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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 2 – 10, 12 – 17, & 21 – 24 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 02/04/2025. Claims 7 – 10, 16 – 17, 21 & 22 were amended and claims 23 – 24 were cancelled in a reply filed 08/01/2025. Claims 2 – 10, 12 – 17, & 21 – 22 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/01/2025 with respect to the previous rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pg. 10, that “The presence detection capability is likewise described in paragraphs [0046]-[0047], which explain the use of in-room sensors to trigger guest-facing experiences.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the sections of the instant specification provide written support under 35 USC 112(a) for the limitation “ii) detect, with the sensor, guest presence within the particular assigned room; iii) automatically present, in response to detecting the guest presence, an interactive interface on a corresponding GUI of the particular communication terminal, the interactive interface generated in real-time and querying the guest to select a satisfaction assessment from the plurality of options” (claim 21). In particular, the relevant sections of the instant specification (pgpub) are paragraphs 57 & 60 – 61. These paragraphs merely disclose that in-room sensors are used to notify housekeeping staff of the presence of an occupant in a room. These sections, however, fail to disclose the triggering of a GUI to present satisfaction assessment options based on the detection of an occupant in a room by a sensor. Therefore, the instant disclosure lacks adequate written description for the above limitations.
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/01/2025 with respect to the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 have been considered and are persuasive. In particular, “The claimed invention recites a specific system architecture for enabling dynamic satisfaction assessment of hotel guests using communication terminals associated with assigned hotel rooms. The claims require coordinated communication between a property management system (PMS), a server, and multiple in-room terminals over a local network, and include limitations directed to configuring these terminals based on real-time guest data and presence detection using in-room sensors. The claims recite how, upon detecting that a guest has entered the assigned room, the terminal presents a satisfaction assessment interface drawn from a plurality of templates, with the interface diverging based on whether the guest indicates a positive or negative experience, prompting loyalty program signups, review submissions, or remediation workflows accordingly,” as Applicant notes on pg. 13. The combination of these elements (i.e., system architecture), along with the use of this system architecture to implement a step-by-step process of triggering and generating specific GUI elements for a user, serves to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the previous rejection under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/01/2025 with respect to the previous rejections of the claims under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pp. 17 – 21, that “the combination of Straitiff, Silkey, and Ryu fails to teach “detect{ing], with the sensor, guest presence within the particular assigned room,” and “automatically present{ing], in response to detecting the guest presence, an interactive interface on a corresponding GUI of the particular communication terminal,” where the interface is “generated in real-time” and includes diverging presentation logic “in response to the selection of a positive option” or “in response to the selection of a negative option.””
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that the cited prior art fails to teach the above-cited limitations. For example, Ryu explicitly teaches the functionality of detecting, with the sensor, guest presence within the particular assigned room and then automatically presenting, in response to detecting the guest presence, an interactive interface on a corresponding GUI of the particular communication terminal in paragraph [0043], which describes detecting a guest’s presence which triggers the display of “a service satisfaction survey” on a “terminal installed in a surrounding area/facility.” Ryu further teaches, in paragraphs [0045] – [0046], [0052] – [0054], detecting that a guest is in their assigned room which triggers display of “VoC items” (i.e., a satisfaction survey). Ryu also teaches, in paragraphs [0066], [0102] – [0103], [0106], & [0108], receiving “sensing information transmitted from a sensor mounted on hotel amenities or installed on the ceiling or a wall” to detect that the guest is within the particular assigned room, then “the server generates the VoC item in view of the estimated time that period the customer will stay at the current location.” Therefore, Examiner respectfully submits that Ryu teaches the functionality of triggering the display of an interactive survey on a screen when a user’s presence is detected in a room.
Regarding the claim limitations associated with “where the interface is “generated in real-time” and includes diverging presentation logic “in response to the selection of a positive option” or “in response to the selection of a negative option,” Silkey teaches these elements. For example, Silkey teaches wherein “the interactive interface generated in real-time and querying the guest to select a satisfaction assessment from the plurality of options, the plurality of options comprising at least one positive option and one negative option; iv) receive a guest input corresponding to a selection of a particular satisfaction assessment” in paragraphs [0017], [0037] – [0039], [0052], [0062], which describe an interactive (i.e., real-time”) survey interface enabling a user to input a positive feedback option or a negative feedback option. Silkey teaches diverging presentation logic “in response to the selection of a positive option” in paragraph [0052], which states that “it is determined whether the received feedback is positive or negative. If the feedback is positive, process 300 may proceed to step 310 in which a positive-feedback-handling sub-process may be initiated. This positive-feedback-handling process may comprise the initiation of a verification process, e.g., by collecting a name and email address and/or other identifying information from the reviewer.” Silkey further teaches, in [0054], that “the verification process of the positive-feedback-handling sub-process may comprise sending an email message to the email address of the reviewer (e.g., obtained in step 310) in step 322. The email message may comprise a link (e.g., comprising a Uniform Resource Locator (URL)) and/or code (e.g., character string) to confirm that the email address is valid and accessible by the reviewer. In step 334, if the reviewer follows the link and/or enters the code into a confirmation user interface of the platform, the reviewer is directed to a user interface for publishing the feedback in step 342.” Therefore, Examiner respectfully submits that Silkey teaches the functionality of a diverging presentation logic “in response to the selection of a positive option” or “in response to the selection of a negative option.”
Regarding the claim limitations associated with diverging presentation logic “in response to the selection of a negative option,” Silkey also teaches this functionality. For example, Silkey teaches presenting, on the interactive interface and in response to the selection of a negative option, one or more remediation actions for selection by the guest including at least one of: initiating a chat with the hotel, entering a phone number to call the guest, requesting a room item, or navigating a list of frequently reported issues in paragraphs [0040] & esp. [0052], noting that “if the feedback is negative, process 300 proceeds to step 312 in which a negative-feedback-handling sub-process may be initiated. This negative-feedback-handling sub-process may comprise providing facilities (e.g., user interfaces and/or process modules) to the reviewer and/or reviewed entity for improving the relationship between the two… to resolve any issues. For example, step 312 may comprise presenting user interface(s) to the reviewer which may comprise a questionnaire that asks the reviewer about his or her experience and comprises an input for entering comments and submitting the questionnaire response(s). These questionnaire response(s) can then be forwarded to the reviewed entity, prior to the negative feedback being published or in lieu of publication. This allows the reviewed entity to attempt to improve the relationship with the reviewer prior to or in lieu of publication and/or to evaluate the reviewed entity's systems and processes for improvement.” Silkey further teaches, in [0069], that “negative feedback can initiate a dispute resolution process 724, which may allow the reviewing user and entity being reviewed to interact directly (e.g., via user interfaces and/or communication methods such as messaging, real-time chat, email, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), telephone, etc.).” Therefore, Examiner respectfully submits that Silkey teaches the functionality of a diverging presentation logic “in response to the selection of a negative option.”
Applicant next argues, on pg. 22, that “there is no articulated reason why a person of ordinary skill would combine Straitiff's generic guest survey interface with the GUI customization of Ryu and the survey context of Silkey to arrive at the precise sequence of operations and conditional interface behavior of the present invention. Doing so would require significant redesign of Straitiff, not a natural combination. The Office has not provided a rationale grounded in the problem solved by the Applicant's system, namely, the timely, personalized, and context-aware capture of guest satisfaction in a hotel room at the moment it is most useful.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that rationale to combine the teachings of Ryu and Silkey in the invention of Straitiff has not been provided. For example, the office action mailed 02/04/2025, on pg. 15, stated that “It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Silkey in the method & system of Straitiff with the motivation to provide a method & system “for improving the review and/or rating process for entities such as businesses,” as evidenced by Silkey ([0029]).” Moreover, the same office action, on pg. 17, stated that “It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Ryu in the method & system of Straitiff / Silkey with the motivation to efficiently collect customer feedback, as evidenced by Ryu ([0006] & [0008]). Therefore, rationale to combine the teachings of Ryu and Silkey in the invention of Straitiff has indeed been provided. Regarding Applicant’s assertion that combining the teachings of Ryu and Silkey would require significant redesign of Straitiff, Examiner notes that this is merely a conclusory argument. For example, Applicant provides no explanation as to why the in-room terminals and remote systems of Straitiff – which are configured to display information to a user – would require a significant redesign to include proximity sensors of Ryu, or the ability to merely display the particular survey logic as in Silkey. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2 – 10, 12 – 17, & 21 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “manage configuration of the particular communication terminal to load and present a satisfaction assessment interface from a plurality of interface templates having a plurality of options;”
Claim 22 recites the limitation: “managing, by the server, a configuration of the particular communication terminal to load and present a satisfaction assessment interface from a plurality of interface templates having a plurality of options;”
A review of Applicant’s entire specification (pgpub) yielded the following relevant sections:
[0041] …The device address is sent over the hotel LAN 116 to configure the addressed communication terminal device to boot and configure its interactive interface as directed.
[0042] The communications terminal configuration engine 214 may receive the guest identification signal from the hotel server 104. The communications terminal configuration engine 214 may execute a set of commands instructing the communication terminal in assigned room 212 to start up. The communications terminal configuration engine 214 may also configure the communication terminal in assigned room 212 to display the interactive interface based the guest information provided to it by the hotel server. All communication terminals 118 may have the same content from which to choose, or else may be based on other formatting/content criteria.
[0043] Content that a hotel wishes to present to its guests may be stored in a content database 210. This content is available to each communication terminal. Updates to content in the content database 210 may be automatically pushed down to communication terminals, or the communication terminals may be programmed to periodically monitor the content database 210 for added, removed, or modified content. Content may also be updated multiple times in a draft state or “sandbox” area and be sent to communication terminals only when it is approved and published through a content management platform.
[0044] The communication terminal 212 may import content from the content database 210. Content transmitted to the communication terminal 212 may be sent to a formatting engine 216. The formatting engine 216 may recognize content tagged as being already compatible with interactive interface requirements. Compatible content may be sent directly through with no modification. Files sent with no tagging or tagging that indicates a possible incompatibility may be ignored.
[0045] Formatted content may be customized for a particular guest by passing through a content selector 218. A content selection signal generated by the communications terminal configuration engine 214 based on the content received from the communication terminal 212 may be used to filter the content and construct an interactive interface appropriate for each individual guest.
[0089] Additionally, an example of an illustrative interactive interface according to one or more embodiments herein is provided in FIG. 8, which shows elements that may be included in the interactive interface 800 generated for a typical communication terminal 802 located in the room of a guest. Generally, a template used by the interface builder 220 module in the communication terminals 118 may collect content for display or linked access via a number of screen modules. For example, the top of the interface may comprise a branded task bar 804. Beneath that, there may be left sidebar menu 806, center content viewing pane 810, and (optional) right sidebar content 816 areas. Customized content may be allocated to one or more of these screen areas. For example, general hotel information may be linked from the left sidebar menu 806 and displayed in the center content viewing pane 810. This information may include operating hours for hotel restaurants and services, among other things. The right sidebar content 816 may be based on other content, such as external content, offers, etc., or may be an extension of the left sidebar menu. The particular content associated with the techniques described herein may be presented in either sidebar 806 or 816, as well as in center viewing pane 810 (e.g., as selected to show a larger format of the content in the center content viewing pane when clicked in the sidebar, or else as separate pop-up content without first requiring a sidebar selection). Notably, other variants of the formatting of the interactive interface 800 may be made, and any shown and discussed herein are merely examples for illustration.
While the specification discloses that customized content may be sent to each communication terminal based on formatting or content criteria, and that a template may be used by the interface builder 220 module in each communication terminal which may collect content for display or linked access via a number of screen modules – it fails to disclose the loading and presentation of a satisfaction assessment interface from a plurality of interface templates having a plurality of options. For example, a template is a predefined pattern or layout for the arrangement of elements. The specification makes no mention of a plurality of templates – let alone a plurality of templates having a plurality of options and defining a satisfaction assessment interface. Therefore, the instant disclosure lacks adequate written description for the above limitations.
Claim 21 recites the limitations: “ii) detect, with the sensor, guest presence within the particular assigned room; iii) automatically present, in response to detecting the guest presence, an interactive interface on a corresponding GUI of the particular communication terminal, the interactive interface generated in real-time and querying the guest to select a satisfaction assessment from the plurality of options”
Claim 22 recites the limitations: “detecting, by the particular communication terminal and with a sensor, guest presence within the particular assigned room; automatically presenting, by the particular communication terminal and in response to detecting the guest presence, an interactive interface on a corresponding GUI of the particular communication terminal, the interactive interface generated in real-time and querying the guest to select a satisfaction assessment from the plurality of options”
A review of Applicant’s entire specification (pgpub) yielded the following relevant sections:
[0057]: “Motion sensors within the room or sensors, such as microphones, in the communication terminal may be configured such that, if a guest presence is detected in the room, the lighted display may light up yellow or red to indicate that housekeeping services may be postponed.”
[0060] “The microphone 418 may be part of the communication terminals 118 sensors dedicated to that room. The proximity sensors may be infrared sensors. When a guest indicates a housekeeping services selection (either a time frame for housekeeping services or a desire to not be disturbed), a signal may be sent to the room alert controller 404. Alternatively, the signal may be sent to a central hotel controller that triggers the room alert controller 404.”
[0061] “If a microphone 418 or proximity/motion sensors 408 detect a person within the room, a notification light 406 outside the room may be configured to indicate the person's presence within the room. For security reasons, this system may only display an occupation indicator to housekeeping personnel when they enter the area, as detected by proximity/motion sensors 408 in the corridor. Alternately, the notification light 406 may be configured with a keypad or other device to accept a pressed code or detect the presence of a secure token. In this way, the availability of the room for housekeeping may be verified without the need to knock on doors up and down the corridor.”
While the specification discloses that in-room sensors are used to notify housekeeping staff of the presence of an occupant in a room, it fails to disclose the triggering of a GUI to present satisfaction assessment options based on the detection of an occupant in a room by a sensor. Therefore, the instant disclosure lacks adequate written description for the above limitations.
Claims 2 – 10 & 12 – 17 are additionally rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for inheriting the deficiencies of claims 21 & 22 while failing to remedy them.
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 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.
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.
Claims 2, 9 – 10, 12, 17, & 21 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straitiff et al. (US B1), in view of Silkey et al. (US 20170186055 A1), in view of Ryu et al. (US 20180365741 A1).
As per Claim 21, Straitiff discloses a system, comprising:
• a server (Fig. 3, server 312 & C 8, L 35);
• a property management system (PMS) (C 14, L 6 – 31, “PMS 314”);
• and a plurality of communication terminals in communication with the server via a local area network (LAN), each of the plurality of communication terminals having a graphical user interface (GUI), a sensor, and a network interface (Fig. 3, media streaming device 318 having a GUI displayed on display 320 as well as C 8, L 30 – 55; Also see C 4, L 27 – 36, “A media streaming device… may be connected to a display (e.g., a monitor, television, screen, etc.) and pre-registered with a proxy server for a guest staying in a room containing that display to use.”; Also see C 4, L 47 – 49, streaming devices are in each guest room of a hotel.; C 6, L 7 – 9 “The media streaming devices may be installed in a single hotel-wide virtual local area network (VLAN) (wired or wireless).” As per C 14, L 38 – 42 and C 15, L 25 – 33, noting that media streaming device 318 may be implemented as computer system 600 which, as per C 16, L 47 – 56, comprises a sensor. As per C 15, L 25 – 39, computer system 600 comprises a network interface.);
• the server configured to: i) receive registration information from the PMS when a guest checks into a hotel, the registration information including an identification of the guest and a particular assigned room of a plurality of hotel rooms; ii) identify a particular communication terminal of the plurality of communication terminals that is associated with the particular assigned room by utilizing information received from the property management system; iii) determine the particular assigned room of the guest and the particular communication terminal (C 12, L 26 – 61, “The proxy server 312 may verify a registration of the guest 302 (or other user)… This verification can include… receiving, at the proxy server 312 and from the property management system 314, a registration status of the guest 302 based on the query. In some configurations, the verification can include providing a code to the guest 302 which, when the guest enters the code into the mobile device 304 (through an application or a web service), the mobile device 304 sends the code to the proxy server 312 and/or the PMS 314 to verify the code matches a room being occupied by the guest 302…. The proxy server 312 may identify, based on the verification, media streaming device 318 associated with the registration of the guest (406)”; Also see C 14, L 6 – 31, “PMS 314 may receive check-in information from guest 302. From 500, flow may move to 510. In 510, PMS 314 may transmit guest name and room information to HSIA/LSP gateway 332. From 510, flow may move to 520. In 520, PMS 314 may request that proxy server 312 command media streaming device 318 to display a landing page (e.g., FIG. 1, 100 and/or FIG. 2, 200) on attached display devices in the assigned room.”; C 8, L 43 – 46, “connection 336 may similarly be established between the proxy server 312 and the PMS 314 which allows the PMS 314 to communicate check-in/check-out information”; As per C 8, L 60 – C 9, L 9, “the LSP/HSIA gateway 332 can be built into the proxy server 312”; As per C 8, L 10 – 12, “guest check-in information” comprises “a room number and a name” of a guest for a corresponding room;);
Regarding the following limitation,
• and iv) manage configuration of the particular communication terminal to load and present a satisfaction assessment interface from a plurality of interface templates having a plurality of options,
Straitiff, in C 5, L 34 – 56 and Fig. 2 & C 9, L 6 – 9, discloses wherein each hotel guest room comprises a communication terminal which is managed by the server to load a plurality of options. To the extent to which Straitiff does not appear to disclose wherein an option comprises a satisfaction assessment template, Silkey teaches this functionality. For example, see Silkey in at least Fig. 1, & [0030], server 110 coupled to a plurality of user systems 130 which, as per [0031], “may comprise one or more user interfaces” and “transmits or serves these user interfaces” to a user terminal. As per [0038], the server can transmit “a user interface with one or more inputs for receiving feedback, comprising a rating and/or review, from a potential reviewer” to a user terminal. Also [0061] – [0062], survey interface for receiving customer feedback input. As per [0017], [0037] – [0039], [0052], [0062], the user can input a positive feedback option or a negative feedback option.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Silkey in the method & system of Straitiff with the motivation to provide a method & system “for improving the review and/or rating process for entities such as businesses,” as evidenced by Silkey ([0029]).
Straitiff further discloses wherein the PMS {is} configured to:
• i) receive the registration information from the guest when the guest checks into the hotel (C 14, L 6 – 8, “PMS 314 may receive check-in information from guest 302.”);
• ii) provide the server with identification of the particular communication terminal for the particular assigned room of the guest in real-time (C 14, L 10 – 25, “In 520, PMS 314 may request that proxy server 312 command media streaming device 318 to display a landing page (e.g., FIG. 1, 100 and/or FIG. 2, 200) on attached display devices in the assigned room. From 520, flow may move to 530. In 530, mobile device 304 may be registered with the network (e.g., WI-FI network 306). For example, HSIA/LSP gateway 332 may receive a request to access the network (e.g., the WI-FI network 306) from mobile device 304. In 540, if mobile device 304 is successfully registered in 530, proxy server 312 may receive guest room number and an address (e.g., MAC or IP) of mobile device 304. From 540, flow may move to 550.”); and
• iii) provide the registration information of the guest to the server in real-time (C 14, L 10 – 25, “In 510, PMS 314 may transmit guest name and room information to HSIA/LSP gateway 332”; C 12, L 26 – 61; C 8, L 43 – 46, “A connection 336 may similarly be established between the proxy server 312 and the PMS 314 which allows the PMS 314 to communicate check-in/check-out information” to the server; C 8, L 60 – C 9, L 9, “PMS 314 may send the name of guest 302 and assigned room to the HSIA/LSP gateway 332”);
• and the plurality of communication terminals configured to: i) associate with a particular assigned room of the plurality of hotel rooms of a hotel (C 5, L 27 – 33; C 6 L 21 – 24; C 6 L 39 – 53, associating a media streaming device to each room).
Regarding the following limitations, Straitiff, in C 5, L 36 – 53, discloses that “upon {a guest} physically entering an assigned room, a display” presents information to the guest, which highly suggests, but does not appear to disclose what is taught by Ryu:
• ii) detect, with the sensor, guest presence within the particular assigned room; iii) automatically present, in response to detecting the guest presence, an interactive interface on a corresponding GUI of the particular communication terminal (See [0043], noting detecting a guest’s presence in an area to trigger the display of “a service satisfaction survey” on a “terminal installed in a surrounding area/facility.”; [0045] – [0046], [0052] – [0054], detecting that a guest is in their assigned room which triggers display of “VoC items” (satisfaction survey); [0066], [0102] – [0103], [0106], & [0108], receiving “sensing information transmitted from a sensor mounted on hotel amenities or installed on the ceiling or a wall” to detect that the guest is within the particular assigned room, then “the server generates the VoC item in view of the estimated time that period the customer will stay at the current location.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Ryu in the method & system of Straitiff / Silkey with the motivation to efficiently collect customer feedback, as evidenced by Ryu ([0006] & [0008]).
Regarding the following limitations, Straitiff, in at least C 5, L 34 – 56, discloses wherein “upon {a guest} physically entering an assigned room, a display” presents an interactive interface on a corresponding GUI of the particular communication terminal. As per C 3, L 28 – 32 and C 4, L 44 – 61 of Straitiff, the room guest uses a streaming device terminal in a hotel. To the extent to which Straitiff does not appear to disclose wherein each hotel room communication terminal GUI presents a guest survey, Silkey teaches this functionality:
• the interactive interface generated in real-time and querying the guest to select a satisfaction assessment from the plurality of options, the plurality of options comprising at least one positive option and one negative option; iv) receive a guest input corresponding to a selection of a particular satisfaction assessment; (Fig. 1, & [0030], server 110 coupled to a plurality of user systems 130; [0038], “a user interface with one or more inputs for receiving feedback, comprising a rating and/or review, from a potential reviewer”; Also [0061] – [0062], survey interface for receiving customer feedback input. As per [0017], [0037] – [0039], [0052], [0062], the user can input a positive feedback option or a negative feedback option.);
• v) present, on the interactive interface and in response to the selection of a positive option, a loyalty program signup interface and a review platform interface ([0052], “Process 300 begins in step 302 in which feedback (e.g., comprising a rating and/or review) from a reviewer is received for a reviewed entity. In step 304, it is determined whether the received feedback is positive or negative. If the feedback is positive, process 300 may proceed to step 310 in which a positive-feedback-handling sub-process may be initiated. This positive-feedback-handling process may comprise the initiation of a verification process, e.g., by collecting a name and email address and/or other identifying information from the reviewer.”; [0065] & esp. [0054], “the verification process of the positive-feedback-handling sub-process may comprise sending an email message to the email address of the reviewer (e.g., obtained in step 310) in step 322. The email message may comprise a link (e.g., comprising a Uniform Resource Locator (URL)) and/or code (e.g., character string) to confirm that the email address is valid and accessible by the reviewer. In step 334, if the reviewer follows the link and/or enters the code into a confirmation user interface of the platform, the reviewer is directed to a user interface for publishing the feedback in step 342.” The presented user interface for publishing the feedback is interpreted as a review platform interface, and the registration and validation or the user’s “name and email address and/or other identifying information” is interpreted as a loyalty program signup interface.);
• and vi) present, on the interactive interface and in response to the selection of a negative option, one or more remediation actions for selection by the guest including at least one of: initiating a chat with the hotel, entering a phone number to call the guest, requesting a room item, or navigating a list of frequently reported issues ([0040] & esp. [0052], “if the feedback is negative, process 300 proceeds to step 312 in which a negative-feedback-handling sub-process may be initiated. This negative-feedback-handling sub-process may comprise providing facilities (e.g., user interfaces and/or process modules) to the reviewer and/or reviewed entity for improving the relationship between the two… to resolve any issues. For example, step 312 may comprise presenting user interface(s) to the reviewer which may comprise a questionnaire that asks the reviewer about his or her experience and comprises an input for entering comments and submitting the questionnaire response(s). These questionnaire response(s) can then be forwarded to the reviewed entity, prior to the negative feedback being published or in lieu of publication. This allows the reviewed entity to attempt to improve the relationship with the reviewer prior to or in lieu of publication and/or to evaluate the reviewed entity's systems and processes for improvement.” Also [0069], “negative feedback can initiate a dispute resolution process 724, which may allow the reviewing user and entity being reviewed to interact directly (e.g., via user interfaces and/or communication methods such as messaging, real-time chat, email, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), telephone, etc.).” In other words, Silkey teaches initiating a chat with the reviewed entity which, as disclosed by Straitiff, can be a hotel.). Rationale to combine Silkey persists.
As per claim 22, see the above relevant rejection of claim 1. Straitiff additionally discloses a method in at least abstract, claim 1, & C 12, L 26 – 29.
As per claims 2 & 12, Straitiff / Silkey / Ryu disclose the limitations of claims 21 & 22. Regarding the following limitation, Straitiff discloses wherein a business providing guest services comprises a hotel in at least C 3, L 28 – 32 and C 5, L 27 – 33. To the extent to which Straitiff does not disclose the following limitation, Silkey teaches:
• wherein one or more remediation actions are selected from a group consisting of: texting with the hotel; online chatting with the hotel; receiving a call from the hotel; providing a phone number for the hotel to call the guest; and providing a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) ([0052] & [0068] – [0069], & [0094], noting questionnaire answers directly to the reviewed business (e.g., hotel), which is interpreted as FAQs as well as texting and chatting with the hotel.). Rationale to combine Silkey persists.
As per claims 9 & 17, Straitiff / Silkey / Ryu disclose the limitations of claims 21 & 22. To the extent to which Straitiff does not disclose the following limitation, Silkey teaches:
• wherein the particular communication terminal presents the review platform interface as a one-touch selectable satisfaction assessment on the interactive interface, and wherein the particular communication terminal is further configured to receive a guest response to the one-touch selectable satisfaction assessment and share the guest response with the review platform interface ([0060] & [0074], “the user interface may prompt a potential reviewer to specify a numeric rating of a sub-entity, such as a numeric value on a scale from one to five or one to ten, using an input. As an example, the input for the numeric rating may be presented to the potential reviewer as a selection of one to five stars (e.g., directly translating to a rating of one to five).” As per at last [0038] – [0039] & [0041] – [0043], the user feedback is received and analyzed by the review platform.) Rationale to combine Silkey persists.
As per claim 10, Straitiff / Silkey / Ryu disclose the limitations of claim 9. To the extent to which Straitiff does not disclose the following limitation, Silkey teaches:
• wherein, in response to the guest response to the one-touch selectable satisfaction assessment for the review platform interface, the particular communication terminal is further configured to: present a plurality of second-touch satisfaction statements corresponding to the guest response to the one-touch selectable satisfaction assessment; receive a guest selection of a particular one of the plurality of second-touch satisfaction statements; and share, with the review platform interface, the guest selection of the particular one of the plurality of second-touch satisfaction statements along with the guest response (After receiving the one-touch rating as in [0060] & [0074], as per [0052], a questionnaire is presented which collects responses by the review platform which forwards the responses to the reviewed entity.). Rationale to combine Silkey persists.
Claims 3 – 4 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straitiff / Silkey / Ryu in view of Pennington et al. (US 20120240060 A1).
As per claims 3 & 13, Straitiff / Silkey / Ryu disclose the limitations of claims 21 & 22. Regarding the following limitation, Straitiff does not disclose, however Silkey discloses presenting remediation actions to a guest in at least ([0052] & [0068] – [0069], & [0094]). Rationale to combine Silkey persists.
To the extent to which Straitiff does not disclose the following limitation, Pennington teaches:
• wherein the one or more remediation actions comprise a selectable list of frequent issues and items, wherein selection of a particular issue initiates a corresponding action, and wherein the selection of a particular item initiates a request to have the particular item sent to the particular assigned room ([0106], guest can click on an item of list of items, and the selected item is delivered to the guest room.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Pennington in the method & system of Straitiff / Silkey / Ryu with the motivation to provide a method & system to provide an “active experience in which the user is actively using a computer,” as evidenced by Pennington ([0006]).
As per claim 4, Straitiff / Silkey / Ryu / Pennington disclose the limitations of claim 3. Regarding the following limitation, Straitiff discloses wherein a business providing guest services comprises a hotel in at least C 3, L 28 – 32 and C 5, L 27 – 33. To the extent to which Straitiff does not disclose the following limitation, Silkey teaches:
• wherein the one or more remediation actions further comprise one or more pathways for contacting the hotel ([0052] & [0068] – [0069], & [0094], providing the guest a means for texting and chatting with the business.). Rationale to combine Silkey persists.
Claims 5 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straitiff / Silkey / Ryu in view of Gromley et al. (US 8800866 B1).
As per claims 5 & 14, Straitiff / Silkey / Ryu disclose the limitations of claims 21 & 22. Regarding the following limitation, Straitiff does not disclose, however Silkey discloses presenting remediation actions to a guest in at least ([0052] & [0068] – [0069], & [0094]). Rationale to combine Silkey persists.
To the extent to which Straitiff / Silkey / Ryu does not disclose wherein the displayed remediation actions are based upon a loyalty tier of the guest, Gromley teaches this functionality:
• wherein the one or more remediation actions presented are selected based on a loyalty tier of the guest according to a hotel loyalty program (C 50, L 14 – 20, ‘alternative or additional selection options’ are displayed for user selection based on a business “loyalty program”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Gromley in the method & system of Straitiff / Silkey / Ryu with the motivation to provide enhanced service to frequent customers.
Claims 6 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straitiff / Silkey / Ryu in view of Allibhoy et al. (US 10521988 B1).
As per claims 6 & 15, Straitiff / Silkey / Ryu disclose the limitations of claims 21 & 22. Regarding the following limitation, Straitiff does not disclose, however Silkey discloses presenting remediation actions to a guest in at least ([0052] & [0068] – [0069], & [0094]). Rationale to combine Silkey persists.
To the extent to which Straitiff / Silkey / Ryu does not disclose the following limitations, Allibhoy teaches:
• wherein the one or more remediation actions are selected from a group consisting of: discounts on hotel services; vouchers for hotel services; discounts on items sold at the hotel; vouchers for items sold at the hotel; discounts on hotel bills; and loyalty program points (C 10, L 26 – 53, “a guest that is dissatisfied with a meal may receive a discount on a subsequent meal or some other service”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Allibhoy in the method & system of Straitiff / Silkey / Ryu with the motivation to provide a method & system “to compensate for a guest's dissatisfaction regarding the provided service,” as evidenced by Allibhoy (C 10, L 50 – 51).
Claims 7 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straitiff / Silkey / Ryu in view of Mori et al. (US 20200273058 A1).
As per claims 7 & 16, Straitiff / Silkey / Ryu disclose the limitations of claims 21 & 22. Regarding the following limitation, Straitiff does not disclose, however Silkey discloses presenting remediation actions to a guest in at least ([0052] & [0068] – [0069], & [0094]). Rationale to combine Silkey persists.
To the extent to which Straitiff / Silkey / Ryu does not disclose the following limitations, Mori teaches:
• wherein the loyalty program signup interface is selected from a group consisting of: a loyalty program website; a phone number of a loyalty program; online chatting with a loyalty program; receiving a call from a loyalty program; and providing a phone number for the loyalty program to call the guest ([0079], “information to register with the loyalty program provider such as a registration website, a registration phone number” i.e., a loyalty program website and a phone number of a loyalty program.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Mori in the method & system of Straitiff / Silkey / Ryu with the motivation to provide a method & system in order to “encourage sales of goods and/or services” while overcoming the problem that occurs when “customers …fraudulently use a loyalty program account device to obtain a discount not intended for the user” as evidenced by Mori ([0002] - [0004]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straitiff / Silkey / Ryu in view of Schweinfurth et al. (US 11176567 B1).
As per claim 8, Straitiff / Silkey / Ryu disclose the limitations of claim 21. To the extent to which Straitiff / Silkey / Ryu does not disclose the following limitations, Schweinfurth teaches:
• wherein the loyalty program signup interface is presented in response to the guest not already being a member of a corresponding loyalty program (C 15, L 4 – 16, “At block 606, if the loyalty server(s) 102 cannot find a loyalty profile for the user's profile ID, then the loyalty server(s) 102 may respond with a message, as shown in block 606, indicating that a loyalty profile or account could not be found. The message may be displayed by the client device in the same area or tile of the webpage as the electronic coupon, and may provide an input textbox for the user to reenter his or her profile ID as shown for block 606. In an alternative embodiment, the message for block 606 may also display a link for the user to “sign up” with the loyalty program, which could allow a new user to activate an account with the loyalty program or allow an existing user to gain an additional loyalty account.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Schweinfurth in the method & system of Straitiff / Silkey with the motivation to provide a method & system which “allows retailers or wholesalers to increase their digital customer user bases,” as evidenced by Schweinfurth (C 1, L 66 – 67).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. 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