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 . Claims 1-20 have been reviewed and are under consideration by this office action.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Non-Final Office action. Applicant amended claims. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/06/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are received and acknowledged.
The claims overcame the 103 Rejections in the Final Office action dated 08/11/2025.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the amended claims are patent-eligible and points to Alice/Mayo framework. Applicant further asserts that the claims similar to AI Visualize. Inc… are patent-eligible when looking at the character of the claims.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The present claims are not analogous to the cited case as it is directed towards three-dimensional virtual view over Internet of a volume visualization dataset, computer or servers powerful enough to support processing required, and addresses the problem of transmitting large VVD’s over a standard network. The current claims are directed towards identifying respondent pairs, communicating baseline assessments, receiving feedback, analyzing feedback, optimizing objectives, determining a set of questions, compiling based on the questions, and communicating a message all of which are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (i.e. via pen and paper).
Applicant further contends that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application that generates real time personalized electronic surveys and further points to the specification [03].
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements of the claim are analyzed both individually as well as in combination and are determined to be performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant contends that conventional systems do not capitalize on real-time data analytics and respondent data holding surveys in abeyance until triggered. Applicant further contends that the real time process is enabled by an AI model.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the claims do not recite any real-time processing or analytics, increased speed is a known advantage of using a general purpose computing device ( See MPEP 2106.05f - Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 and MPEP 2106.05(f) iii. A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Further the use of an AI model defined by a bitwise swap operation is recited at a high level of generality as such is merely performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant contends that the claims bear no resemblance to the enumerated categories of certain methods of organizing human activity as the claims describe a specific technological implementation that solves a technical problem. Applicant further points to DDR Holdings…
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims towards determining questions and generating questions for respondents such as customers and employees for business purposes (i.e. productivity and decision making). See Applicant’s Specification, [at least 01, 76]. The additional elements are bolded below and addressed in Step 2A- Prong 2 and Step 2B. Further the claims are not analogous to those of the cited case as the claims are directed towards s a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage and improved, particular methods of digital data compression.
Applicant contends at Step Two of the analysis that the claims are not well-understood, routine, or conventional (WURC) as the 103 Rejections are withdrawn. Applicant further points to Berkheimer.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are each analyzed both individually as well as in combination and are determined to be performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). In Step 2B, the claims are addressed similarly, however, the additional elements of communicating over a network (and similar limitations) do have provide evidence supporting the WURC analysis.
Applicant contends that the additional elements are significantly more at Step 2B further pointing to Aatrix…
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are addressed above and below. The additional elements that were determined to be WURC have provided evidence as required by pointing to the MPEP as seen below.
The 101 rejection is updated and maintained below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claim(s) 1-20 is/are directed to statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One – The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely in independent claims 1, 15 and 18 recite a series of steps for analyzing and optimizing survey feedback to determine questions for another set of questions for the respondent
Regarding Claims 1, 15, and 18 (additional elements bolded)
A method comprising the steps of:/A device comprising: a processor configured to:/ A non-transitory computer-readable medium tangibly encoded with instructions, that when executed by a processor of a device, perform a method comprising:
identifying, by a device, a recipient-respondent pair, the recipient being a user that a set of questions within an electronic survey are asked on behalf of, the respondent being an answering user to the set of questions;
communicating, by the device, a baseline assessment to the respondent within the recipient- respondent pair, the baseline assessment comprising the set of questions and a criteria for each question to be answered by the respondent;
receiving, by the device, feedback to the baseline assessment from the respondent;
analyzing, by the device, the feedback, and determining, based on the analysis, a set of objectives related to the respondent's feedback;
executing, by the device executing an artificial intelligence (AI) model a bitwise swap operation, the execution of the Al model outputting, the determined set objectives into a representative feedback value for the respondent;
communicating, by the device, over a network, a message comprising a link to a device of the respondent, the message being associated with another electronic survey and configured with instructions to cause generation of the other electronic survey at the device of the respondent when the respondent interacts with the link and accesses an electronic network resource;
in response to an identification of the respondent interacting with the link, determining, by the device, a set of questions and a set of recipients for the other electronic survey, the determination of the set of questions and the set of recipients based at least on the representative feedback value;
causing, by the device, based on the determined set of questions and the determined set of recipients, generating generation of the compiled other electronic survey at the respondent device upon the respondent device accessing the electronic network resource, the generation of the other electronic survey comprising execution of the instructions within the message at a time the respondent interacts with the link and accesses the electronic network resource, the generation further comprising:
electronically communicating the other electronic survey to the respondent device in an electronic form compatible with the respondent device.
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea groupings of “Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind” (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as the claims are directed towards identifying respondent pairs, communicating baseline assessments, receiving feedback, analyzing feedback, optimizing objectives, determining a set of questions, compiling based on the questions, and communicating a message all of which are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (i.e. via pen and paper).
The claims are further within the abstract idea grouping of “Certain methods of organizing human activity” — commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), as the claims are directed towards analyzing survey results to “drive productivity and enable better decision making.” (See Specification, [01]; Surveys serve as important resources for entities (e.g., companies) and their managers to collect information from parties (e.g., users or employees, referred to as respondents). In certain circumstances, surveys can be used to drive productivity and enable better decision making).
Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims utilize at least an A device comprising: a processor configured to:/ A non-transitory computer-readable medium tangibly encoded with instructions, that when executed by a processor of a device,; a device; electronic survey; device executing an artificial intelligence (AI) model a bitwise swap operation, the execution of the Al model outputting (recited at a high level of generality); communicating, by the device, over a network, a message comprising a link to a device; other electronic survey; other electronic survey configured as an electronic network resource; communicating, by the device, over a network; generating generation of the compiled other electronic survey at the respondent device; respondent device… accesses the electronic network resource; electronically communicating the compiled other electronic survey to the respondent device in an electronic form compatible with the respondent device. The additional elements are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The elements of communicating, by the device, over a network; electronically communicating the compiled other electronic survey to the respondent device (Claim 1 and 18); and communicate, over a network (Claim 15) are activities that has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362). The remaining additional elements as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are just “apply it” on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235) and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding Claim(s) 2-14, 16-17, and 19-20, the claim further narrows the abstract idea or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent claims.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY L GUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30-4:30.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/JEREMY L GUNN/Examiner, Art Unit 3624