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
1. This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on May 27, 2025, which paper has been placed of record in the file.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, which is analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a system for conducting surveys related to school performance. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites the system for conducting surveys related to school performance. The claim recites the steps: organizing outbound survey questions and inbound survey responses into a plurality of conversation threads using the plurality of respondent profiles…, conducting a survey for a respondent pool: providing a first question to the population of respondents…, receiving a first response to the first question from a respondent…, analyzing the first response to determine a first set of response attributes, determining a second question based on the first set of response attributes, providing the second question to the respondent, receiving a second response to the second question from the respondent, analyzing the second response to determine a second set of response attributes, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
The claim recites the steps of: organizing outbound survey questions and inbound survey responses into a plurality of conversation threads suing the plurality of respondent profiles…, conducting a survey for a respondent pool: providing a first question to the population of respondents…, receiving a first response to the first question from a respondent…, analyzing the first response to determine a first set of response attributes, determining a second question based on the first set of response attributes, providing the second question to the respondent, receiving a second response to the second question from the respondent, analyzing the second response to determine a second set of response attributes, , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor/automatically”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of “to store respondent pools, respondent profiles, messages associated with outbound survey questions in the computer-readable storage medium”, “to store queued messages cached in the caching”, “a communication device that is communicatively coupled to a messaging service”, “conducting a survey via the messaging service”, and “a curation interface to display on a curator user device of a curator user”, Claim 20: “a category selector comprising three or more category buttons”, “a type selector comprising two or more type buttons.” The claim also recites that the steps “organizing outbound survey questions and inbound survey responses”, “conducting a survey for a respondent pool”, “providing a first question to the population of respondents”, “receiving a first response to the first question from a respondent”, “analyzing the first response to determine a first set of response attributes”, “determining a second question based on the first set of response attributes”, “providing the second question to the respondent”, “receiving a second response to the second question from the respondent”, “analyzing the second response to determine a second set of response attributes”, and “causing a curation interface to display on a curator user device” are performed by one or more processors; and a data storage stores respondent pools and respondent profiles.
The additional elements “to store respondent pools, respondent profiles, messages associated with outbound survey questions in the computer-readable storage medium”, “to store queued messages cached in the caching”, “a communication device that is communicatively coupled to a messaging service”, “conducting a survey via the messaging service”, and “a curation interface to display on a curator user device of a curator user”, Claim 20: “a category selector comprising three or more category buttons”, “a type selector comprising two or more type buttons” are mere data gathering, transmitting, and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting, and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement to medium/caching/communication device/user interface, they are just merely used as general means for collecting, transmitting, and displaying data. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified by the courts Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Further, the steps “storing respondent pools, respondent profiles, messages associated with outbound survey questions”, “storing queued messages cached”, “organizing outbound survey questions and inbound survey responses”, “conducting a survey for a respondent pool”, “providing a first question to the population of respondents”, “receiving a first response to the first question from a respondent”, “analyzing the first response to determine a first set of response attributes”, “determining a second question based on the first set of response attributes”, “providing the second question to the respondent”, “receiving a second response to the second question from the respondent”, “analyzing the second response to determine a second set of response attributes”, and “causing a curation interface to display on a curator user device” are recited as being performed by the processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality. In limitations “storing respondent pools, respondent profiles, messages associated with outbound survey questions”, “storing queued messages cached”, “conducting a survey via the message service” and “causing a curation interface to display on a curator user device”, the processor is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering, transmitting, and outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations “organizing outbound survey questions and inbound survey responses”, “providing a first question to the population of respondents”, “receiving a first response to the first question from a respondent”, “analyzing the first response to determine a first set of response attributes”, “determining a second question based on the first set of response attributes”, “providing the second question to the respondent”, “receiving a second response to the second question from the respondent”, and “analyzing the second response to determine a second set of response attributes”, the processor is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processors, the data storage, the computer-readable storage medium, the caching, and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
Additional elements “to store respondent pools, respondent profiles, messages associated with outbound survey questions in the computer-readable storage medium”, “to store queued messages cached in the caching”, “a communication device that is communicatively coupled to a messaging service”, “conducting a survey via the messaging service”, and “a curation interface to display on a curator user device of a curator user”, Claim 20: “a category selector comprising three or more category buttons”, “a type selector comprising two or more type buttons”, were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data transmitting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “to store respondent pools, respondent profiles, messages associated with outbound survey questions in the computer-readable storage medium”, “to store queued messages cached in the caching”, “a communication device that is communicatively coupled to a messaging service”, “conducting a survey via the messaging service”, and “a curation interface to display on a curator user device of a curator user”, Claim 20: “a category selector comprising three or more category buttons”, “a type selector comprising two or more type buttons” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; 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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); A Web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processor to perform limitations “organizing outbound survey questions and inbound survey responses”, “conducting a survey for a respondent pool”, “providing a first question to the population of respondents”, “receiving a first response to the first question from a respondent”, “analyzing the first response to determine a first set of response attributes”, “determining a second question based on the first set of response attributes”, “providing the second question to the respondent”, “receiving a second response to the second question from the respondent”, “analyzing the second response to determine a second set of response attributes”, and “causing a curation interface to display on a curator user device”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding independent claims 15 and 20, Alice Corp. establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent claim 15 directed to a method, independent claim 20 directed to a system, are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent method claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-19, have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent- ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 16, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting associate an outbound identifier with each respondent pool…, receive a contact dataset that includes an inbound identifier…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 3, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the inbound identifier comprise a first telephone number…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 4, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the respondent is included in the population of respondents…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 5 and 17, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting associate the first question with a standard message priority, associate the second question with a high message priority, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. The claims recite prioritize transmission of questions to the message service, are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”) (see claim 1 above). Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 6, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting manage outbound message queues…, select and provide a next standard priority message…, select and provide a first high priority message…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 7, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting a prompt to provide the first response…, and analyze the first response…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 8 and 18, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the quantitative sentiment indicator indicates a positive sentiment……, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 9 and 19, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting a prompt to provide the second response…, and analyze the second response……, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 10, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting analyzing the second response as the qualitative response, use one or more of: (i) a pre-configured keyword analysis configured……, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 11-12, the claims recite wherein the curation interface is configured to cause the curator user device to display……, were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data transmitting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “wherein the curation interface is configured to cause the curator user device to display …” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving and transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 13, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting receive an attribute update via the curation interface…, modify the attribute…, and update the analytical function based on the corrected value……, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 14, the claim recites cause a report interface to display in a user device of a user, therein the report interface is configured to cause the user device to selectively display……, were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data transmitting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “cause a report interface to display in a user device of a user, therein the report interface is configured to cause the user device to selectively display …” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Therefore, the dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the outcome of the two-part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not draw to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Novelty and Non-Obviousness
5. No prior arts were applied to the claims because the Examiner is unaware of any prior arts, alone or in combination, which disclose at least the limitations of “organize the outbound survey questions and inbound survey responses into a plurality of conversation threads using the plurality of respondent profiles, wherein each conversation thread is uniquely associated with one respondent and one respondent pool; when conducting a survey for a respondent pool via the messaging service: provide a first question to the population of respondents for the respondent pool, wherein the first question is associated with a first queued message in the caching; receive a first response to the first question from a respondent of the population of respondents, and analyze the first response to determine a first set of response attributes; determine a second question based on the first set of response attributes, and provide the second question to the respondent, wherein the second question is associated with a second queued message in the caching; and receive a second response to the second question from the respondent and analyze the second response to determine a second set of response attributes” recited in the independent claims 1, 15, and 20.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more (see more details above).
Step 2A, Prong One
(a) Mental Processes
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that the claims are not directed to mental processes, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the claims recite the limitations: organizing outbound survey questions and inbound survey responses into a plurality of conversation threads suing the plurality of respondent profiles…, conducting a survey for a respondent pool: providing a first question to the population of respondents…, receiving a first response to the first question from a respondent…, analyzing the first response to determine a first set of response attributes, determining a second question based on the first set of response attributes, providing the second question to the respondent, receiving a second response to the second question from the respondent, analyzing the second response to determine a second set of response attributes, , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor/automatically”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the limitations “to store respondent pools, respondent profiles, messages associated with outbound survey questions in the computer-readable storage medium”, “to store queued messages cached in the caching”, “a communication device that is communicatively coupled to a messaging service”, “conducting a survey via the messaging service”, and “a curation interface to display on a curator user device of a curator user” are additional elements, which are analyzing under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Regarding to claim 2 of Example 37, which is directed to relocation of icons on a graphical user interface, was not found to recite a mental process, because the step of determining “the amount of use of each icon is automatically determined by a processor that tracks the number of times each icon is selected or how much memory has been allocated to the individual processes associated with each icon over a period of time (e.g., day, week, month, etc.)” In contrast, the present claims recite one or more processors configured to access a computer-readable storage medium, are recited at a high level of generality and are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processors, the data storage, the computer-readable storage medium, the caching, and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The present claims further differ from claim 2 of Example 37, the present claimed processors configured to access data in a computer-readable storage medium, the processors do not determine the amount of use of each icon, do not track the number of times each icon is selected or how much memory has been allocated to the individual processes associated with each icon, as in claim 2 of Example 37. Therefore, the claims are directed to mental processes.
b) Certain methods of Organizing Human Activities
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that the claims are not directed to certain methods of Organizing Human Activities, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the claim recites the system for conducting surveys related to school performance. The system collects and curating survey responses. The claim recites the steps: organizing outbound survey questions and inbound survey responses into a plurality of conversation threads using the plurality of respondent profiles…, conducting a survey for a respondent pool: providing a first question to the population of respondents…, receiving a first response to the first question from a respondent…, analyzing the first response to determine a first set of response attributes, determining a second question based on the first set of response attributes, providing the second question to the respondent, receiving a second response to the second question from the respondent, analyzing the second response to determine a second set of response attributes, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Regarding to claim 2 of Example 42, the claim recites a method of storing information about a patient, providing access to users to update the information, and storing updated information of the patient. Claim 2 was construed to be a method of managing interactions between people, because “the mere nominal recitation of a generic content server and generic network-based storage devices does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping.” Similarly, the present claims recite one or more processors configured to access data in a computer-readable storage medium and updating certain information using generic computer components. Rather, the current claims merely recite generic computer components the processors, the data storage, the computer-readable storage medium, the caching, and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are directed to certain methods of Organizing Human Activities.
Step 2A, Prong Two
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that the claims recite an integration into a practical application to be paten eligible via may of the recited elements, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the claims recite the additional elements “to store respondent pools, respondent profiles, messages associated with outbound survey questions in the computer-readable storage medium”, “to store queued messages cached in the caching”, “a communication device that is communicatively coupled to a messaging service”, “conducting a survey via the messaging service”, and “a curation interface to display on a curator user device of a curator user”, Claim 20: “a category selector comprising three or more category buttons”, “a type selector comprising two or more type buttons” are mere data gathering, transmitting, and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting, and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement to medium/caching/communication device/user interface, they are just merely used as general means for collecting, transmitting, and displaying data. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified by the courts Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Therefore, the claims do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that the claims recite “significantly more” than the abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the additional elements of “to store respondent pools, respondent profiles, messages associated with outbound survey questions in the computer-readable storage medium”, “to store queued messages cached in the caching”, “a communication device that is communicatively coupled to a messaging service”, “conducting a survey via the messaging service”, and “a curation interface to display on a curator user device of a curator user”, Claim 20: “a category selector comprising three or more category buttons”, “a type selector comprising two or more type buttons” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; 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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); A Web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
7. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
9. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Birningham et al. (US 2020/0228624) disclose distributing a survey created for a first distribution channel across multiple distribution channels.
Kopikare (US 2019/0318370) disclose generating customized surveys using third-party social networking information.
Kaufman et al. (US 2017/0032395) disclose a system and method for dynamically creating, updating, and managing survey questions.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner NGA B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6796. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-5PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NGA B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 September 4, 2025