DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This communication is a Final Action for Application 18/081,286. In response to Examiner’s action, mail dated May 08, 2025, Applicant submitted arguments and amended the claims, mail dated August 08, 2025. Applicant amended claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17,19, 20 and canceled claims 4, 11, 18. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19-20 are pending.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant did not submit an information disclosure statement for consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 08, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the revised rejections. Applicant’s argument will be address herein below.
Response to Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. 101
On pages 8-13 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments, the Applicant traverses the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Applicant amended the independent claims 1, 8 and 15. Applicant cites features contained: (a) instant specification [040], [046], [056]; (b) instant specification [037], [0064]; (c) instant application [040], [046], [056]; (d) instant specification [064]-[067]; and (e) instant specification [037], [0046], [0056], [0057], [0064]-[0067]. The claims dependent on claim 1, 8 and 15 do not recite language set forth in the claims, as amended.
Applicant submits the amended claims 1, 8, and 15 do not recite a mental process or methods of organizing human activity and each recite features for improving the functioning of a computer and/or improving a technological process of computer software execution, and are thus not directed to any alleged abstract idea. Applicant submits a proper reading of the claim indicate that the claims are directed to updating trigger events in a process flow of a computer software application. See Specification [046], [0056], [0057], [0080], [0082]. Each independent claim includes limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, and therefore, each independent claim does not recite a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Applicant submits the human mind is not equipped to update or manipulate a triggering vent within a process flow of a computer software application, especially based on processing frequency metadata received from a plurality of triggering events.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 Step 2A Prong One arguments. The claims recite generating a configured survey to improve the product. The claims recite identifying a triggering event. The human mind can identify a trigger event. Specifically, the Applicant’s claims broadly recite triggering event. The instant application specification [048],[050], [052] disclose thresholds may define the time periods, especially for the period between two dynamic push triggered request. The claims recite a mental concept and thus are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant arguments point to instant application specification [046] that states, ‘… A feedback request may initiate the entire process and may be initiated in at least two ways. … A user interaction, such as a change in the state of a data object or a change in the state of a process may be a triggering event that is used to create a feedback request, for example. In a second way, a triggering event may arise from outside of the confines of software applications 21-216, such as browser events, or based on a timer with a specified interval…’. Here, the triggering event is described as a user interaction that triggers a survey, and thus, the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims are directed to an abstract idea under step 2A prong one.
Even if claims 1, 8, and 15 previously recited an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), claims 1, 8, and 15 as amended include at least the above additional elements that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. This is because they show an improvement to the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. MPEP § 2106.04(d). Example 40 provides contrasting claims directed to a method of network monitoring, specifically, varying the amount of traffic monitored based on monitoring events and detecting abnormal network conditions from the monitored events. Here, the claims are eligible for similar reasons. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15, when considered as a whole, are directed to a particular improvement in feedback-based event trigger re- configuration to improve bandwidth efficiency in a networked environment, integrating any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, at least the claimed features (a)-(e) describe a balancing method that processes "various feedback requests with different frequencies" to "protect [client devices] from being overloaded with too many surveys in a specified timeframe." Specification, ¶¶ [0064], [0065]. The described "various feedback requests," when transmitted collectively at a high frequency, such as when "shown every few minutes ... to a given user," often overload the network connection between the "survey provider 750" and the device of the "user 520." Id, ¶¶ [0050], [0064], [0080], and FIG. 7. Due to bandwidth constraints, present in any network, and the high frequency transmission of feedback requests, the device may "be overloaded with too many surveys," and "efficiency of the [computer application] workflow" may be diminished. Id, ¶ [0048]. The balancing method, recited in at least the claimed features (a)-(e), addresses the device overloading problem by analyzing frequency metadata from a plurality of feedback responses, and updating a trigger in the process flow of the executing computer application to protect the device.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 Step 2A Prong Two arguments. The Applicant traverses the claims are similar to Subject Matter Eligibility Example 40 – Adaptive Monitoring of Network Traffic Data. In Example 40, a NetFlow exporter generates and exports network traffic statistics and analyzes statistics. Periodically, the network data is compared to a predefined quality threshold. If this network data is greater than the predefined threshold, an abnormal condition is detected. In Example 40, the claim recites the combination of additional elements of collecting at least one of network delay, packet loss, or jitter relating to the network traffic passing through the network appliance, and collecting additional NetFlow protocol data. Specifically, the method limits collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume in the network and hinderance of network performance. The collected data can then be used to analyze the cause of the abnormal condition. This provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring. The claim as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application.
Regarding additional elements, the Applicant’s claims broadly recite a computer implemented method, triggering events, client device, configured survey, an application framework, and user interface framework. The claims are adding the word “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). Unlike Example 40, the Applicant’s broadly recited additional elements are not integrated into a practical application.
Regarding specific improvement, the Applicant’s claims are identifying a triggering event and configuring a survey, that is present in the application framework or user interface. The received survey responses are to make improvements based on the user’s needs due to the collected results. The claims are configuring output, the survey, to make an improvement to the abstract concept of collecting survey data to improve a product. Unlike Example 40, the Applicant’s claims are not integrated an improvement to the technical functioning a computer or technical field.
Furthermore, the Applicant’s argument rely on a bandwith argument. The Applicant’s has not claimed bandwidth, network, traffic, overload nor efficiency. Regarding the triggering described in the instant application [046] the dynamic push events are absent from the claims. Instead, the claims proudly recite triggering events, which as discussed in the instant application could arise from a user interaction or time lapse hence a threshold. See instant application [047], [050]-[051].
The Applicant’s arguments rely on triggering events but the additional elements that are facilitating the triggering events are absent from the claims. For example, the paragraphs cited in the Applicant’s arguments disclose elements such as API and central dispatcher in the instant application [047], [056] –[047]. The additional elements within the cited paragraphs are not recited in the claims. Applicant is encouraged to positively recite the additional elements that are pertinent to the triggering.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments of bandwidth, Applicant is encouraged to clarify the bandwidth argument. The instant specification is absent of bandwidth and network traffic. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive at Step 2A prong two.
Additionally, these features improve the functioning of a computer at least in part by providing a dynamic, "integrated system that allows reactions to user interactions within the system." Id, ¶ [0021]
Regarding the Applicant’s argument of improvement, the Applicant is encouraged to describe the additional elements, and the additional elements that are integrated into the abstract concept that are conducting the “dynamic” performance. The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive at Step 2A prong two.
The additional elements recited, address the technical problems of device overloading and application stalling by providing a technical solution. The combination of the claimed steps of independent claims are not well understood, routine, or conventional, and they do not operate in a non-conventional and non-generic way for implementing application feedback mechanisms, citing instant application [021], [028]. The claimed combination of steps amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Further, as described in the succeeding sections herein, the lack of references presented by the Office Action that sufficiently disclose, teach, or suggest the recite claim features provides evidence that independent claims 1, 8, and 15 include additional elements that are "not well-understood, routine, conventional elements."
At Step 2B, the Applicant’s claims are considered as a whole. Examiner did not reject the claims nor describe the claims as well-understood, routine, conventional elements. So the Applicant’s well-understood, routine, conventional elements argument is moot. Applicant is encouraged to describe the additional elements, and the additional elements that are integrated into the abstract concept that are conducting the “dynamic” performance. When considered as a whole the amended claims do not amount significantly more.
The lack of references argument is evaluated in the prior art section.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims 1, 8, and 15, and the respective dependent claims be withdrawn.
Examiner submits, the claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101, see below.
Response to Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. 102
On pages 15-18 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 102 arguments, the Applicant submits claim 1 (and similarly claim 8 and claim 15) is amended to advance prosecution. Support for the amendments are found in paragraphs [037], [0046], [0056], [0057], and [0064]-[0067] of the instant specification. Applicant respectfully asserts Bridwell fails to teach or suggest these feature of the triggering events. Applicant asserts Bridwell is silent about the claimed triggering events” and, thus, at least feature (a) as recited in independent claim 1, 8 and 15 as amended. Claims 2, 5-6, 9, 12-13, 16, and 19-20 depend from independent claims 1, 8, and 15. As discussed above, Bridwell does not render unpatentable claims 1, 8, and 15, as amended. Barton does not overcome the deficiencies Bridwell with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, as amended.
Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15, as amended, are not rendered obvious by the combination of Bridwell and Barton-assuming such combination is possible, which Applicant does not concede. Claims 2, 5-6, 9, 12-13, 16, and 19-20 are likewise not rendered obvious by the combination of Bridwell and Barton for at least the same reasons as claims 1, 8, and 15 from which they depend, and further in view of their own respective features. For at least this reason, and further in view of their features, claims 2, 5-6, 9, 12-13, 16, and 19-20 are patentable over the alleged combination of Bridwell, and Barton.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 102 arguments. The claims amendment necessitates grounds for a new rejection.
In response to Applicant’s obvious argument regarding patentably over the alleged combination of Bridwell and Barton, obviousness is evaluated under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. 103
On page 18 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 103 arguments, Applicant traverses the claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended and Barton does not overcome the deficiencies of Bridwell with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15. Claims 2, 5-6, 9, 12-13, 16, and 19-20 depend from independent claims 1, 8, and 15. As discussed above, Bridwell does not render unpatentable claims 1, 8, and 15, as amended. Barton does not overcome the deficiencies Bridwell with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, as amended.
Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15, as amended, are not rendered obvious by the combination of Bridwell and Barton-assuming such combination is possible, which Applicant does not concede.
Claims 2, 5-6, 9, 12-13, 16, and 19-20 are likewise not rendered obvious by the combination of Bridwell and Barton for at least the same reasons as claims 1, 8, and 15 from which they depend, and further in view of their own respective features. For at least this reason, and further in view of their features, claims 2, 5-6, 9, 12-13, 16, and 19-20 are patentable over the alleged combination of Bridwell and Barton.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 103 arguments. The claims amendment necessitates grounds for a new rejection.
Examiner notes “[a] general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.” 37 CFR 1.111(b). Applicant’s assertions regarding claims 2, 5-6, 9, 12-13, 16, and 19-20 are not persuasive because they are general allegations, rather than arguments specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patently distinguishes them from Bridwell and Barton.
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 1-3, 5-7 are process.
Claims 8-10, 12-14 are machine.
Claims 15 -17, 19- 20 are manufacture.
The claims (claim 1, similarly claims 8 and 15) recite “… receiving a plurality of triggering events, wherein the triggering events are internal events that specify a plurality of triggers within a process flow . . . and wherein the plurality of triggering events comprise contains identification data identifying . . . application; for each triggering event of the plurality of triggering events: validating the respective triggering event; retrieving … using at least some of the identification data received as a part of the respective triggering event, wherein … is related to a type . . . application; retrieving a survey associated with the respective triggering event; configuring the survey in accordance with . . . to generate a . . . survey; transmitting the . . . survey to . . . and causing the . . . survey to be displayed to a user while … is processing; and receiving a response to the … survey and … comprises a frequency … of the respective triggering event; identifying a last triggering event of the plurality of triggering events and a last trigger of the plurality of triggers, wherein the last triggering event is an internal event that specifies the last trigger within the process flow… ; determining, based on the frequency metadata of each triggering event of the plurality of triggering events, a pre-configured threshold frequency … has been surpassed; and updating, based on the metadata determining the pre-configured threshold frequency has been surpassed, the last trigger of the last triggering event to be a second trigger within the process flow of … to more efficiently collect additional feedback, wherein the second trigger is a timer event that specifies a time period based on the pre-configured threshold frequency.” Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19-20 in view of the claim limitations, recites the abstract idea of generating a configured survey to improve the product. These limitations of the claims that describe surveys are interactions, and thus, the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims are directed to an abstract idea under step 2A prong one.
Furthermore, the claims are identifying triggering events. The human mind can identify a trigger event. Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) fall within the abstract grouping of mental process.
Accordingly, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, and thus, the claims are directed an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A Prong 2. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of, “A computer-implemented method for more efficiently triggering user feedback within a computer software application executing on a client device, comprising”, “of the computer software application executed on the client device,”, “a configuration file”, “a configured survey”, “the client device executing the computer software application”, “metadata from the client device, wherein the metadata”, “of the software application executed on the client device”, in claim 1; “A system, comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to: ”, “a computer software application executed on a client device,”, “the computer software application”, “a type of the computer software application;”, “metadata from the client device”, “of the software application executed on the client device”, “on the frequency metadata of each triggering event”, in claim 8; ““A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform operations comprising:”, “a computer application executed on a client device” , “the computer software application”, “a configuration file”, a type of the computer software application; “a configured survey”; in claim 15; however, when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recite 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).
Dependent claims recite the additional elements:
Claim 3 (and similarly claim 10) an application framework or user interface framework
Claim 7 (and similarly claim 14) a user interface event
Examiner identified as additional elements; however, the claims recite “a user interface event” and “metadata of each triggering event”, illude to a additional elements. However, Applicant is encourages to clarify these elements. Applicant should discuss the additional elements used in the updating steps.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also fail to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) – mere instructions to Apply an Exception.
At step 2B, it is MPEP 2106.05 (d) – 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).
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-7 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 1. Dependent claims 9-10, 12-14 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 8. Dependent claims 16-17,19-20 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 15. The claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14 & 16-17,19-20 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bridwell (US 2016/0,104,177 A1) in in view of Douglas (US 2015/0,193,794 A1) and Barton (US 2020/0,202,278 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, (Currently Amended) [and similarly claim 8 and claim 15)
A computer-implemented method for more efficiently triggering user feedback within a computer software application executing on a client device, comprising: receiving a plurality of triggering events, wherein the triggering events are [[is an]] internal events that specify[[ies]]] a plurality of triggers within a process flow of the computer software application executed on the client device, and wherein the plurality of triggering events comprise contains identification data identifying the computer software application;
Bridwell [Figure 1], [006] disclose a method of administering a survey to an askee, the survey relating to a plurality of events, the method comprising automatically performing the following steps using a server … receiving a request for survey question(s) via a network, the request including askee identification data;
Bridwell [023] teaches automatically performing below-described asker or askee steps using respective processors, e.g., one processor in a server operated by or on behalf of the asker(s), and one processor in a client device such as a smartphone or tablet, laptop, or desktop computer., and thus, Bridwell teaches systems., Bridwell [023], [Fig 6]
for each triggering event of the plurality of triggering events: validating the respective triggering event;
Bridwell [030] teaches whenever a new customer interaction begins, the asker's server receives information about the askee from the ERP or CRM system, stores the information in the database (step 110), and automatically transmits an invitation to the askee (step 115). This can take place, e.g., when an askee makes a reservation for service or purchases a product. , Bridwell [Figure 1 115, 120, 122, 124], [030].
Douglas teaches the trigger signals may be sent to trigger processor 102 in real-time (e.g., as soon as the triggering events are detected). Trigger processor 102 may provide the trigger signals to survey generator 103. Douglas [032], Douglas [064]-[069] disclose scenarios where the trigger processor survey the customers about specific products then send target advertising such as a discount on his next purchase, Douglas [064]-[069 [Figure 3].
retrieving a configuration file using at least some of the identification data received as a part of the respective triggering event, wherein the configuration file is related to a type of the computer software application; retrieving a survey associated with the respective triggering event;
Bridwell [026] the journey survey can include optional questions, and the asker's server can select which questions to transmit depending on the askee's previous answers. … [031] ub step 120, the asjkee receive the invitation, e.g., via email. , Bridwell [Figure 1 115, 120, 122, 124], [026], [030] –[031].
Bridwell [031] discloses the app is registered to receive notifications via the GOOGLE CLOUD MESSAGING API. The invitation is routed by GOOGLE from the asker's server to the askee's device. The ANDROID operating system on the askee's device activates the app and delivers the invitation to the app., Bridwell [031], [Figure 1], [Figure 5]
Bridwell [033] discloses in step 124, in an example, the asker's server responds to the request with the questions for the current event to be queried … and step 124 includes transmitting data identifying certain one(s) of the stored questions.
Bridwell [046] discloses in various aspects, e.g., implementations in which the askee uses a standard Web browser to access the survey and answer questions, the asker provides cues outside the browser to remind the askee to visit the survey URL. For example, at a conference, signs can be posted throughout the venue to remind users to visit their personalized survey URLs. In another example, the asker's server can periodically resend invitations as described above with respect to step 115, and thus, Bridwell teaches configured files.
configuring the survey in accordance with the configuration file to generate a configured survey;
Douglas discloses a survey configured to solicit feedback from the customers visits.
Douglas discloses [s]urvey generator 103 may create a survey and transmit it to the customer. The survey may solicit feedback from the customer, and may include one or more questions for the customer, such as "Did you find what you were looking for?", "Was the item you found too expensive?", or "What item were you looking for?" The survey may be transmitted to customer device 106 as soon as it is determined that the customer has left the store. The survey also may be transmitted to customer device 106 if the customer has not made a purchase within a predetermined time after the customer entered the store. The survey may be interactive, and provide further questions to the customer based on how the customer responds to the initial query or queries., Douglas [034], [Figure 3].
Douglas teaches configuring the survey the customer about specific products. Douglas [064] teaches the surveys may include a plurality of questions or queries for the customer, based on the received trigger signals. The surveys may be interactive and solicit customer responses. Continuing with the previous example, survey generator may receive the trigger signals from trigger processor 102 and generate one or more surveys. Survey processor may generate a first survey for the customer based on his location in Target and the amount of time he spent there. Survey generator 103 may be configured to generate a survey with questions relating to specific products if the customer spent at least a predetermined amount of time in an area proximate to those products., Douglas [064]-[066], [Figure 3].
transmitting the configured survey to [[a]]he client device executing the computer software application and causing the configured survey to be displayed to a user while the computer software application is processing;
Douglas teaches the trigger signals may be sent to trigger processor 102 in real-time (e.g., as soon as the triggering events are detected). Trigger processor 102 may provide the trigger signals to survey generator 103. Douglas [032], Douglas [064]-[069] disclose scenarios where the trigger processor survey the customers about specific products then send target advertising such as a discount on his next purchase, Douglas [064]-[069 [Figure 3].
and receiving a response to the configured survey and metadata from the client device, wherein the metadata comprises a frequency metadata of the respective triggering event;
Douglas [069] teaches at block 305, follow-up actions to take based on the customer responses may be determined. If a customer responds to the survey requesting more information, response processor 104 may send the customer the information that he or she requested. … One of the optional responses may include "Could not find the product I was looking for." If the customer selects this option, and the response is received at response processor 104, survey generator 103 may transmit a follow-up survey question, asking the customer to select the type of product he was looking for (e.g., "electronics", "clothing", "furniture", "toys", "appliances"). The follow-up question may assume the customer was looking for a digital television based on the triggers received indicating he spent 10 minutes in the digital television aisle. The follow-up question may ask the customer if he would be interested in seeing deals on electronic televisions on the merchant website., Douglas [069], [Figure 3].
identifying a last triggering event of the plurality of triggering events and a last trigger of the plurality of triggers, wherein the last triggering event is an internal event that specifies the last trigger within the process flow of the software application executed on the client device;
See above . Douglas [064-][069], [Figure 3].
determining, based on the frequency metadata of each triggering event of the plurality of triggering events, a pre-configured threshold frequency of the client device has been surpassed;
See below Douglas [068] and [069].
and updating, based on the metadata determining the pre-configured threshold frequency has been surpassed, the [[first]] last trigger of the last triggering event to be a second trigger within the (remap this claim to make sure all of the language is included)
Bridwell [053] discloses in various aspects using steps 145-165, the asker can provide a criterion indicating when survey questions are available. The askee's device can monitor the criterion and, when ready, receive survey questions and provide the asker the corresponding survey answers. This can be performed repeatedly over a journey so that appropriate survey questions are asked at each event, as triggered by the corresponding criterion., Bridwell [053] and Bridwell discloses event is detected when the askee is leaving the check-in counter and asked was at check-in longer than 3- seconds(first trigger). In various aspects, steps 535, 540, 545 can be repeated for each of a plurality of survey questions corresponding to the first event criterion. Any number ≧1 of survey questions can be presented at once … . Alternatively or additionally, steps 535 and 540 can be repeated for a plurality of question(s) or groups thereof and the received responses can be batched. Step 545 can then include transmitting the batched responses in one transaction..; Bridwell [053], [090], [092]- [093], [Figure 3], [Figure 5], [Figure 6] , [0101], [0102]
Douglas teaches the triggers and thresholds. In Douglas FIGS. 1 and 2, one or more responses to surveys and may be prompted to follow-up with the customer if the customer is still in the store. Employees may be prompted to follow up with the customer via a phone call or email after the customer has left. Method 300 may proceed to block 305. If a customer is in the store, this is a pre-configured threshold. If the customers is no longer in the store, this is a second trigger and this out of store threshold is outside of threshold for a pre-configured in-store surveying., Douglas [068]
Douglas teaches updating the survey based on actions and customer responses. Douglas [069] teaches Survey generator 103 may provide additional surveys to the customer based on the responses received. Continuing with the previous example, the customer may receive a survey after he leaves Target. Douglas [069] discloses the follow-up question may assume the customer was looking for a digital television based on the triggers received indicating he spent 10 minutes in the digital television aisle. The follow-up question may ask the customer if he would be interested in seeing deals on electronic televisions on the merchant website. The follow-up question may ask the customer which brand he is looking for. See Douglas [069].
Bridwell teaches automatically performing steps of administering a survey to an askee using a server. Douglas teaches detecting a trigger event from a customer at a merchant location, generating a survey based on the trigger event, and providing the survey to the customer. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date advantageously permit[ing] asking survey questions relevant to particular events, bringing the time of measurement closer to the occurrence of the event and by reducing the time required to answer survey questions, as taught by Bridwell, with generat[ing] one or more of follow-up commands or follow-up questions based on the received response and the survey transmission interface, as taught by Douglas, to capture customer feedback data immediately and thus provide a more customer-friendly experience., Douglas [003].
Regarding Claim 2 (and similarly claim 9 and claim 16), (Currently Amended)
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising… transmitting the configured survey.
Bridwell [Figure 2 – 235 ], [063] discloses retrieve progress data and [069] discloses (FIG. 1) steps 520, 525, 530 (FIG. 5). the askee's device can wait for the criterion to be satisfied.
Although highly suggested, Barton does not explicitly teach:
… dismissing the configured survey; and suggesting a different point in time for …
Barton teaches:
dismissing the configured survey; and suggesting a different point in time for transmitting the configured survey
Barton [0228] discloses … the prompt will also feature a Confirm or Snooze button [0229] If the participant hits Confirm, survey data will be sent to the database [0230] If the participant hits Snooze, the participant will receive the same notification at a later time., Barton [0228] – [0230]
Bridwell teaches automatically performing steps of administering a survey to an askee using a server. Barton teaches gathering statistics related to an organization. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine advantageously permit asking survey questions relevant to particular events, bringing the time of measurement closer to the occurrence of the event and by reducing the time required to answer survey questions, as taught by Bridwell, with snoozing a survey, so that there is improved engagement as measures by employee engagement surveys, Bridwell [072]
Regarding Claim 3, (and similarly claim 10 and claim 17) (Currently Amended)
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein at least one triggering event of the plurality of triggering events is a change in an application framework or user interface framework.
See claim 1. Bridwell [033], [046], [048], [Figure 6-630] and Douglas [069], [Figure 3] teaches user interface. Douglas [058] teaches API defined platform.
Bridwell teaches automatically performing steps of administering a survey to an askee using a server. Douglas teaches detecting a trigger event from a customer at a merchant location, generating a survey based on the trigger event, and providing the survey to the customer. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date advantageously permit[ing] asking survey questions relevant to particular events, bringing the time of measurement closer to the occurrence of the event and by reducing the time required to answer survey questions, as taught by Bridwell, with generat[ing] one or more of follow-up commands or follow-up questions based on the received response and the survey transmission interface, as taught by Douglas, to capture customer feedback data immediately and thus provide a more customer-friendly experience., Douglas [003].
Regarding Claim 4 (and similarly claim 11 and claim 18), (Canceled)
Regarding Claim 5 ( and claim 12 and claim 19), (Currently Amended)
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the triggering event is a timer event.
See above - Bridwell [048] and Barton [0228] – [0230]
Bridwell teaches automatically performing steps of administering a survey to an askee using a server. Barton teaches gathering statistics related to an organization. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine advantageously permit asking survey questions relevant to particular events, bringing the time of measurement closer to the occurrence of the event and by reducing the time required to answer survey questions, as taught by Bridwell, with snoozing a survey, so that there is improved engagement as measures by employee engagement surveys, Bridwell [072]
Regarding Claim 6 (and claim 13 and claim 20), (Currently Amended)
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the triggering event is a web navigation event.
Bridwell [030] discloses the asker's server can be communicatively connected with enterprise resource planning (ERP) or customer relationship management (CRM) software or systems, or other internal business software or systems, operated by or on behalf of the asker. In this way, whenever a new customer interaction begins, the asker's server receives information about the askee from the ERP or CRM system, stores the information in the database (step 110), and automatically transmits an invitation to the askee (step 115). This can take place, e.g., when an askee makes a reservation for service or purchases a product.
Barton further teaches:
… web navigation event.
Barton [0165] discloses …the survey questions are made available to relevant attendees after a meeting has concluded via the mobile app (015) or the website (016). Barton [0223] discloses a survey delivered on a mobile device, thus the triggering event is a web based.
Bridwell teaches automatically performing steps of administering a survey to an askee using a server. Barton teaches gathering statistics related to an organization. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine advantageously permit asking survey questions relevant to particular events, bringing the time of measurement closer to the occurrence of the event and by reducing the time required to answer survey questions, as taught by Bridwell, with snoozing a survey, so that there is improved engagement as measures by employee engagement surveys, Bridwell [072]
Regarding Claim 7, (Currently Amended)
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein [[the]] at least one triggering event of the plurality of triggering events is based on a user interface event comprising either a product being used at a predetermined point in time or a task performed in the product being used.
See claim 1. See Bridwell [048] , [Figure 6 - 630] - check -in, which is a triggering event.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tuchman (US 2014/0,119,531 A1) discloses a set of actions to be triggered based on user questions asked.
Greenzeiger (US 11,403, 673 B2) disclose server can either make a selection upon receiving the request or push an ad from a previously established queue, thus Greenzriger teaches a trigger event and pushes items.
Van Selm (2006, Conducting Online Surveys) discloses web surveys.
Chang (US 10,346,905 B1 Facilitating Finance Based on Behavorial Triggers) behavior monitoring that infers changes in a user’s financial needs based on one or more triggering events.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEA LABOGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, 8am-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, Patricia Munson can be reached at 571-270- 5396. 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.
/THEA LABOGIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3624 /PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624