Patent AU-2013204229-B2 (AU)
Title: Methods and apparatus to control a state of data collection devices
Inventor: RAMASWAMY ARUN
IPC: H04H60/00
Filed: 2013-02-06
Granted: 2016-03-17
Abstract: UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Ale rria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/691,579 11/30/2012 Arun Ramaswamy 20004/88549US02 1938 81905 7590 03/26/2015 EXAMINER Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC (Nielsen) 150 S. Wacker Dr. Suite 2200 GEE, ALEXANDER Chicago, IL 60606 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/26/2015 ELECTRONIC lease find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. rhe time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the ollowing e-mail address(es): flight@hfzlaw.com nhanley@hfzlaw.com ocketing@hfzlaw.com 1 1,/ HAIVIAbVVAIVY I I AL. Office Action Summary Examiner Art Unit AIA (First Inventor to File) ALEXANDER GEE 2425 Status -- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address - Briod for Reply A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF HIS COMMUNICATION. - Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication. - If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication. - Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133). Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b). atus 1)Z Responsive to communication(s) filed on 11/28/2014. r A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on . 2a)Z This action is FINAL. 2b)D This action is non-final. 3) An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on __ ; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action. 4) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213. sposition of Claims* 5)Z Claim(s) 1-25 and 27 is/are pending in the application. 5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration. 6)r Claim(s) is/are allowed. 7) Claim(s) 1-25 and 27 is/are rejected. 8)r Claim(s) is/are objected to. 9)r Claim(s) are subject to restriction and/or election requirement. f any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a .rticipating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see p://wvw.uLsptO.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.isp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedbackuspto.ov. application Papers 1 0)r The specification is objected to by the Examiner. 11)r The drawing(s) filed on is/are: a)D accepted or b)D objected to by the Examiner. Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d). iority under 35 U.S.C. § 119 12)r Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f). Certified copies: a)D All b)D Some** c)D None of the: 1.D Certified copies of the priority documents have been received. 2.1 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. . 3.D Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)). See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received. tachment(s) Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) 3) E Interview Summary (PTO-413) Paper No(s)/Mail Date. ._ Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b) 4) Other- ___ Da Paper No(s)/Mail Date 4Ete 17/2014,8/20/2014,8/27/2014,9/30/2014,2/11/2015. Application/Control Number: 13/691,579 Page 2 Art Unit: 2425 1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AJA first to invent provisions. DETAILED ACTION Status of the Claims Claims 1-25 and 27 are pending in this Office Action. Claims 1-5, 7-20, 22, 23, and 25 are amended. Claim 26 is canceled. Claim 27 is new. Response to Arguments 2. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 11, and 19 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. Regarding claim 25, the Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to disclose the claimed invention because the prior art only discloses that the system shuts down all components when the user is most likely not paying attention, such as when the user falls asleep. However, the Examiner asserts the combination of the references discloses the claimed invention. Conrad is used as the underlying reference showing that a system may determine the level of engagement of a viewer and whether or not the user is paying attention to the media content, while Maehara shows how the system may change the state of a senor due to the fact that a person is not paying attention, and thus ceasing collection of information using a first component. Mears is simply used to show how a system may change the state of multiple sensors, and thus, turn sensors on and off based on certain criteria (i.e. such criteria as that mention in the combination of Conrad and Maehara, in the event that a user is most likely not Application/Control Number: 13/691,579 Page 3 Art Unit: 2425 paying attention). Thus, the combination of Conrad, Maehara, and Mears may be used to illustrate where a system may turn various sensors on or off due to such criteria as whether or not the user is paying attention to the media content. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States. 4. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 12, 14, and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2009/0133047). Regarding claims 1 and 11, Lee discloses a method (Paragraph 34 illustrates a system for detecting physiological data from viewers during exposure to media content), comprising: generating, via a processor, a level of engagement with a media presentation based on an analysis of an audience present in a media exposure environment (Paragraph 83 illustrates that the system monitors one or more viewer reactions to media content; paragraph 85 illustrates that the reactions are obtained in order to show how the media content is perceived by the viewers; paragraph 88 illustrates that the reactions are monitored to show the different emotional states to which the viewer shows towards the media content); obtaining, via the processor, media identifying information from the media presentation (Paragraph 87 illustrates that the reactions are synchronized with the media content at each and every moment over the entire duration of the media content); and Application/Control Number: 13/691,579 Page 4 Art Unit: 2425 discarding, via the processor, the obtained media identifying information when the level of engagement indicates that the audience present in the media exposure environment is not likely paying attention to the media presentation (Paragraph 203 illustrates that the system may remove data for a time period during which the corresponding viewer is not paying attention to the media content). Regarding claims 2 and 12, Lee discloses storing the media identifying information when the level of engagement indicates that the audience present in the media exposure is likely paying attention to the media presentation (Paragraph 203 illustrates that the system may remove data for a time period during which the corresponding viewer is not paying attention to the media content, and thus, keeps the data for the time periods where the viewer is paying attention to the media content). Regarding claims 4 and 14, Lee discloses wherein the generating of the level of engagement comprises calculating a likelihood that a member of the audience is paying attention to the media presentation (Paragraphs 83, 88, and 203 illustrate the physiological data captured by the system of the viewers watching the media content may be used to indicate whether or not the audience is paying attention to the media content). Regarding claims 7 and 17, Lee discloses wherein generating the level of engagement comprises aggregating a plurality of likelihoods of engagement associated with a plurality of audience members (Figure 7 and paragraphs 38, 42, and 70 illustrate aggregating the physiological responses from the viewers). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Application/Control Number: 13/691,579 Page 5 Art Unit: 2425 5. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be