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 .
Application Status
This is a CON of 14/477,611 now US Patent 11,430,024.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/01/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/01/26 has been entered. Claims 1, 10-11, 20-35 and 37 are pending.
1) Claims amended:
(1) independent claims: 1, and 11.
(2) Dependent claims: none.
(a) canceled: 2-9, and respective 12-19, 36.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 10-11, and 20-35 and 37 are pending. They comprise of 3 independent groups:
(1) method1: 1, 10, and 21-30 and
(2) system1: 11, 20, and 31-35
(3) Article: 37.
As of 04/01/26, claim 1 is as followed:
1. (Currently amended) A method, comprising:
[1] receiving, by a computing device, information associated with a user;
[2] processing the received information, by the computing device, to verify, by the computing device, one or more aspects of a credibility of a user;
[3] prompting, by a kiosk device configured (a) with one or more cameras for receiving live input and (b) to be accessed from an IP address corresponding to a defined location, the user to submit feedback information associated with an entity;
[4] receiving, via a user interface of the kiosk device and in response to the prompting by the kiosk device, the feedback information;
[5] computing, by the computing device and based on the one or more verified aspects of the credibility of the user, a quality score associated with the feedback information;
[6] selecting one of a plurality of respective computing devices; and
[7] transmitting the feedback information to the selected one respective computing device based on the computed quality score.
Note: for referential purpose, numerals [1]-[7] are added to the beginning of each step.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 10-11, 20-35 and 37 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No.11,430,024. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because steps [1]-[4] of current claimed application, “accessing, processing, prompting and processing feedback information” read over the steps “accessing, prompting, and identifying received feedback information” of US Patent 11,430,024 to achieve the same scope of analyzing customer feedback information for further result display and analysis.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
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.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 1, 10-11, 20-35 and 37:
Claim category:
(1) process, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 10, 21-30;
(2) machine, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 20 and 31-35.
(3) NT CRM (article) : 37.
Analysis:
1. process: claims 1, 10, 21-30 are directed to a process; i.e., a series of steps or acts, for creating and managing a customer’s feedback program for a purchasing experience.
(Step 1:Yes).
2. machine: claims 11, 20 and 31-35 are directed to a system; comprising
(1) a computing device,
(2) a non-transitory processor readable media; and
(3) database, for creating and managing a customer’s feedback program for a purchasing experience. (Step 1:Yes).
3. Article: a N-T medium having instructions for creating and managing a customer’s feedback program for a purchasing experience.
Claims 1, 10-11, 20-35 and 37 meet the conditions of step 1.
Claims 1, 10-11, 20-35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites the abstract idea of managing a customer’s feedback information for further review, comprising the steps of: (1) receiving information of (a) business, (b) customer and (c) customer feedback, (2) processing the information, (3) prompting the customer to submit feedback information, (4) receiving the feedback information, (5) computing a quality score associated with the feedback information, (6) selecting a proper computer for transmitting the feedback information, and (7) transmitting the feedback information to an entity for further review.
These recited limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of sales activities or behaviors, i.e. customer reviews of services performed. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(2A) The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because in particular, the claims recites(1) receiving information of (a) business, (b) customer and (c) customer feedback, (2) processing the information, (3) prompting the customer to submit feedback information, (4) receiving the feedback information, (5) computing a quality score associated with the feedback information, and (6) selecting a proper computer for transmitting the feedback information, for further review. The user devices in both steps, a computer device, a kiosk device, cameras, etc., are recited a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic device performing generic computer function of (1) accessing, (2) analyzing the information (3) prompting a customer to submit the feedback, and (4) analyzing the feedback for evaluation such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because it deals with a method for managing a customer’s feedback program for a purchasing experience, by carrying out steps of:
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] receive information(data). Data gathering, insignificant extra-solution activity, IESA.
[2] processing information (data) Data gathering, IESA.
[3] prompting the user to provide feedback. Data gathering, IESA.
[4] receive information feedback. Data gathering, IESA.
[5] computing a quality score (data) Mental/analysis.
[6] select a computing device. Business activity, use a computer.
[7] Transmit feedback (data). Data sending, IESA.
Steps [1], [2], [3], [4] and [7] are data gathering/communicating and data transmitting which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Step [5] is well known mental step for evaluating/analyzing by deriving relationships creating and managing a customer’s feedback program.
Step [6] is well known business activity of using a computer to carry out the mental analysis step.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea of evaluating customer feedback upon a purchase. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
(2B) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional element of analyzing feedback information and generating a response to a user device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. The additional element accessing business information, prompting a customer to submit a feedback and analyzing the feedback information was considered insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, prong 2.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s). Mere instructions to apply an exertion using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components, i.e. kiosk device, IP address, etc., are claimed at high level of generality to perform their basis functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use (Specification [0026-0031] and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements, steps [1]-[7], when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s). As the device, computer, kiosk, IP address, etc., they are generic computer devices. For the system or article claims, mere instructions to apply an exertion using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components, i.e. a processor, a memory to store a set of instructions. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer network devices, i.e. a software for carrying out the evaluating/analyzing by deriving relationships for evaluating customer feedback upon a purchase. Moreover, they are claimed at high level of generality to perform their basis functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claim are basically collect data, analyze data, and provide set of results, which are not patent eligible, see Electric Power Group, LLC. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dependent claim 10 (part of 1 above), which is dependent on claim 1, the claim recites the additional limitation (information) of the feedback processing parameters, i.e. by generating a score and a broadcast level, this further limits the “abstract idea” of “processed feedback information” but does not provide the “significantly more” effect to the claimed scope.
As for dependent claim 21, which is dependent on claim 1, the claim recites the additional limitation (information) of the feedback processing parameters, a broadcasting/publishing system, this further limits the “abstract idea” of “processed feedback information” but does not provide the “significantly more” effect to the claimed scope.
As for dependent claims 22-26, which are dependent on claim 1, the claim recite the additional limitation of the quality score features, these further limit the “abstract idea” of “quality score analysis” but do not provide the “significantly more” effect to the claimed scope.
As for dependent claim 27, which is dependent on claim 1, the claim recites the additional limitation of the quality score features, these further limit the “abstract idea” of “quality score analysis” but do not provide the “significantly more” effect to the claimed scope.
As for dependent claims 28-29, which are dependent on claim 1, the claim recite the additional information about the user, these further limit the “abstract idea” of “quality score analysis” but do not provide the “significantly more” effect to the claimed scope.
As for dependent claim 30, which is dependent on claim 1, the claim recites the additional limitation of the computing devices, these further limit the “abstract idea” of “quality score analysis” but do not provide the “significantly more” effect to the claimed scope.
Therefore, claims 1, 10-11, and 20-35, and 37 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/26 have been reviewed and the results are as followed:
101 Rejection: the argument on pages 8-9 are not persuasive. As for the comments of “additional element implements a judicial exception with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim..,” they are not persuasive for the same reasons cited above. The user devices in both steps, a computer device, a kiosk device, cameras, IP address, etc., are recited a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic device performing generic computer function of (1) receiving data, (2) analyzing the information (3) prompting a customer to submit the feedback, and (4) analyzing the feedback for evaluation such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
103 Rejection: withdrawn from the Office action of 07/22/24 which relies on (1) RONEN, US 2009/0.070.228 and (2) BACHMAN et al. 2013/0124.301. These references do not all the elements of steps [3]-[5].
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:30-4:30 PM (ET).
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, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. 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.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689