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 communication is in response to Application 19/252,163 filed on 27 June 2025, and is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/333,524 (now U.S. Patent Application No. 12,413,646), which was filed on June 12, 2023, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/723,081 (now U.S. Patent No. 11,785,105), which was filed on April 18, 2022, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/027,265 (now U.S. Patent No. 11,310,326), which was filed on September 21, 2020, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/399,342 (now U.S. Patent No. 10,785,329), which was filed on January 5, 2017.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,7853,29, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,310,326, claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,785,105 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Application No. 12,413,646. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variants of each other with overlapping limitations. Therefore, the limitations of claims 1-20 of the instant application are anticipated by the limitations of 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,7853,29, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,310,326, claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,785,105 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Application No. 12,413,646, and as such is unpatentable due to obvious-type double patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-4, 6, 8-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeBusk et al (US 2012/0076310), in view of Pereira et al (US 2012/0095958).
Regarding claim 1, DeBusk teaches a method comprising:
accessing, using a computing system, a matched group of unknown candidate signature segments, the unknown candidate signature segments obtained from a plurality of meters, respective ones of the meters to monitor respective media presented by corresponding ones of a plurality of media devices (DeBusk [0023] provides that “System 10 takes NRA streams 12 from sources of non-recognized audio 11 and identifies repeated segments within the NRA that may be of interest. NRA segments 12 are sent to candidate manager 13 which collects and marks each instant of data in the media stream with a unique identifier. Candidate manager 13 then sends the NRA to finger print generator 14 wherein the raw audio segments from the NRA are processed to extract fingerprint features and indexed into a searchable database. Audio Search Engine 16 responds to audio search requests from candidate manager 13 and uses NRA fingerprints 15 from fingerprint generator 14 to compare NRA segments against the database of previously indexed NRA”; [0005] provides that “These non-recognized audio segments may be repeated inside a single media stream or may be repeated across multiple media streams, such as a regional commercial playing on multiple radio stations”; [0023] provides that “Audio Search Engine 16 records matches of NRA segments against indexed NRA segments. When a particular segment of NRA accumulates a certain threshold number of matches, meaning that system 10 has seen the same audio content multiple times across one or more audio streams, that audio segment is determined to be of significant enough interest to warrant positive identification”);
obtaining network meter data having media identification information corresponding to a media device of the plurality of media devices that generated one of the unknown candidate signature segments (DeBusk [0023] provides that “System 10 takes NRA streams 12 from sources of non-recognized audio 11 and identifies repeated segments within the NRA that may be of interest. NRA segments 12 are sent to candidate manager 13 which collects and marks each instant of data in the media stream with a unique identifier. Candidate manager 13 then sends the NRA to finger print generator 14 wherein the raw audio segments from the NRA are processed to extract fingerprint features and indexed into a searchable database. Audio Search Engine 16 responds to audio search requests from candidate manager 13 and uses NRA fingerprints 15 from fingerprint generator 14 to compare NRA segments against the database of previously indexed NRA”; [0005] provides that “These non-recognized audio segments may be repeated inside a single media stream or may be repeated across multiple media streams, such as a regional commercial playing on multiple radio stations”; [0023] provides that “Audio Search Engine 16 records matches of NRA segments against indexed NRA segments. When a particular segment of NRA accumulates a certain threshold number of matches, meaning that system 10 has seen the same audio content multiple times across one or more audio streams, that audio segment is determined to be of significant enough interest to warrant positive identification”);
and associating, using the computing system, the media identification information with the media based on an analysis of the comparing (DeBusk [0023] provides that “System 10 takes NRA streams 12 from sources of non-recognized audio 11 and identifies repeated segments within the NRA that may be of interest. NRA segments 12 are sent to candidate manager 13 which collects and marks each instant of data in the media stream with a unique identifier. Candidate manager 13 then sends the NRA to finger print generator 14 wherein the raw audio segments from the NRA are processed to extract fingerprint features and indexed into a searchable database. Audio Search Engine 16 responds to audio search requests from candidate manager 13 and uses NRA fingerprints 15 from fingerprint generator 14 to compare NRA segments against the database of previously indexed NRA”).
DeBusk teaches the above but DeBusk does not explicitly teach comparing media identification information and timestamps, using the computing system, signature timestamps associated with signature values of an unknown candidate signature segment of the matched group of unknown candidate signature segments to respective timestamps associated with the network meter data. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Periera teaches comparing media identification information and timestamps, using the computing system, signature timestamps associated with signature values of an unknown candidate signature segment of the matched group of unknown candidate signature segments to respective timestamps associated with the network meter data (Pereira fig.9B and [0110] provides “The remote data structure 920 includes the time stamp 921, signature 922, content identification (ID) 923, feature information fields 924 and link to the menu options and metadata 925. The data structure 920 defines a content database element at a given time in the reference. The content viewed by user aligns with a given content reference and a given time into that reference. The menu applicable at that point is the nearest time stamp 921 in the array of data structures. Thus the time stamp 921 is used to identify the relevant menu option. The signature field 922, at a given time stamp 921, and the signatures, typically more than one time instance and over a time range, are used to determine a match between query for remotely viewed content and reference content databases”).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Pereira in DeBusk, for using a timestamp as a factor by the system to efficiently compare and identify an unknown piece of content by matching it with a known content. Therefore, the examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention to arrive at the above-claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the method of claim 1, further comprising: storing at least one of the unknown candidate signature segments of the matched group of unknown candidate signature segments in a reference signature database as a reference signature segment corresponding to the media (DeBusk [0023] provides that “System 10 takes NRA streams 12 from sources of non-recognized audio 11 and identifies repeated segments within the NRA that may be of interest. NRA segments 12 are sent to candidate manager 13 which collects and marks each instant of data in the media stream with a unique identifier. Candidate manager 13 then sends the NRA to finger print generator 14 wherein the raw audio segments from the NRA are processed to extract fingerprint features and indexed into a searchable database. Audio Search Engine 16 responds to audio search requests from candidate manager 13 and uses NRA fingerprints 15 from fingerprint generator 14 to compare NRA segments against the database of previously indexed NRA”).
Regarding claim 3, the method of claim 1, wherein the network meter data comprises a uniform resource locator (Pereira [0098] provides “When the query is added to the NID database at step 837, the search system can request the query client to send more information, such as the program name, channel or the uniform resource locator (url) of the content associated with the query to be stored as metadata in the NID database”). Motivation provided with reference to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the method of claim 3, wherein the uniform resource locator corresponds to the media identification information and the timestamps, and wherein the media identification information comprises a media provider of the media (Pereira [0110] provides “The remote data structure 920 includes the time stamp 921, signature 922, content identification (ID) 923, feature information fields 924 and link to the menu options and metadata 925…The field 925 provides the link to menu options, at the given time index and time stamp 921”). Motivation provided with reference to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the matched group of unknown candidate signature segments do not match any reference signatures stored in a reference signature database (DeBusk [0023] provides that “System 10 takes NRA streams 12 from sources of non-recognized audio 11 and identifies repeated segments within the NRA that may be of interest. NRA segments 12 are sent to candidate manager 13 which collects and marks each instant of data in the media stream with a unique identifier. Candidate manager 13 then sends the NRA to finger print generator 14 wherein the raw audio segments from the NRA are processed to extract fingerprint features and indexed into a searchable database. Audio Search Engine 16 responds to audio search requests from candidate manager 13 and uses NRA fingerprints 15 from fingerprint generator 14 to compare NRA segments against the database of previously indexed NRA”).
Regarding claim 8, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 1, and the same rationale of rejection applies where applicable.
Regarding claim 9, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 2, and the same rationale of rejection applies where applicable.
Regarding claim 10, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 3, and the same rationale of rejection applies where applicable.
Regarding claim 11, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 4, and the same rationale of rejection applies where applicable.
Regarding claim 14, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 6, and the same rationale of rejection applies where applicable.
Regarding claim 15, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 1, and the same rationale of rejection applies where applicable.
Regarding claim 16, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 2, and the same rationale of rejection applies where applicable.
Regarding claim 17, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 3, and the same rationale of rejection applies where applicable.
Regarding claim 18, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 4, and the same rationale of rejection applies where applicable.
Regarding claim 19, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 5, and the same rationale of rejection applies where applicable.
Regarding claim 20, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 7, and the same rationale of rejection applies where applicable.
Claims 5, 7 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeBusk et al (US 2012/0076310), in view of Pereira et al (US 2012/0095958), further in view of Ramaswamy (US 2009/0210892).
Regarding claim 5, DeBusk-Pereira has taught the method of claim 3, but DeBusk-Pereira does not explicitly teach wherein the network meter data is obtained from a network meter that monitors Internet activity related to the media device. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ramaswamy teaches wherein the network meter data is obtained from a network meter that monitors Internet activity related to the media device (Ramaswamy [0025] provides “The home server 120 of the illustrated example receives monitoring information (e.g., advertising information, program identification information, tuning information, etc.) from the meter 116 and activity information from the activity monitor 122 and stores the received information. The example home server 120 of the illustrated example includes a database for storing received information. Alternatively, as described in further detail herein, the home server 120 may include any type of storage. The home server 120 of the illustrated example periodically or aperiodically transmits received information to the central facility 108”; Ramaswamy [0054] provides “The online activity monitor 304 of the illustrated example logs network related activity at the computer. The example online activity monitor 304 logs webpages (e.g., URLs) that a user requests at the computer and/or which are pushed to the computer (e.g., pop-up windows). Alternatively, the online activity monitor 304 may log any other type of online activity or computing resource access that occurs at the computer such as, for example, purchases made by the user online, purchases made at a bricks and mortar business for which notifications are received online (e.g., via an online credit card statement or an email message), purchases monitored by an AC Nielsen Home Scanner, messages sent online (e.g., emails or instant messages), advertisements viewed on the internet, etc. The online activity monitor 304 sends logged activity to the data transmitter 308”).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Ramaswamy in the DeBusk-Pereira, for monitoring a user’s online activity by the system as for example, using this information an interested party can determine the number and demographics of consumers that were exposed to a particular advertisement. Therefore, the examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention to arrive at the above-claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, DeBusk-Pereira-Ramaswamy has taught the method of claim 5, further comprising: determining a quantity of the matched group of unknown candidate signature segments satisfies a threshold and wherein comparing, using the computing system is in response to a determination that the quantity of the matched group of unknown candidate signature segments satisfies the threshold (DeBusk [0023] provides that “Audio Search Engine 16 records matches of NRA segments against indexed NRA segments. When a particular segment of NRA accumulates a certain threshold number of matches, meaning that system 10 has seen the same audio content multiple times across one or more audio streams, that audio segment is determined to be of significant enough interest to warrant positive identification”). DeBusk teaches the above but DeBusk does not explicitly teach wherein comparing, using the computing system, the signature timestamps associated with the signature values of the unknown candidate signature segment of the matched group of unknown candidate signature segments to the respective timestamps associated with the network meter data occurs. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Pereira teaches wherein comparing, using the computing system, the signature timestamps associated with the signature values of the unknown candidate signature segment of the matched group of unknown candidate signature segments to the respective timestamps associated with the network meter data occurs (Pereira fig.9B and [0110] provides “The remote data structure 920 includes the time stamp 921, signature 922, content identification (ID) 923, feature information fields 924 and link to the menu options and metadata 925. The data structure 920 defines a content database element at a given time in the reference. The content viewed by user aligns with a given content reference and a given time into that reference. The menu applicable at that point is the nearest time stamp 921 in the array of data structures. Thus the time stamp 921 is used to identify the relevant menu option. The signature field 922, at a given time stamp 921, and the signatures, typically more than one time instance and over a time range, are used to determine a match between query for remotely viewed content and reference content databases”). Motivation provided with reference to claim 5.
Regarding claim 12, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 5, and the same rationale of rejection applies where applicable.
Regarding claim 13, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 7, and the same rationale of rejection applies where applicable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Falcon US 2010/0131970.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISHRAT RASHID whose telephone number is (571)272-5372. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Tonia L Dollinger can be reached at 571-272-4170. 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.
/I.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2459 /TONIA L DOLLINGER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2459
