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
Status of Claims
This action is a Final action on the merits in response to communications filed on 02/04/2026.
Claims 1-2,6, 8, 10, 13 and 15-17 have been amended. Claim 9 has been cancelled. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been considered.
In the remarks Applicant argues, “Applicant respectfully submits that it is not feasible or practical for a human to perform such steps mentally .” (pgs. 15-16)
Based on MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” Here, generic computer components (e.g. a processor and memory) are performing generic computer functions such as receiving a set of survey data structures, generating an aggregate scored survey metric based on the set of survey data structures, accessing a received user-defined purpose, filtering based on the user defined purpose, determining a survey count for aggregated scored survey metric, generating a set of scores for the aggregate scored survey metric, passing the set of segment score data, the survey count,, the set of scores and the generation rule to perform actions, etc., which involves collecting and analyzing data (observation and evaluation).
Applicant further argues, “This is event-driven control of system operation, not passive computation, because the rule causes the preprocessing component to condition the dataset (grouping, filtering for user-defined purpose), pass structured inputs to the analysis component, and execute standardized influence computations that the human mind cannot practically perform at realistic scale …” (pg. 16)
Examiner notes the system operation is performing generic computer functions related to collecting and analyzing data (based on a condition), which encompass Mental Processes (observation and evaluation of data). Further, the generation rule and the report rule are broadly recited as performing an action with no details or positively recited steps as to what action is occurring. This can easily be interpreted as generating scores for the generation rule (data analysis) and reporting (generating a score report). These limitations involve collecting and analyzing data to produce a result (e.g. scores or reporting).
Applicant argues, “This represents a practical application integrated into a particular machine workflow.” (pg. 16)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements of a memory, a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (see ¶0090).
For instance steps such as receiving a set of survey data structures, accessing a received user -defined purpose, retrieving a generation rule, detecting an anomaly and retrieving influence data is data gathering activity. The steps such as generating an aggregate scored survey metric, filtering the set of survey data based on user defined purpose, determining a survey count, generating a set of scores for an aggregate scored survey metric, generating a set of segment score data, creating a segment score data structure and generating an influence score report involve collecting and analyzing data and mathematical operations by a generic computer. The step related to passing the set of segment score data, survey count , set of scores and the generation rule to perform particular actions based on the generation rule is collecting and analyzing data to produce a result. Examiner notes that generation rule is broadly interpreted as there is no detail as to what the generation rule does. The step of passing the influence data and the report rule to an influence identification components to perform particular actions to implement the report rule is collecting and analyzing data to produce a result.
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues similar to Example 42, “ However, the Applicant asserts that amended claims 1, 8, and 15, similarly recite steps or features to standardize non-standard results obtained from a group of surveys or non-standard question/answer pairs across the group of surveys.” (pgs. 17-18)
In Example 42 the combination of additional elements recites a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user, which integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of the cited limitations as converting non-standardized updated information into the standardized format as in Example 42. The limitations related to generating influence data for each segment score data structure included in the set of segment score data… is analyzing data to generate an influence score and associated the influence score to a question/answer pair. The limitation related generating an influence score report are generating a report in a particular format based on the selected data represented. None of these limitations demonstrate a converting of a non-standard format to a standard format as demonstrated in Example 43.
Further, unlike Example 42 the instant application is directed to receiving a set of survey data structures, generating an aggregate scored survey metric, accessing a received user define purpose, filtering the set of survey data, determining a survey count, generating a set of scores, detecting an anomaly for aggregate scored survey metric, receiving a request to generate influence data, analyzing the set of survey data structures, generating score information for aggregate data structures, etc. using generic computer components. These limitation involve collecting and analyzing data (e.g. observation and evaluation), which illustrates Mental Processes related to collecting and analyzing data (observation and evaluation).
Applicant argues, “ …Applicant respectfully contends that the above limitations recite significantly more than the abstract idea and provide an inventive concept.” (pgs. 18-19)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations related to retrieving a report rule to generate a report in a particular format and passing the report rule to produce the report are related to collecting and analyzing data, Mental Processes.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a processor, a memory and a crm are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions (e.g. receiving, generating, accessing/filtering, analyzing, detecting, creating, passing, etc.) that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
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 1-8 and 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
receiving a set of survey data structures associated with a specific scored survey metric and s date range, wherein each survey data structure in the set of survey data structures includes all survey score data for a survey of a set of surveys within the date range that include the specific scored survey metric, further wherein the survey score data for each survey includes at least one question/answer pair and at least one scored survey metric;
generating, based on the set of survey data structures, an aggregate scored survey metric for the specific scored survey metric and the date;
accessing a received user -defined purpose, the received user -defined purpose specifying a particular survey type for generation of influence data;
filtering , based on the received user-defined purpose, the set of survey data structures to obtain a subset of survey data structures of the particular survey type;
determining a survey count for the aggregate scored survey metric, the survey count representing a number of surveys remaining in the subset of survey data structures;
generating a set of scores for the aggregate scored survey metric, each score in the set of scores is associated with the specific scored survey metric for each survey data structure in the subset of survey data structures;
generating a set of segment score data for the aggregate scored survey metric, by: creating a segment score data structure for each unique question/answer pair contained in the subset of survey data structures remaining after filtering;
including a question/answer title in each segment score data structure correlating to the unique question/answer pair associated with the segment score data structure; and
including a set of segment scores in each segment score data structure, wherein the set of segment scores correlates to a score associated with the scored survey metric for each question/answer pair associated with the unique question/answer pair for the segment score data structure;
retrieving a generation rule to generate influence data responsive to detection of anomalies for the aggregate scored survey metric;
detecting an anomaly for the aggregate scored survey metric within the data range;
passing the set of segment score data, the survey count, the set of scores , and the generation rule to an analysis component to cause the analysis component to perform particular actions to implement the generation rule;
retrieving, by the analysis component, influence data for each segment score data structure included in the set of segment score data, each influence data including an influence score for the unique question/answer pair associated with a segment score data structure, wherein the influence score is an indication of a degree of influence the unique question/answer pair has on the aggregate scored survey metric; and
retrieving a report rule to generate an influence score report, in particular format of highest-ranked influence scores on the anomaly for the aggregate scored survey metric;
passing the influence data and the report rule to an influence identification component to cause the influence identification component to perform particular actions to implement the report rule;
by the influence identification component:
ranking the influence data by influence scores in a numerical order;
generating an influence score report in the particular format in accordance with the report rule,, the aggregate scored survey metric based on the influence data with the highest-ranked influence scores on the anomaly, the segment score data, the survey count, the set of scores, and the date range,
wherein the influence score report indicates unique question/answer pairs in the set of surveys with greatest influence on the annually; and
displaying the influence score report on a device
The limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Mental Processes related to observation and evaluation of data, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a processor). For example, receiving a set of survey data structures, generating an aggregate scored survey metric, accessing a received user define purpose, filtering the set of survey data, determining a survey count, generating a set of scores, detecting an anomaly for aggregate scored survey metric, receiving a request to generate influence data, analyzing the set of survey data structures, generating score information for aggregate data structures, etc. involve collecting and analyzing data (e.g. observation and evaluation). These steps can be performed in the human mind or with a pen/paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Mental Processes.
Independent Claims 8 and 15 substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1 and also include the abstract idea identified above. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claim 2 is directed to a plurality of specify scored survey metrics, Claims 3-4 is directed to generating influence data, Claims 5-6 are directed to negative or positive influence scores and Claim 7 is directed to updating influence score. Claims 10-14 and 16-21 substantially recite the subject matter of Claims 2-7 and encompass the same abstract concept.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites a data structures. Claim 8 recites the additional elements of memory comprising computer readable instructions and a processor. Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium and a processor. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (see ¶0090).
For instance steps such as receiving a set of survey data structures, accessing a received user -defined purpose, retrieving a generation rule, detecting an anomaly and retrieving influence data is data gathering activity. The steps such as generating an aggregate scored survey metric, filtering the set of survey data based on user defined purpose, determining a survey count, generating a set of scores for an aggregate scored survey metric, generating a set of segment score data, creating a segment score data structure and generating an influence score report involve collecting and analyzing data and mathematical operations by a generic computer. The step related to passing the set of segment score data, survey count , set of scores and the generation rule to perform particular actions based on the generation rule is collecting and analyzing data to produce a result. Examiner notes that generation rule is broadly interpreted as there is no detail as to what the generation rule does. The step of passing the influence data and the report rule to an influence identification components to perform particular actions to implement the report rule is collecting and analyzing data to produce a result.
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a processor, a memory and a crm are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions (e.g. receiving, generating, accessing/filtering, analyzing, detecting, creating, passing, etc.) that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Dybas et al. (US 2023/0385742) discloses collecting engagement survey responses and determining impact scores for questions.
Tierney et al. (US 2022/0027362) discloses compiling strings of canonical answers with consistent score effects can lead to more predictable scores, especially as more canonical answers within the string are provided. Certain questions and their answers which have less impact on outcomes can thus become less relevant, and questions with the highest impact on scores are re-prioritized.
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 of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Eric Stamber can be reached at 571-272-6724.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights