Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/210,727

METHODS AND APPARATUS TO CORRECT ERRORS IN AUDIENCE MEASUREMENTS FOR MEDIA ACCESSED USING OVER-THE-TOP DEVICES

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
May 16, 2025
Priority
Jul 02, 2015 — provisional 62/188,380 +7 more
Examiner
HUERTA, ALEXANDER Q
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
The Nielsen Company (US) LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 8m
Est. Remaining
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allowance Rate
362 granted / 533 resolved
+7.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
545
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
89.7%
+49.7% vs TC avg
§102
2.5%
-37.5% vs TC avg
§112
2.2%
-37.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 533 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . 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, 8, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rowe et al. (US Pub. 2014/0026158), herein referenced as Rowe. Regarding claim 1, Rowe discloses “A computing system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions that ([0033]-[0034], [0046]-[0047], Figs. 2-3), upon execution by the processor, cause performance of a set of operations comprising: obtaining media presentation data for media content presented in a household via an over-the-top (OTT) device during a time period; determining, from the media presentation data, an OTT viewership event ([0003]-[0004], [0019], [0021], [0028], Fig. 1A, i.e., TV broadcasters 102 may transmit television program to the household 180 by streaming over the Internet. Additionally, master device 105 can detect audio signals from the TV 116, convert the audio signals into audio fingerprints, and report the audio fingerprints to the TV viewership measurement server 150); determining members of the household ([0018], [0028], [0059], i.e., every household member has a dedicated tag so that the master device 105 can tell who is currently watching the TV by interacting with different tags); removing, based on the media content and the time period, one or more members of the household as candidate viewers of the OTT viewership event; and assigning a remainder of the members as viewers of the OTT viewership event.” ([0002], [0018], [0027]-[0028], Fig. 1A-B, i.e., through use of the electronic tags, the master device can determine when a particular panelist is close enough to the TV to be watching a program. Information from the tags can be used to eliminate false positives and false negatives. For example, if a panelist is not detected near the TV, then it can be inferred that he or she was probably not watching a program that was logged. Similarly, if a panelist is detected near the TV at a time when the TV was on, then it can be inferred that he or she was watching the TV programs that were tuned by the TV for as long as the viewer was in proximity to the TV). Regarding claim 8, Rowe discloses “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by a processor ([0033]-[0034], [0046]-[0047], Figs. 2-3), cause performance of a set of operations comprising: obtaining media presentation data for media content presented in a household via an over-the-top (OTT) device during a time period; determining, from the media presentation data, an OTT viewership event ([0003]-[0004], [0019], [0021], [0028], Fig. 1A, i.e., TV broadcasters 102 may transmit television program to the household 180 by streaming over the Internet. Additionally, master device 105 can detect audio signals from the TV 116, convert the audio signals into audio fingerprints, and report the audio fingerprints to the TV viewership measurement server 150); determining members of the household ([0018], [0028], [0059], i.e., every household member has a dedicated tag so that the master device 105 can tell who is currently watching the TV by interacting with different tags); removing, based on the media content and the time period, one or more members of the household as candidate viewers of the OTT viewership event; and assigning a remainder of the members as viewers of the OTT viewership event.” ([0002], [0018], [0027]-[0028], Fig. 1A-B, i.e., through use of the electronic tags, the master device can determine when a particular panelist is close enough to the TV to be watching a program. Information from the tags can be used to eliminate false positives and false negatives. For example, if a panelist is not detected near the TV, then it can be inferred that he or she was probably not watching a program that was logged. Similarly, if a panelist is detected near the TV at a time when the TV was on, then it can be inferred that he or she was watching the TV programs that were tuned by the TV for as long as the viewer was in proximity to the TV). Regarding claim 15, Rowe discloses “A method for determining co-viewing, the method comprising: obtaining media presentation data for media content presented in a household via an over-the-top (OTT) device during a time period; determining, from the media presentation data, an OTT viewership event ([0003]-[0004], [0019], [0021], [0028], Fig. 1A, i.e., TV broadcasters 102 may transmit television program to the household 180 by streaming over the Internet. Additionally, master device 105 can detect audio signals from the TV 116, convert the audio signals into audio fingerprints, and report the audio fingerprints to the TV viewership measurement server 150); determining members of the household ([0018], [0028], [0059], i.e., every household member has a dedicated tag so that the master device 105 can tell who is currently watching the TV by interacting with different tags); removing, based on the media content and the time period, one or more members of the household as candidate viewers of the OTT viewership event; and assigning a remainder of the members as viewers of the OTT viewership event.” ([0002], [0018], [0027]-[0028], Fig. 1A-B, i.e., through use of the electronic tags, the master device can determine when a particular panelist is close enough to the TV to be watching a program. Information from the tags can be used to eliminate false positives and false negatives. For example, if a panelist is not detected near the TV, then it can be inferred that he or she was probably not watching a program that was logged. Similarly, if a panelist is detected near the TV at a time when the TV was on, then it can be inferred that he or she was watching the TV programs that were tuned by the TV for as long as the viewer was in proximity to the TV). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Q Huerta whose telephone number is (571)270-3582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ALEXANDER Q HUERTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 July7, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 16, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12684189
WATCH TIME UNITS AND THE REWARD SHARE MECHANISM FOR A USER-GENERATED VIDEO SHARING PLATFORM
1y 11m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12684195
ACCOUNTING FOR LATENCY IN CONTENT STREAMS
1y 7m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12677019
CONTENT DELIVERY OPTIMIZATION BASED ON PREDICTED EFFECTIVENESS OF LINEAR CONTENT SCHEDULE
1y 7m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12647648
INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD
2y 2m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12641303
RECORDING VIDEO QUALITY
1y 10m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+12.1%)
2y 11m (~1y 8m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 533 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month