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.A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/09/2026 has been entered.
2.This action is response to communication filed on 03/09/2026. Claims 1-19 are pending.
Communications
3. Examiner tried to call attorney at (805-373-0060) to discuss and find solutions for current 101 and 112 sixth issues in the claims, but this phone number 805-373-0060 is not in service.
4. In order to expedite the prosecution, examiner would like set up a phone interview with attorney. It would be appreciated if the record could include active phone number and email of Attorney Jaye G. Heybl.
5. In order to overcome current issues of 112, sixth paragraph, it respectful recommends changing “software module” to “hardware module” (structure) for claims 1-4, 6, 13, 15.
Claim Objection
6. Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: There is typo error at “…information system; a user permissions software module…” Correction/or clarification is requested.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1 and 13 recite allowable subject matter. There is no prior arts of record, singly or in combination teaches the feature of claim(s) limitations in context of the claims as a whole. However, claims 1 and 13 are not in allowance condition yet because of existing 112 issues in those claims.
8. For claim 1, Thompson Jr. et al. (US 20140164080) teaches a user can create a virtual place on the system that is directed to a particular group of data which may be relevant to a group of users and/or projects. Access to App business services (as with our current rights/roles construct) or data (visibility of subset of biz service worklist) may be defined by the place administrator who is preferably the user that created the virtual place ([0074]; [0136]-[0137]). But Thompson does not teach an analytics software module in operable communication with a user interface software module for displaying metrics related to each of the plurality of users, wherein the metrics are associated with the user's progress regarding the one or more activities as claimed. Claims 2-12 are also objected because they depend on objected claim 1.
9. For claim 13, Thompson Jr. et al. (US 20140164080) teaches a user can create a virtual place on the system that is directed to a particular group of data which may be relevant to a group of users and/or projects. Access to App business services (as with our current rights/roles construct) or data (visibility of subset of biz service worklist) may be defined by the place administrator who is preferably the user that created the virtual place ([0074]; [0136]-[0137]). But Thompson does not teach a gamification software module for assigning a point value to each of the one or more activities; and metrics related to each of the plurality of users, wherein the metrics are associated with the user's progress regarding the one or more activities as claimed. Claims 14-19 are also objected because they depend on objected claim 13.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
10. Claim 13 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
11. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
12. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
13. Claims 1-4, 6, 13 and 15 use a Generic Placeholder (A Term That Is Simply A Substitute for "Means" in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim 1 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
14. For claim 1, claim limitations “a user permissions software module for assigning a group, a role, and one or more permissions to each of a plurality of users within an organization”; “an activity software module for permitting creating and completing of-one or more activities”; “an analytics software module in operable communication with a user interface software module for displaying metrics related to each of the plurality of users” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a generic placeholder ‘a user permissions software module’ coupled with functional languages ‘for assigning a group, a role, and one or more permissions to each of a plurality of users within an organization’, a generic placeholder ‘an activity software module’ coupled with functional languages ‘for permitting creating and completing of-one or more activities’, and ‘an analytics software module in operable communication with a user interface software module’ coupled with functional languages ‘for displaying metrics related to each of the plurality of users’ without reciting sufficient structures to achieve the functions.
15. For claim 2, claim limitation “a gamification software module for assigning engagement points to each of the one or more activities” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a generic placeholder ‘a gamification software module’ coupled with functional languages ‘for assigning engagement points to each of the one or more activities’ without reciting sufficient structures to achieve the functions.
16. For claim 3, claim limitation “a communications software module for permitting communications between each of the plurality of users” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a generic placeholder ‘a communications software module’ coupled with functional languages ‘for permitting communications between each of the plurality of users’ without reciting sufficient structures to achieve the functions.
17. For claim 4, claim limitation “a reward software module for permitting each user to select a reward earned via accumulating points” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a generic placeholder ‘a reward software module’ coupled with functional languages ‘for permitting each user to select a reward earned via accumulating points’ without reciting sufficient structures to achieve the functions.
18. For claim 6, claim limitation “a notifications software module for facilitating transmitting a QR code to invite users to the system” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a generic placeholder ‘a notifications software module’ coupled with functional languages ‘for facilitating transmitting a QR code to invite users to the system’ without reciting sufficient structures to achieve the functions.
19. For claim 13, claim limitations “a user permissions software module for assigning a group, a role and one or more permissions to each of a plurality of users within an organization; an activity software module for permitting creating and completing one or more activities; a gamification software module for assigning a point value to each of the one or more activities” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a generic placeholder “a user permissions software module” coupled with functional languages “for assigning a group, a role and one or more permissions to each of a plurality of users within an organization”, and another placeholder “an activity software module” coupled with functional languages “for permitting creating and completing one or more activities”, and another generic placeholder “a gamification software module” coupled with functional languages “for assigning a point value to each of the one or more activities” without reciting sufficient structures to achieve the functions.
20. For claim 15, claim limitations ‘an analytics software module in operable communication with a user interface software module for displaying metrics related to the plurality of users’ have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a generic placeholder “an analytics software module… a user interface software module” coupled with functional languages “for displaying metrics related to the plurality of users” without reciting sufficient structures to achieve the functions.
21. Because there are no structures for claim limitations above. Therefore, the claims 1-4, 6, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 14, 16-18 are rejected under rationales of claim 13.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
22. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 20:
The use of the word ‘system’ in the claim does not inherently mean that the claim is directed to a machine; the system is directed to statutory subject matter only if at least one of the claimed elements of the system is a physical part of a device.
Because claim 20 lacks the necessary structure element, which fails to fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention recited in 35 U.S.C. § 101 process, machine, manufacture, and composition of matter.
Claim rejections-35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
23. Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 20070274505) in view of Jorasch et al. (US 20210399911) and further in view of Wang et al. (WO 2022192146 A2)
Regarding claim 19:
A method of configuring an interactive information system comprising:
setting a unique client access ID: (individual users need to login: Jia, [0033]);
configuring tags to group content by keywords: (tagging to groups to keywords, such as, the graphical user interface includes the list of names includes the names of the agents that are assigned to a work group, a team, or a department within the customer center: Gupta [0049]; [0038]).
However, Gupta does not explicitly teach assigning an application administrator.
In similar art, Jorasch teaches an “Admin/Coordinator” (application administrator) may refer to an individual or individuals who play a role in setting up or coordinating a meeting (Jorasch [0400]; [0481]);
configuring subject matter experts: (assigning group leader: Jorasch figure 15, [1510]; [0154]);
uploading curated content: (table may store recommendations for what capabilities should be represented at meetings, depending on the type and topic of the meeting. For example, table may recommend the number of subject matter experts that should be present at an innovation meeting (e.g., software tools, tax law changes, new bugs from code delivery, which OS to develop for first, etc.): Jorasch [0863]-[0865]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Jorasch’s ideas into Gupta’s system in order to save resources and development time by implying Jorasch’s ideas into Jia’s system.
However, Gupta-Jorasch does not explicitly teach configuring pre-defined topics and messages that can deploy to all users of the interactive information system upon initial login.
In similar art, Wang teaches a user’s group membership can be maintained at the user’s client device, e.g., by one of the applications, the operating system of the client device, or another trusted program rather than by a digital component provider, content platform, or other party. In a particular example, a trusted program (e.g., a web browser or the operating system can maintain a list of user group identifiers (“user group list”) for a user using the web browser or another application (e.g., for a user logged into the browser, application, or the client device). The user group list can include a user group identifier for each user group that includes the user as a member. The digital component providers or content platforms that create the user groups can specify the user group identifiers for their user groups. The user group identifier for a user group can be descriptive of the group (e.g., gardening group) or a code that represents the group (e.g., an alphanumeric sequence that is not descriptive). The users can be assigned to user groups, e.g., user interest groups for users interested in the same or similar topics, cohorts of similar users, or other group types involving similar user data. The users can be assigned to user groups when the users visit particular resources or perform particular actions at the resource (e.g., interact with a particular item displayed on a web page or add the item to a virtual cart). The user groups can be generated and updated by the digital component providers. That is, each digital component provider can assign users to their user groups when the users visit electronic resources of the digital component providers. The user groups can also be created by and/or updated by the content platforms (Wang [0040]-[0041]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Wang’s ideas into Gupta-Jorasch’s system in order to save resources and development time by implying Wang’s ideas into Gupta-Jorasch’s system.
Regarding claim 20:
In additional to rejection to claim 19, Gupta-Jorasch-Wang further teach the curated content may be deployed to users based on either individual client-selected choices or content defined as globally deployable to all clients: (the users can be assigned to user groups, e.g., user interest groups for users interested in the same or similar topics, cohorts of similar users, or other group types involving similar user data. The users can be assigned to user groups when the users visit particular resources or perform particular actions at the resource (e.g., interact with a particular item displayed on a web page or add the item to a virtual cart): [0040]-0041]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Wang’s ideas into Gupta-Jorasch’s system in order to save resources and development time by implying Wang’s ideas into Gupta-Jorasch’s system.
Conclusions
24. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAN DAI T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7959. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 Am to 3:00 PM.
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, Follansbee John A can be reached on 571-272-3964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAN DAI T TRUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444