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 .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection of 03/20/2025, Applicant, on 09/22/2025 canceled claims 1-19 and added claims 20-38. Claims 20-38 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/22/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. The 35 USC § 102, 103, and 101 rejections of claims 20-38 are applied in light of Applicant's amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections to claims have been considered but is moot because the Applicant has cancelled all the previous claims and added all new claims.
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 20-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 20-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (published on 1/7/2019 in Fed. Register, Vol. 84, No. 4 at pgs. 50-57, hereinafter referred to as the “2019 PEG”).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the apparatus (claims 20-38) are directed to potentially eligible categories of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One of 2019 PEG, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) which falls into the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of methods of organizing human activity grouping.
The limitations reciting the abstract idea(s) (Certain methods of organizing human activity), as set forth in exemplary claim 1, are: wherein the set of graphic samples was curated by a given party in order to obtain audience member assessments of the graphic samples in the set; a question presenter… a question about the set of graphic samples, when the set of graphic samples are presented to the audience members; a graphic sample presenter configured to present …. the set of graphic samples; and user inputs configured to receive sample indications originating at the audience member devices, wherein the sample indications are audience reactions as per-image feedback to the question. Independent claims 8 and 14 recite the CRM and system for performing the method of independent claim 1 without adding significantly more. Thus, the same rationale/analysis is applied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to Apparatus comprising: memory configured to hold data representing a set of graphic samples… configured to present, to user interface tools at plural network-connected audience member devices… on displays of the audience member devices…; (as recited in claim 20). However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) is/are directed to: Apparatus comprising: memory configured to hold data representing a set of graphic samples… configured to present, to user interface tools at plural network-connected audience member devices… on displays of the audience member devices…; (as recited in claim 20) for implementing the claim steps/functions. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim.
In addition, Applicant’s Specification describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. See, e.g., Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Further, the courts have found the presentation of data to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The dependent claims (3-17) are directed to the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract idea via additional details of the abstract idea. For example claims 2-7 “wherein the graphic sample presenter is further configured to select and present a new subset from among the set of graphic samples, based on per audience member sample indications; wherein the memory is holding the data representing the set of graphic samples including at least one graphic sample comprising a twodimensional pixel image and at least another graphic sample comprising a two dimensional vector image; wherein the apparatus comprises a vector image processor configured to determine objects of interest in vector images among the set of graphic samples and further comprises a bitmap image processor including an edge detector to determine objects of interest in bitmap images among the set of graphic samples, and wherein the apparatus comprises a model configured to correlate audience sample indications in the form of selection input events such that sub-image feedback is obtainable; wherein the graphic samples in the presentation are in a two dimensional rid; wherein the graphic samples in the presentation are presented at different times on a given audience member display; wherein the graphic sample indications are tracked and associated with particular subsections of the given graphic sample; further comprising an authentic entry checker that includes a normal range detector to detect when a characteristic of one or more select audience member actions is in a range deemed appropriate for an authentic entry; wherein the audience member action is eye-tracking and the characteristic of the action, for a given sample indication about a given graphic sample, is an amount of time between the eyes of the audience member looking at the given graphic sample and the input of the graphic sample indication by the audience member; wherein the audience member action detected includes the audience member's aggregated clicks associated with a given graphic sample, wherein when the aggregated clicks are below a threshold level of clicks per unit of time, then the action is deemed authentic; further comprising a feedback refiner that refines the sample indications by associating them with specific subsections of a given graphic sample; wherein the refiner is configured such that the refinement includes associating the sample indication with one or more particular objects embedded in a given graphic sample; wherein the feedback refiner associates the graphic sample indications with specific portions of the given graphic sample by referring to layout data, dimensional variables, and/or object identifiers; wherein the sample indications include positive and negative indications; wherein the graphic sample indications include an indication meant to communicate a degree to which a given audience member favors or disfavors the given graphic sample or a portion of the given graphic sample; wherein the graphic sample indications include a field configured to accept comments associated with a given location in the given graphic sample”, without additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and without additional elements that amount to significantly more to the claims. Thus, all dependent claims have been fully considered, however, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea itself, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20-26, 30, 35, and 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by U.S. PGPub 20040143630 (hereinafter “Kaufmann”) et al., in view of U.S.
As per claim 20, Kaufmann teaches Apparatus comprising:
memory holding data representing a plural set of graphic samples, wherein the set of graphic samples was curated by a given party in order to obtain audience member assessments of the graphic samples in the set;a question presenter configured to present, to user interface tools at plural network-connected audience member devices, a question about the set of graphic samples, when the set of graphic samples are presented to the audience members;a graphic sample presenter configured to present, on displays of the audience member devices, the set of graphic samples; anduser inputs configured to receive sample indications originating at the audience member devices, wherein the sample indications are audience reactions as per-image feedback to the question; Kaufman 0018-0025: “ Participants using the system on their computers may broadcast and receive presentations (e.g., slides or any displayable application), record the audio track of the session, take notes, ask and answer questions about the material that the instructor presented, provide feedback about the pace and comprehension of the session, and ask and present polling questions and answers. They may also send and receive files, share and edit documents and see profiles on participants, control which applications are running on a participant's machine, chat, take quizzes and carry out collaborative research activities… receiving a first request to send a first question to a first recipient synchronously with a live session by a collaboration tool, and sending the first question if the first recipient is online with the live session. The method further comprises receiving a second request from a sender to send a second question to a second recipient asynchronously with a live session by the collaboration tool, queuing the second question if the sender is not online until the sender is online, and sending the second question to the second recipient if the second recipient is online…0077-0086: filter events from different streams of information to display only those that are of interest… FIG. 4 depicts an exemplary graphical user interface for the presentation broadcast tool 401 shown in FIG. 3. During a live session, a user can select an application to broadcast to participants 103, 105 of an activity by selecting a Presentation button 404 on a live tool button bar 405. In response, the selected broadcast is displayed in the main window of the presentation tool 401.”
As per claim 21, Kaufmann teaches all the limitations of claim 20.
In addition, Kaufmann teaches:
wherein the graphic sample presenter is further configured to select and present a new subset from among the set of graphic samples, based on per audience member sample indications;Kaufmann 0099-0110: “FIG. 10 shows an exemplary student's version of the Pace feedback tool. An exemplary instructor's version 101 of the tool may be the same except that instructors do not have the slider control. The exemplary students' version has a slider 1001 to allow students 103, 105 to indicate their feedback. The summary display 1002 may be immediately updated to show the aggregate of all the responses from students 103,105. Thus, an instructor 101 can view a graph of the level of understanding or pace that students 103, 105 have entered. Another feature of the feedback tool is that a participant's response may revert back to a neutral response after a set time period. This may provide an advantage to students by not having to reset their response slider when their perceptions have changed. The exemplary feedback tools may have no off-line component but they may be recorded as part of the live session. Exemplary implementation techniques used for the feedback tools in live 1407 and playback 1408 discussed further with regard to FIG. 14… An instructor 101 using the quiz tool is, for example, able to: (1) create a quiz, (2) create quiz questions, (3) move or remove quizzes or questions, (4) edits, (5) distribute, (6) view and (7) grade quizzes. Creating a quiz produces a template version of a quiz. A template enables users to copy instances of the quiz template and distribute these instances multiple times. Each quiz may be saved in a quiz database.”
As per claim 22, Kaufmann teaches all the limitations of claim 20.
In addition, Kaufmann teaches:
wherein the memory is holding the data representing the set of graphic samples including at least one graphic sample comprising a two dimensional pixel image and at least another graphic sample comprising a two dimensional vector image;Kaufmann 0099-0110: “In one implementation, all participants can view real-time displays that graph the results of participant's responses and these responses may be color coded to indicate severity. Instructors 101 can monitor the graphs and adjust their presentation style depending on the input from participants… FIG. 10 shows an exemplary student's version of the Pace feedback tool. An exemplary instructor's version 101 of the tool may be the same except that instructors do not have the slider control. The exemplary students' version has a slider 1001 to allow students 103, 105 to indicate their feedback. The summary display 1002 may be immediately updated to show the aggregate of all the responses from students 103,105. Thus, an instructor 101 can view a graph of the level of understanding.. The exemplary system may display summary statistics for completed quizzes. Statistics may include quiz means, standard deviations, median, minimum, maximum and number of participants. The user can choose to view a graph of the statistics or view the summary statistics by participant.”
As per claim 23, Kaufmann teaches all the limitations of claim 22.
In addition, Kaufmann teaches:
wherein the apparatus comprises a vector image processor configured to determine objects of interest in vector images among the set of graphic samples and further comprises a bitmap image processor including an edge detector to determine objects of interest in bitmap images among the set of graphic samples, and wherein the apparatus comprises a model configured to correlate audience sample indications in the form of selection input events such that sub-image feedback is obtainable;Kaufmann 0089-0117: Exemplary functions of the Sharebox 501 include the ability to view files, open existing files, view the status of sent files, filter files by replies to selected files, send files and send bitmaps of selected applications. By default, in one implementation, files are sent to all users 101, 103 and 105. Incoming files are displayed with summary information in the Inbox 502, and files that have been sent are displayed with summary information in the Outbox 503. Exemplary functions 504 used when responding to incoming files include: (1) a quick reply function which automatically sends the user's modified file back to the instructor 101, (2) a reply with another file which enables users to first select a file browser and then send the file to the instructor 101, and (3) a reply with an image from an open application which enables users to select a window on their desktop. The system creates a file containing an image of that window and sends the file to the instructor 101… FIG. 11 depicts an exemplary graphical user interface for selecting recorded sessions identified in FIG. 3. Users can select the activity from a list 1101 to narrow the display of recorded sessions in the summary display 1102. The summary display 1102 provides an indication of whether different streams 1103 of information from various tools are present in the recording. A preview 1104 of slides or bitmaps displays an overview of images in the recording. Users may play a selected recording or go to a selected slide within the recording. Other exemplary options include the ability to delete specific recordings, rename a recording or retrieve files from a different location. Recorded sessions are stored on disk via the Nexus 1413, 1417 and are discussed further with regard to FIGS. 14, 16, 17, and 18.”
As per claim 24, Kaufmann teaches all the limitations of claim 20.
In addition, Kaufmann teaches:
wherein the graphic samples in the presentation are in a two dimensional grid;Kaufmann 0099-0110: “In one implementation, all participants can view real-time displays that graph the results of participant's responses and these responses may be color coded to indicate severity. Instructors 101 can monitor the graphs and adjust their presentation style depending on the input from participants… FIG. 10 shows an exemplary student's version of the Pace feedback tool. An exemplary instructor's version 101 of the tool may be the same except that instructors do not have the slider control. The exemplary students' version has a slider 1001 to allow students 103, 105 to indicate their feedback. The summary display 1002 may be immediately updated to show the aggregate of all the responses from students 103,105. Thus, an instructor 101 can view a graph of the level of understanding.. The exemplary system may display summary statistics for completed quizzes. Statistics may include quiz means, standard deviations, median, minimum, maximum and number of participants. The user can choose to view a graph of the statistics or view the summary statistics by participant.”
As per claim 25, Kaufmann teaches all the limitations of claim 20.
In addition, Kaufmann teaches:
wherein the graphic samples in the presentation are presented at different times on a given audience member display;Kaufmann 0094: “ Instructors 101 can access the same list of polling questions and results that are displayed during a live session during off-line mode (asynchronous). Instructors 101 can create, copy, view, and edit polling questions outside of a live class to prepare questions in advance of the live session using the same graphical user interface used during a live session (FIG. 7). In one exemplary implementation, a difference from a live session is that polling questions may not be sent immediately. Instead, they may be saved for later when an instructor 101 can select the question and send them at the appropriate time during the live session. Other modes are also possible such that questions may be delivered when a user is available to receive them; in this case, delivery may be deferred until the recipient is available. The Polling tool achieves its blending of synchronous and asynchronous behavior by using the same underlying presence aware message delivery system as the Sharebox 501. FIG. 6 depicts exemplary steps in an exemplary method consistent with the sending of polling questions synchronously or asynchronously. An exemplary queuing and delivery mechanism (Messenger) used by the Polling tool is discussed further with regard to FIG. 14 for the live mode 1415 and for the playback mode 1418. Exemplary implementation techniques used for the polling tool in live 1407 and playback 1408 are discussed further with regard to FIG. 14.”
As per claim 26, Kaufmann teaches all the limitations of claim 20.
In addition, Kaufmann teaches:
wherein the graphic sample indications are tracked and associated with particular subsections of the given graphic sample;Kaufmann 0093-0094: “An instructor 101 can create new questions to send to participants of an activity by selecting one of the options in a pull down menu 701. Different types of polling questions can be created including, for example: (1) open ended, (2) yes/no/do not know, (3) agree/disagree and (4) multiple choice questions. The questions may be either saved or sent to participants of an activity. Other options 701 may include the ability to copy, or delete existing questions and display the summary of the results to all participants. A quick send button 703 is provided for instructors 101 to quickly send the question to all participants of a live session. For the student's version of the tool, this send button returns the answer to the instructor 101. Instructors 101 may have the option to select specific students 103, 105 to send polling questions. A summary list of polling questions 702 shows saved and sent questions. For questions sent during a live session, the results are displayed when the question is selected 704. Results of polling questions are displayed as a histogram or as a list of answers for open-ended questions. Instructors 101 can also view responses from individual users by selecting the Individuals folder 705.”
As per claim 30, Kaufmann teaches all the limitations of claim 20.
In addition, Kaufmann teaches:
further comprising a feedback refiner that refines the sample indications by associating them with specific subsections of a given graphic sample;Kaufmann 0089, 0123: “Exemplary functions of the Sharebox 501 include the ability to view files, open existing files, view the status of sent files, filter files by replies to selected files, send files and send bitmaps of selected applications. By default, in one implementation, files are sent to all users 101, 103 and 105. Incoming files are displayed with summary information in the Inbox 502, and files that have been sent are displayed with summary information in the Outbox 503. Exemplary functions 504 used when responding to incoming files include: (1) a quick reply function which automatically sends the user's modified file back to the instructor 101, (2) a reply with another file which enables users to first select a file browser and then send the file to the instructor 101, and (3) a reply with an image from an open application which enables users to select a window on their desktop. The system creates a file containing an image of that window and sends the file to the instructor 101.”
As per claim 35, Kaufmann teaches all the limitations of claim 20.
In addition, Kaufmann teaches:
wherein the sample indications include positive and negative indications;Kaufmann 0083: “First, a session includes a user accessing and using a variety of different tools 301 (e.g., tools to take notes, to ask questions, and to respond to questions from the instructor). Along with the ability to record multiple streams, the behaviour of all of these tools is permitted and reproduced during playback of a session. Exemplary playback mechanisms described herein go beyond conventional systems that simply record and playback the images from multi-media…0095: An instructor 101 has the option of responding and marking the question as verbal or textual 803 either during the session or later after the live session is over. The answer may be directly entered by an instructor 101 in the Answer text display 804 and sent to all participants by selecting the send button 805, unless the question is marked as private by a student in which case the answer is sent only to the individual.”
As per claim 37, Kaufmann teaches all the limitations of claim 35.
In addition, Kaufmann teaches:
wherein the graphic sample indications include an indication meant to communicate a degree to which a given audience member favors or disfavors the given graphic sample or a portion of the given graphic sample;Kaufmann 0083: “First, a session includes a user accessing and using a variety of different tools 301 (e.g., tools to take notes, to ask questions, and to respond to questions from the instructor). Along with the ability to record multiple streams, the behaviour of all of these tools is permitted and reproduced during playback of a session. Exemplary playback mechanisms described herein go beyond conventional systems that simply record and playback the images from multi-media…0095: An instructor 101 has the option of responding and marking the question as verbal or textual 803 either during the session or later after the live session is over. The answer may be directly entered by an instructor 101 in the Answer text display 804 and sent to all participants by selecting the send button 805, unless the question is marked as private by a student in which case the answer is sent only to the individual.”
As per claim 38, Kaufmann teaches all the limitations of claim 35.
In addition, Kaufmann teaches:
wherein the graphic sample indications include a field configured to accept comments associated with a given location in the given graphic sample;Kaufmann 0083: “First, a session includes a user accessing and using a variety of different tools 301 (e.g., tools to take notes, to ask questions, and to respond to questions from the instructor). Along with the ability to record multiple streams, the behaviour of all of these tools is permitted and reproduced during playback of a session. Exemplary playback mechanisms described herein go beyond conventional systems that simply record and playback the images from multi-media…0095: An instructor 101 has the option of responding and marking the question as verbal or textual 803 either during the session or later after the live session is over. The answer may be directly entered by an instructor 101 in the Answer text display 804 and sent to all participants by selecting the send button 805, unless the question is marked as private by a student in which case the answer is sent only to the individual…0106: Users may also move the location of a question within a quiz or remove questions from a quiz. Users can also remove questions from the question database. Once a quiz has been created, users can edit the quiz to change properties of the quiz such as instructions, comments, questions and grading schemes.”
Claims 27-29 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub 20040143630 (hereinafter “Kaufmann”) et al., in view of U.S. PGPub 20240319512 to (hereinafter “Taketa”) et al.
As per claim 27, Kaufmann teaches all the limitations of claim 20.
In addition, Kaufmann teaches:
further comprising an authentic entry checker that includes a normal range detector to detect when a characteristic of one or more select audience member actions is in a range deemed appropriate for an authentic entry;Taketa 0073: “In some embodiments, contact/motion module 130 uses a set of one or more intensity thresholds to determine whether an operation has been performed by a user (e.g., to determine whether a user has “clicked” on an icon). In some embodiments, at least a subset of the intensity thresholds are determined in accordance with software parameters (e.g., the intensity thresholds are not determined by the activation thresholds of particular physical actuators and can be adjusted without changing the physical hardware of device 100). For example, a mouse “click” threshold of a trackpad or touch screen display can be set to any of a large range of predefined threshold values without changing the trackpad or touch screen display hardware. Additionally, in some implementations, a user of the device is provided with software settings for adjusting one or more of the set of intensity thresholds (e.g., by adjusting individual intensity thresholds and/or by adjusting a plurality of intensity thresholds at once with a system-level click “intensity” parameter).”
Kaurmann and Taketa are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kaufmann with the aforementioned teachings from Taketa with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the software to track data with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and analyze information [Taketa 0073].
As per claim 28, Kaufmann and Taketa teach all the limitations of claim 27.
Kaufmann may not explicitly teach the following. However, Taketa teaches:
wherein the audience member action is eye-tracking and the characteristic of the action, for a given sample indication about a given graphic sample, is an amount of time between the eyes of the audience member looking at the given graphic sample and the input of the graphic sample indication by the audience member;Taketa 0145, 0203: “It shall be understood that the foregoing discussion regarding event handling of user touches on touch-sensitive displays also applies to other forms of user inputs to operate multifunction devices 100 with input devices, not all of which are initiated on touch screens. For example, mouse movement and mouse button presses, optionally coordinated with single or multiple keyboard presses or holds; contact movements such as taps, drags, scrolls, etc. on touchpads; pen stylus inputs; movement of the device; oral instructions; detected eye movements; biometric inputs; and/or any combination thereof are optionally utilized as inputs corresponding to sub-events which define an event to be recognized… In at least one example, the optical module 11.3.2-200 can also include a lens 11.3.2-216 coupled to the housing 11.3.2-202 and disposed between the display assembly 11.3.2-204 and the user's eyes when the HMD is donned. The lens 11.3.2-216 can be configured to direct light from the display assembly 11.3.2-204 to the user's eye. In at least one example, the lens 11.3.2-216 can be a part of a lens assembly including a corrective lens removably attached to the optical module 11.3.2-200. In at least one example, the lens 11.3.2-216 is disposed over the light strip 11.3.2-208 and the one or more eye-tracking cameras 11.3.2-206 such that the camera 11.3.2-206 is configured to capture images of the user's eye through the lens 11.3.2-216 and the light strip 11.3.2-208 includes lights configured to project light through the lens 11.3.2-216 to the users' eye during use.”
Kaurmann and Taketa are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kaufmann with the aforementioned teachings from Taketa with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the software to track data with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and analyze information [Taketa 0073].
As per claim 29, Kaufmann and Taketa teach all the limitations of claim 27.
Kaufmann may not explicitly teach the following. However, Taketa teaches:
wherein the audience member action detected includes the audience member's aggregated clicks associated with a given graphic sample,wherein when the aggregated clicks are below a threshold level of clicks per unit of time, then the action is deemed authentic;Taketa 0073: “In some embodiments, contact/motion module 130 uses a set of one or more intensity thresholds to determine whether an operation has been performed by a user (e.g., to determine whether a user has “clicked” on an icon). In some embodiments, at least a subset of the intensity thresholds are determined in accordance with software parameters (e.g., the intensity thresholds are not determined by the activation thresholds of particular physical actuators and can be adjusted without changing the physical hardware of device 100). For example, a mouse “click” threshold of a trackpad or touch screen display can be set to any of a large range of predefined threshold values without changing the trackpad or touch screen display hardware. Additionally, in some implementations, a user of the device is provided with software settings for adjusting one or more of the set of intensity thresholds (e.g., by adjusting individual intensity thresholds and/or by adjusting a plurality of intensity thresholds at once with a system-level click “intensity” parameter).”
Kaurmann and Taketa are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kaufmann with the aforementioned teachings from Taketa with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the software to track data with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and analyze information [Taketa 0073].
As per claim 33, Kaufmann and Taketa teach all the limitations of claim 20.
Kaufmann may not explicitly teach the following. However, Taketa teaches:
further comprising a bad lighting detector configured to determine if a sample indication corresponds to a portion of a graphic sample with bad lighting;Taketa 0063: “Device 100 optionally also includes one or more optical sensors 164. FIG. 1A shows an optical sensor coupled to optical sensor controller 158 in I/O subsystem 106. Optical sensor 164 optionally includes charge-coupled device (CCD) or complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) phototransistors. Optical sensor 164 receives light from the environment, projected through one or more lenses, and converts the light to data representing an image. In conjunction with imaging module 143 (also called a camera module), optical sensor 164 optionally captures still images or video. In some embodiments, an optical sensor is located on the back of device 100, opposite touch screen display 112 on the front of the device so that the touch screen display is enabled for use as a viewfinder for still and/or video image acquisition. In some embodiments, an optical sensor is located on the front of the device so that the user's image is, optionally, obtained for video conferencing while the user views the other video conference participants on the touch screen display. In some embodiments, the position of optical sensor 164 can be changed by the user (e.g., by rotating the lens and the sensor in the device housing) so that a single optical sensor 164 is used along with the touch screen display for both video conferencing and still and/or video image acquisition…0244: FIG. 7 is a flow diagram illustrating a method for receiving user information and/or device fit information using a computer system in accordance with some embodiments. Method 700 is performed at a computer system (e.g., 100, 300, 500, and/or 600) (e.g., a smart phone, a smart watch, a tablet, a laptop, a desktop, a wearable device, and/or head-mounted device) that is in communication with one or more display generation components (e.g., 340, and/or 602) (e.g., a visual output device, a 3D display, a display having at least a portion that is transparent or translucent on which images can be projected (e.g., a see-through display), a projector, a heads-up display, and/or a display controller) and one or more input devices (e.g., 350, 355, and/or 359) (e.g., a touch-sensitive surface (e.g., a touch-sensitive display); a mouse; a keyboard; a remote control; a visual input device (e.g., one or more cameras (e.g., an infrared camera, a depth camera, a visible light camera, and/or a gaze tracking camera)).”
Kaurmann and Taketa are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kaufmann with the aforementioned teachings from Taketa with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the software to utilize sensors with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and analyze information [Taketa 0073].
Claims 31-32, 34, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub 20040143630 (hereinafter “Kaufmann”) et al., in view of U.S. PGPub 20150066804 to (hereinafter “Mitsoburi”) et al.
As per claim 31, Kaufmann teaches all the limitations of claim 30.
Kaufmann may not explicitly teach the following. However, Mitsoburi teaches:
wherein the refiner is configured such that the refinement includes associating the sample indication with one or more particular objects embedded in a given graphic sample.;Mitsoburi 0031-0044: ““MFP #1 now invites you to complete a brief online customer satisfaction survey. The survey takes about 3 minutes to complete and the results are used in change of MFP setting to mitigate customer's patience, and our ongoing efforts to improve our products and services.” The body of the e-mail 205 can also include a due date 208, the request 206, for example, “Please click here to begin survey” having a click through 207 to the customer satisfaction survey, and a closing 209, for example, “Thank you for your time and thoughts!”... a client device 102, 103, 104 or a personal digital assistant (not shown) to the image forming apparatus 101, which hosts the customer satisfaction survey. It can be appreciated that the customer satisfaction survey can be hosted on the image forming apparatus 101… system 400 for generating a customer satisfaction survey for an image forming apparatus 101 in accordance with an exemplary embodiment. In accordance with an exemplary embodiment as shown in FIG. 4, the image forming apparatus 101 manages a customer satisfaction survey web page 500 (FIG. 5). The customer satisfaction survey web page 500 can be created and/or hosted by the image forming apparatus 101. Alternatively, the customer satisfaction survey web page 500 can be hosted by the customer service server 120, the customer service device 121, and/or a remoter server (not shown).”
Kaurmann and Mitsoburi are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kaufmann with the aforementioned teachings from Mitsoburi with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the software to utilize resolution data with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and analyze information [Mitsoburi 0044].
As per claim 32, Kaufmann teaches all the limitations of claim 30.
Kaufmann may not explicitly teach the following. However, Mitsoburi teaches:
wherein the feedback refiner associates the graphic sample indications with specific portions of the given graphic sample by referring to layout data, dimensional variables, and/orobject identifiers;Mitsoburi 0031-0044: ““MFP #1 now invites you to complete a brief online customer satisfaction survey. The survey takes about 3 minutes to complete and the results are used in change of MFP setting to mitigate customer's patience, and our ongoing efforts to improve our products and services.” The body of the e-mail 205 can also include a due date 208, the request 206, for example, “Please click here to begin survey” having a click through 207 to the customer satisfaction survey, and a closing 209, for example, “Thank you for your time and thoughts!”... a client device 102, 103, 104 or a personal digital assistant (not shown) to the image forming apparatus 101, which hosts the customer satisfaction survey. It can be appreciated that the customer satisfaction survey can be hosted on the image forming apparatus 101… system 400 for generating a customer satisfaction survey for an image forming apparatus 101 in accordance with an exemplary embodiment. In accordance with an exemplary embodiment as shown in FIG. 4, the image forming apparatus 101 manages a customer satisfaction survey web page 500 (FIG. 5). The customer satisfaction survey web page 500 can be created and/or hosted by the image forming apparatus 101. Alternatively, the customer satisfaction survey web page 500 can be hosted by the customer service server 120, the customer service device 121, and/or a remoter server (not shown)… the image forming apparatus 101 can be configured to send a survey request 300 via e-mail 200 to all users and/or customers of the image forming apparatus 101. In FIG. 3B, the image forming apparatus 101 can be configured to send the survey request 301 via e-mail 200 to some and/or portion.”
Kaurmann and Mitsoburi are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kaufmann with the aforementioned teachings from Mitsoburi with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the software to utilize resolution data with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and analyze information [Mitsoburi 0044].
As per claim 34, Kaufmann teaches all the limitations of claim 20.
Kaufmann may not explicitly teach the following. However, Mitsoburi teaches:
further comprising a low resolution detector configured to determine if a sample indication corresponds to a portion of a graphic sample with low resolution;Mitsoburi 0044: “As shown in FIG. 8, the chart 800 includes customer and/or user's complaints 810, a table of temporary solutions 830, and a listing conflicts against other solutions 840 within the image forming apparatus. For example, for customer's complaints 810 for the image forming apparatus 101, which complain that the image forming apparatus 101 is running slow 812, the solutions related to the controller processing and engine processing can include changing image resolution to a lower resolution, changing process priority in image core technology from “quality” to “speed” (for example, from APPE to CPSI), and/or changing and/or disabling power save mode at a certain time.”
Kaurmann and Taketa are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kaufmann with the aforementioned teachings from Mitsoburi with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the software to utilize resolution data with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and analyze information [Mitsoburi 0044].
As per claim 36, Kaufmann teaches all the limitations of claim 20.
Kaufmann may not explicitly teach the following. However, Mitsoburi teaches:
wherein the graphic input includes a user interface configuration configured to accept drag and drop inputs via interaction with a pointer and display of an audience member device, wherein the display presents the graphic samples to an audience member and wherein a given chosen value is associated with a given location in a given graphic sample when the audience member drags the given chosen value to the given location on the display;Mitsoburi 0031-0044: ““MFP #1 now invites you to complete a brief online customer satisfaction survey. The survey takes about 3 minutes to complete and the results are used in change of MFP setting to mitigate customer's patience, and our ongoing efforts to improve our products and services.” The body of the e-mail 205 can also include a due date 208, the request 206, for example, “Please click here to begin survey” having a click through 207 to the customer satisfaction survey, and a closing 209, for example, “Thank you for your time and thoughts!”... a client device 102, 103, 104 or a personal digital assistant (not shown) to the image forming apparatus 101, which hosts the customer satisfaction survey. It can be appreciated that the customer satisfaction survey can be hosted on the image forming apparatus 101…