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 .
This action is in response to application 19/241,819 filed 6/18/2025.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 claims at issue 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 reference 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. 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 8, 15 of instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,363,356. The instant claims are not patentably distinct from the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,363,356 because both sets of claims are directed to the same inventive concept of accessing first and second streaming media identifying information, comparing first and second media identifiers with reference library of media identifiers, and crediting a streaming media presentation based on the comparison. Any differences between the instant claims and the patented claims constitute only obvious variations in terminology or implementation details that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and do not render the instant claims patentably distinct, as demonstrated by the limitation-by-limitation comparison set forth in the table below.
Accordingly, claims 1, 8, and 15 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 1, 8, 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,363,356 for reasons set forth in the limitation-by-limitation comparison below.
Instant Application 19/241,819
Parent Pat 12,363,356
Not Patentably Distinct
Independent Claims 1, 8, 15:
accessing first streaming media identifying information obtained from an audience measurement environment in which a streamed presentation of streaming media occurs during a first period, the streaming media being provided for presentation via a media device, the first streaming media identifying information including a first media identifier associated with the streaming media and a source identifier of a streaming source of the streaming media;
accessing second streaming media identifying information obtained from the audience measurement environment in which a cached presentation of the streaming media occurs during a second period, the streaming media being provided for presentation via the media device, the second streaming media identifying information including a second media identifier associated with the streaming media;
comparing each of the first media identifier and the second media identifier with a reference library of media identifiers; and
based on the comparing, crediting a presentation of the streaming media as having occurred during the second period via the media device, wherein the crediting comprises storing the source identifier in association with the streamed presentation of the streaming media during the second period.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2, 9, 16
Claims 3, 10, 17
Claims 4, 11, 18
Claims 5, 12, 19
Claims 6, 13, 20
Claims 7, 14
Independent Claims 1, 8, 15:
accessing first streaming media identifying information obtained from a first audience measurement environment in which a first portion of streaming media is presented during a first period, the first portion of streaming media being provided for presentation via a streaming media delivery device, the first streaming media identifying information including: (i) a first media identifier associated with the first portion of streaming media, (ii) a device identifier associated with a streaming media delivery device, and (iii) an indication that network activity in the first audience measurement environment during the first period is consistent with streaming activity;
accessing second streaming media identifying information obtained from the first audience measurement environment in which a second portion of streaming media is presented during a second period, the second portion of streaming media being provided for presentation via the streaming media delivery device, the second streaming media identifying information including: (i) a second media identifier associated with the second portion of streaming media, (ii) the device identifier associated with the streaming media delivery device, and (iii) an indication that network activity in the first audience measurement environment during the second period is not consistent with streaming activity;
comparing each of the first media identifier and the second media identifier with a reference library of media identifiers; and
crediting, based on the comparing, a streaming media presentation of the second portion of streaming media via the streaming media delivery device for the first audience measurement environment during the second period.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 5, 12, 18
Claims 3, 10, 17
Claims 2, 9, 16
Claims 4, 11
Claims 7, 14, 20
Claims 6, 13, 19
Analysis:
Both limitations identify the first streamed media presentation using identifying information. The instant claim recites a different subset of identifying information but does not alter the underlying inventive concept or render the claim patentably distinct.
Both limitations identify the second media presentation corresponding to cached media presented during a later period. The differences in terminology do not alter the underlying inventive concept and do not render the claims patentably distinct.
Identical limitation.
Both limitations perform the same crediting operation based on the comparison. The additional recitation of storing the source identifier merely specifies information maintained as part of the crediting process and does not render the claimed invention patentably distinct from the parent claim.
Analysis:
Recite the same inventive concept using equivalent claim language. Any differences are merely variations in claim drafting.
Identical limitations.
Directed to the same inventive concept. Any differences are obvious variations in implementation details.
Express the same inventive concept in parallel statutory claim formats and are not patentably distinct.
Directed to the same inventive concept. Any differences are obvious variations in implementation details.
Directed to the same inventive concept. The differences do not render the claims patentably distinct.
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art of record, including that considered during examination of the related parent application, fail to teach or suggest the allowable subject matter previously identified during prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 12,363,356. In particular, the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest " comparing each of the first media identifier and the second media identifier with a reference library of media identifiers; and crediting, based on the comparing, a streaming media presentation of the second portion of streaming media via the streaming media delivery device for the first audience measurement environment during the second period.", as recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
The closest art found includes Frett (US 2013/0311478) that discloses monitoring media presentations that includes identifying a media presentation device associated with a Domain Name Service (DNS) query based on a public Internet Protocol (IP) address that originated the DNS query and a destination address of the DNS query. A media source is identified based on a domain name requested in the DNS query. Identification of the media presented in association with the DNS query based on at least one of tagging data and metering data is attempted. A panelist associated with the media presentation device is credited with exposure to the identified media from the media source via the media presentation device when the media is identified. The panelist associated with the media presentation device is credited with exposure to media from the media source via the media presentation device when the media is not identified [FIG.1, ABSTARCT, para(s).0023-0026, 0032]. Frett also discloses identifying a network resource [para.0030], a media identifier [para.0048], and media presentation devices [para.0057]. However, Frett fails to teach "comparing each of the first media identifier and the second media identifier with a reference library of media identifiers; and crediting, based on the comparing, a streaming media presentation of the second portion of streaming media via the streaming media delivery device for the first audience measurement environment during the second period.", as recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sheppard et al., (US 10,943,175) – Discloses audience measurement entities that monitors media exposure data (e.g., viewing data, listening data, gaming activities, etc.) of an enlisted audience. Involves determining the identity of the media being displayed and/or otherwise consumed on a media presentation device (e.g., a television), determining demographic information of an audience, and/or determining which members of a household are to be associated with exposure to particular media (col.2 lines 64-67, col.3 lines 1-5). It was considered because it relates generally to audience measurement and media identifying information. However, it is directed to demographic modeling and audience analytics (col.3, 37-47), rather than comparing media identifiers with a reference library to credit a subsequent streaming media presentation as presently claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIL OCAK whose telephone number is (571) 272-2774. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system; contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADIL OCAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights