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
The office action is being examined in response to the RCE Amendment filed by the applicant on 11/25/2025, which is respectfully acknowledged and entered into the record.
Claims 1-6 are pending and have been examined.
Claim 1 is amended and includes claimed matter not presented in the specification.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Response to Amendment
Drawing Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks, see page 10, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to the Objections to the Drawings, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The replacement drawings sheets have been acknowledged and entered into the record. The Objections to the Drawings are withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks, see page 11, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection is made in view of the amended claim 1.
The amended claim 1 adds a “means for” and “modules for” limitations that are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), necessitated by the amendments, and disclosed below. The interpretation, according to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), reintroduces the removed claim limitations for both an algorithm and a “proprietary algorithm” recited in the claims through interpretation of the “means for analyzing.” Additionally, the amended claim 1 adds matter not previously presented in the specification, disclosed in the new 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and added 112(b) rejections below.
Please see the additional 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretation and new grounds of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections below, necessitated by and reflecting the amendments to the first claim for the response analyzing system means for analyzing and hardware-accelerated cryptographic modules for decrypting.
35 U.S.C. § 101 Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks, see pages 11-15, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 12, the Applicant asserts traversal of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection for claims 1-6, asserting that the invention discloses patent-eligible technological implementations that do not recite an abstract idea, further asserting that amended claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented system, wherein “the claims are directed to a patent-eligible application of technology.” The argument continues on page 12, where the Applicant asserts that the claims integrate any arguable judicial exception into a practical application in multiple non-conventional and non-generic ways because the claims advance technical protections for feedback systems by resolving response latency, friction, and inconsistent qualitative input via the system execution in a secure network environment implemented by end-to-end encryption.
On pages 13-14, the Applicant asserts that the claim limitations, as a whole, recite significantly more than the judicial exception because they reduce latency and increase consistency, prevent tampering, preserve anonymity, produce confidence comparisons, and generate verifiable recognition signals for controlled external distribution, further asserting that no limitations are well-understood, routine, or conventional. Lastly, the Applicant asserts that prior art evidence was not cited to demonstrate any combination of features that teach or suggest the claims, such that the claims recite a practical application of improvements to computer functionality in the area of real-time encrypted digital feedback systems.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis requires the identification of additional elements that are separate from the identified abstract ideas. In this case, the Applicant confirms the Examiner’s findings, that the general-purpose computing structures are additional elements. Further, as directly recited in the claims and as disclosed through the interpretation of the response analysis system means for analyzing through 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the algorithm is also an additional element. Since it is reasonable to interpret, from the writing, that the algorithm and proprietary algorithm are synonymous, i.e. the algorithm and “proprietary algorithm” are one in the same. The Examiner is interpreting that the system is disclosed as general purpose computing structures executing code (which is how they will be interpreted for the purposes of applying prior art). The Examiner is further interpreting the response analyzing system “means for analyzing” to be the “proprietary algorithm” and algorithm. The algorithm and the computing structures are each recited/disclosed at a high level of generality, i.e. the claims are mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on general purpose computing structures and/or using a proprietary algorithm, e.g. adding the words “apply it,” such that the additional elements are merely tools used for implementation of the abstract ideas, not a practical application. Resolving response latency further supports the Examiner’s findings in the MPEP 2016.05(f) interpretation, where resolving response latency, friction, and inconsistent qualitative input into a user interface is merely a change in the speed, accuracy, and/or efficiency of the computing structures displaying and receiving data at the UI, i.e. a user interface architecture, which is not a practical application, where it is an innate feature of utilizing computing structures to automate the receipt data versus performance by a human.
An interface architecture, asserted by the Applicant, is an additional elements, however, it is merely categorically grouped as a general purpose computing structure. The additional elements, the general purpose computing structures and proprietary algorithm, each recited with a high level of generality, are used merely as tools to perform the abstract ideas, i.e. adding the words apply it with the abstract ideas, where these additional elements are merely linked to the use of these abstract ideas, such that the additional elements are not improved as they are merely token additions linked to automate the performance of the abstract ideas in the claims without meaningfully applying the abstract ideas beyond general linkage to the technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements, i.e. the general-purpose computing structures and proprietary algorithm, do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract ideas.
The Applicants’ assertion that the claim elements are not well understood, routine, or conventional is an argument requiring a specific finding by the Examiner that includes evidence to support the finding. Since no elements were identified as well-understood, routine, or conventional, this argument is MOOT.
The Applicant’s assertion that the Examiner failed to cite evidence demonstrating prior art that teaches or suggests any combination of features that collectively implement the claimed invention in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 101 analyses does not represent any requirements under this statute. This argument is MOOT.
The Applicants request for 35 U.S.C. § 101 withdrawal has been traversed and the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is maintained. Please find an updated rejection for 35 U.S.C. § 101 below, reflecting the amendments.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks, see pages 15-18, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 in claims 1-6, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On Page 15, the Applicant argues that none of the recited references, individually or in combination, teach or suggest the limitations introduced in claim 1. The Applicant asserts on pages 16-18, that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest any of the limitations of claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Since the Applicant cancelled the previous limitations and rewrote them with nearly identical functions, versus amending the existing claims, the arguments avoid discussing the presented citations for the same reworded limitations. The arguments are made with regards to the previous prior art citations, which are directly tied to the previous claim limitations presented prior to this amendment, but are posed with regards only towards the newly presented claim limitations, where the difference between the prior presentation and amended claim limitations allows for similar applications of the same prior art references in combination, forming an amended 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, below. Therefore, the present arguments are not pertinent to the office action based on the prior presentation.
Further, with regards to the rewritten limitations, the Applicant does not disclose that the prior art does not perform the limitations at all, nor identify which limitations have no support by the combined disclosures as presented in the Final Office Action. The Applicant merely identifies that the new limitations are not covered with direct citations, due to lack of Examination stemming only from the amended, i.e. completely rewritten, claim presentation, and identifies summarized focal points that they believe are not disclosed due to the unavoidable lack of citations after the amendments, effectively ignoring the examination provided. The future arguments for unexamined RCE claim limitations are not relevant to the past Examination of the RCE amendments, nor to the prior assertions, by the Examiner, of combined obviousness of the prior art over the instant invention as presented in the pre-RCE Final Action.
On pages 17-19, the Applicant argues that the RCE amendment, i.e. rewritten claims, of the instant invention are patentably distinct over the previously presented combination of references, and that it would require substantial modification of each reference’s fundamental operation that would change the principles of operation of the cited systems and render them unsatisfactory for their intended purposes.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, aside from summarizing RCE-amended instant invention aspects that the Applicant feels are not comprised within the prior art due to a lack of Examination, the Applicant does not disclose missing elements as presented in the Final Office Action for previously presented limitations, where the newly presented limitations are merely rewritten renditions of the prior presentation. The assertions that the combined prior art does not perform a summary of the invention does not present succinct points in which the prior art citations fails to disclose the invention.
The Applicants’ arguments, that the combination of references would require substantial modification of each reference’s fundamental operation that would change the principles of operation of the cited systems and render them unsatisfactory for their intended purposes, as the referenced systems do not provide an enabling disclosure for such a combination, is unfounded in fact and lacks clear reasoning outside from the broad and generalized statements connected to commentary from the Applicant, not included in the specification nor the claims, or disclosure of the invention and details from the specification that are not comprised within the recited claims. Therefore, the Applicant has not presented an analysis to support the arguments in a manner that sufficiently allows the Examiner to understand the issue and relay findings. Merely making statements without analysis of fact and facts to prove the analysis, does not in itself cause a rejection to be removed.
The broadest reasonable interpretation standard means that the claims are interpreted and prior art is applied individually, or in combination along with a reason, or motivation to combine, such that the prior art could reasonably perform the claimed limitations. The motivation to combine follows the citations for each authored prior art. In the case of the reasons to combine the art, the Applicant does not disclose any explanation as to why the motivations are not satisfactory, or reasons to support the assertions that the prior art fails at the points listed in the Arguments. The Applicant, additionally, does not disclose how the references would require substantial modification of fundamental operations to meet the broadest reasonable interpretation according to the citations and motivations to combine.
Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims do not support the Applicant’s assertions. The prior art disclosures are each in the general category of computer-based systems utilizing software and in appropriate cases, algorithms to perform particular limitations of the claims. While the claims may present a different manner of performing tasks, the manner of performing tasks are not so different as to preclude the prior art from performing the functions in a manner that is not patentably distinct over the instant application, i.e. the functions are patentably equivalent under the broadest reasonable interpretation, before the effective filing date of the instant application, and the prior art disclosures are combined with reasonable motivations to combine for each disclosure and for each claim. The assertion of an unsatisfactory principle of operation, i.e. manner of performing tasks, is not a valid reason to assert faults in combination of the sort asserted in the arguments
The Examiner would like to particularly point out that MPEP 2143.01(V) is not an applicable stance to this instant application. The particular cases asserted by the Applicant, In re Ratti and In re Gordon, are applied to physical structures. In these cases, the physical structures were modified such that they were literally unable to function. In re Ratti found that for the combination of physical structures, "substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements" alters the "basic principles under which [the] construction was designed to operate,” which does not apply to this computer based software system running algorithms, as the same structures are utilized in the instant application as in the combination of prior art. In re Gordon found that turning a physical device upside down rendered the device inoperable for the intended function, i.e. "unsatisfactory for its intended purpose,” however, as disclosed above, the physical structure is not modified, turned on its head, or utilized differently than either intended, disclosed in the prior art, or recited in the instant application. The modifications are merely software functions, which are system architecture, but are not physical structures, such that the system architecture, software per se without the computing structures and algorithms, is not a statutorily patentable area. Therefore the system architecture, what the software does in the instant application is not patentably distinct over the combination of the prior art disclosures before the effective filing date.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The allegations of the Applicant fail to acknowledge the specific motivations to combine for each combined reference at the end of each section in which combination is presented. The Examiner’s action is comprised of paragraphs that demonstrate motivations to combine that fulfill this requirement, according to statute and MPEP. The Applicant fails to identify any specific motivations to combine or any reasons these motivations to combine are deficient or not present, that supports this assertion. This assertion is MOOT.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to 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.
The claims of the instant application recite steps of a “proprietary algorithm,” invoked from the specification through 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretation of the response analyzing system means for analyzing, that performs steps in an unknown, undisclosed, and unclaimed manner. While the Examiner is required to attend to all arguments, this only applies to substantive arguments, where the Applicant does not disclose how the prior art may fail to disclose or teach the claims in a substantive manner. The arguments with regards to 35 U.S.C. § 103 are not persuasive and the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
The Applicant uses these 4 pages to add information in the arguments that is not presented in the claims nor the specification, revealing arguments that are MOOT. For instance, the Applicant asserts on various pages including: on page 16, the template system is a dedicated digital platform, a dedicated platform that could not logically operate as disclosed on page 15, “across multiple platforms.” Also disclosed on page 15, a system that includes a sentiment analysis module, encrypted communication channels, page 16, interlinked analytical and scoring “modules” in the plural, generating data packages with platform-controlled engagement flows, a platform native assessment environment, sentiment-scaled controls, submissions lacking external redirection to third party sites, where again, page 15 discloses that the system specifically redirects to at least external social media sites. Also disclosed on page 17, the score is computed through a calibrated formula, the scoring model is normalized, the summary is “derived from a calibration algorithm,” a fully encrypted internal assessment pipeline, and the Applicant discloses on page 18, platform native scoring algorithms. These limitations/functions are not recited in the claims, and some are not disclosed in the specification either.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is maintained. Please find the updated 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection below reflecting the amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. One claim limitation in this application that does not use the word “means” (or “step”) is also being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, via the nonce word “modules” as indicated in the Office action.
For claim 1:
“automatically analyzing the stored encrypted structured feedback records by means of the response analyzing system, the analyzing including:” i.e. a response analyzing system Means For automatically performing the recited list of analyses, and
“hardware-accelerated cryptographic modules” for decrypting the feedback records.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites: “automatically analyzing stored encrypted structured feedback records by means of the response analyzing system, the analysis including:”
“decrypting the feedback records via hardware-accelerated cryptographic modules,” i.e. a means for analysis including decrypting via “hardware-accelerated cryptographic modules,” e.g. hardware-accelerated modules for decrypting.
“validating integrity of the decrypted record against the ID code,” i.e. a means for analysis including validating integrity;
“converting the slider-based values into a standardized internal data format,” i.e. a means for analysis including converting;
“calculating a numeric confidence score and associated status descriptor at the campaign cycle conclusion based on standardized values and a stored count parameter,” i.e. a means for analysis including calculating a numeric confidence score and associated status descriptor.
The response analyzing system means is not defined in the claims, i.e. the claims do not recite the structure, i.e. the response analyzing system is recited as a software system implemented on general purpose computing structures, but the claims do not recite the algorithm. From the specification, it is reasonable to interpret that the response analyzing system means for analyzing is an algorithm due to the language in the specification of ¶ [0013], “the present invention discloses a system and method for measuring and monitoring the social acceptance of a personal or brand reputation by the respondents using a proprietary algorithm which converts structural expression feedback into a numerical value called confidence score.” The specification does not disclose a response analyzing system means for, or reasonably link the response analyzing system to any means for analyzing or means for, at all. The specification does reasonably link the response analyzing system to the algorithm and proprietary algorithm as in specification ¶’s [0013], [0022], [0048], and [0050], where the algorithm is reasonably identified as the “means for analyzing” within the response analyzing system, as recited in the claim.
The specification discloses only two algorithms, an algorithm, and a proprietary algorithm, interpreted according to the language of the specification, to be equal. The “proprietary algorithm,” hereinafter referred to merely as “the algorithm,” is disclosed in the specification in ¶’s [0013], [0022], and [0048] as an algorithm to: generate a confidence score (CS) along with a status statement, transform opinions into numbers, convert structural expression feedback into a numerical value called confidence score, generate a status statement, and calculate an automated CS score, where generate and calculate are being interpreted as synonymous.
This algorithm is not disclosed in the specification for performing all of the functions in the claim. The disclosed algorithm is not recited in reasonable connection with or for performing: registering, providing a secure digital interface, generating a template bound unique identification code associated with the RAT and campaign parameters, enforcing campaign integrity, instantiating a template, decrypting data via hardware-accelerated cryptographic modules, validating integrity of decrypted records, generating and rendering an interactive display, implementing end-to-end encryption, preserving respondent anonymity or feedback integrity, digitally verifying or assigning the digitally verifiable badge indicator based on satisfying performance thresholds, configuring a badge for sharing, or verifying reputation standing.
Additionally, there is no structure, materials or acts disclosed in the specification to support the Hardware-accelerated cryptographic modules for decrypting, i.e. there are no computers, hardware, or algorithms recited in the claims or disclosed in the specification that are reasonably linked to or disclose a cryptographic module for decrypting. The specification does not disclose decryption or cryptographic modules at all.
The scope of what is claimed is not supported by the specification because a “proprietary algorithm” is an algorithm that is held in exclusive right to the applicant without a manner of detail, such that it is a trade secret, defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3), that has been proprietarily withheld from the patent application and publication. This is contrary to statutory requirements, where the claims, drawings, and specification and therefore the claim contains subject matter that lacks written description support.
The scope of what is clamed is not supported by the specification whereby it does not provide a disclosure of the algorithm that achieves the claimed functions in a manner that a person having ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing, thereby supporting rejection for failing to meet statutory requirements for written support under 35 USC 112(a) (MPEP 2161.01 and 2163).
Lastly, dependent claims 2-6 inherit these deficiencies and are also rejected under 112(a) (MPEP 2161.01 and 2163).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations that are not disclosed in the specification in a manner that particularly points out the subject matter the applicant regards as the invention:
The disclosed algorithm in the specification is not recited in reasonable connection with or for performing: registering, providing a secure digital interface, generating a template bound unique identification code associated with the RAT and campaign parameters, enforcing campaign integrity, instantiating a template, decrypting data via hardware-accelerated cryptographic modules, validating integrity of decrypted records, generating and rendering an interactive display, implementing end-to-end encryption, preserving respondent anonymity or feedback integrity, digitally verifying or assigning the digitally verifiable badge indicator based on satisfying performance thresholds, configuring a badge for sharing, or verifying reputation standing. The algorithm is only disclosed in the specification for calculating a CS score, calculating a statement, transforming opinions into numbers, converting structural expression feedback into a numerical value called confidence score, generating a status statement, and calculating an automated CS score, where calculating and generating are synonymous. Further, the algorithm is proprietary, such that the metes and bounds are not defined by the specification.
The specification does not disclose Hardware-accelerated cryptographic modules for decrypting, i.e. there are no computers, hardware, or algorithms recited in the claims or disclosed in the specification that are reasonably linked to or disclose cryptographic modules for decrypting. The specification does not disclose decryption or cryptographic modules at all.
The specification does not disclose validating integrity of the decrypted record against the ID code.
Limitations and functions recited in the claims must be disclosed in the specification in a reasonable manner with which the person having ordinary skill in the art can ascertain the definiteness of the functions and limitations. Since these functions and limitations are not disclosed in the specification, inclusion in the claims is merely claiming indefinite limitations as the claims fail to clearly delineate the metes and bounds of the claimed invention without adequate support for all of the limitations and functions, i.e. the metes and bounds of these limitations and functions, from the written description.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without much more.
Regarding Claim 1: 2A Prong 1: The claim recites calculating a confidence score and calculating an associated status descriptor, which are abstract ideas in category of “mathematical concepts”, more specifically, “mathematical relationships” and “mathematical calculations” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). The claim recites generating a unique code, storing the code and template data to enforce campaign integrity, automatically analyzing data, decrypting data, validating data integrity, and converting data values into standardized format, which are abstract ideas in the category of “ certain methods of human activity,” more specifically “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” because the claims receive user opinions that are used to calculate scores that gauge and rank users and their peers; and they are in the category of “mental processes,” or “things that can be performed in the human mind.”
2A Prong 2: The claim states that the instructional steps are performed as a computer implemented system on a network comprising a computer with a processor and memory where the memory stores the instructions that are performed by a user device that is connected to the computer over the network, i.e., the system is comprised of general-purpose computing structures. It is known that instructions to apply abstract ideas in a technical environment are not a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
There is a cryptographic module that is an additional element, however, the inventive concept is not related to encryption or security technology, where the cryptography, encryption and decryption are recited at a high level of generality and disclosed in the specification merely as end-to-end encryption without the recited details in the disclosure. The claim recites characterized data that is merely non-functional descriptive information limitations. The claim recites transmitting data, receiving data, providing data, receiving data, assigning a badge, i.e. sending data, and generating or rendering data for display, however, the specification does not reveal that the core of the invention is directed to advances in data receiving, data sending, data display, providing data, or end to end encryption technology. These functions are described at a high level of generality. The claims do not disclose how the calculations are performed, only disclosing the intended outcome at a high level of generality. The specification does disclose only that the calculations are performed using “a proprietary algorithm.”
The recited response analyzing means for analyzing, is being interpreted as an algorithm, i.e. the “proprietary algorithm, that performs analyzing (which is how it will be interpreted in terms of prior art). This algorithm is disclosed at a high level of generality as merely a tool used by the system, “a means for” analyzing, with the abstract ideas, i.e. the claims merely add the words “apply it” with the judicial exceptions.
The specification does not reveal that these limitations offer improvements to: the computer, the proprietary algorithm, algorithm technologies, computations or mathematics, or improvements in the areas of sending, receiving, storing, accessing, registering, allowing, selecting, or generating data, selecting or setting parameters, individual identification code technology, campaign management science, graphical user interface or other display technologies, building applications, or touch screen functionality or technology. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and express intended results that are not material to patentability.
The specification does reveal that the system recited in the claim is configured to execute the instructions on general purpose computing structures. The claims and specification are focused on the steps taken, i.e. merely executing instructions on general purpose structures that are incidental or token additions to the claim, that do not alter or affect how the inventive process steps of calculating the confidence scores are performed (MPEP 2015.06(h)). Additionally, merely executing abstract ideas on general purpose structures, stating “apply it,” is not a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim as a whole, while looking at the additional elements individually and as a combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.07(a)).
Step 2B: Additionally, the analysis for Step 2B is commensurate with the analysis above for step 2A, Prong 2, therefore, for the same reasons stated above, since there the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, it is also asserted that these additional elements, when taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exceptions (MPEP 2016.05).
Further, claims 2-6 recite additional limitation that describe the nature of the information and one reporting function. These descriptive information limitations are neither abstract ideas, nor limitations that carry patentable weight in the claims. The reporting function also holds no patentable weight since it is recited at a high level of generality and express intended results that are not material to patentability. The specification does reveal that the systems recited in the claim are configured to execute the instructions on general purpose computing structures. Each claim as a whole, are not abstract ideas and cannot be relied upon to integrate the judicial exceptions of claim 1 into a practical application when viewed individually or in combination (MPEP 2016.07). Lastly, these additional elements when taken individually and in combination, do not result in each claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the identified exceptions of claim 1 (MPEP 2016.05).
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 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franson, US8676596B1, in view of Pace, US20190156358, in further view of US10445794B1 Krishnamurthy, and in further view of Ginter, US20030105721A1.
(Examiner note: Franson discloses [Column 3 Lines 25-33] “it is to be understood that a sub-component or multiple sub-components of platform 102 (whether individually or in cooperation with third party components) may cooperate to perform that task”)
Regarding Claim 1: Franson discloses:
PNG
media_image1.png
709
913
media_image1.png
Greyscale
registering a sender user via the computing device through a secure digital interface; selecting or instantiating a RAT from the database, the RAT being specific to an industry, profession or business category: [Col 3 Ln 34, 43, and 50] (enable a user to register with username, password, and business type, i.e. where the password makes it a secure digital interface), [Figure 2] (verification engine, further shows secure features of the platform), [col 15 ln 4-9] (the system can recommend templates, language, and timing of review requests campaigns), [Fig. 18] (Arrow on left side points to template selection menu visualized as a drop down “Templates:” menu button with “Casual and not too slick” appearing in the drop down selector, supporting a spot to choose an existing template, like a default template, or to name a template to save, along with a “reset to Template” button, and a “Save as template” button. While this image and the text do not explicitly disclose a “default template,” where the system assists businesses in recommending strategies for obtaining additional reviews or choosing campaign options like timing, frequency, and length of time, determined to best strategy to illicit customer interaction,) [col 14 ln 38-46] (the template is set up for a particular business and configured to assist the business in making template choices including default and personalized templates), [col 13 ln 22-23] and [Fig. 9] “To revert back to the default view, Alice can click on "Reset Filters" (926),” disclosing an alternate view allowing the choice to “reset to Template” via a clickable button that allows a user to reset the Template to “default view,” implicitly disclosing the “reset” function in Fig. 9 as applicable to Fig. 10, Fig. 11, Fig. 14. Fig. 17, and Fig. 18.), and [col 20, ln 50-66] (templates can be auto-filled from data from a database and templates can be personalized for each reviewer from previously submitted data);
generating a template-bound unique identification code, the identification code being associated with the selected RAT and the campaign parameters and stored in the database to enforce campaign integrity: [col 23 ln 23-26] (user sets campaign message, i.e. default confidence status indicators), [Col 10 Ln 66-67] ““uid" is a unique identifier assigned to the business by platform 102 and stored in database 214,” (where uid is a unique identifier) and [Col 20 ln 4-6] “In various embodiments, any review site accounts/identifiers determined to be associated with the customer are stored in database 214 in a profile for the individual,” [Col 21, ln 32-36] (campaign information is tracked from specific identification of review requests (i.e. requests and campaigns for reviews) that correlate with the template and parameters sent, i.e. the campaign is tracked through unique identification codes),
initiating a real-time feedback campaign by transmitting a campaign link containing the unique identification code to selected respondent devices via one or more authenticated social-networking or messaging channels: [Col 21, ln 32-36] (campaign information is tracked from specific identification of review requests that correlate with the template and parameters sent, i.e. the campaign is tracked through unique identification, where any unique manner of identification and tracking is reasonably synonymous with a code used for the same), [col 19 ln 43-54] (where a user/business has a social networking site, reviewers are selected to receive the review request with a direct link to the user/business site according to email addresses that match user’s social networking sites since reviewees already have accounts with user’s social networking site, i.e. the social networking sites of existing users are authenticated) (initiate campaign through integrated social networking platforms); [Fig. 18] (see arrows on bottom right of the image above), (real time and on demand score generation, time, and cycles driven for each campaign by the business owner’s choice), [col 5, ln 41-42] (collection intervals can be set, i.e. campaign intervals);
upon a respondent device receiving the campaign, providing the respondent with the RAT interface defined by the RAT, enabling the respondent to input: [col 23, ln 3-16] (a user receives a request for review at their device via a link), [Fig. 29] (user inputs review and clicks ‘submit review’)
receiving from the respondent device storing the feedback records in the database, each feedback record comprising attribute identifiers, time-stamp metadata and encryption indicator: [Figures 1 and 2] (data stored in a database); [Columns 2 line 57- Column (col) 3 line (ln) 3], [col 3 ln 9-11] “reputation platform is configured to collect reputation and other data,” [col 7, ln 31-36] (various factors are identified, rated and computed into the final score, i.e. attributes are synonymous with predefined attributes), [col 7, ln 58 – col 8, ln 9] (this section discloses that the timing/timeliness of reviews is gathered, implying that the review is identified in part my a timestamp data, such that the age of the data may be determined);
automatically analysing the stored encrypted structured feedback records by means of the response analysing system, the analysis including: (Examiner note, the means for analyzing is being interpreted as the proprietary algorithm); (ii) validating integrity of the records against the unique identification code; (iii) converting the values into a standardized internal data format; and (iv) calculating a numeric confidence score and an associated status descriptor at the conclusion of a defined campaign cycle based on the standardized values and a stored respondent-count parameter; [col 14, ln 49] (system can work automatically), [col 9, ln 17] (score generation depicts the algorithm used to determine the analysis from the data, i.e. the means for generating is akin to the means for analyzing), [col 4, ln 4-5] (verification engine verifies data), [Figure 8, 804 and 806] (generate a score from data and return score), [col 6, ln 5-6] (converting review data to a standard format), [col 11 ln 6-19 and ln 62-64] (score for all types of business using the same set of rules or score for individual sectors/business types, and system provides score on demand, i.e. in real time or automatically, i.e. dynamic benchmark scores), [col 6, ln 53-54] “the raw score of a review is stored in database 214, as is a converted score,” (i.e. transformed score) [col 7 ln 7-11] “Platform 102 is configured to determine a variety of reputation scores on behalf of businesses such as Bob's Juice Company. In the case of multiple-location businesses, such as ACME, individual reputation scores are determined for each 10 of the locations;” [Col 6 ln 43-59] (raw score is converted to heterogenous score); [Col 11 ln 51 - col 12 ln 33] (text analysis and conversion); [Col 21 ln 37 - col 23 ln 51] (details of score calculations including weighting, skewing, normalizing, and calibrating);
generating and rendering to the sender via the computing device a real-time interactive dashboard display comprising: (i) the calculated confidence score, (ii) a benchmark confidence score retrieved from accumulated campaign data in the database, and (iii) listings of the highest and lowest ranked attributes as derived from the standardized feedback values: [col 7 ln 26-31] (interface 600 displays a calculated composite reputation score for the business), [col 11 ln 15-18] “Scoring engine 702 can be configured to use a best in class entity when determining appropriate thresholds/values for entities within a given industry,” [col 7 ln 7 -col 9 ln 17] (reputation score factors); [col 11 ln 6-19 and ln 62-64] (score for all types of business using the same set of rules or score for individual sectors/business types, and system provides score on demand, i.e. in real time or automatically, i.e. benchmarks), [col 7 ln 26-44] (specific factors are disclosed to the reviewee to improve); [col 15 ln 10] – [col 17 ln 9] and [figure 6] and [figures 9-19] (dashboard display of score and analysis details with suggested modifications to reach targets): [col 7 ln 45 – 57] and [col 16 ln 3-11] (message is sent to reviewee of needed action for improvement), [col 17 ln 10- col 19 ln 17] (benchmarking scores);
preserving feedback integrity; and [Col 3 Ln 34, 43, and 50] (enable a user to register with username, password, and business type, i.e. where the password makes it a secure digital platform such that the feedback integrity is preserved),
assigning a digitally verifiable badge indicator to the sender and/or one or more respondents when system-defined performance thresholds over multiple completed campaign cycles are satisfied, the badges being configured for sharing via external digital or social media channels to promote verified reputation standing. [col 23 ln 8-11] (incentive assigned to user in exchange for reviews), [col 7, ln 45 – col 8, ln 45] (badges for overall score or stars rating, timeliness, or age since last review or ages of presently calculated reviews, social indicators awarded through the system with input from peers, and review authority, or notification badges that show how much authority a user holds, allow users to receive badges for system defined threshold achievements), [col 11, ln 8-31] (section discloses special displayable “badges” like stars when certain thresholds of reviews are reached over a cycle of reviews, i.e. a review campaign, e.g. best in class entity), [col 14, ln 25] (the system can send reports out, i.e. promoting data that is verified via direct delivery), [col 21, ln 22] and [col 14, ln 32] and Figure 4, 426] (data may be retrieved from, sent to, and displayed on social media sites);
Where Franson does not disclose: (d)providing the respondent with the
RAT via a slider-based attribute-bar interface defined by the RAT, enabling the respondent to
input a quantitative value for each predefined attribute;
(e)(1) in encrypted format and feedback records
(f) transforms the received structured input into a numeric score;
(h) implementing end-to-end encryption across all data-exchange stages including RAT distribution, campaign link transmission, respondent input, feedback record storage, and analysis, ensuring security and anonymity of respondents and reviewees;
Pace teaches: For (d) and (e)(2): [0111] “For users not already registered to use an embodiment, an embodiment may optionally provide a sign in/sign up option, wherein the user signs in for a first time;” [0066] and [0087] (a sliding scale review score from user); [Fig. 11] (good and bad review via simplified touch entry), and [0114-0119] (effortless survey using “volume bars” and previous message choices to eliminate typing and increase speed),
For (e)(1): [0133] “(e.g., concerns or suggestions for process/product improvement)…An embodiment has the ability to vary the privacy settings of the user ( e.g., employee) so that the user may be anonymous,” [0119] “data security is increased by the simplistic categorization, and hence the ease of categorized data access, made available by such grid-based, largely objective data,” and [0130] “for business-to-business feedback, only certain persons may be enabled to see …feedback given. For example, only Chief Executive Officers, Chief Technology Officers, etc., of a company may be enabled to review feedback regarding other companies in a supply chain. Accordingly, a CTO in a supply chain may be provided with information that people in the purchasing group of another member of the company supply chain are doing a great job. On the other hand, in some instances, for security or efficiency purposes, for only certain employees may see certain types of data. As such, embodiments may customize the routing of the structured data so that certain data is only available to certain individuals, excluding others who may be on a need-to-know basis.”
For (f): [0068] “data analysis and reporting operations are performed. For example, processes at service provider computer 14 may aggregate, correlate, or otherwise analyze a plurality of data records received via block 120 from a large number of computing devices 10 and produce new values based on the data that indicate trends, scores, or other analytics,” (i.e. transform structured input, which is merely data records, into scores),
(h) [0133] “(e.g., concerns or suggestions for process/product improvement)…An embodiment has the ability to vary the privacy settings of the user ( e.g., employee) so that the user may be anonymous,” [0119] “data security is increased by the simplistic categorization, and hence the ease of categorized data access, made available by such grid-based, largely objective data,” and [0130] “for business-to-business feedback, only certain persons may be enabled to see …feedback given. For example, only Chief Executive Officers, Chief Technology Officers, etc., of a company may be enabled to review feedback regarding other companies in a supply chain. Accordingly, a CTO in a supply chain may be provided with information that people in the purchasing group of another member of the company supply chain are doing a great job. On the other hand, in some instances, for security or efficiency purposes, for only certain employees may see certain types of data. As such, embodiments may customize the routing of the structured data so that certain data is only available to certain individuals, excluding others who may be on a need-to-know basis.”
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the prior art because they share the same field of endeavor in reputation and review analysis and reputation scoring based off customer ratings, data analysis and calculations from received data sources, website and interaction data and display, and automation through automatic recalculation using statistical methods that may include A.I., algorithms, and machine language to yield the predictable results of the combined disclosure of the patent, patent publication, and patent application claims. The combination of these prior art documents leads to a markedly advantageous system of reputation management systems for interaction scoring utilizing data collected from users.
While Franson does not disclose and Pace does not teach: (d) a link,
(f) and a computation is triggered only upon completion of a campaign cycle;
(i) assign and display a badge of excellence to either or both the sender and one or more respondents, based on system-defined performance thresholds over multiple campaign cycles, wherein the badge is configured for sharing over digital and social media channels to promote verified reputation standing.
Krishnamurthy teaches: (d)[col 3 ln 59-62]“Clicking on the link causes the mobile browser on Richard's cell phone to open. The browser then opens the link clicked on by Richard, which directs the mobile browser back to platform 102.”
(f) [col 31, ln 48-50] (the score is calculated after a particular amount of time, i.e. after completion of a cycle).
(i) [0096] “Embodiments may also include a social media integration component,” (i.e. the rewards in the following excerpts are integrated with social media), [0109] “By establishing a robust profile of the user that will be attractive to businesses, and that is built with the user's full knowledge (since the use is providing feedback data knowingly, and that data is building, at least in part, the user profile), embodiments enable consumers to be rewarded directly… An embodiment may incentivize feedback, such as by offering “points,” cash, or like rewards in exchange for entry of feedback. For example, testimonial video, audio, or text may be particularly valuable to certain businesses. As such, those businesses may pay a substantial amount to the provider of the system of an embodiment to obtain those testimonials. As such, a user may receive rewards points for entering a testimonial, such as meeting certain verification criteria, to the system of an embodiment. … increased submission of feedback in accordance with an embodiment may provide for increased amounts of rewards and direct benefits to the consumer, “[0110] “may allow the business to provide a comment, such as in the form of a reward. Of course, the rewards granted may vary randomly, and/or may be based on the feedback provided.”
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the prior art because they share the same field of endeavor in reputation and review analysis and reputation scoring based off customer ratings, data analysis and calculations from received data sources, website and interaction data and display, and automation through automatic recalculation using statistical methods that may include A.I., algorithms, and machine language to yield the predictable results of the combined disclosure of the patent, patent publication, and patent application claims. In fact, Franson and Krishnamurthy are both issued patents from the same entity. The combination of these prior art documents leads to a markedly advantageous system of reputation management systems for interaction scoring utilizing data collected from users.
Where Franson does not disclose and Pace and Krishnamurthy do not teach, Ginter teaches:
in encrypted format; [0091] (encryption at every level, with encrypted data), [0119] (communications sent and received with the data in encrypted format)
comprising encryption indicator; [0220] (fingerprinting for identifying encryption);
decrypting the records via hardware-accelerated cryptographic modules; [0077] (cryptographic technologies), [0091] (decrypting data), [0138] (only records with a key may be decrypted), [0515] (a cryptographic module, i.e. algorithm, for decrypting data records);
the decrypted record; [0986] (the decrypted data, the data is decrypted and checked);
and implementing end-to-end encryption across all data-exchange stages; [0169] (end to end encryption across the entire system of devices across all communications), [1804] (end-to-end nature of encryption across the system.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the prior art according to known methods before the effective filing date because the prior art includes each claimed element, although not necessarily in a single disclosure. The only difference being the lack of actual combination of the elements into a single disclosure of prior art. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, such that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 2: Franson, as shown, further discloses: The computer-implemented system executed in a network environment of claim 1, wherein the user modifies the default Reputation Assessment Template (RAT) or creates a new Reputation Assessment Template (RAT). [Fig. 18] (Arrow on left side points to template selection menu visualized as a drop down “Templates:” menu button with “Casual and not too slick” appearing in the drop-down selector, supporting a spot choose an existing template, like a default template, or to name a template to save, a “reset to Template” button, and a “Save as template” button. While this image and the text do not explicitly disclose a “default template,” [col 13 ln 22-23] and [Fig. 9] “To revert back to the default view, Alice can click on "Reset Filters" (926),” disclosing an alternate view allowing the choice to “reset to Template” via a clickable button that allows a user to reset the Template to “default view,” implicitly disclosing the “reset” function in Fig. 9 as applicable to Fig. 10, Fig. 11, Fig. 14. Fig. 17, and Fig. 18.).
Regarding Claim 3: Franson, as shown, further discloses: The computer-implemented system executed in a network environment of claim 1, wherein the user sends the campaign notification to the responders through e-mail, all social networking sites, or any other suitable messaging applications with the identification code. [Col 14 ln 38-43] (The user is responsible to send requests for reviews via email), and the user is responsible for making decisions such as who to request reviews from, and how frequently, based on tips provided in region 1802 ( and/or 45 her own intuition). [col 21 ln 18-23]and [col 22 ln 18-26] (send review request via social networking websites and other appropriate contact methods); and [Col 10 Ln 66-67] “"uid" is a unique identifier assigned to the business by platform 102 and stored in database 214,” and [Col 20 ln 4-6] “In various embodiments, any review site accounts/identifiers determined to be associated with the customer are stored in database 214 in a profile.”
Regarding Claim 4: Franson, as shown, further discloses: The computer-implemented system executed in a network environment of claim 1, wherein the user or sender is an individual, professional, banker, architect, entity, collective body, business, and others. [Figure 1], [col 2 ln 57 – col 3 ln 3] and [col 8 ln 32 – 59] (users, senders).
Regarding Claim 5: Franson, as shown, further discloses: The computer-implemented system executed in a network environment of claim 1, wherein the respondents are a friend, colleague, client, customer, user, or their business or brand. [Figure 1] [col 2 ln 57 – col 3 ln 3] and [col 8 ln 32 – 59] (users and respondents).
Regarding Claim 6: Franson, as shown, further discloses: The computer-implemented system executed in a network environment of claim 1, generates a compressive report to monitor the change of responders' view over time. [figure 6] and [figures 9-19] (comprehensive reports are generated and displayed on demand).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA HATCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1393. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571)270-3923. 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.
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
ANGELA HATCH
Examiner
Art Unit 3626
/ANGELA HATCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3626