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 .
Status of Claims
This is a final rejection in response to amendments/remarks filed on 7/10/2026. Claims 17, 30, and 36 have been amended. Claims 1-16, 21, 22, 31, and 37-48 have been canceled. Claims 17-20, 23-30, and 32-36 remain pending and are examined herein.
Priority
The present application is continuation of application #17/117,416 filed on 2020-12-10, (Patent No. 11556967), which is a continuation of #15/954,210 filed on 2018-04-16, (Patent No. 10891665). Therefore, the earliest effective filing date is 2018-04-16.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 06/02/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of the full statutory term of prior patent numbers “US 11556967,” and “10891665” has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 17-20, 23-30, and 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter?
Claims 17-20, 23-30 and 32-36: A computer implemented system to reduce reviewer bias in review of a plurality of submissions, comprising:
Independent claims 17 and 30 recites a computer with a processor and non-transitory memory, therefore the claims are directed to the at least one potentially eligible subject matter category, “machine or article of manufacture.” Therefore, the claims are to be further analyzed under step 2.
Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a Judicial Exception (A Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or An Abstract Idea?)
The claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification are analyzed herein. Representative claim 17 is marked up, isolating the abstract idea from additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold and the additional elements have been italicized as follows:
Claim 17:
- A computer implemented system to reduce reviewer bias in review of a plurality of submissions, comprising:
a processor communicatively coupled to a non-transitory memory containing a computer code, said computer program including:
a submission receiver programmed to receive a plurality of submissions from a plurality of submitters;
a submission group generator programmed to allocate said plurality of submissions into one or more submission groups;
a submission review target number assignor programmed to associate a pre-selected target number of submission reviews to each of said plurality of submissions within said submission group;
a submission server programmed to repeatedly serve said plurality of submissions in said submission group to said plurality of reviewers until each of said plurality of submissions in said submission group receives said submission review in a first one of said plurality of submission review ranks prior to serving each of said plurality of submissions in said submission group in a second one of said plurality of submission review ranks, until each of said plurality of submissions in said submission group receives said pre-selected target number of submission reviews by said plurality of reviewers, thereby reducing said reviewer bias in review of said plurality of submissions.
When given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the bolded limitations recite an abstract idea which falls under certain methods of organizing human activity. The bolded claim limitations recite steps of “receive a plurality of submissions from a plurality of submitters; allocate said plurality of submissions into one or more submission groups; associate a pre-selected target number of submission reviews to each of said plurality of submissions within said submission group; repeatedly serve said plurality of submissions in said submission group to said plurality of reviewers until each of said plurality of submissions in said submission group receives said submission review in a first one of said plurality of submission review ranks prior to serving each of said plurality of submissions in said submission group in a second one of said plurality of submission review ranks, until each of said plurality of submissions in said submission group receives said pre-selected target number of submission reviews by said plurality of reviewers, thereby reducing said reviewer bias in review of said plurality of submissions.” This process falls under the sub-grouping “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, wherein the overall task at hand is managing the allocation of submissions to reviewers. The output of the claims results in serving tasks to individuals, and the intermediate steps are mere data gathering and processing steps towards performing the allocation of the submission reviews to the reviewers. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) for more information on certain methods of organizing human activity. When considering the bolded limitations, the claims are recited at a high-level of generality such that they encompass mere instructions to an individual in order to manage their behavior. Certain rules or instructions which “manage personal behavior, interactions, or relationships” between individuals falls within the scope of certain methods of organizing human activity” even when the interactions are between an individual and a computer. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states, “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.” “Reducing reviewer bias” is an abstract idea, and even if it were deemed an improvement, it would be an improvement to how personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people are managed, which is an improvement to the abstract idea. Even improved abstract ideas still fall within the categorization.
It is clear that the specification reflects the assertion that the claims are merely managing personal behavior, in fact the specification, in at least page 9 lines 11-25, states
“Again, referring primarily to Figure 1, in particular embodiments, the submission review module (55) can further function to depict in the administrator graphical user interface (44) a preselected target number icon (57) which by user command in the administrator graphical user interface (44) can establish a preselected target number (19) of submission reviews (18) to each of the plurality of reviewers (17) correspondingly associated to a plurality of reviewer identifiers (59) allocated to a common reviewer roster identifier (60), or to each of the plurality of submissions (15) correspondingly associated to a plurality of submission identifiers (61) allocated to a common submission group identifier (62). In particular embodiments, the preselected target number (19) can be the same or different between a plurality of reviewers (17), or between a plurality of submissions (15). In particular embodiments, the submission review preselected target number icon (57) can take the form of an instruction depicted in the administrator graphical user interface (44) to enter the preselected target number (19) such as "Specify the number of submission reviews"”
By the language set forth in the specification, it is clear that the claims in light of the specification recite a system that merely facilitates the ability of an administrator, through various options and user commands, to manage a set of submissions and reviewers to perform the allocation of the submissions. Therefore, the overall concept recited in the plain language of the bolded functions in the claim is a recitation of an abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” particularly managing personal behavior, relationships or interactions between individuals.
Furthermore, because the claims are recited at a high-level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, the claims also recite an abstract idea under “mental processes.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states, “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” Since all of the steps in bold in both claim 17 can be practically performed in the human mind, even though they may require a computer, the claims still recite an abstract idea because the same steps can be performed by humans without a computer (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Therefore, the claims recite at least one abstract idea under “certain methods of organizing human activity” and another under “mental processes” the claims are to be further analyzed under Step 2a Prong 2.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claim 17 recites the following additional elements:
- A computer implemented system
- a processor communicatively coupled to a non-transitory memory containing a computer code, said computer program including:
- a submission receiver programmed to...
- a submission group generator programmed to...
- a submission review target number assignor programmed to...
- a submission server programmed to...
The additional elements, whether considered individually or in an ordered combination, are no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer on its ordinary capacity as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). As stated in MPEP 2106.05(f), “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” In this case, the abstract idea steps are merely instructed to be performed on generic computing devices such as computer, processor, and non-transitory memory. The specification in at least pages 3-4 describe the computing device presented in Fig. 1, which recites generic features of computers, and not a specific, improved computing infrastructure to perform the claims. The claim language of “programmed to” such as in “a submission receiver programmed to...” are merely equivalents of “apply it” language because they are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. MPEP 2106.05(a) states that improvements to the technological or technical field are a consideration for determining whether integration into a practical application or significantly more has been provided. However, no improvements to computer functionality, a technological environment, or a technical field of use have been purported, nor are any improvements reflected in the claim language that would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Whether viewing the additional elements individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because generic computers are capable of the generic data processing tasks recited. Therefore, since the claims merely recite generic computing devices performing software functions that are abstract idea steps, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claim 17 recites the following additional elements:
- A computer implemented system
- a processor communicatively coupled to a non-transitory memory containing a computer code, said computer program including:
- a submission receiver programmed to...
- a submission group generator programmed to...
- a submission review target number assignor programmed to...
- a submission server programmed to...
The additional elements, whether considered individually or combination, have also not been found to include significantly more in order to consider it an inventive concept for the same reasons set forth in Prong 2. The additional elements are no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer on its ordinary capacity as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). More specifically, the use of generic computing devices such as computer, processor, and non-transitory memory to perform the steps of receive a plurality of submissions from a plurality of submitters; allocate said plurality of submissions into one or more submission groups; associate a pre-selected target number of submission reviews to each of said plurality of submissions within said submission group; repeatedly serve said plurality of submissions in said submission group to said plurality of reviewers until each of said plurality of submissions in said submission group receives said submission review in a first one of said plurality of submission review ranks prior to serving each of said plurality of submissions in said submission group in a second one of said plurality of submission review ranks, until each of said plurality of submissions in said submission group receives said pre-selected target number of submission reviews by said plurality of reviewers, thereby reducing said reviewer bias in review of said plurality of submissions. does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims also do not recite an improvement to the “technological environment” or “field of use” therefore the abstract idea has not been found to include an inventive concept. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing meaningfully limits the claims such that they are significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Additionally, dependent claims 18-20, 23-30, and 32-36 have been given the full-two part analysis, considered individually and in combination with the claims they depend on.
Claims 18-20 and claim 36 add the additional steps of a “submission order prioritizer,” however the steps performed by the prioritizer are all still examples of “managing personal behavior” because they are mere instructions to manage the interactions between people. Furthermore, all of the functions are recited at a high level of generality such that they can be performed in the human mind. Other than the submission order prioritizer being “programmed to” perform the abstract idea functions, there are no further additional elements to be considered. The abstract idea functions are still being performed within the same generic computing infrastructure without an improvement to the computer’s functionality or a particular technological environment. Thus, even when viewed individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims meaningfully limits the abstract idea such that it is significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus claims 18-20 remain patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The same reasons above also apply to claims 23-25 which introduce a submission review allocator, and a submission review editor. However, the functions of determining the number of reviews associated with reviewers, allocating each submission reviews..., and receiving edits of submission reviews still are all mere facilitation of personal interactions between individuals and thus fall under certain methods of organizing human activity. Furthermore, they are still recited at such a high level of generality that they can practically be performed in the human mind. Other than the submission order allocator and editor being “programmed to” perform the abstract idea functions, there are no further additional elements to be considered. The abstract idea functions are still being performed within the same generic computing infrastructure without an improvement to the computer’s functionality or a particular technological environment. Thus, even when viewed individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims meaningfully limits the abstract idea such that it is significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus claims 18-20 remain patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 26 and 27 add the additional step of “depicting a submissions list” or “depicting a submission review indicator” which are more of the same abstract idea of “receiving submissions, allocating the submissions to reviewers, and repeating the allocation multiple times.” “Depicting an indicator” can be performed in the human mind with or without a physical aid, therefore they are still directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. Finally, the additional element of a “user interface programmed to” is no more than mere recitations of the word “apply it” or its equivalents on computers in its ordinary capacity, therefore they have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f) states, “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Furthermore, these additional limitations, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, do not meaningfully limit the claim as they merely link the field of peer-reviewing to user interfaces, therefore they do not add significantly more in order to promote the abstract idea into an inventive concept.
Claims 28-29 further limits the abstract idea by limiting possible formats of submission content, which are simply additional elements of the same abstract idea. These additional elements include electronic media content, electronic texts or graphics, video recordings, audio recordings, multimedia presentations, slide presentations, spreadsheets or combinations thereof, therefore they have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere forms of technological fields being applied to the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(h) states “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” Furthermore, these additional limitations, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, do not meaningfully limit the claim as they merely link the field of peer-reviewing to electronic media content, therefore they do not add significantly more in order to promote the abstract idea into an inventive concept.
Claim 30 adds a “submitter group generator” programmed to allocate each of the plurality of submitters into submitter groups. This is more of the same abstract idea because it is no more than a way to manage personal behavior or manage interactions between people. The “submitter group generator” is no more an “apply it” level additional element because it is merely an instruction to perform the abstract idea on a generic computing device. Therefore, the additional limitations, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not meaningfully limit the claim in a way that would add significantly more and promote the abstract idea into an inventive concept.
Claims 32-33 add additional steps of generating a reviewer roster which are more of the same abstract idea of “receiving submissions, allocating the submissions to reviewers, and repeating the allocation multiple times.” Generating a reviewer roster can be performed in the human mind. The additional elements of reviewer roster generator programmed to” merely recite instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computing device. MPEP 2106.05(f) states, “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Therefore, the additional limitations, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not meaningfully limit the claim in a way that would add significantly more and promote the abstract idea into an inventive concept.
Claims 34-35 add the additional steps of “associate a pre-selected target number of submission reviews to each of said plurality of reviewers,” and “serve said plurality of submissions... until the pre-selected target is met.” These additional steps are simple a repetition of the last two steps in claim 17 which also, “associate a pre-selected target number of submission reviews to each of said plurality of reviewers,” and “serve said plurality of submissions... until the pre-selected target is met.” Therefore, it is more of the same abstract idea of “receiving submissions, allocating the submissions to reviewers, and repeating the allocation multiple times.” The additional elements included are “a target submission review allocator programmed to” which merely recites instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computing device in its ordinary capacity. MPEP 2106.05(f) states, “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Therefore, the additional limitations, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not meaningfully limit the claim in a way that would add significantly more and promote the abstract idea into an inventive concept.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 17-20, 23-30, and 32-36 distinguish over the prior art and would be allowable if the claims overcome the rejections under 101.
Regarding Claim 17:
Even after updated search and consideration, neither Petty nor any of the prior art of record teach each and every limitation of amended claim 17, particularly the limitation of “repeatedly serve said plurality of submissions in said submission group to said plurality of reviewers until each of said plurality of submissions in said submission group receives said submission review in a first one of said plurality of submission review ranks prior to serving each of said plurality of submissions in said submission group in a second one of said plurality of submission review ranks, until each of said plurality of submissions in said submission group receives said pre-selected target number of submission reviews by said plurality of reviewers, thereby reducing said reviewer bias in review of said plurality of submissions.” Neither Lakhani nor Perry address this deficiency. The examiner agrees that Petty does not specifically disclose the relationship between the pre-selected target number of submission reviews and the number of submission review ranks. Though Petty does describe a submission review rank module, the steps performed in Petty [0038] describe the process of determining whether the content qualifies for a second review process, not that Petty creates ranks in view of the pre-selected target number of reviews. Even after an updated search has been performed, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest this claim, even in an obvious combination. Due to the specificity of the conditional steps which require particular rules regarding the sequence in which the submissions are allocated according to “review ranks,” and combined with the requirement of “a pre-selected target number of submission reviewers by said plurality of reviewers” the claims are narrowed to a level which has not be taught or suggested by the prior art of record. Claims 18-20, 23-30, and 32-36 are directly or ultimately dependent on claim 17 and therefore also distinguish over the prior art by virtue of their dependency on claim 17.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s remarks filed on 07/10/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, the amendments have alleviated the antecedent basis concern, therefore, the rejection to claim 30 and 32-36 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Regarding the allowability of claims over prior art, the examiner has previously indicated that claim 17 distinguishes over the prior art, and the claim has been amended to be further narrowed. Even after further search and consideration, the claims remain distinguished over the prior art.
Regarding applicant’s arguments over the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive in view of the amended claims. The applicant asserts that the Examiner “mischaracterizes” the claims, stating “to reduce the reviewer bias in submission review of said plurality of submissions, the claims include stepwise limitations and guidance which when taken and performed as a whole achieve more than “mere data gathering and processing steps towards performing the allocation of the submission reviews to reviewers.” The applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the applicant has not explained why the claim language falls outside of the categorization of “mere gathering and data processing steps.” Even when considering that the process is “novel and non-obvious,” the claims do not inherently result in a “technological improvement” because the analysis under 102 and 103 does not determine whether claims are improvements over the prior art, but if they are novel and distinguishable over the prior art. MPEP 2106.05(I) further states, “ Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101 ) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 ) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).” Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive over Step 2A Prong 1.
Regarding step 2a Prong 2, the applicant asserts that the claim language has “substantial practical application outside of the connection to a computer... with the outcome of “reducing reviewer bias in review of a plurality of submissions and thus is patent eligible.” However, this is not persuasive because the process of allocating submissions of submitters to reduce reviewer bias, all falls squarely within the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04 states, “Because a judicial exception alone is not eligible subject matter, if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.” Therefore, the judicial exception itself cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, therefore, if considered “outside of the connection to a computer,” then there is no way for the judicial exception to be integrated into a practical application. Furthermore, the applicant’s arguments regarding the output affording a solution to a “well-understood problem of bias in review of submitted submissions,” are not persuasive because as stated above, even improvements to the abstract idea still fall within the abstract idea, because MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.“ Therefore, even when considering the cited section of “Exhibit A,” the argument is not persuasive because improvements against confirmation bias are merely improvements to “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships” between individuals, which is not an improvement to technology or a technical improvement because it falls within the abstract idea category.
With regards to the applicant’s arguments in page 11, asserting that “claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application,” the examiner does not find the argument persuasive, because the particular solution consideration is in regards to whether the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, entirety of steps are merely instructions which manage personal interactions, not a particular solution to a technological problem. The “narrowness” of the claims does not equate to a “particular solution” because even when viewing the claim language as a whole, each of the steps, other than using a computer to perform the steps, can be performed in the human mind with the assistance of a pen and paper. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments that it is not merely “apply it” language, is not persuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments over whether the improvements are to “technology,” the applicant asserts that the consideration “applies equally whether it is computer-implemented invention, an invention in the life science, or any other technology.” While this remains true, this disregards that within the same paragraph, the MPEP states, “Consideration of improvements is relevant to the eligibility analysis regardless of the technology of the claimed invention. That is, the consideration applies equally whether it is a computer-implemented invention, an invention in the life sciences, or any other technology. See, e.g., Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 119 USPQ2d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which the court noted that a claimed process for preserving hepatocytes could be eligible as an improvement to technology because the claim achieved a new and improved way for preserving hepatocyte cells for later use, even though the claim is based on the discovery of something natural. Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Therefore, improvements to any type of technology, except an abstract idea, can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, but since the claims are directed to an improvement in how to “manage personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people,” the applicant’s arguments are now persuasive.
Furthermore, the applicant’s arguments alleging that the improvement to technology is supported in the specification are not persuasive because the cited portions are merely a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art that an improvement is reflected within the scope of the claims. The applicant’s arguments merely cite the section in which each of the steps are supported in the specification, which is accepted and acknowledged by the examiner. However, the corresponding specification sections do not make it apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art that a technical improvement to a technical problem is realized. Therefore, none of the applicant’s arguments over 35 U.S.C. 101 are persuasive and the claim remains rejected herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
-Aaron Brady (US 20150347413 A1) discloses a way to present user interface modules to a random subset of users to allow users to provide ratings and reviews, in order to reduce bias such as “bandwagon bias,” “fradulent bias,” “selection bias,” to ensure accuracy of ratings.
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 NICO LAUREN PADUA whose telephone number is (703)756-1978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri: 8:30 to 5:00pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/NICO L PADUA/Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights