075421).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 17, Roberts teaches: A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system and from a plurality of video-asset-viewing devices, video-viewing-activity data comprising a plurality of entries [each channel selector device or STB 2 is capable of returning information or data indicating channels or programs selected by the STB 2 at different times. This information may be received at service provider facilities 4 and audience analysis facilities 7. This stream of STB data includes entries, such as the element B depicted in Fig. 5 (par. 39-42 and 61-63, Fig. 1 and 5)]
for at least one entry of the plurality of entries, replacing an attribute associated with a first video-asset-viewing device and a different attribute associated with a second video-asset-viewing device with a common substitute value [the audience analysis facility may use a capping matrix to select a capping limit based on daypart or time of day, and/or other parameters. The capping time limit (CT) may then be substituted for the viewing time (VT) in each STB entry meeting the criteria, such as the daypart, the viewing times may be different. For example, STB A had a viewing time of 75 minutes in the daypart 06:00-09:30 and STB B had a viewing time of 60 minutes in this daypart, then both the attribute 75 of STB A and the attribute 60 of STB B are replaced with the same CT value 30 (par. 13, 20, 52-58, 61-63, Fig. 1-2 and 5)] and
determining, by the computing system, a video-viewing-activity metric associated with the common substitute value [determining a metric, such as an average homes rating for each daypart for STB cap 30 (par. 50-57, Fig. 3 and 4)].
Regarding claims 4, 14, and 18, Roberts teaches the method of claim 1; Roberts further teaches: determining a mapping of a plurality of attributes to the common substitute value [a capping "matrix" that essentially maps a set of parameters to a specific capping time limit value (CT) (par. 60-61, Fig. 5)].
Regarding claim 5, Roberts teaches the method of claim 1; Roberts further teaches: the common substitute value comprises a descriptor describing the attribute associated with the first video-asset-viewing device and the different attribute associated with the second video-asset-viewing device [the capping time limit value (CT): 30 Minutes describes that the viewing time for the first STB and second STB are at least 30 minutes (par. 56 and 61, Fig. 5)].
Regarding claims 6, 15, and 19, Roberts teaches the method of claim 1; Roberts further teaches: associating each time interval, of a first plurality of time intervals during which the first video-asset-viewing device output a video asset, with the common substitute value [a particular program or channel of those available can be selected by individual members of the household 1 for presentation on a presentation device, for example a TV 3 in the household (par. 39, Fig. 1). A variety of capping limits ranging from 75 minutes down to 30 minutes were tested, where each daypart was associated with the same capping limit (par. 54, Fig. 4)].
Regarding claim 7, Roberts teaches the method of claim 1; Roberts further teaches: the attribute associated with the first video-asset-viewing device comprises a textual value, and wherein the common substitute value comprises a different textual value [the attribute may be Viewing time (VT): 75 minutes and the substitute value may be 30 Minutes (Fig. 5)].
Regarding claim 9, Roberts teaches the method of claim 1; Roberts further teaches: the replacing the attribute and the different attribute is based on determining that the attribute associated with the first video-asset-viewing device and the different attribute associated with the second video-asset-viewing device satisfy a mapping of attributes to target values [substituting the capping time limit CT for the different attributes that satisfy the matrix parameters (par. 60-61, Fig. 5)].
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.
Claims 2, 12, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. (US 2006/0075421) in view of Angiolillo et al. (US 2008/0022300).
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 22, Roberts teaches the method of claim 1; Roberts further teaches: the video-viewing-activity metric is associated with the first video-asset-viewing device and the second video-asset-viewing device outputting a video asset [determining a metric, such as an average homes rating for each daypart for STB cap 30 (par. 50-57, Fig. 3 and 4)].
Roberts does not explicitly disclose: the video asset comprises an advertisement.
Angiolillo teaches: the video asset comprises an advertisement [During select times when viewing a program on a television, the viewer is presented an advertisement (abstract). A video asset may include television programs, advertisements, commercials (par. 30)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Roberts and Angiolillo before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the video asset to comprise an advertisement as disclosed by Angiolillo. The motivation for including advertisements would have been to advertise products and services (Angiolillo – par. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Roberts and Angiolillo to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Boyd whose telephone number is (571) 270-0676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm PST.
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.
/ALEXANDER BOYD/Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights