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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 10/20/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination, the rejection cited as stated below.
Double Patenting
2. 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 obviousness-type 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); 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent 12464180 (hereafter Patent’180).
As to independent claim 1, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations of the independent claim 1 of the instant application are claimed in claim 1 of Patent’180, i.e., claim 1 of Patent’180 is more specific. The corresponding dependent claims 2-7 are similarly rejected over claims 2, 1, 3, 4, 6, 1 of Patent’180 respectively. Thus the invention of claims 1, 2, 1, 3, 4, 6, 1 of Patent’180 is in effect a "species" of the "generic" invention of claims 1-7 of the instant application respectively. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claims 8-14 are similarly rejected as for claims 1-7 respectively.
Claims 15-20 are similarly rejected as for claims 1-6 respectively.
4. Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of US Patent 12028568 (hereafter Patent’568) in view of Rowe (US 9083988).
As to independent claim 1, Patent’568 discloses an audience measurement meter configured to perform a set of operations comprising:
identifying multiple dual-tone multi-frequency (DTMF) tones audible presented by a media presentation device within a section of audio during a media session (Patent’568, claim6’s patent claim 1, “an audio interface to monitor an audio output of a media presentation device during a viewing session; a tone analyzer to identify one or more dual-tone multifrequency tones presented by the audio output of the media presentation device”);
correlating the multiple DTMF tones with a session identification value using a tone identification database (Patent’568, claim 6’s parent claim 1, “a session identification determiner to determine a session identification value associated with the viewing session based on the one or more dual-tone multi-frequency tones”, wherein the storage/memory that stores information leading from the one or more dual-tone multi-frequency tones to the session identification value is equivalent to a tone identification database), wherein the session identification value is usable by a media provider to link demographics of a viewer with media presented by the media presentation device during the media session (claim 6’s parent claim 1, “a session report generator to: associate a panelist identifier with the viewing session; and generate a session report based on the session identification value and the panelist identifier.”; and claim 6, “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the panelist identifier is associated with demographics of a panelist”); but does not expressly disclose reporting the session identification value to a server.
Rowe discloses reporting a session identification value to a server (col. 6, last 2nd paragraph, “After TV metering device 106 identifies the viewers 108 of TV set 104, the television program being presented on TV set 45 104, and/or computer system 112, TV metering device 106 returns this information to a server system 114 via network”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Patent’568 with Rowe. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to update the server to enable the server’s further processing based on the television program (Rowe, col. 6, last 2 paragraphs).
Claims 8 and 15 are similarly rejected.
As to claim 2, Patent’568 in view of Rowe discloses the audience measurement meter of claim 1, wherein the tone identification database maps various DTMF tone combinations to respective session identification values (see Patent’568, claim 6’s parent claim 1, “a session identification determiner to determine a session identification value associated with the viewing session based on the one or more dual-tone multi-frequency tones, the viewing session associated with media viewing over a period of time having a start time and an end time at the media presentation device, wherein the session identification value is associated with up to 10 dual-tone multi-frequency tones presented in a 1 second clip, and wherein the session identification determiner determines the session identification value within 1 second of the 1 second clip being presented”).
As to claim 9, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 3, Patent’568 in view of Rowe discloses the audience measurement meter of claim 1, wherein the set of operations further comprises reporting a panelist identifier associated with the audience measurement meter to the server (Patent’568, claim 6’s parent claim 1, “generate a session report based on the session identification value and the panelist identifier”; see Rowe, col. 6, last two paragraphs, “col. 6, last 2nd paragraph, “After TV metering device 106 identifies the viewers 108 of TV set 104, the television program being presented on TV set 45 104, and/or computer system 112, TV metering device 106 returns this information to a server system 114 via network”; col. 16, lines 40-45, “a viewer identifier (e.g., a panelist identifier)”).
As to claim 10, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, Patent’568 in view of Rowe discloses the audience measurement meter of claim 1, wherein the session identification value is usable by the media provider to identify the media presented by the media presentation device during the media session (see Rowe, col. 6, last two paragraphs, “identifies… the television program being presented on TV set 104, returns this information to a server system 114”).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 5, Patent’568 in view of Rowe discloses the audience measurement meter of claim 4, wherein the media session is a smart television application session (see Rowe, col. 8, “In some embodiments, TV set 104 is coupled to network 120 and transmits a viewing log to server system 114 via network 120”; col. 6, last second paragraph, “network 120 includes the Internet”, indicating that the TV set 104 is a smart TV, hence the media session is a smart television application session).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 5.
3. Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Patent’568 in view of Rowe, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smus (US 20180063572).
As to claim 6, Patent’568 in view of Rowe discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the media presentation device presents the section of audio prior to presenting the media. Smus discloses a section of audio is presented prior to presenting media ([0052], “the sequence can be at a beginning portion of the audio track such that the sequence is emitted at the beginning of presentation of the media content item”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Patent’568 in view of Rowe with Smus. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to emitting the audio sequence at the beginning of presentation of the media content item (Smus, [0052]).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 7, Patent’568 in view of Rowe and Smus discloses the audience measurement meter of claim 6, wherein a length of the section of audio is less than one second (Patent’568, claim 6’s parent claim 1, “a session identification determiner to determine a session identification value associated with the viewing session based on the one or more dual-tone multi-frequency tones, the viewing session associated with media viewing over a period of time having a start time and an end time at the media presentation device, wherein the session identification value is associated with up to 10 dual-tone multi-frequency tones presented in a 1 second clip, and wherein the session identification determiner determines the session identification value within 1 second of the 1 second clip being presented”).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “identifying multiple dual-tone multi-frequency (DTMF) tones audible presented by a media presentation device within a section of audio during a media session” wherein the scope of “multiple dual-tone multi-frequency (DTMF) tones audible presented” cannot be definitely determined. It is unclear whether this limitation meant to claim audible tones, or tones audibly presented, or something else. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner presumes that the claimed limitation reads “identifying multiple dual-tone multi-frequency (DTMF) tones presented by a media presentation device within a section of audio during a media session”. Claims 2-20 are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 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.
9. 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 of this title, 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.
10. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
11. Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over use Jensen et al (US 5450490 hereafter Jensen) in view of Rowe (US 9083988).
As to claim 1, Jensen discloses an audience measurement meter configured to perform a set of operations comprising:
identifying multiple dual-tone multi-frequency (DTMF) tones audible presented by a media presentation device within a section of audio during a media session (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation stated therein. See col. 1, lines 49-53, “A further technique has been suggested in which dual tone multifrequency (DTMF) codes are inserted in an audio signal. The DTMF codes are purportedly detected based on their frequencies and durations”);
but does not expressly disclose correlating the audio identifier (e.g., the identified multiple DTMF codes) with a session identification value using a tone dentification database, wherein the session identification value is usable by a media provider to link demographics of a viewer with media presented by the media presentation device during the media session; and reporting the session identification value to a server.
Rowe discloses correlating an audio identifier in audio presented by a media presentation device with a session identification value using an identification database (col. 18, paragraphs 1-2, “Analysis module 418 analyzes (1204) the audio signal to determine an identifier for the television program being presented on TV set 104. In some embodiments, when analyzing the audio signal to determine the identifier for the television program being presented on TV set 104, audio watermark module 422 analyzes the audio signal to extract an audio watermark embedded in the audio of the television program. As discussed above, the audio watermark may then be compared (e.g., by server system 114) to an audio watermark database (e.g., the audio watermark database 822) to identify the television program being presented on TV set 104”, disclosing that the audio identifier (e.g., the watermarks) in audio presented by a media presentation device (e.g., the TV set 104), is correlated with a session identification value (e.g., the identifier of the program being presented on TV set 104), using an identification database (e.g., the audio watermark database”),
wherein the session identification value is usable by a media provider to link demographics of a viewer with media presented by the media presentation device during a media session (col. 6, last paragraph, “Server system 114 obtains and aggregates demographic characteristics of the viewers 108 (e.g., age, sex, occupation, location, etc.) viewing the television program being presented on TV set 104 with demographic characteristics of other viewers of other TV sets that are also watching ( or have watched) the television program”, indicating that the identifier of the television program is usable by the media provider/server to link demographic of a viewer with media presented by the media presentation device during a media session. It is to be noted that the claimed limitation merely requires “usable” without positively requiring to actually use, let alone requiring a specific way to use); and
reporting the session identification value to a server (col. 6, last 2nd paragraph, “After TV metering device 106 identifies the viewers 108 of TV set 104, the television program being presented on TV set 45 104, and/or computer system 112, TV metering device 106 returns this information to a server system 114 via network”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Jensen with Rowe. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to associate viewers and their demographic information with viewed programs (Rowe, col. 6, last two paragraphs).
As to claim 8, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 2, Jensen in view of Rowe discloses the audience measurement meter of claim 1, wherein the tone identification database maps various DTMF tone combinations to respective session identification values (see citation in rejection to claim 1, wherein Rowe discloses the identification database maps various audio identifiers to respective session identification values (e.g., col. 18, paragraphs 1-2, “to extract an audio watermark embedded in the audio of the television program. As discussed above, the audio watermark may then be compared (e.g., by server system 114) to an audio watermark database (e.g., the audio watermark database 822) to identify the television program being presented on TV set 104”, and wherein Jensen discloses that audio identifiers can be various DTMF tone combinations (see Jensen, e.g., col. 1, lines 49-53, the DTMF tone codes).
As to claim 9, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 3, Jensen in view of Rowe discloses the audience measurement meter of claim 1, wherein the set of operations further comprises reporting a panelist identifier associated with the audience measurement meter to the server (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Rowe, col. 6, last two paragraphs, “After TV metering device 106 identifies the viewers 108 of TV set 104, the television program being presented on TV set 45 104, and/or computer system 112, TV metering device 106 returns this information to a server system 114”; col. 16, lines 40-45, “a viewer identifier (e.g., a panelist identifier)”).
As to claim 10, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, Jensen in view of Rowe discloses the audience measurement meter of claim 1, wherein the session identification value is usable by the media provider to identify the media presented by the media presentation device during the media session (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Rowe, col. 6, last two paragraphs, “identifies… the television program being presented on TV set 104, returns this information to a server system 114”).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 5, Jensen in view of Rowe discloses the audience measurement meter of claim 4, wherein the media session is a smart television application session (Rowe, col. 8, “In some embodiments, TV set 104 is coupled to network 120 and transmits a viewing log to server system 114 via network 120”; col. 6, last second paragraph, “network 120 includes the Internet”, indicating that the TV set 104 is a smart TV, hence the media session is a smart television application session).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 5.
12. Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over use Jensen in view of Rowe, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smus (US 20180063572).
As to claim 6, Jensen in view of Rowe discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the media presentation device presents the section of audio prior to presenting the media. Smus discloses a section of audio is presented prior to presenting media ([0052], “the sequence can be at a beginning portion of the audio track such that the sequence is emitted at the beginning of presentation of the media content item”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Jensen in view of Rowe with Smus. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to emitting the audio sequence at the beginning of presentation of the media content item (Smus, [0052]).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 6.
13. Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over use Jensen in view of Rowe and Smus, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Cisco (“Cisco D9859 Advanced Receiver Transcoder Software Version 1.10 Installation and Configuration Guide”).
As to claim 7, Jensen in view of Rowe and Smus discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 6, but does not expressly disclose wherein a length of the section of audio is less than one second. Cisco discloses a length of a section of audio corresponding to DTMF tones is less than one second (page 89, “Cueing Mode, Tone – Cue tones are standard Dual-Tone Multi-Frequency (DTMF) tones”, “Tone (ms), If the Cueing Mode was set to Tone, se the duration of each tone, in milliseconds, 0-80, The default is 40”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Jensen in view of Rowe and Smus with Cisco. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to limit the Tone to 0-80 milliseconds (Cisco, page 89).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 7.
Prior Art Cited but not Applied in the Rejection
14. Below is a list of prior art reference(s) cited but not applied in the rejection:
a) Jain et al (US 20100268573), disclosing an audio beacon system for collecting information on a panelist’s exposure to media and enable a device to encode an acoustic tone and transmit it for a predetermined period of time. For example, paragraph [0064] discloses “Fig. 6 illustrates audio signal 600 represented as a spectrum of audio 610 over a period of time (e.g., 0.25 seconds).”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUA FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5311. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi, can be reached at (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.
/HUA FAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights