Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a first non-final Office Action on the merits for application 18230471. Claims 1-10 are pending examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 9 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim(s) 1, and 7 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim(s) 10 is/are drawn to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 7, 9, and 10 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-10 are directed to accepting results presenting estimates of the results based on presenting questions and answers and estimating attributes of the user. Specifically, claim(s) 1, 9, and 10 recite(s) presenting the question and acquiring an answer to the presented question; estimating a psychological attribute of the user, based on the answer; requesting the user to make a choice as to whether to permit use of personal information, along with presenting a result of the estimation; and accepting a result of the choice, which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) and Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
The Claim limitations are listed under Methods Of Organizing Human Activity, and Mental Processes and grouped as following:
presenting the question and acquiring an answer to the presented question; estimating a psychological attribute of the user, based on the answer; which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations), and (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
requesting the user to make a choice as to whether to permit use of personal information, along with presenting a result of the estimation; and which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations), and (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
accepting a result of the choice; which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) and (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as apparatus, storage unit, processor, computer, non-transitory computer-readable medium merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the apparatus, storage unit, processor, computer, non-transitory computer-readable medium perform(s) the steps or functions of presenting the question and acquiring an answer to the presented question; estimating a psychological attribute of the user, based on the answer; requesting the user to make a choice as to whether to permit use of personal information, along with presenting a result of the estimation; and accepting a result of the choice. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a apparatus, storage unit, processor, computer, non-transitory computer-readable medium to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of accepting results presenting estimates of the results based on presenting questions and answers and estimating attributes of the user. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the apparatus, storage unit, processor, computer, non-transitory computer-readable medium perform(s) the steps or functions of presenting the question and acquiring an answer to the presented question; estimating a psychological attribute of the user, based on the answer; requesting the user to make a choice as to whether to permit use of personal information, along with presenting a result of the estimation; and accepting a result of the choice. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of accepting results presenting estimates of the results based on presenting questions and answers and estimating attributes of the user. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-6, and 8 further describe the abstract idea of accepting results presenting estimates of the results based on presenting questions and answers and estimating attributes of the user. Claim(s) 2-6, and 8 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a processing apparatus, processor, management apparatus, system, to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of accepting results presenting estimates of the results based on presenting questions and answers and estimating attributes of the user. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, system, the processing apparatus, processor, management apparatus perform(s) the steps or functions of when the accepted choice is not to permit use of personal information, suppressing presentation of the question until a predetermined condition is satisfied, and resuming presentation of the question after the predetermined condition is satisfied, determining a content of the question to be presented based on an answer history regarding the answer received in past, determining, based on the result of the estimation, whether to continue presentation of the question for updating the result of the estimation, when the result of the choice is not to permit use of the personal information, suppressing externally outputting the result of the choice; and, when the result of the choice is to permit use of the personal information, outputting the result of the choice to an information and acquiring advertisement data associated with the personal information from the information, when the result of the choice is to permit use of the personal information, outputting the result of the estimation to the information, wherein the information supplies updated information of the question to the information. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of accepting results presenting estimates of the results based on presenting questions and answers and estimating attributes of the user. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
A. Claim(s) 1, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scea et al, (U.S. Patent No. 9836586) in view of Beilby et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090254417) in view of Suzuki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220157411).
As to Claim 1, Scea teaches an information processing apparatus comprising: a storage unit configured to store a question being at least associated with a consumption behavior of a user; and at least one processor, wherein the processor performs the following processing: (claim 13: the computer readable medium stores computer usable program code; and a processor, wherein the processor executes the computer usable program code, and wherein the computer usable program code comprises: computer usable code for receiving, from a user, a selection of a category from a subset of a set of categories; computer usable code for presenting, to the user, a base set of questions, wherein the base set of questions presents a plurality of social situations to the user and provides a plurality of answers to each question to allow the user to choose an answer most applicable to the user in a particular social situation of the plurality of social situations, and wherein the base set of questions is related to the category selected by the user; computer usable code for analyzing a base set of answers received from the user, the base set of answers corresponding to a base set of questions; computer usable code for computing, using the processor and a memory, a base score using the base set of answers, the base score being indicative of a behavioral characteristic related to an ingrained psychological nature of the user in social situations, wherein the behavioral characteristic is indicative of the user being either an introvert or an extrovert in social situations; computer usable code for saving the base score in a psychological profile associated with the user; computer usable code for presenting, to the user, a set of questions, wherein the user has not previously been asked the set of questions, wherein the set of questions is also related to the category, and wherein questions in the base set of questions are distinct from questions in the set of questions; computer usable code for analyzing a set of answers received from the user, the set of answers corresponding to the set of questions, wherein the answers in the set of answers are distinct from answers in the base set of answers; computer usable code for computing, using the processor and the memory, a score using the set of answers; computer usable code for determining whether the score matches, within a tolerance value, the base score in the psychological profile of the user, the behavioral characteristic causing the user to respond to the set of questions such that the score matches the base score within the tolerance value; and computer usable code for concluding one of (i) responsive to the score matching the base score within the tolerance value, that an identity of the user has been verified, and (ii) responsive to the score not matching the base score within the tolerance value, matching with a different base score a different score that is computed using a different set of answers corresponding to a different set of questions, and concluding that the identity of the user is not verified responsive to the different score not matching the different base score within a different tolerance value),presenting the question and acquiring an answer to the presented question; (27: selects one or more psychological characteristics that should be evaluated in the user. For example, the embodiment determines that the user's introvert or extrovert nature should be evaluated. Accordingly, the embodiment presents the user a set of questions designed to elicit answers that would be indicative of the user's introvert or extrovert psychology.), (claim 1: receiving, from a user, a selection of a category from a subset of a set of categories; presenting, to the user, a base set of questions, wherein the base set of questions presents a plurality of social situations to the user and provides a plurality of answers to each question to allow the user to choose an answer most applicable to the user in a particular social situation of the plurality of social situations, and wherein the base set of questions is related to the category selected by the user; analyzing a base set of answers received from the user, the base set of answers corresponding to the base set of questions; computing, using a processor and a memory, a base score using the base set of answers, the base score being indicative of a behavioral characteristic related to an ingrained psychological nature of the user in social situations, wherein the behavioral characteristic is indicative of the user being either an introvert or an extrovert in social situations; saving the base score in a psychological profile associated with the user; presenting, to the user, a set of questions, wherein the user has not previously been asked the set of questions, wherein the set of questions is also related to the category, and wherein questions in the base set of questions are distinct from questions in the set of questions; analyzing a set of answers received from the user, the set of answers corresponding to the set of questions, wherein the answers in the set of answers are distinct from answers in the base set of answers; computing, using the processor and the memory, a score using the set of answers; determining whether the score matches, within a tolerance value, the base score in the psychological profile of the user, the behavioral characteristic causing the user to respond to the set of questions such that the score matches the base score within the tolerance value; and concluding one of (i) responsive to the score matching the base score within the tolerance value, that an identity of the user has been verified, and (ii) responsive to the score not matching the base score within the tolerance value, matching with a different base score a different score that is computed using a different set of answers corresponding to a different set of questions, and concluding that the identity of the user is not verified responsive to the different score not matching the different base score within a different tolerance value.).
Scea does not teach estimating a psychological attribute of the user, based on the answer.
However Beilby teaches estimating a psychological attribute of the user, based on the answer; (0350: certain psychological and attributes are strong predictors of attraction, and can be used to match human beings more accurately than using the indicators commonly used in dating sites, like race, hobbies, religion. However, instead of relying on the user reading questions and completing questionnaires by clicking on answers, DateCybertwin asks questions within a conversation, or analyses the user's self-description, and uses that to make a profile, then to rank the results shown for relevance and to match others of a similar profile.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scea to include estimating a psychological attribute of the user, based on the answer of Beilby. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that estimating a psychological attribute of the user, based on the answer would provide more information that would help in determining a content that the user would be interested in and that would increase the likelihood that the user will review and engage with such advertisement and that would promote an increase in the sales and would therefore make the method/system more profitable and more accurate.
Scea does not teach requesting the user to make a choice as to whether to permit use of personal information, along with presenting a result of the estimation; and accepting a result of the choice.
However Suzuki teaches requesting the user to make a choice as to whether to permit use of personal information, along with presenting a result of the estimation; and (0070: Embodiment 1 described above is an example in which the server computation section 22 estimates a user's intoxication degree on the basis of the user's answer(s) to a question(s), whether the answer is correct, and the time length required by the user to answer the question, the question being created by the question creating section 21 for the intoxication degree determining function and being more difficult to answer correctly as the user's intoxication degree is higher (such as “Can you touch the hand with which you will lose a rock paper scissors game against the hand displayed on the screen?”). For the intoxication degree determining function, however, the question creating section may alternatively create a question(s) about the kind(s) and amount(s) of the beverage(s) that the user has consumed by the time the user answers the question, so that the computation section estimates the user's intoxication degree on the basis of the user's answer to the question. With this embodiment, the intoxication degree determining function allows the computation section to estimate the order and respective amounts of alcoholic beverages that each user has consumed, on the basis of the kind(s) and amount(s) of the beverage(s) that the user has consumed. In this case, the computation section is capable of estimating the user's intoxication degree on the basis of the correlation between (i) the order and respective amounts of the alcoholic beverages and (ii) the intoxication degree. Further, the computation section may also use, as a ground for the intoxication degree estimation, such information as each user's physical predisposition (for example, whether for each kind of alcoholic beverage, the user has a high tolerance or not). This embodiment also allows each user to check a history of what beverages the user has consumed (specifically, such information as the kinds, amounts, order, and times). The computation section may use any one of the above methods for the intoxication degree estimation, combine two or more of the above methods, or combine one or more of the above methods with a different estimation method(s).),accepting a result of the choice; (0070: Embodiment 1 described above is an example in which the server computation section 22 estimates a user's intoxication degree on the basis of the user's answer(s) to a question(s), whether the answer is correct, and the time length required by the user to answer the question, the question being created by the question creating section 21 for the intoxication degree determining function and being more difficult to answer correctly as the user's intoxication degree is higher (such as “Can you touch the hand with which you will lose a rock paper scissors game against the hand displayed on the screen?”). For the intoxication degree determining function, however, the question creating section may alternatively create a question(s) about the kind(s) and amount(s) of the beverage(s) that the user has consumed by the time the user answers the question, so that the computation section estimates the user's intoxication degree on the basis of the user's answer to the question. With this embodiment, the intoxication degree determining function allows the computation section to estimate the order and respective amounts of alcoholic beverages that each user has consumed, on the basis of the kind(s) and amount(s) of the beverage(s) that the user has consumed. In this case, the computation section is capable of estimating the user's intoxication degree on the basis of the correlation between (i) the order and respective amounts of the alcoholic beverages and (ii) the intoxication degree. Further, the computation section may also use, as a ground for the intoxication degree estimation, such information as each user's physical predisposition (for example, whether for each kind of alcoholic beverage, the user has a high tolerance or not). This embodiment also allows each user to check a history of what beverages the user has consumed (specifically, such information as the kinds, amounts, order, and times). The computation section may use any one of the above methods for the intoxication degree estimation, combine two or more of the above methods, or combine one or more of the above methods with a different estimation method(s).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scea to include requesting the user to make a choice as to whether to permit use of personal information, along with presenting a result of the estimation and accepting a result of the choice of Suzuki. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that requesting the user to make a choice as to whether to permit use of personal information, along with presenting a result of the estimation and accepting a result of the choice would provide more information that would help in determining a content that the user would be interested in and that would increase the likelihood that the user will review and engage with such advertisement and that would promote an increase in the sales and would therefore make the method/system more profitable and more accurate.
As to Claim 9, Scea teaches an information processing method including, by a computer: storing a question associated with a consumption behavior of a user; (claim 13: the computer readable medium stores computer usable program code; and a processor, wherein the processor executes the computer usable program code, and wherein the computer usable program code comprises: computer usable code for receiving, from a user, a selection of a category from a subset of a set of categories; computer usable code for presenting, to the user, a base set of questions, wherein the base set of questions presents a plurality of social situations to the user and provides a plurality of answers to each question to allow the user to choose an answer most applicable to the user in a particular social situation of the plurality of social situations, and wherein the base set of questions is related to the category selected by the user; computer usable code for analyzing a base set of answers received from the user, the base set of answers corresponding to a base set of questions; computer usable code for computing, using the processor and a memory, a base score using the base set of answers, the base score being indicative of a behavioral characteristic related to an ingrained psychological nature of the user in social situations, wherein the behavioral characteristic is indicative of the user being either an introvert or an extrovert in social situations; computer usable code for saving the base score in a psychological profile associated with the user; computer usable code for presenting, to the user, a set of questions, wherein the user has not previously been asked the set of questions, wherein the set of questions is also related to the category, and wherein questions in the base set of questions are distinct from questions in the set of questions; computer usable code for analyzing a set of answers received from the user, the set of answers corresponding to the set of questions, wherein the answers in the set of answers are distinct from answers in the base set of answers; computer usable code for computing, using the processor and the memory, a score using the set of answers; computer usable code for determining whether the score matches, within a tolerance value, the base score in the psychological profile of the user, the behavioral characteristic causing the user to respond to the set of questions such that the score matches the base score within the tolerance value; and computer usable code for concluding one of (i) responsive to the score matching the base score within the tolerance value, that an identity of the user has been verified, and (ii) responsive to the score not matching the base score within the tolerance value, matching with a different base score a different score that is computed using a different set of answers corresponding to a different set of questions, and concluding that the identity of the user is not verified responsive to the different score not matching the different base score within a different tolerance value),presenting the question and acquiring an answer to the presented question; (27: selects one or more psychological characteristics that should be evaluated in the user. For example, the embodiment determines that the user's introvert or extrovert nature should be evaluated. Accordingly, the embodiment presents the user a set of questions designed to elicit answers that would be indicative of the user's introvert or extrovert psychology.), (claim 1: receiving, from a user, a selection of a category from a subset of a set of categories; presenting, to the user, a base set of questions, wherein the base set of questions presents a plurality of social situations to the user and provides a plurality of answers to each question to allow the user to choose an answer most applicable to the user in a particular social situation of the plurality of social situations, and wherein the base set of questions is related to the category selected by the user; analyzing a base set of answers received from the user, the base set of answers corresponding to the base set of questions; computing, using a processor and a memory, a base score using the base set of answers, the base score being indicative of a behavioral characteristic related to an ingrained psychological nature of the user in social situations, wherein the behavioral characteristic is indicative of the user being either an introvert or an extrovert in social situations; saving the base score in a psychological profile associated with the user; presenting, to the user, a set of questions, wherein the user has not previously been asked the set of questions, wherein the set of questions is also related to the category, and wherein questions in the base set of questions are distinct from questions in the set of questions; analyzing a set of answers received from the user, the set of answers corresponding to the set of questions, wherein the answers in the set of answers are distinct from answers in the base set of answers; computing, using the processor and the memory, a score using the set of answers; determining whether the score matches, within a tolerance value, the base score in the psychological profile of the user, the behavioral characteristic causing the user to respond to the set of questions such that the score matches the base score within the tolerance value; and concluding one of (i) responsive to the score matching the base score within the tolerance value, that an identity of the user has been verified, and (ii) responsive to the score not matching the base score within the tolerance value, matching with a different base score a different score that is computed using a different set of answers corresponding to a different set of questions, and concluding that the identity of the user is not verified responsive to the different score not matching the different base score within a different tolerance value.).
Scea does not teach estimating a user attribute, based on the answer to the question.
However Beilby teaches estimating a user attribute, based on the answer to the question; (0350: certain psychological and attributes are strong predictors of attraction, and can be used to match human beings more accurately than using the indicators commonly used in dating sites, like race, hobbies, religion. However, instead of relying on the user reading questions and completing questionnaires by clicking on answers, DateCybertwin asks questions within a conversation, or analyses the user's self-description, and uses that to make a profile, then to rank the results shown for relevance and to match others of a similar profile.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scea to include estimating a user attribute, based on the answer to the question of Beilby. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that estimating a user attribute, based on the answer to the question would provide more information that would help in determining a content that the user would be interested in and that would increase the likelihood that the user will review and engage with such advertisement and that would promote an increase in the sales and would therefore make the method/system more profitable and more accurate.
Scea does not teach requesting the user to make a choice as to whether to permit use of personal information, along with presenting a result of the estimation, and accepting a result of the choice.
However Suzuki teaches requesting the user to make a choice as to whether to permit use of personal information, along with presenting a result of the estimation; and (0070: Embodiment 1 described above is an example in which the server computation section 22 estimates a user's intoxication degree on the basis of the user's answer(s) to a question(s), whether the answer is correct, and the time length required by the user to answer the question, the question being created by the question creating section 21 for the intoxication degree determining function and being more difficult to answer correctly as the user's intoxication degree is higher (such as “Can you touch the hand with which you will lose a rock paper scissors game against the hand displayed on the screen?”). For the intoxication degree determining function, however, the question creating section may alternatively create a question(s) about the kind(s) and amount(s) of the beverage(s) that the user has consumed by the time the user answers the question, so that the computation section estimates the user's intoxication degree on the basis of the user's answer to the question. With this embodiment, the intoxication degree determining function allows the computation section to estimate the order and respective amounts of alcoholic beverages that each user has consumed, on the basis of the kind(s) and amount(s) of the beverage(s) that the user has consumed. In this case, the computation section is capable of estimating the user's intoxication degree on the basis of the correlation between (i) the order and respective amounts of the alcoholic beverages and (ii) the intoxication degree. Further, the computation section may also use, as a ground for the intoxication degree estimation, such information as each user's physical predisposition (for example, whether for each kind of alcoholic beverage, the user has a high tolerance or not). This embodiment also allows each user to check a history of what beverages the user has consumed (specifically, such information as the kinds, amounts, order, and times). The computation section may use any one of the above methods for the intoxication degree estimation, combine two or more of the above methods, or combine one or more of the above methods with a different estimation method(s).),accepting a result of the choice; (0070: Embodiment 1 described above is an example in which the server computation section 22 estimates a user's intoxication degree on the basis of the user's answer(s) to a question(s), whether the answer is correct, and the time length required by the user to answer the question, the question being created by the question creating section 21 for the intoxication degree determining function and being more difficult to answer correctly as the user's intoxication degree is higher (such as “Can you touch the hand with which you will lose a rock paper scissors game against the hand displayed on the screen?”). For the intoxication degree determining function, however, the question creating section may alternatively create a question(s) about the kind(s) and amount(s) of the beverage(s) that the user has consumed by the time the user answers the question, so that the computation section estimates the user's intoxication degree on the basis of the user's answer to the question. With this embodiment, the intoxication degree determining function allows the computation section to estimate the order and respective amounts of alcoholic beverages that each user has consumed, on the basis of the kind(s) and amount(s) of the beverage(s) that the user has consumed. In this case, the computation section is capable of estimating the user's intoxication degree on the basis of the correlation between (i) the order and respective amounts of the alcoholic beverages and (ii) the intoxication degree. Further, the computation section may also use, as a ground for the intoxication degree estimation, such information as each user's physical predisposition (for example, whether for each kind of alcoholic beverage, the user has a high tolerance or not). This embodiment also allows each user to check a history of what beverages the user has consumed (specifically, such information as the kinds, amounts, order, and times). The computation section may use any one of the above methods for the intoxication degree estimation, combine two or more of the above methods, or combine one or more of the above methods with a different estimation method(s).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scea to include requesting the user to make a choice as to whether to permit use of personal information, along with presenting a result of the estimation and accepting a result of the choice of Suzuki. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that requesting the user to make a choice as to whether to permit use of personal information, along with presenting a result of the estimation and accepting a result of the choice would provide more information that would help in determining a content that the user would be interested in and that would increase the likelihood that the user will review and engage with such advertisement and that would promote an increase in the sales and would therefore make the method/system more profitable and more accurate.
As to Claim 10, Scea teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute an information processing method including: storing a question associated with a consumption behavior of a user; (claim 13: the computer readable medium stores computer usable program code; and a processor, wherein the processor executes the computer usable program code, and wherein the computer usable program code comprises: computer usable code for receiving, from a user, a selection of a category from a subset of a set of categories; computer usable code for presenting, to the user, a base set of questions, wherein the base set of questions presents a plurality of social situations to the user and provides a plurality of answers to each question to allow the user to choose an answer most applicable to the user in a particular social situation of the plurality of social situations, and wherein the base set of questions is related to the category selected by the user; computer usable code for analyzing a base set of answers received from the user, the base set of answers corresponding to a base set of questions; computer usable code for computing, using the processor and a memory, a base score using the base set of answers, the base score being indicative of a behavioral characteristic related to an ingrained psychological nature of the user in social situations, wherein the behavioral characteristic is indicative of the user being either an introvert or an extrovert in social situations; computer usable code for saving the base score in a psychological profile associated with the user; computer usable code for presenting, to the user, a set of questions, wherein the user has not previously been asked the set of questions, wherein the set of questions is also related to the category, and wherein questions in the base set of questions are distinct from questions in the set of questions; computer usable code for analyzing a set of answers received from the user, the set of answers corresponding to the set of questions, wherein the answers in the set of answers are distinct from answers in the base set of answers; computer usable code for computing, using the processor and the memory, a score using the set of answers; computer usable code for determining whether the score matches, within a tolerance value, the base score in the psychological profile of the user, the behavioral characteristic causing the user to respond to the set of questions such that the score matches the base score within the tolerance value; and computer usable code for concluding one of (i) responsive to the score matching the base score within the tolerance value, that an identity of the user has been verified, and (ii) responsive to the score not matching the base score within the tolerance value, matching with a different base score a different score that is computed using a different set of answers corresponding to a different set of questions, and concluding that the identity of the user is not verified responsive to the different score not matching the different base score within a different tolerance value),presenting the question and acquiring an answer to the presented question; (27: selects one or more psychological characteristics that should be evaluated in the user. For example, the embodiment determines that the user's introvert or extrovert nature should be evaluated. Accordingly, the embodiment presents the user a set of questions designed to elicit answers that would be indicative of the user's introvert or extrovert psychology.), (claim 1: receiving, from a user, a selection of a category from a subset of a set of categories; presenting, to the user, a base set of questions, wherein the base set of questions presents a plurality of social situations to the user and provides a plurality of answers to each question to allow the user to choose an answer most applicable to the user in a particular social situation of the plurality of social situations, and wherein the base set of questions is related to the category selected by the user; analyzing a base set of answers received from the user, the base set of answers corresponding to the base set of questions; computing, using a processor and a memory, a base score using the base set of answers, the base score being indicative of a behavioral characteristic related to an ingrained psychological nature of the user in social situations, wherein the behavioral characteristic is indicative of the user being either an introvert or an extrovert in social situations; saving the base score in a psychological profile associated with the user; presenting, to the user, a set of questions, wherein the user has not previously been asked the set of questions, wherein the set of questions is also related to the category, and wherein questions in the base set of questions are distinct from questions in the set of questions; analyzing a set of answers received from the user, the set of answers corresponding to the set of questions, wherein the answers in the set of answers are distinct from answers in the base set of answers; computing, using the processor and the memory, a score using the set of answers; determining whether the score matches, within a tolerance value, the base score in the psychological profile of the user, the behavioral characteristic causing the user to respond to the set of questions such that the score matches the base score within the tolerance value; and concluding one of (i) responsive to the score matching the base score within the tolerance value, that an identity of the user has been verified, and (ii) responsive to the score not matching the base score within the tolerance value, matching with a different base score a different score that is computed using a different set of answers corresponding to a different set of questions, and concluding that the identity of the user is not verified responsive to the different score not matching the different base score within a different tolerance value.).
Scea does not teach estimating a user attribute, based on the answer to the question.
However Beilby teaches estimating a user attribute, based on the answer to the question; (0350: certain psychological and attributes are strong predictors of attraction, and can be used to match human beings more accurately than using the indicators commonly used in dating sites, like race, hobbies, religion. However, instead of relying on the user reading questions and completing questionnaires by clicking on answers, DateCybertwin asks questions within a conversation, or analyses the user's self-description, and uses that to make a profile, then to rank the results shown for relevance and to match others of a similar profile.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scea to include estimating a user attribute, based on the answer to the question of Beilby. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that estimating a user attribute, based on the answer to the question would provide more information that would help in determining a content that the user would be interested in and that would increase the likelihood that the user will review and engage with such advertisement and that would promote an increase in the sales and would therefore make the method/system more profitable and more accurate.
Scea does not teach requesting the user to make a choice as to whether to permit use of personal information, along with presenting a result of the estimation, and accepting a result of the choice.
However Suzuki teaches requesting the user to make a choice as to whether to permit use of personal information, along with presenting a result of the estimation; and (0070: Embodiment 1 described above is an example in which the server computation section 22 estimates a user's intoxication degree on the basis of the user's answer(s) to a question(s), whether the answer is correct, and the time length required by the user to answer the question, the question being created by the question creating section 21 for the intoxication degree determining function and being more difficult to answer correctly as the user's intoxication degree is higher (such as “Can you touch the hand with which you will lose a rock paper scissors game against the hand displayed on the screen?”). For the intoxication degree determining function, however, the question creating section may alternatively create a question(s) about the kind(s) and amount(s) of the beverage(s) that the user has consumed by the time the user answers the question, so that the computation section estimates the user's intoxication degree on the basis of the user's answer to the question. With this embodiment, the intoxication degree determining function allows the computation section to estimate the order and respective amounts of alcoholic beverages that each user has consumed, on the basis of the kind(s) and amount(s) of the beverage(s) that the user has consumed. In this case, the computation section is capable of estimating the user's intoxication degree on the basis of the correlation between (i) the order and respective amounts of the alcoholic beverages and (ii) the intoxication degree. Further, the computation section may also use, as a ground for the intoxication degree estimation, such information as each user's physical predisposition (for example, whether for each kind of alcoholic beverage, the user has a high tolerance or not). This embodiment also allows each user to check a history of what beverages the user has consumed (specifically, such information as the kinds, amounts, order, and times). The computation section may use any one of the above methods for the intoxication degree estimation, combine two or more of the above methods, or combine one or more of the above methods with a different estimation method(s).),accepting a result of the choice; (0070: Embodiment 1 described above is an example in which the server computation section 22 estimates a user's intoxication degree on the basis of the user's answer(s) to a question(s), whether the answer is correct, and the time length required by the user to answer the question, the question being created by the question creating section 21 for the intoxication degree determining function and being more difficult to answer correctly as the user's intoxication degree is higher (such as “Can you touch the hand with which you will lose a rock paper scissors game against the hand displayed on the screen?”). For the intoxication degree determining function, however, the question creating section may alternatively create a question(s) about the kind(s) and amount(s) of the beverage(s) that the user has consumed by the time the user answers the question, so that the computation section estimates the user's intoxication degree on the basis of the user's answer to the question. With this embodiment, the intoxication degree determining function allows the computation section to estimate the order and respective amounts of alcoholic beverages that each user has consumed, on the basis of the kind(s) and amount(s) of the beverage(s) that the user has consumed. In this case, the computation section is capable of estimating the user's intoxication degree on the basis of the correlation between (i) the order and respective amounts of the alcoholic beverages and (ii) the intoxication degree. Further, the computation section may also use, as a ground for the intoxication degree estimation, such information as each user's physical predisposition (for example, whether for each kind of alcoholic beverage, the user has a high tolerance or not). This embodiment also allows each user to check a history of what beverages the user has consumed (specifically, such information as the kinds, amounts, order, and times). The computation section may use any one of the above methods for the intoxication degree estimation, combine two or more of the above methods, or combine one or more of the above methods with a different estimation method(s).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scea to include requesting the user to make a choice as to whether to permit use of personal information, along with presenting a result of the estimation and accepting a result of the choice of Suzuki. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that requesting the user to make a choice as to whether to permit use of personal information, along with presenting a result of the estimation and accepting a result of the choice would provide more information that would help in determining a content that the user would be interested in and that would increase the likelihood that the user will review and engage with such advertisement and that would promote an increase in the sales and would therefore make the method/system more profitable and more accurate.
B. Claim(s) 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scea et al, (U.S. Patent No. 9836586) in view of Beilby et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090254417) in view of Suzuki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220157411) in view of Suzuki et al. (Foreign Application No. JP6940904B1).
As to Claim 5, Scea, Beilby and Suzuki teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Scea, Beilby and Suzuki do not teach wherein the at least one processor further performs the following processing: when the result of the choice is not to permit use of the personal information, suppressing externally outputting the result of the choice; and, when the result of the choice is to permit use of the personal information, outputting the result of the choice to an information management apparatus and acquiring advertisement data associated with the personal information from the information management apparatus.
However JP6940904B1 further teaches wherein the at least one processor further performs the following processing: when the result of the choice is not to permit use of the personal information, suppressing externally outputting the result of the choice; and when the result of the choice is to permit use of the personal information, outputting the result of the choice to an information management apparatus and acquiring advertisement data associated with the personal information from the information management apparatus; (system S, requests permission to use personal information… the preference is estimated to be maintained and the period in which the preference is estimated is recognized as a part of the preference information, and at least one of the period and the period is recognized. It is configured to inquire permission to use personal identifiers (and personal information) at the timing of belonging to… from the user. Next, with reference to FIGS. 2 and 6, the processing executed by each processing unit when the support system S executes the processing related to marketing support for the secondary candidate who has permitted the use of the personal identifier. a secondary candidate who is permitted to use the personal identifier (and thus personal information) is presented to the user by the above-mentioned processing. In such a case, the user usually conducts marketing as it is, or attempts to acquire further personal information by using a personal identifier), (Examiner notes: the system requests and obtain permission to use the personal information of the user which can be the personal identifier with preferences of the candidate user based on user choosing to give permission to the system to use personal identifier and preferences for determination of the marketing related content based on estimation by the system and displayed or outputted the marketing related content to the apparatus).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include when the result of the choice is to permit use of the personal information, outputting the result of the choice to an information management apparatus and acquiring advertisement data associated with the personal information from the information management apparatus. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that when the result of the choice is to permit use of the personal information, outputting the result of the choice to an information management apparatus and acquiring advertisement data associated with the personal information from the information management apparatus would provide a content or advertisement that the user would be interested in and that would increase the likelihood that the user will review and engage with such advertisement and that would promote an increase in the sales and would therefore make the method/system more profitable.
As to Claim 6, Scea, Beilby, Suzuki, and JP6940904B1 teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 5.
JP6940904B1 further teaches wherein the at least one processor further performs the following processing: when the result of the choice is to permit use of the personal information, outputting the result of the estimation to the information management apparatus; (system S, requests permission to use personal information… the preference is estimated to be maintained and the period in which the preference is estimated is recognized as a part of the preference information, and at least one of the period and the period is recognized. It is configured to inquire permission to use personal identifiers (and personal information) at the timing of belonging to… from the user. Next, with reference to FIGS. 2 and 6, the processing executed by each processing unit when the support system S executes the processing related to marketing support for the secondary candidate who has permitted the use of the personal identifier. a secondary candidate who is permitted to use the personal identifier (and thus personal information) is presented to the user by the above-mentioned processing. In such a case, the user usually conducts marketing as it is, or attempts to acquire further personal information by using a personal identifier), (Examiner notes: the system requests and obtain permission to use the personal information of the user which can be the personal identifier with preferences of the candidate user based on user choosing to give permission to the system to use personal identifier and preferences for determination of the marketing related content based on estimation by the system and displayed or outputted the marketing related content to the apparatus).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include when the result of the choice is to permit use of the personal information, outputting the result of the estimation to the information management apparatus. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that when the result of the choice is to permit use of the personal information, outputting the result of the estimation to the information management apparatus would provide a content or advertisement that the user would be interested in and that would increase the likelihood that the user will review and engage with such advertisement and that would promote an increase in the sales and would therefore make the method/system more profitable.
C. Claim(s) 2, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scea et al, (U.S. Patent No. 9836586) in view of Beilby et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090254417) in view of Suzuki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220157411) in view of Beauchamp et al., (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090202969).
As to Claim 2, Scea, Beilby, and Suzuki teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Scea, Beilby, and Suzuki do not teach wherein the at least one processor further performs the following processing:when the accepted choice is not to permit use of personal information, suppressing presentation of the question until a predetermined condition is satisfied, and resuming presentation of the question after the predetermined condition is satisfied.
However Beauchamp wherein the at least one processor further performs the following processing:when the accepted choice is not to permit use of personal information, suppressing presentation of the question until a predetermined condition is satisfied, and resuming presentation of the question after the predetermined condition is satisfied; (0006: determine which question is the "best" next question for the student. Specifically, the CAT algorithm generally repeats the following steps until a stopping criterion is satisfied: (i) the level of a student is evaluated based on responses received up to a given point, (ii) all the questions that have not yet been administered are evaluated to determine which will be the best one to administer next, (iii) the "best" next question is administered and the student provides an answer to the question, and (iv) the student's level is estimated based on the answers to all of the previous questions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scea, Beilby, and Suzuki to include when the accepted choice is not to permit use of personal information, suppressing presentation of the question until a predetermined condition is satisfied, and resuming presentation of the question after the predetermined condition is satisfied of Beauchamp. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that when the accepted choice is not to permit use of personal information, suppressing presentation of the question until a predetermined condition is satisfied, and resuming presentation of the question after the predetermined condition is satisfied would provide a content or advertisement based on questionnaire which would be interested in and that would increase the likelihood that the user will review and engage with such advertisement and that would promote an increase in the sales and would therefore make the method/system more profitable and more accurate.
As to Claim 4, Scea, Beilby, and Suzuki teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Scea, Beilby, and Suzuki do not teach wherein the at least one processor further performs the following processing: determining, based on the result of the estimation, whether to continue presentation of the question for updating the result of the estimation.
However Beauchamp wherein the at least one processor further performs the following processing: determining, based on the result of the estimation, whether to continue presentation of the question for updating the result of the estimation; (0006: determine which question is the "best" next question for the student. Specifically, the CAT algorithm generally repeats the following steps until a stopping criterion is satisfied: (i) the level of a student is evaluated based on responses received up to a given point, (ii) all the questions that have not yet been administered are evaluated to determine which will be the best one to administer next, (iii) the "best" next question is administered and the student provides an answer to the question, and (iv) the student's level is estimated based on the answers to all of the previous questions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scea, Beilby, and Suzuki to include determining, based on the result of the estimation, whether to continue presentation of the question for updating the result of the estimation of Beauchamp. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that determining, based on the result of the estimation, whether to continue presentation of the question for updating the result of the estimation would provide enough information that would provide a content or advertisement that is an interest of the user and that would increase the likelihood that the user will review and engage with such advertisement and that would promote an increase in the sales and would therefore make the method/system more profitable.
C. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scea et al, (U.S. Patent No. 9836586) in view of Beilby et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090254417) in view of Suzuki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220157411) in view of in view of Chandrasekaran et al., (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090202969).
As to Claim 3, Scea, Beilby, and Suzuki teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Scea, Beilby, and Suzuki do not teach wherein the at least one processor further performs the following processing: determining a content of the question to be presented based on an answer history regarding the answer received in past.
However Chandrasekaran wherein the at least one processor further performs the following processing: determining a content of the question to be presented based on an answer history regarding the answer received in past; (0022: providing answers to questions, QA system 100 is connected to a content recommendation system 30 which recommends content for ingestion into the knowledge base corpus 106 based on historical user question and answer interactions and information extracted therefrom. To provide meaningful recommendations, the knowledge manager 104 may be configured store the interaction history 11 of questions and answers in an interaction history database 12, alone or in combination with extracted user feedback, such as rating, comments, profile, timing, and location information relating to each submitted question. In selected embodiments, the stored interaction history 11 may include variables and context information extracted from the interaction history, such as question terms, user context information (e.g., user ID, user group, user name, age, gender, date, time, location, originating device type, name, or IP address), answer terms, answer confidence measure, supporting evidence for the answer. To improve the quality of answers provided by the QA system 100, the content recommendation system 30 may be embodied as an information handling system which executes an ingestion content recommendation engine 13 that is periodically or manually triggered to process user interactions from the interaction history 12 to extract a plurality of variables and context information for low confidence or low quality question and answer interactions.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scea, Beilby, and Suzuki to include determining a content of the question to be presented based on an answer history regarding the answer received in past of Chandrasekaran. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that determining a content of the question to be presented based on an answer history regarding the answer received in past would provide a content or advertisement based on questionnaire which would be interested in and that would increase the likelihood that the user will review and engage with such advertisement and that would promote an increase in the sales and would therefore make the method/system more profitable and more accurate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of AIA 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) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scea et al, (U.S. Patent No. 9836586).
Regarding Claim 7, Scea teaches an information processing system comprising: the information processing apparatus according to claim 6; and the information management apparatus configured to use a result of the estimation received from the information processing apparatus, the personal information associated with the information processing apparatus, and (claim 13: the computer readable medium stores computer usable program code; and a processor, wherein the processor executes the computer usable program code, and wherein the computer usable program code comprises: computer usable code for receiving, from a user, a selection of a category from a subset of a set of categories; computer usable code for presenting, to the user, a base set of questions, wherein the base set of questions presents a plurality of social situations to the user and provides a plurality of answers to each question to allow the user to choose an answer most applicable to the user in a particular social situation of the plurality of social situations, and wherein the base set of questions is related to the category selected by the user; computer usable code for analyzing a base set of answers received from the user, the base set of answers corresponding to a base set of questions; computer usable code for computing, using the processor and a memory, a base score using the base set of answers, the base score being indicative of a behavioral characteristic related to an ingrained psychological nature of the user in social situations, wherein the behavioral characteristic is indicative of the user being either an introvert or an extrovert in social situations; computer usable code for saving the base score in a psychological profile associated with the user; computer usable code for presenting, to the user, a set of questions, wherein the user has not previously been asked the set of questions, wherein the set of questions is also related to the category, and wherein questions in the base set of questions are distinct from questions in the set of questions; computer usable code for analyzing a set of answers received from the user, the set of answers corresponding to the set of questions, wherein the answers in the set of answers are distinct from answers in the base set of answers; computer usable code for computing, using the processor and the memory, a score using the set of answers; computer usable code for determining whether the score matches, within a tolerance value, the base score in the psychological profile of the user, the behavioral characteristic causing the user to respond to the set of questions such that the score matches the base score within the tolerance value; and computer usable code for concluding one of (i) responsive to the score matching the base score within the tolerance value, that an identity of the user has been verified, and (ii) responsive to the score not matching the base score within the tolerance value, matching with a different base score a different score that is computed using a different set of answers corresponding to a different set of questions, and concluding that the identity of the user is not verified responsive to the different score not matching the different base score within a different tolerance value),advertisement data pertaining to a plurality of advertisements and select at least one of the advertisements to be supplied to the information processing apparatus; (claim 13: the computer readable medium stores computer usable program code; and a processor, wherein the processor executes the computer usable program code, and wherein the computer usable program code comprises: computer usable code for receiving, from a user, a selection of a category from a subset of a set of categories; computer usable code for presenting, to the user, a base set of questions, wherein the base set of questions presents a plurality of social situations to the user and provides a plurality of answers to each question to allow the user to choose an answer most applicable to the user in a particular social situation of the plurality of social situations, and wherein the base set of questions is related to the category selected by the user; computer usable code for analyzing a base set of answers received from the user, the base set of answers corresponding to a base set of questions; computer usable code for computing, using the processor and a memory, a base score using the base set of answers, the base score being indicative of a behavioral characteristic related to an ingrained psychological nature of the user in social situations, wherein the behavioral characteristic is indicative of the user being either an introvert or an extrovert in social situations; computer usable code for saving the base score in a psychological profile associated with the user; computer usable code for presenting, to the user, a set of questions, wherein the user has not previously been asked the set of questions, wherein the set of questions is also related to the category, and wherein questions in the base set of questions are distinct from questions in the set of questions; computer usable code for analyzing a set of answers received from the user, the set of answers corresponding to the set of questions, wherein the answers in the set of answers are distinct from answers in the base set of answers; computer usable code for computing, using the processor and the memory, a score using the set of answers; computer usable code for determining whether the score matches, within a tolerance value, the base score in the psychological profile of the user, the behavioral characteristic causing the user to respond to the set of questions such that the score matches the base score within the tolerance value; and computer usable code for concluding one of (i) responsive to the score matching the base score within the tolerance value, that an identity of the user has been verified, and (ii) responsive to the score not matching the base score within the tolerance value, matching with a different base score a different score that is computed using a different set of answers corresponding to a different set of questions, and concluding that the identity of the user is not verified responsive to the different score not matching the different base score within a different tolerance value).
Regarding Claim 8, Scea teaches the information processing system according to claim 7, wherein the information management apparatus supplies updated information of the question to the information processing apparatus; (claim 13: the computer readable medium stores computer usable program code; and a processor, wherein the processor executes the computer usable program code, and wherein the computer usable program code comprises: computer usable code for receiving, from a user, a selection of a category from a subset of a set of categories; computer usable code for presenting, to the user, a base set of questions, wherein the base set of questions presents a plurality of social situations to the user and provides a plurality of answers to each question to allow the user to choose an answer most applicable to the user in a particular social situation of the plurality of social situations, and wherein the base set of questions is related to the category selected by the user; computer usable code for analyzing a base set of answers received from the user, the base set of answers corresponding to a base set of questions; computer usable code for computing, using the processor and a memory, a base score using the base set of answers, the base score being indicative of a behavioral characteristic related to an ingrained psychological nature of the user in social situations, wherein the behavioral characteristic is indicative of the user being either an introvert or an extrovert in social situations; computer usable code for saving the base score in a psychological profile associated with the user; computer usable code for presenting, to the user, a set of questions, wherein the user has not previously been asked the set of questions, wherein the set of questions is also related to the category, and wherein questions in the base set of questions are distinct from questions in the set of questions; computer usable code for analyzing a set of answers received from the user, the set of answers corresponding to the set of questions, wherein the answers in the set of answers are distinct from answers in the base set of answers; computer usable code for computing, using the processor and the memory, a score using the set of answers; computer usable code for determining whether the score matches, within a tolerance value, the base score in the psychological profile of the user, the behavioral characteristic causing the user to respond to the set of questions such that the score matches the base score within the tolerance value; and computer usable code for concluding one of (i) responsive to the score matching the base score within the tolerance value, that an identity of the user has been verified, and (ii) responsive to the score not matching the base score within the tolerance value, matching with a different base score a different score that is computed using a different set of answers corresponding to a different set of questions, and concluding that the identity of the user is not verified responsive to the different score not matching the different base score within a different tolerance value).
NPL Reference
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The NPL “What Is a Likert Scale? | Guide & Examples” describes “A Likert scale is a rating scale used to measure opinions, attitudes, or behaviors. It consists of a statement or a question, followed by a series of five or seven answer statements. Respondents choose the option that best corresponds with how they feel about the statement or question. Because respondents are presented with a range of possible answers, Likert scales are great for capturing the level of agreement or their feelings regarding the topic in a more nuanced way. However, Likert scales are prone to response bias, where respondents either agree or disagree with all the statements due to fatigue or social desirability or have a tendency toward extreme responding or other demand characteristics. Likert scales are common in survey research, as well as in fields like marketing, psychology, or other social sciences.”.
Pertinent Art
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reference#20170242971 teaches similar invention which describes with the above-described configuration of the characteristic evaluation apparatus, it is possible to easily evaluate the psychological characteristics (for example, self-efficacy) of the subject person with respect to the biological change or the behavioral change as the goal for the subject person based on the measurement condition (for example, measurement frequency) of the living body. An analysis is performed in order to interpret the measurement information stored in the information storage unit. Thus, the psychological characteristics such as the self-efficacy are estimated based on features and patterns obtained by the analysis. The above processing is repeatedly performed every day, accordingly, the estimated psychological characteristics such as the self-efficacy are automatically updated while the past evaluation results are accumulated as case data. Also, since the questionnaire is not conducted to the subject person, it is not necessary for the subject person to consume time and labor. However, if necessary, the questionnaire to the subject person can be combined with the above processing, and furthermore, it is possible to automatically transmit, collect and evaluate such a questionnaire.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAREK ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (571) 272-9638. The examiner can normally be reached on Flex Mon - Thur 7-7:00 and Fri 7-4:00.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAREK ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621B