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 is a non-final rejection.
Claims 2-23 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/03/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 02/03/2026, amending claim 2, 12, and 22.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 07/06/2021, 12/23/2021, 03/10/2022, 05/02/2022, 12/13/2022, 05/13/2023, 07/19/2023, 11/02/2023, 01/19/2024, and 08/28/2024 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Continuation
This application is a continuation of U.S. application 16/585,557 (filed 09/27/2019, now U.S. Patent No. 10,997,638), which is a continuation application of U.S. application 15/611,718 (filed 06/01/2017, now U.S. Patent No. 10,474,979), which is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 13/731,060 (filed 12/30/2012, now U.S. Patent No. 9,697,490) which in turn claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/666,586, filed on 06/29/2012 and U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/606,918. See MPEP §201.08. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Applications. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Applications are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 14 February 2024 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 9,697,490 (13/731,060) has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in light of the amendments.
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 102/103- No art rejection has been put forth in the rejection for the reason found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues (Pages 12-13 of the remarks):
The claims do not recite an abstract idea within the enumerated groupings of mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The Office Action characterizes the claims as "determining a benchmark for a particular industry and provide an indication of a review site on which placement of additional review should be targeted," broadly categorizing this as certain methods of organizing human activity ( commercial or legal interactions) and mental processes ( observation/evaluation/judgment/opinion). However, this characterization overlooks the claims' specific, technology-centric limitations, which are inextricably tied to computer and network operations and cannot be reasonably reduced to an abstract idea.
As now amended, the claims recite a computer-implemented system/method/product that: (1) collects review data over a network using executed instances of differentiated helpers (e.g., fetching structured data … These features are not mere "commercial interactions" or "mental processes".
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
The Applicant's Specification titled "INDUSTRY REVIEW BENCHMARK" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for determining a benchmark for a particular industry and provide an indication of a review site on which placement of additional review should be targeted" (fig. 24). As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 2, 12 and 22 recites the abstract idea of determining a benchmark for a particular industry and provide an indication of a review site on which placement of additional review should be targeted.
Furthermore, the claim limitations are also directed towards directed to an indication of a review site on which placement of additional review which is commercial or legal interactions. Which is “including agreements in the form of contract; legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations” expressly categorized under a certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Furthermore, the claim limitations are also directed towards directed to determining a benchmark for a particular industry and provide an indication of a review site on which placement of additional review should be targeted which is Mental processes. Which is “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion” expressly categorized under a mental processes. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant argues (Pages 13-16 of the remarks):
Even assuming arguendo that the claims recite a judicial exception, they integrate it into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d). The claims improve computer and network technology for online reputation management by solving specific technical problems identified in Applicant's specification, such as the difficulty of aggregating and processing heterogeneous review data from disparate online sources (e.g., API vs. non-API sites), modeling the dynamic impact of new reviews on reputation scores to address review staleness and distribution imbalances, and automating intelligent follow-ups to optimize review generation in a network environment. See Applicant's Specification at paragraph [0002] ("it is becoming increasingly difficult for businesses to monitor such sites Further( it can be difficult for businesses to determine whether they need to, and how they can, improve their online reputations"). See also Applicant's Specification at paragraphs [0034 ]-[0041].
Step 2B: The claims provide an inventive concept
The claims amount to significantly more than any alleged exception, as they recite an inventive concept through unconventional limitations and arrangements. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(b). The Examiner already determined the claims allowable over the prior art (see Office Action mailed on November 4, 2025, p. 20: prior art fails to teach, inter alia, data conversion/storage, simulations modeling positive impacts via specific techniques, template generation with simulation-driven site ordering), which indicates the elements are not well-understood, routine, or conventional. This directly supports an inventive concept under Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (evidence of non- well-understood,
routine, or conventional from allowability over art) and the August 2025 Memo (p. 6: consider factual evidence of non- consider factual evidence of non-WURC, such as prior art admissions, such as prior art admissions).
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
First, examiner point out with regard to applicant argument above that the references do not disclose a limitation in the claim which indicates the elements are not well-understood, routing, or conventional. This argument is not persuasive because the test under Alice is not a matter of evidence but rather a test of law, the nonobviousness or novelty of those limitations would not provide an indication that those limitations are 'something more'. In other words, nonobviousness or novelty is not an indicia of eligibility - it is not an indicia that limitations provide "something more.
Second, In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recite the additional limitation system, a database, processors, an electronic message, a memory, non-transitory, network, follow-up engine, an application programming interface (API), and a computer program are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f). All of these additional elements are not significantly more because these, again, are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A-prong two: NO).
The Alice framework, step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Independent claims do not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. The claims include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include system, a database, processors, an electronic message, a memory, non-transitory, network, an application programming interface (API), a computer program .
Examiner asserts that system, a database, processors, an electronic message, follow-up engine, a memory, non-transitory, network, an application programming interface (API), a computer program are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions. (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Further, with regard to mining (i.e., searching over a network), receiving, processing, storing data, and parsing (i.e. extract, transform data), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. “receiving, processing, transmitting, storing data”, etc.) are well-understood, routine, etc. (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices.
In addition, fig. 1, of the specifications detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Claim Rejections 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 2-11, and 23 are directed toward a system (machine). Claims 12-21 are directed toward a method (process). Claim 22 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (machine). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 2-23 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claims 12 and 22 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 2, thus are abstract for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding independent claim 2, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 2. (Amended) A system, comprising:
One or more processors configured to:
collect, over a network and using a plurality of instances of different types of helpers, review data from a plurality of review sites, wherein:
each type of helper is configured to fetch data from a particular type of source, wherein:
for a first review site for which data is available via an Application Programming Interface (API), an instance of a first helper configured to obtain data from the first review site using the API is executed to fetch structured data via API calls; and
for a second review site for which data is unavailable via the API, an instance of a second helper configured to scrape data from the second review site is executed to extract unstructured data via site-specific scripts; and
the review data is associated with a plurality of entities that are each associated with a particular industry;
covert the review data collected from the plurality of review sites into canonical format;
store the converted review data to a database;
determine, from at least a portion of the converted review data, a review benchmark for the particular industry, wherein the review benchmark for the particular industry comprises at least one of a review volume, a review rating, or a review age; and
based at least in part on the review benchmark for the particular industry, perform simulations of additional reviews on the plurality of review sites, including modeling an impact that a number of additional positive reviews obtained on a given review site would have on a reputation score for an entity based at least in part on applying a weighted average of review ratings normalized to a common scale, incorporating factors selected from the group consisting of review timeliness, review length, social feedback, reviewer authority, and review position, and simulating changes to the reputation score based on the additional positive reviews;
automatically generate, at least in part by filtering in one or more fields of a stored template, an electronic review request message that requests a potential reviewer to a review the entity on the review site in the plurality of review sites, wherein:
the plurality of review sites is indicated in the electronic review request message;
an ordering of the plurality of review sites indicated in the electronic review request message is based at least in part on the performed simulations of additional reviews on the plurality of review sites; and
the electronic review request message includes references to the plurality of review sites;
facilitate transmission of the electronic review request message to the potential reviewer;
track and store, in the database, information pertaining to transmission and reception of the electronic review request message, including tracking and storing, in the database, opening of the electronic review request message, click throughs associated with the reference in the electronic review request message, and timing of the opening and the click throughs;
determine whether the potential reviewer has created a review at least in part by periodically monitoring, by a follow-up engine using the one or more processors, the plurality of review sites to detect new review content associated with the potential reviewer;
responsive to determining that the potential reviewer has not authored a review, perform a follow-up action that is selected from a plurality of different follow-up actions based at least in part on determining, from the information stored in the database, whether the potential reviewer opened the electronic review request message or whether the potential reviewer clicked on any of the references included in the electronic review request message, wherein:
in the event that the potential reviewer did not open the electronic review request message, performing the follow-up action comprises transmitting a follow-up request with a different subject line:
in the event that the potential reviewer opened the electronic review request message but did not click on any of the references, performing the follow- up action comprises including an alternate message in the follow-up request or
in the event that the potential reviewer opened the electronic review request message and clicked on a reference but did not author a review,
performing the follow-up action comprises at least one of featuring a different review site or altering a message included in the follow-up request and provide, via a user interface rendered in a browser, feedback including review request open rates, click throughs, and number of reviews being written; and
a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to provide the one or more processors with instructions.
The Applicant's Specification titled "INDUSTRY REVIEW BENCHMARK" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for determining a benchmark for a particular industry and provide an indication of a review site on which placement of additional review should be targeted" (fig. 24). As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 2, 12 and 22 recites the abstract idea of determining a benchmark for a particular industry and provide an indication of a review site on which placement of additional review should be targeted.
Furthermore, the claim limitations are also directed towards directed to an indication of a review site on which placement of additional review which is commercial or legal interactions. Which is “including agreements in the form of contract; legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations” expressly categorized under a certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Furthermore, the claim limitations are also directed towards directed to determining a benchmark for a particular industry and provide an indication of a review site on which placement of additional review should be targeted which is Mental processes. Which is “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion” expressly categorized under a mental processes. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 3-11, 13-21, and 23 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 3 (similarly claim 13) wherein the review volume comprises a target review volume across one or more review sites.
claim 4 (similarly claim 14) wherein the review rating comprises an industry average review rating.
claim 5 (similarly claim 15) wherein the industry average review rating is normalized.
claim 6 (similarly claim 16) wherein the review age comprises an industry target average age.
claim 7 (similarly claim 17) determine a review distribution for a first entity.
claim 8 (similarly claim 18) compare the review distribution determined for the entity to the review benchmark for the particular industry.
claim 9 (similarly claim 19) wherein the ordering of the plurality of review sites indicated in the electronic review request message is based at least in part on the comparing.
claim 10 (similarly claim 20) determine that the entity does not have an account on a particular review site.
claim 11 (similarly claim 21) determine a plurality of regional benchmarks for the particular industry.
claim 23
cache previously fetched review data in the database with an associated timestamp; and during a subsequent data collection cycle, execute the helpers to fetch only incremental review data since the cached timestamp, thereby reducing network bandwidth consumption and processing latency when refreshing reputation information for entities in the particular industry.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 2, 12, and 22.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 2-23 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claim 2 (similarly claims 12 and 22) include the following bolded additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claims 2, 12, and 22. system, processors, an electronic message, a memory, non-transitory, follow up engine, network, an application programming interface (API), a computer program
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of system, processors, an electronic message, a memory, non-transitory, follow up engine, network, an application programming interface (API), a computer program. which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2). The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, the computing platform includes generic processors, memories, and communication interfaces. Figure 1 of the specification detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 2, 12, and 22 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for determining a benchmark for a particular industry and provide an indication of a review site on which placement of additional review should be targeted and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention determine a benchmark for a particular industry and provide an indication of a review site on which placement of additional review should be targeted. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 3-11, 13-21, and 23 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, no additional elements are disclosed in the dependent claims that were not considered in independent claims 2, 12 and 22. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 2-23 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of Claims 2, 12 and 22. A system, processors, memory, A database; a follow up engine, electric message, network, an application programming interface (API), and a non-transitory storage. Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of determining a benchmark for a particular industry and provide an indication of a review site on which placement of additional review should be targeted.
Claims 2-23 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, No art rejections has been put forth in the rejection.
Closest prior art to the invention include Nickerson et al. US 2011/0022537: Computer-implemented system and method for measuring and reporting business intelligence based on comments collected from web page users using software associated with accessed web pages, Linde et al. US 2002/0194062: Method and system for simulating the distribution targeted advertising, Kenton et al. US 2010/0325107: Systems and methods for measuring and managing distributed online conversations, and Chris Piepho, ‘Getting Your Business Reviewed", Jul. 1, 2010, blog on smallbusinessshift.com. None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach, inter alia, teaches the claimed invention as detailed in independent claims, covert the review data obtained from the plurality of review sites into canonical format; store the converted review data to a database; … based at least in part on the review benchmark for the particular industry, perform simulations of additional reviews on the plurality of review sites, including modeling an impact that a number of additional positive reviews obtained on a given review site would have on a reputation score for an entity; automatically generate, at least in part by filtering in one or more fields of a stored template, an electronic review request message that requests a potential reviewer to a review the entity on the review site in the plurality of review sites, wherein: … an ordering of the plurality of review sites indicated in the electronic review request message is based at least in part on the performed simulations of additional reviews on the plurality of review sites; and the electronic review request message includes references to the plurality of review sites”. The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 2-23 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu, Bing, Minqing Hu, and Junsheng Cheng. "Opinion observer: analyzing and comparing opinions on the web." Proceedings of the 14th international conference on World Wide Web. 2005.
Nickerson et al. US 2008/0059286: Computer-implemented system and method for measuring and reporting business intelligence based on comments collected from web page users using software associated with accessed web pages.
Johnson et al. US 8,996,425: Dynamically guided user reviews.
Pinto US 8,504,486: Collection and provision of long-term customer reviews.
Mauro et al. US 2013/0085803: Brand analysis.
Ganesh et al. US 2012/0260201: Collector and analysis of service, product and enterprise soft data.
Schoenberg, Ido CA 2662786: Connecting consumers with service providers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 February 23, 2026