DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on March 16, 2026 has been entered. The following has occurred: Claims 1, 12, and 15 have been amended; Claims 19 and 20 have been canceled.
Claims 1-10 and 12-18 are pending.
Response to Amendment
35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained in light of the amendment.
Previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(d) rejections are withdrawn in light of the amendment.
35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation and corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections have been added.
Previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn and new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is added in light of the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In claim 1 recites “means configured for adapting” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means configured for adapting” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the examiner asserts that the Specification, as originally filled fails to disclose with enough specificity, the following limitations:
Claim element “means configured for adapting” in claim 1 is limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function. Specifically, the Specification has not provided any structural equivalents for the means for language or tied the use of any structural equivalents to the claimed functions.
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) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links or associates the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) State on the record where the corresponding structure, material, or acts are set forth in the written description of the specification and linked or associated to the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-10 and 14-18 depend from claim 1 above and therefore inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112 deficiencies of their parent claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “means configured for adapting” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to provide description for any structure that performs the above-mentioned limitations. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(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.
Claims 2-10 and 14-18 depend from claim 1 above and therefore inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112 deficiencies of their parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? (MPEP 2106.03)
In the present application, claims 1-10 and 14-18 are directed to a device (i.e., a machine), claim 12 is directed to a method (i.e., a process), claim 13 is directed to a computer product (i.e. an article of manufacture). Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong one.
Step 2A. prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? (MPEP 2106.04)
While claims 1, 12, and 13, are directed to different categories, the language and scope are substantially the same and have been addressed together below.
The abstract idea recited in claims 1, 12, and 13, is
monitor platform;
obtain user profile data indicative of interactions with said platform associated with a user profile;
determine a set of platform risk values based on the obtained user profile data and said platform wherein said set of platform risk values is indicative of at least one risk associated with said platform for said user profile, and wherein said set of platform risk values is indicative of a probability of incorrect information being submitted to the platform by said user profile; and
automatically adapt said platform for at least said user profile based on the determined set of platform risk values, wherein said platform is adapted upon the determined set of platform risk values fulfilling at least one criteria for adapting a part of the platform; and
at the start of a session and before the user profile's first interaction with the platform in the session, adapt a starting state of the session based on initial user profile data comprised in the obtained user profile data, the initial user profile data being indicative of interactions with said digital platform associated with the user profile occurring before the session; wherein the adapted part of the digital platform leads the user profile from the starting state to subsequent states selected based on the determined set of platform risk values.
(Broadest reasonable interpretation: “automatically” does not mean without human interaction. Examiner asserts a process may be automatic even though a human initiates or may interrupt to the process. The term “automatically” or “automated” can be construed to mean “once initiated by a human, the function is performed by a machine, without the need for manually performing the function.” Collegenet, Inc. v. Applyyourself, Inc. (CAFC, 04-1202,-1222,-1251, 8/2/2005). “Adapt” is interpreted to be providing or presenting information).
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of assessing client risk.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, without the recitation of additional elements, the limitations above suggest a process similar to collecting information (steps [A] and [B]) and analyzing the information (steps [C]-[E]) to be presented. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of collecting information and analyzing the collected information, and the steps involved human judgements, observations, and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental processes” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Additionally and alternatively, the same claim limitations above recite a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce in the form of advertising, marketing, or sales activity or behaviors for customer engagement of commercial industry. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, other than the additional elements of computer components, the limitations recite a process of collecting information user/client information and interaction to determine risk based on the user/client information, as discussed in the applicant’s specification paragraph [0004]. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps standard in commercial interaction for a business practice of providing a service of client risk assessment, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Accordingly, the above-mentioned limitations are considered as a single abstract idea, therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong two.
Step 2A. prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? (MPEP 2106.04)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely add instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer.
The additional elements considered include:
Claim 1: “data processing device comprising means configured for adapting a regulated digital platform”; “digital platform”; and “wherein the data processing device is arranged”;
Claim 12: “digital platform”;
Claim 15: “computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having thereon a computer program comprising program instructions, the computer program being loadable into a processor and configured to cause the processor”;
In particular, the claim only recites the above-mentioned additional elements to monitor, obtain, provide, and determine information. The computer in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing a generic computer function; See Applicant’s Specification page 22 and Fig. 4]) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”).
That is, the limitations in [A]-[D] are merely steps of transmitting, receiving, and presenting data which are insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The function of limitations [A]-[E] are steps of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve a computer or other technology, do not transform a particular article, do not recite more than a general link to a computer, and do not invoke the computer in any meaningful way; the general computer is effectively part of the preamble instruction to “apply” the exception by the computer. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the bold portions of the limitations recited above, were all considered to be an abstract idea in Step2A-Prong Two. The additional elements and analysis of Step2A-Prong two is carried over. For the same reason, these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Applicant has merely recited elements that instruct the user to apply the abstract idea to a computer or other machinery. When considered individually and in combination the conclusion, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the above-mentioned limitations [A]-[E] amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the function of the limitations to the exception using generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept for client risk assessment. Further, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized that the computer functions claimed (the “monitor,” “obtain,” and “adapt” limitations) as WURC (see 2106.05(d)(II), identifying, receiving or transmitting data over a network as WURC, as recognized by Symantec). Thus, viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. For these reasons there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 2-10, and 13-18, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. The claims further recite additional abstract steps and description of obtaining, monitoring, providing, and utilizing information, which do not change the abstract idea of the independent claim. The claims recite the additional element of computer components at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 1-10 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulus et al (US 9785534 B1, hereinafter “Paulus” provided in IDS on 9/21/2023) in view of Wang et al (CN 111736937 A, translation provided in IDS on 9/21/2023).
Claim 1, Paulus discloses a data processing device comprising means configured for adapting a regulated digital platform (claim 16: system for providing an interactive software system… comprising: one or more computing processors. Col. 28, ln. 4-38:), the data processing device being arranged to:
monitor said digital platform (FIG. 3, step 303: "Provide an interactive software system" and col. 28, ln. 4-38);
obtain user profile data indicative of interactions with said digital platform associated with a user profile (FIG. 3, step 313: "Obtain abandonment indicator data associated with a user..." and col. 34, ln. 52 - col. 35, ln. 10: "...the abandonment indicator data...includes, but is not limited to,...data acquired from historical user data...and/or data acquired from measuring the user's hardware interactions.". Also see col. 4, ln. 11-14: "...abandonment indicator data is historical user data representing the individual user's historical data and experiences related to the current content being delivered..." and col. 13, ln. 52-56: "...the term “abandonment indicator data” refers to a quantitative representation of physiological, behavioral, or experiential indications as to whether a user is at risk of abandoning an interactive software system.");
determine a set of platform risk values based on the obtained user profile data and said digital platform wherein said set of platform risk values is indicative of at least one risk associated with said digital platform for said user profile (FIG. 3, step 321: "Analyze and/or compare the abandonment indicator data associated with the user to the abandonment indicator threshold parameter data associated with the type of abandonment indicator data received" and col. 35, ln. 49 - col. 36, ln. 10. Although not explicitly stated, it appears self-evident that a comparison of the abandonment indicator data with the abandonment indicator threshold parameter data requires determining a set of values for the abandonment indicator data. Note: The term, " platform risk value", is understood based on the present description, see p. 6, ln. 24-27: "The platform risk value may for example be indicative of a determined risk of obtaining incorrect and/or incomplete user input for a part of the platform...also be considered indicative of a need to adapt said platform in order to reduce said risk for one or more user profiles." Thus, the values of the abandonment indicator data of Paulus, which are used to determine the risk of abandoning the interactive software service, would fall within the scope of " wherein said set of platform risk values is indicative of at least one risk associated with said digital platform for said user profile" of the present claim); and
automatically adapt said digital platform for at least said user profile based on the determined set of platform risk values (FIG. 3, step 323, wherein a determination is made, based on the comparison in step 321, as to whether the user is at risk of abandoning the interactive software service. If Yes, then the method proceeds to step 325: "Select one or more appropriate user experience components to transform the user experience provided through the interactive software system to a user experience customized to facilitate progress and prevent abandonment..." followed by step 327: "Present customized user experience"; see also col. 36, ln. 41 - col. 42, ln. 27, in particular, col. 36, ln. 41-54, col. 37, ln. 30-45, col. 38, ln. 1-23, col. 38, ln. 47 - col. 39, ln. 5, col. 39, ln. 22 - col. 41, ln. 28, and col. 42, ln. 9-27), wherein said digital platform is adapted upon the determined set of platform risk values fulfilling at least one criteria for adapting a part of the platform (Paulus teaches defining criteria (thresholds) that must be fulfilled to trigger a determination of risk in Col. 5 ln. 55-65; Then in col. 7 ln. 3-10 teaches the step of comparing the user’s data (risk values) against these thresholds to see if the criteria are met; In col. 37 Ln. 8-60 teaching once the criteria are fulfilled (the user is determined to be at risk or stressed emotional state), the system automatically adapts the platform).
at the start of a session and before the user profile's first interaction with the platform in the session, adapt a starting state of the session based on initial user profile data comprised in the obtained user profile data (Paulus, col. 23 ln. 15-36 discloses obtaining PRIOR USER DATA 151 representative of initial user profile data and ANALYTICS MODULE SELECTION ENGINE 126 uses the prior user data to determine which one of a number of analytics modules to incorporate USER EXPERIENCE SYSTEM 111, which is adapt said digital platform based on initial data. In col. 23 Ln. 36-40, describing selection process occurs as a setup step to prepare the system for the user interaction in anticipation of the user’s expected emotion state. The anticipation describes that occurs at the start, before the user fully engages the emotional state. In col. 41 ln. 18-28, “the interactive software system utilizes baseline abandonment indicator data (from the user's past abandonment indicator data and/or some general population's abandonment indicator data) to predict whether a user is at risk of abandoning the interactive software system. For example, in one embodiment, the interactive software system predicts that a user interacting with the interactive software system on a Friday afternoon or weekend is more at risk of abandoning the interactive software system than a user interacting with the interactive software system on a Monday morning.” That is, Paulus discloses that certain risk factors are known and used to customize the system before the user’s specific behavior in the current session triggers further changes),
the initial user profile data being indicative of interactions with said digital platform associated with the user profile occurring before the session (Paulus, col. 23 ln. 15-36 defining “prior user data” and “user data obtained during or prior to a user’s current interaction with an interactive software system”. The data obtained “prior to” to the current interaction is data occurring before the current session. Paulus, Col. 34 Ln. 53-62, teaches using “historical user data” which reflects interactions occurring before the occurrent session. In col. 7 ln. 64 - col. 8 ln. 8, “user experience components are determined by the one or more analytics modules described herein based on abandonment indicator data such as, but not limited to, historical user data representing the individual user's historical data and experiences related to the current content being delivered.” Claim 1 “the abandonment indicator threshold parameter data first being determined by one or more types of abandonment indicator data from a group of people other than the user and initially used as base data and then customized for the specific user based on feedback from the specific user and emotional data monitoring of the specific user” discloses the base data for risk is derived from historical data for the prediction which discloses the interactions occurring before the session);
wherein the adapted part of the digital platform leads the user profile from the starting state to subsequent states (Col. 37 ln. 6-11 “an interactive software system selects a user experience component or combination of user experience components to alter the order in which questions are presented to the user in a user experience, in order to maintain the emotional state of a user, facilitate progress, and prevent abandonment of the interactive software system” and Col. 7 ln. 19-31, Paulus discloses the progress of the user through the software is managed by changing the sequence of states/screens) selected based on the determined set of platform risk values (Paulus claim 1: “determining, based, at least in part, on the analysis of the obtained abandonment indicator data and the abandonment indicator threshold parameter data associated with the one or more types of obtained abandonment indicator data, whether the user is at risk of abandoning the interactive software system; selecting, based, at least in part, on a determined emotional state of the user, a portion of the user experience component data,… transforming… a user experience… into a user experience customized to facilitate progress….” which describes the selection of the next state based on the abandonment risk (platform risk values)).
However, Paulus does not expressly teach:
wherein said set of platform risk values is indicative of a probability of incorrect information being submitted to the platform by said user profile; and
Wang is directed to similar service processing system and method based on user interaction and behavior, which specifically teaches,
wherein said set of platform risk values is indicative of a probability of incorrect information being submitted to the platform by said user profile (Wang, page 4 lines 25-34, explicitly states that the behavior data includes “average error times” or average number of errors, when the user inputs data. The average error times is statistical measurement of how often incorrect information is submitted. Further see Abstract and page 3 line 38 – page 4 line 8, teaching calculated “input difficulty level” which based on “average error times” is directly a value indicative of the probability that user is submitting incorrect information).
Wang also teaches,
at the start of a session and before the user profile's first interaction with the platform in the session, adapt a starting state of the session based on initial user profile data comprised in the obtained user profile data (page 5, “for a client with potential input difficulty, pre-storing processing is carried out firstly, and the message can be stored in a background record table and recorded as a state of waiting for confirmation;” “step 202: and determining the user operation type at the current moment according to the identity document data, the current moment behavior data when the user transacts the service application and the relation between the pre-established behavior data and the user operation type.” teaches performing processing before the user begins the transaction to set their profile),
the initial user profile data being indicative of interactions with said digital platform associated with the user profile occurring before the session (page 4, “the relationship between the behavior data and the data state is pre-established through a large amount of historical data” teaches the use of pre-established data set for indicative of interactions occurring before the session);
wherein the adapted part of the digital platform leads the user profile from the starting state to subsequent states (Claim 1, “the relation between the behavior data and the user operation type, the relation between the behavior data and the data state and the relation between the behavior data and the input difficulty level form a dynamic network range diagram.” Page 5, “the data state corresponding to the behavior data at the current moment of the user can be judged first, and when the data state is in an abnormal state, the user operation type and the subsequent processing steps are judged”. Wang teaches the specific pre-storing logic required to meet the before first interaction timing) selected based on the determined set of platform risk values (Claim 1, “searching a range zero limit value by utilizing a convergence algorithm to determine the input difficulty level corresponding to the behavior data at the current moment;… adjusting the current business handling application interface to the business handling application interface corresponding to the input difficulty level…” teaches the selection is driven by the difficult level).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system of Paulus for monitoring user interaction for risk determination to include average error times and input difficulty metrics of Wang for the motivation and benefit of allowing the system to detect when user is emotionally frustrated (Paulus), from struggling to input accurate data (Wang), thereby improving the system’s ability to prevent transaction failure in regulated environment like banking or tax.
Claim 2, the combination of Paulus and Wang make obvious of the data processing device according to claim 1, arranged to obtain user profile data for a plurality of user profiles, determine the sets of platform risk values for said plurality of user profiles, and determine the set of aggregate platform risk values for the digital platform based on said plurality of sets of platform risk values (Paulus col. 4, ln. 11-19 and col. 41, ln. 18-22).
Claim 3, the combination of Paulus and Wang make obvious of the data processing device according to claim 1, wherein the device is arranged to monitor text highlighting and/or text copying in the digital platform associated with the user profile (Paulus, claim 4, “highlighting mechanisms used and highlighted components presented to the user;” Col. 30, ln. 12).
Claim 6, the combination of Paulus and Wang make obvious of the data processing device according to claim 1, wherein the device is arranged to obtain user profile data by adapting said digital platform (Paulus Claim 19, “a sequence with which interview questions are presented to the user; content or topics of the interview questions that are presented to the user;” Col. 38, ln. 12-47 for gather more complete information from the user (i.e., obtain user profile data)).
Claim 7, the combination of Paulus and Wang make obvious of the data processing device of claim 1. However, Paulus fails to disclose, wherein the device is arranged to determine the set of platform risk values based on the obtained user profile data utilizing an artificial neural network trained with a training set of user profile data and corresponding platform risk values.
Wang is directed to similar service processing system and method based on user interaction and behavior, which specifically teaches,
wherein the device is arranged to determine the set of platform risk values based on the obtained user profile data utilizing an artificial neural network trained with a training set of user profile data and corresponding platform risk values (page 6, “the relationship between the behavior data and the user operation type may be a table, or may be a model, such as a neural network model, obtained by pre-training a big data sample,”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system of Paulus for monitoring user interaction to include the feature of wherein the device is arranged to determine the set of platform risk values based on the obtained user profile data utilizing an artificial neural network trained with a training set of user profile data and corresponding platform risk values, as taught by Wang for the motivation of providing an improved system and method in helping the user who really has difficulty transact the service smoothly and improving the satisfaction degree of the user (Wang, Abstract).
Claim 10, the combination of Paulus and Wang make obvious of the data processing device according to claim 1, wherein the device is arranged to adapt said digital platform by providing video and/or audio media describing key terms and concepts comprised in the adapted part of the digital platform (Paulus claim 19, “wherein the user experience components include at least one user experience component selected from the group of user experience components consisting of: content data delivered to the user; a content delivery message delivered to the user. col. 14, ll. 26-38 the term “content delivery message” refers to entire message delivered including specific wording of text, audio, video, visual, or any other data and formats/forms of data used to convey information, and/or the mechanisms used to relay the specific wording or the text, audio, video, visual, or any other data and formats/forms of data used to convey information as discussed herein…).
Claim 12, Paulus discloses a computer implemented method for adapting a regulated digital platform (process 300, FIG. 3 and col. 27, ln. 61 - col. 42, ln. 36), the method comprises:
providing a digital platform (FIG. 3, step 303: "Provide an interactive software system" and col. 28, ln. 4-38);
obtaining user profile data indicative of interactions with said digital platform associated with a user profile (FIG. 3, step 313: "Obtain abandonment indicator data associated with a user..." and col. 34, ln. 52 - col. 35, ln. 10: "...the abandonment indicator data...includes, but is not limited to,...data acquired from historical user data...and/or data acquired from measuring the user's hardware interactions.". Also see col. 4, ln. 11-14: "...abandonment indicator data is historical user data representing the individual user's historical data and experiences related to the current content being delivered..." and col. 13, ln. 52-56: "...the term “abandonment indicator data” refers to a quantitative representation of physiological, behavioral, or experiential indications as to whether a user is at risk of abandoning an interactive software system.");
determining a set of platform risk values based on the obtained user profile data, wherein said set of platform risk values is indicative of at least one risk associated with said digital platform for said user profile (FIG. 3, step 321: "Analyze and/or compare the abandonment indicator data associated with the user to the abandonment indicator threshold parameter data associated with the type of abandonment indicator data received" and col. 35, ln. 49 - col. 36, ln. 10. Although not explicitly stated, it appears self-evident that a comparison of the abandonment indicator data with the abandonment indicator threshold parameter data requires determining a set of values for the abandonment indicator data. Note: The term, " platform risk value", is understood based on the present description, see p. 6, ln. 24-27: "The platform risk value may for example be indicative of a determined risk of obtaining incorrect and/or incomplete user input for a part of the platform...also be considered indicative of a need to adapt said platform in order to reduce said risk for one or more user profiles." Thus, the values of the abandonment indicator data of Paulus, which are used to determine the risk of abandoning the interactive software service, would fall within the scope of " wherein said set of platform risk values is indicative of at least one risk associated with said digital platform for said user profile" of the present claim); and
adapting said digital platform for at least the user profile based on the determined set of platform risk values (FIG. 3, step 323, wherein a determination is made, based on the comparison in step 321, as to whether the user is at risk of abandoning the interactive software service. If Yes, then the method proceeds to step 325: "Select one or more appropriate user experience components to transform the user experience provided through the interactive software system to a user experience customized to facilitate progress and prevent abandonment..." followed by step 327: "Present customized user experience"; see also col. 36, ln. 41 - col. 42, ln. 27, in particular, col. 36, ln. 41-54, col. 37, ln. 30-45, col. 38, ln. 1-23, col. 38, ln. 47 - col. 39, ln. 5, col. 39, ln. 22 - col. 41, ln. 28, and col. 42, ln. 9-27), wherein said digital platform is adapted upon the determined set of platform risk values fulfilling at least one criteria for adapting a part of the platform (Paulus teaches defining criteria (thresholds) that must be fulfilled to trigger a determination of risk in Col. 5 ln. 55-65; Then in col. 7 ln. 3-10 teaches the step of comparing the user’s data (risk values) against these thresholds to see if the criteria are met; In col. 37 Ln. 8-60 teaching once the criteria are fulfilled (the user is determined to be at risk or stressed emotional state), the system automatically adapts the platform).
wherein adapting said digital platform for at least the user profile comprises, at a start of a session and before the user profile's first interaction with the digital platform in the session, adapting a starting state of the session based on initial user profile data comprised in the obtained user profile data (Paulus, col. 23 ln. 15-36 discloses obtaining PRIOR USER DATA 151 representative of initial user profile data and ANALYTICS MODULE SELECTION ENGINE 126 uses the prior user data to determine which one of a number of analytics modules to incorporate USER EXPERIENCE SYSTEM 111, which is adapt said digital platform based on initial data. In col. 23 Ln. 36-40, describing selection process occurs as a setup step to prepare the system for the user interaction in anticipation of the user’s expected emotion state. The anticipation describes that occurs at the start, before the user fully engages the emotional state. In col. 41 ln. 18-28, “the interactive software system utilizes baseline abandonment indicator data (from the user's past abandonment indicator data and/or some general population's abandonment indicator data) to predict whether a user is at risk of abandoning the interactive software system. For example, in one embodiment, the interactive software system predicts that a user interacting with the interactive software system on a Friday afternoon or weekend is more at risk of abandoning the interactive software system than a user interacting with the interactive software system on a Monday morning.” That is, Paulus discloses that certain risk factors are known and used to customize the system before the user’s specific behavior in the current session triggers further changes), the initial user profile data being indicative of interactions with said digital platform associated with the user profile occurring before the session (Paulus, col. 23 ln. 15-36 defining “prior user data” and “user data obtained during or prior to a user’s current interaction with an interactive software system”. The data obtained “prior to” to the current interaction is data occurring before the current session. Paulus, Col. 34 Ln. 53-62, teaches using “historical user data” which reflects interactions occurring before the occurrent session. In col. 7 ln. 64 - col. 8 ln. 8, “user experience components are determined by the one or more analytics modules described herein based on abandonment indicator data such as, but not limited to, historical user data representing the individual user's historical data and experiences related to the current content being delivered.” Claim 1 “the abandonment indicator threshold parameter data first being determined by one or more types of abandonment indicator data from a group of people other than the user and initially used as base data and then customized for the specific user based on feedback from the specific user and emotional data monitoring of the specific user” discloses the base data for risk is derived from historical data for the prediction which discloses the interactions occurring before the session); and
wherein the adapted part of the digital platform leads the user profile from the starting state to subsequent states (Col. 37 ln. 6-11 “an interactive software system selects a user experience component or combination of user experience components to alter the order in which questions are presented to the user in a user experience, in order to maintain the emotional state of a user, facilitate progress, and prevent abandonment of the interactive software system” and Col. 7 ln. 19-31, Paulus discloses the progress of the user through the software is managed by changing the sequence of states/screens) selected based on the determined set of platform risk values (Paulus claim 1: “determining, based, at least in part, on the analysis of the obtained abandonment indicator data and the abandonment indicator threshold parameter data associated with the one or more types of obtained abandonment indicator data, whether the user is at risk of abandoning the interactive software system; selecting, based, at least in part, on a determined emotional state of the user, a portion of the user experience component data,… transforming… a user experience… into a user experience customized to facilitate progress….” which describes the selection of the next state based on the abandonment risk (platform risk values))
However, Paulus does not expressly teach:
wherein said set of platform risk values is indicative of a probability of incorrect information being submitted to the platform by said user profile;
Wang is directed to similar service processing system and method based on user interaction and behavior, which specifically teaches,
wherein said set of platform risk values is indicative of a probability of incorrect information being submitted to the platform by said user profile (Wang, page 4 lines 25-34, explicitly states that the behavior data includes “average error times” or average number of errors, when the user inputs data. The average error times is statistical measurement of how often incorrect information is submitted. Further see Abstract and page 3 line 38 – page 4 line 8, teaching calculated “input difficulty level” which based on “average error times” is directly a value indicative of the probability that user is submitting incorrect information).
Wang also teaches,
wherein adapting said digital platform for at least the user profile comprises, at a start of a session and before the user profile's first interaction with the digital platform in the session, adapting a starting state of the session based on initial user profile data comprised in the obtained user profile data (page 5, “for a client with potential input difficulty, pre-storing processing is carried out firstly, and the message can be stored in a background record table and recorded as a state of waiting for confirmation;” “step 202: and determining the user operation type at the current moment according to the identity document data, the current moment behavior data when the user transacts the service application and the relation between the pre-established behavior data and the user operation type.” teaches performing processing before the user begins the transaction to set their profile),
the initial user profile data being indicative of interactions with said digital platform associated with the user profile occurring before the session (page 4, “the relationship between the behavior data and the data state is pre-established through a large amount of historical data” teaches the use of pre-established data set for indicative of interactions occurring before the session);
wherein the adapted part of the digital platform leads the user profile from the starting state to subsequent states (Claim 1, “the relation between the behavior data and the user operation type, the relation between the behavior data and the data state and the relation between the behavior data and the input difficulty level form a dynamic network range diagram.” Page 5, “the data state corresponding to the behavior data at the current moment of the user can be judged first, and when the data state is in an abnormal state, the user operation type and the subsequent processing steps are judged”. Wang teaches the specific pre-storing logic required to meet the before first interaction timing) selected based on the determined set of platform risk values (Claim 1, “searching a range zero limit value by utilizing a convergence algorithm to determine the input difficulty level corresponding to the behavior data at the current moment;… adjusting the current business handling application interface to the business handling application interface corresponding to the input difficulty level…” teaches the selection is driven by the difficult level).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system of Paulus for monitoring user interaction for risk determination to include average error times and input difficulty metrics of Wang for the motivation and benefit of allowing the system to detect when user is emotionally frustrated (Paulus), from struggling to input accurate data (Wang), thereby improving the system’s ability to prevent transaction failure in regulated environment like banking or tax.
Claim 13, the combination of Paulus and Wang disclose a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having thereon a computer program comprising program instructions, the computer program being loadable into a processor and configured to cause the processor to perform the method for adapting a regulated digital platform according to claim 12 (Paulus claim 31: non-transitory computer program product for using abandonment indicator data to facilitate progress and prevent abandonment of an interactive software system comprising: a non-transitory computer readable medium; and computer program code, encoded on the computer readable medium, comprising computer readable instructions which when executed on a processor performs a process for performing a process for using abandonment indicator data to facilitate progress and prevent abandonment of an interactive software system).
Claim 14, the combination of Paulus and Wang make obvious of the data processing device according to claim 6, wherein the device is arranged to obtain user profile data by adapting said digital platform by providing a questionnaire configured to obtain user input (Paulus Claim 19, “a sequence with which interview questions are presented to the user; content or topics of the interview questions that are presented to the user;” Col. 38, ln. 12-47).
Claim 15, the combination of Paulus and Wang make obvious of the data processing device according to claim 1, wherein: the user profile is associated with a user of the digital platform and being related to at least one legal document associated with the digital platform; the data processing device is arranged to: adapt a communication to the user based on the determined set of platform risk values, and cause the communication to be sent to an address associated with the user profile; and the communication is at least one of: an email, or physical mail (Paulus Col. 14 ln. 26-36 teaches content delivery messages includes any data arrangement/format used to convey information and the e-mails. In Col. 21 Ln. 4-15 teaches providing mailing address for live human service provider that is local to the geographic location of the user. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to send physical mail that is well-known alternative to email in regulated industries of banking and tax filing for formal communication).
Claim 16, the combination of Paulus and Wang make obvious of the data processing device according to claim 15, wherein the communication is at least the email (Paulus Col. 14 ln. 26-36 teaches content delivery messages includes any data arrangement/format used to convey information and the e-mails).
Claim 17, the combination of Paulus and Wang make obvious of the data processing device according to claim 15, wherein the communication is at least the physical mail (Paulus Col. 14 ln. 26-36 teaches content delivery messages includes any data arrangement/format used to convey information and the e-mails. In Col. 21 Ln. 4-15 teaches providing mailing address for live human service provider that is local to the geographic location of the user. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to send physical mail that is well-known alternative to email in regulated industries of banking and tax filing for formal communication).
Claim 4, 5, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulus et al (US 9785534 B1, hereinafter “Paulus” provided in IDS on 9/21/2023) in view of Wang et al (CN 111736937 A, translation provided in IDS on 9/21/2023), and further in view of Quinn et al. (US 8024660 B1 hereinafter “Quinn” provided in IDS on 9/21/2023).
Claim 4, the combination of Paulus and Wang make obvious of the data processing device of claim 1. The combination fails to disclose, wherein the device is arranged to monitor time spent interacting with a part of content provided by said digital platform, wherein the interaction with the part of content is associated with the user profile.
Quinn is directed to similar system and method for variable help content and abandonment intervention based on customer behavior, which specifically teaches,
wherein the device is arranged to monitor time spent interacting with a part of content provided by said digital platform, wherein the interaction with the part of content is associated with the user profile. (col. 7, ln. 62- col. 8, ln. 6: “Embodiments of the pattern detection and intervention mechanism may collect usage and possibly other data for the tax program for a subset or even all of the users of the tax program 100. The collected usage data may include one or more of, but is not limited to, repetitive actions (e.g., going back and forth between two screens or two items on one screen), frequency of clicking, the time it takes the users to perform certain actions (e.g., how long do users spend on a particular screen or area?), the sequences that the users follow to perform particular tasks (including subtasks such as preparing a particular document or field in a document and the overall task of preparing a tax return)”.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system of Paulus for monitoring user interaction to include the feature of wherein the device is arranged to monitor time spent interacting with a part of content provided by said digital platform, wherein the interaction with the part of content is associated with the user profile, as taught by Quinn for the motivation of providing an improved system in providing better suggested help knowing when the user is spending too much time on certain screen page and provide more visual, graphical format that may be easier for the user to understand rather than in a standard, more text-oriented format (col. 14 ln. 56-60). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar user interactive system field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same user interactive system related function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Quinn, the results of the combination were predictable (See MPEP 2143 A).
Claim 5, the combination of Paulus and Wang make obvious of the data processing device of claim 1. However, The combination fails to disclose, wherein the device is arranged to obtain user profile data indicative of a determined frequency of interaction with said digital platform associated with the user profile, and wherein determining the set of platform risk values is based on said frequency of interaction with said digital platform.
Quinn is directed to similar system and method for variable help content and abandonment intervention based on customer behavior, which specifically teaches,
wherein the device is arranged to obtain user profile data indicative of a determined frequency of interaction with said digital platform associated with the user profile, and wherein determining the set of platform risk values is based on said frequency of interaction with said digital platform (col. 7, ln. 62- col. 8, ln. 6: “Embodiments of the pattern detection and intervention mechanism may collect usage and possibly other data for the tax program for a subset or even all of the users of the tax program 100. The collected usage data may include one or more of, but is not limited to, repetitive actions (e.g., going back and forth between two screens or two items on one screen), frequency of clicking, the time it takes the users to perform certain actions (e.g., how long do users spend on a particular screen or area?), the sequences that the users follow to perform particular tasks (including subtasks such as preparing a particular document or field in a document and the overall task of preparing a tax return)”.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system of Paulus for monitoring user interaction to include the feature of wherein the device is arranged to obtain user profile data indicative of a determined frequency of interaction with said digital platform associated with the user profile, and wherein determining the set of platform risk values is based on said frequency of interaction with said digital platform, as taught by Quinn for the motivation of providing an improved system in providing better suggested help knowing when the user is finding difficulty on certain screen page and provide more visual, graphical format that may be easier for the user to understand rather than in a standard, more text-oriented format (col. 14 ln. 56-60). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar user interactive system field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same user interactive system related function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Quinn, the results of the combination were predictable (See MPEP 2143 A).
Claim 8, the combination of Paulus and Wang make obvious of the data processing device of claim 1. However, the combination fails to disclose, wherein the device is arranged to adapt said digital platform by providing text simplification.
Quinn is directed to similar system and method for variable help content and abandonment intervention based on customer behavior, which specifically teaches,
wherein the device is arranged to adapt said digital platform by providing text simplification (col. 13, ln. 45- 60: “pattern detection and intervention mechanism 232 detects that the user 210D is having difficulties with a complex form or document, pattern detection and intervention mechanism 232 may initiate a response 246 that presents a simplified version of the document or form to the user 210D. For example, a pattern detection and intervention mechanism 232 response 246 may cause tax program 100D to break up the document or form into separate parts and present each part to the user 210D as a simplified screen with possibly additional information about the particular part.”.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system of Paulus for monitoring user interaction to include the feature of wherein the device is arranged to adapt said digital platform by providing text simplification, as taught by Quinn for the motivation of providing an improved system in providing better suggested help knowing when the user is finding difficulty on certain screen page and provide more visual, graphical format that may be easier for the user to understand rather than in a standard, more text-oriented format (col. 14 ln. 56-60). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar user interactive system field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same user interactive system related function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Quinn, the results of the combination were predictable (See MPEP 2143 A).
Claim 18, the combination of Paulus and Wang make obvious of the data processing device according to claim 15. However, the combination fails to disclose, wherein the set of platform risk values comprises a set of a legal risk values indicative of at least one legal risk associated with said digital platform for said user profile; the at least one risk is associated with the at least one legal document; and the communication relates to the at least one legal document.
Quinn is directed to similar system and method for variable help content and abandonment intervention based on customer behavior, which specifically teaches,
wherein the set of platform risk values comprises a set of a legal risk values indicative of at least one legal risk associated with said digital platform for said user profile; the at least one risk is associated with the at least one legal document; and the communication relates to the at least one legal document (Quinn: Claims 1, 10, and Col. 6 Ln. 6-18 and Col. 17 Ln. 37-60 teaching tax preparation program comprising graphical electronic tax form includes a tax form (e.g., form 1040) is a legal document submitted to a taxing authority. Quinn further teaches determining if a user is having difficulty related to the inputting data or deviating from normal usage pattern, creates high probability of submitting incorrect information to the government. The determined usage pattern indicating the difficulty are the legal risk values. Claim 8 and Col. 7 Ln. 34-38 and Col. 30-36 teaches sending an electronic mail message to the particular user in response to the user’s difficulty with the tax form). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to implement the system of Paulus with the tax preparation as taught by Quinn for introducing legal document and associated risk into the risk determination process for improved and effective system for communicating with user for necessary help in serious and urgent manner.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulus in view of Wang and further in view of Henniger (US 20170010860 A1).
Claim 9, the combination of Paulus and Wang make obvious of data processing device of claim 1. However, the combination fails to disclose,
wherein the device is arranged to adapt said digital platform by providing text definitions for key terms and concepts comprised in the adapted part of the digital platform.
Henniger is directed to a system for enriched multilayered multimedia communications interactive element propagation, which specifically teaches,
wherein the device is arranged to adapt said digital platform by providing text definitions for key terms and concepts comprised in the adapted part of the digital platform (Para. [0092], “elements may be added to a pop-up supplemental layer (that is, a layer that becomes visible as a pop-up message within a configuration interface or software application), for example: a definition for a word the user has created (this may be divided into multiple types of meanings and definitions), or possible divisions between text definitions, audio definition, or visual definition. Definition types might for example include “mainstream” (publicly or generally-accepted definitions, such as for common words like “house” or “sunset”), “street” definitions (locally-accepted definitions, such as custom words or lingo, for example used within a certain venue or region), or personal definitions (for custom user-specific use). A user, via a user device, may add these, for example, with a “+” button or similar interactive means via a user device, for example via a pulldown menu displaying various definition options.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system of Paulus for providing content in pop-up display to include the feature of text definition as taught by Henniger for the motivation of effectively provide user the best understanding of the content or definition.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
The Applicant’s remarks are fully considered, however are found to be unpersuasive.
On page 12-13, the Applicant asserts “it is impossible for a human mind to adapt a starting state of a session as recited.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The newly added limitations describe a process of a human interaction and mental process. That is, a bank clerk, before a meeting (the session), reviews a client’s file (initial user profile data), based on the history, the clerk decides to start the meeting with a simplified explanation (starting state); then as the meeting progresses, if the client seems confused (risk value), the clerk chooses to explain the certain clauses before others (leading to subsequent states) based on the mental evaluation of “adapting a sequence based on perceived understanding” by the human clerk.
The term “adapt” is an open-ended computer function language that does not define a specific function. The office action indicates the “adapt” function is interpreted to be providing/presenting information in generic function performed by the additional element of computer device, which is merely facilitating the tasks of said abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f) is clear that this generic recitation does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more. This interpretation holds whether the additional elements are viewed alone or in combination.
Further on page 13, the Applicant asserts “[a] human mind cannot practically perform other claim aspects. For example, a human mind cannot practically perform causing a "communication to be sent to an address associated with the user profile," the communication being "at least one of: an email, or physical mail," as recited in claim 15, which depends from claim 1. Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and recites that "the communication is at least the email." Claim 17 depends from claim 15 and recites that "the communication is at least the physical mail."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(d) provided Examples of product claims reciting mental processes include: A post office for receiving and redistributing email messages on a computer network – Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1316, 120 USPQ2d at 1359. Further in MPEP 2106.05(g), the courts recognized transmitting communication such as email as well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity (see Symantec). The transmitting of physical mail has been human activity that does not require the additional element of computer devices.
Per remarks on pages 13-14, regarding the 101 rejection based on “mitigating risk”. The Examiner is confused. The Office Action does not prompt the 101 rejection based on “mitigating risk” but rather correctly indicated “platform risk value” as risk assessment performed as business practice in commercial interaction of “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of the abstract ideas.
Per remarks on pages 15-16 for step 2B, the Applicant provided court cases analysis of BASCOM, Enfish, and McRo however, the Applicant does not distinguish how the claimed invention is similar. The Applicant provided an assertive and conclusory result of the amended claim limitation can “provide improvements in computer-related technologies. For example, adapting a starting state of a session before the user profile's first interaction, and defining subsequent state can drastically reduce runtime computational overhead and uncertainty compared to reactively and dynamically rendering/altering a complex digital platform during user interaction” without any evidence or technological detail for support.
The Examiner notes that the additional elements, which form the basis of this determination, are nothing more than generic computing elements, used in their ordinary capacity, to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea (indicated in the 101 rejection). Whether viewed alone or in combination, this is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical application and/or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).”
MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).”
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
The Applicant’s remarks are fully considered, however are found to be unpersuasive.
The Examiner asserts that the applicant’s arguments are directed towards amended claim limitations and are, therefore, considered moot. However, the Examiner has responded to the amended amendments, which the arguments are directed to, in the rejection above, thereby addressing the applicant’s arguments.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
A. Leurdijk and S. Limonard, "Market potential for interactive audio-visual media," First International Conference on Automated Production of Cross Media Content for Multi-Channel Distribution (AXMEDIS'05), Florence, Italy, 2005, pp. 8 pp.-, doi: 10.1109/AXMEDIS.2005.31.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENREN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan C Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WENREN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights