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 19/275,421 filed 7/21/2025.
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 double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claims 1, 8, 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12375761 and independent claims 1, 8, 15, 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12022155 in view of the corresponding dependent claims identified in the table below.
The instant claims are not patentably distinct from parented claims because they recite substantially the same cross-platform audience estimation framework, including obtaining panel data related to media exposure, determining audience deduplication, calculating odds ratios based on the deduplication, generating posterior distributions, aligning the audience sizes subject to constraints, and generating reports indicative of the resulting audience sizes.
Any differences between the instant claims and the patented claims constitute only obvious variations of the same inventive concept and do not render the instant claims patentably distinct.
Accordingly, claims 1, 8, and 15 are not patentably distinct from claims 1, 8, 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12375761 and claims 1, 8, 15, 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12022155 for reasons set forth in the table below.
Instant Application 19/275,421
Parent Pat 12375761
Not Patentably Distinct
Independent Claims 1, 8, 15:
accessing panel data related to panelist exposure to media using different platforms;
determining an audience deduplication across multiple different platform combinations of the different platforms using the panel data;
determining odds ratios for the multiple different platform combinations based on the audience deduplication;
determining posterior distributions for the media based on the odds ratios;
determining unique audience sizes based on the posterior distributions and census data;
aligning the unique audience sizes across the different platforms using a constrained optimization technique that is constrained by platform marginals for respective ones of the different platforms; and
generating a report indicative of the aligned unique audience sizes.
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, 21
Independent Claims 1, 8, 15:
access panel data related to panelist exposure to media using different platforms;
determine an audience deduplication across multiple different platform combinations of the different platforms using the panel data;
determine odds ratios for the multiple different platform combinations based on the audience deduplication;
determine posterior distributions for the media based on the odds ratios;
determine unique audience sizes using a sequential odds ratio insertion technique, wherein the sequential odds ratio insertion technique is based on the posterior distributions; and
-
generate a report indicative of the unique audience sizes.
Claims:
Claims 5, 12, 19
Claims 5, 12, 19
Claims 5, 12, 19
Claims 5, 12, 19
Claims 4, 11, 18
Claims 3, 10, 17
Analysis:
Same panel-data acquisition for cross-platform media exposure.
Same audience deduplication using panel data.
Same odds-ratio calculation based on deduplication.
Same posterior-distribution determination
Both determine unique audience sizes from posterior distributions; census data is an obvious implementation detail.
The parent does not expressly retain this limitation, but the instant limitation is an obvious optimization-based refinement of the same audience-size estimation framework.
Both generate a report reflecting the resulting unique audience estimates.
Analysis:
Both recite optimization-based alignment of audience estimates; the entropy-based technique is an obvious implementation choice.
Both ensure logical consistency of audience estimates through optimization constraints and are directed to the same object.
Both apply logical rules to maintain consistency among audience estimates; the instant claims merely specify one such constraint.
Both determine and align audience estimates using constrained optimization while preserving relationships among audience measurements.
Both recite determining posterior distributions and are substantially identical.
The instant claims recite a subset of the platforms claimed in the parent and therefore do not define patentably distinct subject matter.
Instant Application 19/275,421
Parent Pat 12022155
Not Patentably Distinct
Independent Claims 1, 8, 15:
accessing panel data related to panelist exposure to media using different platforms;
determining an audience deduplication across multiple different platform combinations of the different platforms using the panel data;
determining odds ratios for the multiple different platform combinations based on the audience deduplication;
determining posterior distributions for the media based on the odds ratios;
determining unique audience sizes based on the posterior distributions and census data;
aligning the unique audience sizes across the different platforms using a constrained optimization technique that is constrained by platform marginals for respective ones of the different platforms; and
generating a report indicative of the aligned unique audience sizes.
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, 21
Independent Claims 1, 8, 15, 22:
access media impression data via one or more wireless communications, the media impression data including panel data obtained from a meter and impression information obtained after an access of media at a computing device;
determine an audience deduplication based on the panel data;
determine odds ratios for platform combinations based on the audience deduplication;
determine posterior distributions for the media based on the odds ratios;
perform a sequential odds ratio insertion technique based on the posterior distributions to determine unique audience sizes;
align the unique audience sizes based on a constraint; and
generate a report including the aligned unique audience sizes.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2, 9, 16
Claims 3, 10, 17
Claims 5, 12, 19
Claims 5, 12, 19
Claims 4, 11, 18
Claims 7, 14, 21
Analysis:
Both obtain panel-based media exposure information used for cross-platform audience analysis.
The instant claim specifies multiple platform combinations, which is an obvious refinement of the parent deduplication analysis.
Same determination of odds ratios from audience deduplication results
Same posterior-distribution determination.
Both determine unique audience sizes using posterior-based estimation; census data represents an obvious implementation detail.
The instant claim merely specifies the particular constraint implementation (constrained optimization using platform marginals) for performing the same alignment of unique audience sizes recited in the parent claim.
Same reporting of aligned audience-size results.
Analysis:
Both recite determining observed audience deduplication across platforms.
Both specify substantially the same set of media platforms.
Both impose logical consistency constraints on audience estimates through optimization techniques.
Both align audience estimates using marginals, priors, and optimization-based consistency techniques.
Both determine posterior distributions from prior and likelihood distributions.
Both determine unique audience sizes using census-based audience deduplication data.
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art of record, including that considered during examination of the related parent applications, fail to teach or suggest the allowable subject matter previously identified in connection with U.S. Patent Nos. 12375761 and 12022155. In particular, the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest " determining unique audience sizes based on the posterior distributions and census data;" and " aligning the unique audience sizes across the different platforms using a constrained optimization technique that is constrained by platform marginals for respective ones of the different platforms; ", as recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
A current search finds Nagaraja Rao et al. (US 10,313,752) and Sheppard et al. (US 2019/0147461) to remain the closest prior art, consistent with the references considered during examination of the related parent applications, Rao generally discloses measuring media impressions across television and digital platforms using panel data collected from audience members. Rao further discloses determining audience overlap (deduplication) across platforms, using overlap multipliers representative of audience duplication, generating audience metrics including audience size, and generating reports based on the resulting measurements. See, e.g., col.2 lines 1-18, col.3 lines 58-67, col.4 lines 1-4, col.9 line 19, col.10 lines 45-67, col.11 lines 1-12, col.21 lines 59-60, and col.22 lines 2-4. Accordingly, Rao teaches or suggests: “accessing panel data related to panelist exposure to media using different platforms;”, “determining an audience deduplication across multiple different platform combinations of the different platforms using the panel data;”, determining odds ratios for the multiple different platform combinations based on the audience deduplication;” and “generating a report indicative of the aligned unique audience sizes.” Sheppard discloses determining posterior probability distributions from media exposure information using maximum entropy and minimum cross-entropy principles and developing estimated probability distributions using panel and census information. See, e.g., [para.0030] and [para.0064]. Sheppard further discloses generating census probability distributions from panel probability distributions using principles of maximum entropy and minimum cross entropy. See, e.g., [paras.0024-0034]. Sheppard additionally teaches determining posterior distributions based on prior distributions and constraints. See [para.0030]. Thus, Sheppard teaches or at least suggests: “determining posterior distributions for the media;” as cited in claim 1. However, Rao and Sheppard, whether considered individually or in combination, do not teach or suggest “determining unique audience sizes based on the posterior distributions and census data;” and “aligning the unique audience sizes across the different platforms using a constrained optimization technique that is constrained by platform marginals for respective ones of the different platforms;” as recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Rao teaches cross-platform audience measurement and audience deduplication, while Sheppard teaches posterior and census probability distribution modeling.
The foregoing deficiency is consistent with the basis for allowance previously identified during examination of the related parent applications. Specifically, while Rao teaches cross-platform audience measurement and duplication, and Sheppard teaches posterior and census probability distribution modeling, neither reference, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests determining unique audience sizes based on the posterior distributions and census data together with aligning the unique audience sizes across the different platforms using a constrained optimization technique that is constrained by platform marginals, as recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 appear to be allowable over Rao and Sheppard as well as the prior art presently of record. However, claims 1-20 remain subject to the nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is overcome, for example by the filing of an appropriate terminal disclaimer, the claims would be in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ari Paparo, (US 2012/0323675) – Discloses audience measurement entities, panelists, tracking ad exposures, collecting survey responses, determining resonance/receptivity/reaction metrics, generating effectiveness measures, comparing advertising performance across media, and demographic analysis [paras.0011, 0015, 0017-0019, 0022-0026]
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