DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/18/25 has been entered. Claims 1, 8, and 17 have been amended. No claims have been added or canceled. Claims 1-20 have been considered as follows.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 17 describes “from the second data set that utilizing...”. Examiner submits that this language contains a grammatical error and should read –from the second data set utilizing... –. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is not withdrawn in response to Applicant's claim amendments. Examiner submits that while a system including a processor and computer-readable storage medium is provided, there is no positive recitation of how the system transforms or changes the nature of the claim into something patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments drawn to the rejection of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees and reiterates that the claims, even as amended, are not drawn to patent eligible subject matter. Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the identified limitations recited by the independent claims do not recite subject matter that falls within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, Examiner respectfully disagrees and reiterates that Applicant’s representative repeatedly points to Enfish, and describes how the courts considered improvements to a computer implemented self-referential table as not simply directed to any form of storing tabular data, but instead are specifically directed to a self-referential table for a computer database, and as such, an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity. Examiner submits that the limitations as currently claimed, even as amended, still do not provide improvement to the computer functionality, but rather describe a set of instructions as related to data ingestion which utilize a generic computer to accomplish the steps. For example, the features of receiving a first data set, receiving a second data set, and ingesting a subset of the second data are drawn to analyzing and managing the data, which may be construed as at least managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. In addition to receiving a first and second data set (see the 101 rejection below), the claims further describe the ingesting of a subset of the second data set to include determining at least one associated index, mapping the at least one index associated with the first data set to at least one index associated with the second data set; identifying, based on the mapping, a subset of the operational data items with index values, generating a third data set, and storing the generated third data set. In this regard, Examiner submits that these limitations are drawn to the abstract grouping relating to social activities, which is analogous to the example of reciting social activities, as described in Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The social activity at issue was the social activity of “’providing information to a person without interfering with the person’s primary activity.’” 896 F.3d at 1344, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (citing Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 193 F. Supp.3d 1184, 1188 (W.D. 2014)). The patentee claimed an attention manager for acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content. 896 F.3d at 1339-40, 127 USPQ2d at 1555. The Federal Circuit concluded that “[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea,” observing that the district court “pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention.” 896 F.3d at 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d at 1559. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Additionally, Examiner submits that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, as the claims merely describe the generic computer-readable storage medium and/or the processor of the system used to accomplish the method steps. In this regard, Examiner submits that the courts have identified these limitations that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, i.e. merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, these claim limitations, either individually or as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself and do not transform the nature of the claim from the judicial exception into a patent-eligible application. Although the invention teaches of a system including a processor and computer-readable medium, there is also no physical transformation or improvement to the technology that would be more than the idea of itself. Furthermore, in the current language, the claim is merely implemented or executed using a processor and therefore does not improve upon the technology or functionality of the computer beyond the abstract idea. In other words, Examiner submits that the inventive concept, i.e. an element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept (of an abstract idea itself)”, is unable to be determined within the limitations as claimed.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Regarding Applicant's argument that the cited references do not teach of all the limitations as amended, Vosburgh (US 2017/0169193 A1, herein Vosburgh) has been brought in, necessitated by amendment, to illustrate this aspect (see claim 1 rejection below).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea without significantly more and are merely requiring generic computer implementation, which fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. In view of the two-step test regarding determining subject matter eligibility, Examiner submits that the independent claim(s) 1, 8, and 17 recite(s) a computer readable medium, a system, and a method, for intelligently combining relevant data items of requested data sets during ingestion. Therefore, the claims as a whole are considered as being in a statutory category under Step 1 of the test.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1, Examiner submits that the claims as a whole are directed to a judicially recognized exception that is an abstract idea. The claimed invention is drawn to an abstract idea of intelligently combining relevant data items of requested data sets during ingestion, by specifically causing a computing device to “receive a first data set comprising response data items associated with one or more digital surveys”; “receive a second data set comprising operational data items”; and “ingest, into non-temporary data storage, a subset of the second data set based on a correspondence between the subset of the second data set and the first data set by: determining at least one index associated with the first data set; mapping the at least one index associated with the first data set to at least one index associated with the second data set; identifying, based on the mapping, a subset of the operational data items from the second data set that include index values at the at least one index associated with the first data set that correspond to index values at the at least one index associated with the second data set; generating a third data set joining the first data set and the subset of the operational data items from the second data set that utilizing the at least one index as a join key; and storing the generated third data set in the non-temporary data storage”. The limitations of at least “receive a first data set comprising response data items associated with one or more digital surveys”; and “receive a second data set comprising operational data items”, as drafted are drawn to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “receive a first data set comprising response data items associated with one or more digital surveys”; and “receive a second data set comprising operational data items” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually accepting or receiving certain data sets of information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Furthermore, the limitations of at least “ingest, into non-temporary data storage, a subset of the second data set based on a correspondence between the subset of the second data set and the first data set by: determining at least one index associated with the first data set; mapping the at least one index associated with the first data set to at least one index associated with the second data set; identifying, based on the mapping, a subset of the operational data items from the second data set that include index values at the at least one index associated with the first data set that correspond to index values at the at least one index associated with the second data set; generating a third data set joining the first data set and the subset of the operational data items from the second data set that utilizing the at least one index as a join key; and storing the generated third data set in the non-temporary data storage”, as drafted are drawn to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e. commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors; business relations; or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). That is, the claims are directed to the concept of intelligently combining relevant data items of requested data sets during ingestion. If a claim limitation/invention, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be construed as describing advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors, business relations, or the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2, Examiner submits that the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements claimed include a processor and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, Examiner submits that the claims at hand in fact do not include any recitation of additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exception that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. To be considered statutory, the claims require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In this regard, Examiner submits that there are no such additional elements that improve the functioning of a computer to any other technology or technical field, apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 2-7, 9-16, and 18-20, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that constitute statutory matter. The dependent claims are directed to the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims and have been found to either recite additional details that are part of the abstract idea itself (when analyzed under Step 2A Prong One), or include additional details that, when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two) and fail to add significantly more to the abstract idea (Step 2B). For example, claims 2-3 describe details regarding the type of data. Claims 4 and 5 describe how the data is received and/or manipulated. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claims) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The dependent claims also recite steps that together with the independent claims are accomplishing the overall process of intelligently combining relevant data items of requested data sets during ingestion, which falls within at least the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e. commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors; business relations; or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the dependent claims are drawn to an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B drawn to determining if the claim recites additional elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception, Examiner submits that the claims in fact do not include any recitation of additional elements that would constitute anything significantly more. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of a processor and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to perform the steps of the invention. The processor and computer-readable storage medium in the claimed steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of computing or processing) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. fIn contrast to the Enfish decision where the claims focused on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data, the present case is drawn to certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36; see Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). Furthermore, the instant claims’ invocation of computers, and/or networks, and/or displays does not transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications. The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions “on a set of generic computer components” and display devices. Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6–7. Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information. Such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are “insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application” of an abstract idea. buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1353, 1355; see, e.g., Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1348–49; Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347–48. Therefore, these claim limitations, either individually or as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself and do not transform the nature of the claim from the judicial exception into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morsberger (US 2010/0324971 A1, herein Morsberger) in view of Vosburgh (US 2017/0169193 A1, herein Vosburgh).
As per claim 1, Morsberger teaches of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (pg. 4, [0079]) comprising instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computing device to:
receive a first data set comprising response data items associated with one or more digital surveys;
receive a second data set comprising operational data items (abstract and pg. 1, [0012] which describes the invention to collect and provide customer survey information from targeted customers, as well as the consumer survey information that may include information regarding products, services or operations; and pg. 1, [0014] which describes how consumers may provide requested information about themselves, where the customer specific information is stored in profiles that correspond to each particular consumer that registers; and pg. 1, [0015] which describes how the system utilizes transaction records that may include identification codes designating each of the parties to the transaction as well as characteristics of the transaction; and pg. 5, [0108-0109] describes the first category of customer related information, where an identifying system is generated to identify the participants of a survey panel; and pg. 6, [0112] which describes the second category is qualifying transaction information, where the payment amount of the transaction meets a predetermined level and the product or service should be in a category that is being surveyed or the merchant should be in the category of interest); and
ingest, into non-temporary data storage, a subset of the second data set based on a correspondence between the subset of the second data set and the first data set by:
determining at least one index associated with the first data set;
identifying a subset of the operational data items from the second data set;
generating a third data set joining the first data set and the subset of the operational data items from the second data set; and
storing the generated third data set in the non-temporary data storage (pg. 2, [0016] which describes how the system monitors such transactions and identifies those that involve consumers participating in the survey program and also determines whether the identified transaction is in a category of transactions for which the research firm would like to solicit survey information; and pg. 5, [0106] which describes that transaction records are scanned and filtered so only those transactions that are relevant to a survey are identified, where the monitoring interface uses predetermined criteria for the evaluation of transaction records; and pg. 6, [0118-0119] which describes how the research firm can determine which categories of products are services are indicative of the customers from which it would like to receive feedback, where once a transaction has met the payment amount criteria, then the category of the purchase is determined, where if the category of the product of service is one of the designated categories, then the transaction is identified for further evaluation; and pg.6, [0122] which describes how the data provider creates a separate repository of data that is collected from the transactions, where the collected data is primarily transaction records, which may include the identification of the customer, the merchant, and other transaction specific information).
However, Morsberger fails to explicitly teach of mapping the index associated with the first data set to an index associated with the second data set, identifying, based on the mapping, a subset of the operational data items from the second data set that include index values at the one index associated with the first data set that correspond to index values at the one index associated with the second data set; and generating a third data set joining the first data set and the subset of the operational data items from the second data set utilizing the at least one index as a join key. Vosburgh teaches of a verified patient data collection system, specifically including:
receive a first data set comprising response data items associated with one or more digital surveys;
receive a second data set comprising operational data items (pg. 2, [0025] which describes the verified data collection system that may be configured to store requests for feedback, post treatment surveys, and verified patient data in databases; and pg. 2, [0027] which describes how the provider data store is configured to receive provider data; and pg. 2, [0028] which describes how a response data store is configured to receive incoming patient responses from data processing system and store them as response data within response data store; and pg. 3, [0030] which describes a patient data store that is configured to house patient data, where incoming patient data may comprise data about a patient prior to an operation);
ingest, into non-temporary data storage, a subset of the second data set based on a correspondence between the subset of the second data set and the first data set by:
determining at least one index associated with the first data set;
mapping the at least one index associated with the first data set to at least one index associated with the second data set (pg. 2, [0025-0026] which describes verified data collection system that may be configured to store requests for feedback, post treatment surveys, and verified patient data in databases, including a provider data store, a response data store, and a patient data store; and pg. 2, [0028] which describes the response data store that receives incoming patient responses from data processing system and stores them as response data within the response data store, where the incoming response data is received by data processing system and response analyzer logic configured to retrieve and parse information within an incoming response; and pg. 3, [0030] which describes the patient data store that houses patient data, including data about patients previously associated with provider data, where patient verification logic is configured to analyze a received response and compare it to previously received patient data or stored patient data to verify that the response comes from an actual verified patient and concerns actual practitioners from which the patient received treatment; and pg. 4 [0038-0042] which describes the method of indexing patient response data, where incoming response data needs to be indexed such that it is easily retrievable by provider aggregator logic, response aggregator logic, and patient data aggregator logic, as well as where a patient response is identified and anonymized, then the response data is indexed, such that response data including patient text comments can be indexed in a response index, or response data can be indexed with respect to a provider or by time);
identifying, based on the mapping, a subset of the operational data items from the second data set that include index values at the at least one index associated with the first data set that correspond to index values at the at least one index associated with the second data set; and generating a third data set joining the first data set and the subset of the operational data items from the second data set that utilizing the at least one index as a join key (pg. 4, [0043-0045] which describes the method of displaying search results, where a request is received to access the verified data collection system to request information about a specific provider and then the results are received , where the data processing system may utilize prospective patient request logic to parse the request and coordinate the retrieval of results, such that prospective patient request logic in conjunction with provider aggregator logic and response aggregator logic can access provider index and response index in order to retrieve the requested information; and pg. 5, [0056] which describes how based on the results of an entered parameter, response data store is searched for results that match the parameter and response aggregator logic is configured to retrieve all response matching the required information; and pg. 5, [0058] which describes how the database is searched for results that match all currently entered parameters, where searching response data store comprises only searching the initially received results based on the first entered parameter, such that the entire response index is not searched a second time, but only the responses that match the first criteria are searched from compliance with the second criteria).
Morsberger teaches of a system and method for collecting survey information from targeted consumers. Vosburgh teaches of a verified patient data collection system, specifically including the indexing as claimed. Both references are drawn to managing survey response/customer data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Morsberger with the indexing as taught by Vosburgh for the purpose of indexing incoming response data such that it is easily retrievable by provider aggregator logic, response aggregator logic, and patient data aggregator logic (Vosburgh, pg. 4, [0038]). By doing so, one would reasonably expect the overall appeal of the invention to improve in efficiency by allowing the stored data to be easily retrieved and aggregated accordingly.
As per claim 8, it refers to a system for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale. Furthermore, Morsberger (US 2010/0324971 A1, herein Morsberger) discloses the steps are performed by a system (pg. 1, [0012]).
As per claim 17, it refers to a method for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale. Furthermore, Morsberger (US 2010/0324971 A1, herein Morsberger) discloses the steps are performed by a method (pg. 1, [0012]).
As per claim 2, Morsberger in view of Vosburgh discloses all the elements of claim 1, and Morsberger further teaches wherein the response data items in the first data set comprise one or more of: question information associated with the one or more digital surveys, response information associated with the one or more digital surveys, user-selected responses associated with the one or more digital surveys, user information associated with users who responded to questions from the one or more digital surveys, deployment information associated with the one or more digital surveys, and question flow information associated with the one or more digital surveys (abstract and pg. 1, [0012] which describes the invention to collect and provide customer survey information from targeted customers, as well as the consumer survey information that may include information regarding products, services or operations; and pg. 1, [0014] which describes how consumers may provide requested information about themselves, where the customer specific information is stored in profiles that correspond to each particular consumer that registers; and pg. 1, [0015] which describes how the system utilizes transaction records that may include identification codes designating each of the parties to the transaction as well as characteristics of the transaction; and pg. 5, [0108-0109] describes the first category of customer related information, where an identifying system is generated to identify the participants of a survey panel; and pg. 6, [0112] which describes the second category is qualifying transaction information, where the payment amount of the transaction meets a predetermined level and the product or service should be in a category that is being surveyed or the merchant should be in the category of interest).
As per claim 3, Morsberger in view of Vosburgh discloses all the elements of claim 1, and Morsberger further teaches wherein the operational data items in the second data set are correlated with a sponsor of the one or more digital surveys and comprise one or more of profile information, contact information, corporate organization information, individual transaction date information, individual transaction user information, individual transaction amount information, and survey distribution statistics (abstract and pg. 1, [0012] which describes the invention to collect and provide customer survey information from targeted customers, as well as the consumer survey information that may include information regarding products, services or operations; and pg. 1, [0014] which describes how consumers may provide requested information about themselves, where the customer specific information is stored in profiles that correspond to each particular consumer that registers; and pg. 1, [0015] which describes how the system utilizes transaction records that may include identification codes designating each of the parties to the transaction as well as characteristics of the transaction; and pg. 4, [0079] which describes the merchant-related information that is stored in a data storage medium and may be generated or received from merchants; and pg. 5, [0108-0109] describes the first category of customer related information, where an identifying system is generated to identify the participants of a survey panel; and pg. 6, [0112] which describes the second category is qualifying transaction information, where the payment amount of the transaction meets a predetermined level and the product or service should be in a category that is being surveyed or the merchant should be in the category of interest).
As per claim 4, Morsberger in view of Vosburgh discloses all the elements of claim 1, and Morsberger further teaches of instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to:
receive the first data set from a first data source; and
receive the second data set from a second data source (pg. 1, [0013-0014] which describes how individual customers are invited to complete surveys regarding specific transactions and/or merchants, where consumers may register for the survey program by providing requested information about themselves, which is stored in profiles that correspond to each particular consumer that registers; and pg. 1, [0015] which describes how the system uses transaction records for transactions involving payments for products or services by a participating consumer; and pg. 5, [0101] which describes how transaction records are stored in an electronic or digital form and are typically between a customer and a merchant).
As per claim 5, Morsberger in view of Vosburgh discloses all the elements of claim 1, and Morsberger further teaches of instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to, in response to receiving the first data set and the second data set, convert the first data set and the second data set to a common schema comprising a plurality of indices (pg. 5, [0109-0110] which describes how an identifying system is generated to identify the participants of a survey panel, using a unique identification code for each of the participants, where each of the codes is associated with a participant and the participant’s profile; and pg. 6, [0111] which describes how the identification codes are utilized by the monitoring interface or technology as part of the customer related criteria to determine relevant transactions for the survey, where the monitor interface scans the transaction records of the data provider to identify those records involving a customer with a code that matches one of the participant codes).
As per claim 6, Morsberger in view of Vosburgh discloses all the elements of claim 5, and Morsberger further teaches wherein determining the at least one index associated with the first data set comprises determining a particular index of the converted first data set to join the converted second data set against (pg. 5, [0109-0110] which describes how an identifying system is generated to identify the participants of a survey panel, using a unique identification code for each of the participants, where each of the codes is associated with a participant and the participant’s profile; and pg. 6, [0111] which describes how the identification codes are utilized by the monitoring interface or technology as part of the customer related criteria to determine relevant transactions for the survey, where the monitor interface scans the transaction records of the data provider to identify those records involving a customer with a code that matches one of the participant codes).
As per claim 7, Morsberger in view of Vosburgh discloses all the elements of claim 6, and Morsberger further teaches wherein generating the third data set comprises:
determining index values correlated with the particular index in the converted first data set;
identifying operational data items in the converted second data set that comprise the index values correlated with the particular index in the converted second data set; and
generating the third data set comprising the converted first data set and the identified operational data items from the converted second data set (pg. 5, [0109-0110] which describes how an identifying system is generated to identify the participants of a survey panel, using a unique identification code for each of the participants, where each of the codes is associated with a participant and the participant’s profile; and pg. 6, [0111] which describes how the identification codes are utilized by the monitoring interface or technology as part of the customer related criteria to determine relevant transactions for the survey, where the monitor interface scans the transaction records of the data provider to identify those records involving a customer with a code that matches one of the participant codes; and pg. 6, [0118-0119] which describes how the research firm can determine which categories of products are services are indicative of the customers from which it would like to receive feedback, where once a transaction has met the payment amount criteria, then the category of the purchase is determined, where if the category of the product of service is one of the designated categories, then the transaction is identified for further evaluation; and pg.6, [0122] which describes how the data provider creates a separate repository of data that is collected from the transactions, where the collected data is primarily transaction records, which may include the identification of the customer, the merchant, and other transaction specific information).
As per claim 9, Morsberger in view of Vosburgh discloses all the elements of claim 8, and Morsberger further teaches wherein generating the third data set comprises:
aligning the first data set and the second data set across the at least one index;
identifying index values of the one or more response data items at the at least one index;
identifying the one or more operational data items comprising the index values at the at least one index; and
generating the third data set comprising the first data set and the one or more operational data items comprising the index values at the at least one index (pg. 5, [0109-0110] which describes how an identifying system is generated to identify the participants of a survey panel, using a unique identification code for each of the participants, where each of the codes is associated with a participant and the participant’s profile; and pg. 6, [0111] which describes how the identification codes are utilized by the monitoring interface or technology as part of the customer related criteria to determine relevant transactions for the survey, where the monitor interface scans the transaction records of the data provider to identify those records involving a customer with a code that matches one of the participant codes; and pg. 6, [0118-0119] which describes how the research firm can determine which categories of products are services are indicative of the customers from which it would like to receive feedback, where once a transaction has met the payment amount criteria, then the category of the purchase is determined, where if the category of the product of service is one of the designated categories, then the transaction is identified for further evaluation; and pg.6, [0122] which describes how the data provider creates a separate repository of data that is collected from the transactions, where the collected data is primarily transaction records, which may include the identification of the customer, the merchant, and other transaction specific information).
As per claim 10, Morsberger in view of Vosburgh discloses all the elements of claim 9, and Morsberger further teaches wherein generating the third data set further comprises disregarding operational data items in the second data set that do not comprise data values at the at least one index (pg. 5, [0106] which describes that transaction records are scanned and filtered so only those transactions that are relevant to a survey are identified, where the monitoring interface uses predetermined criteria for the evaluation of transaction records; and pg. 6, [0111] which describes how the identification codes are utilized by the monitoring interface or technology as part of the customer related criteria to determine relevant transactions for the survey, where the monitor interface scans the transaction records of the data provider to identify those records involving a customer with a code that matches one of the participant codes).
As per claim 11, Morsberger in view of Vosburgh discloses all the elements of claim 8, and Morsberger further teaches of further storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to further ingest the subset of the second data set by transforming the third data set according to one or more of date calculations, value mappings, or arithmetic operations (pg. 9, [0172-0173] which describes collecting the survey information from participants, processing the collected information and generating an output, such as a report, where the responses of each participant are associated with the participant’s profile and stored, where the output may be in the form of a table, chart, report, etc. and are stored on the survey database).
As per claim 12, Morsberger in view of Vosburgh discloses all the elements of claim 8, and Morsberger further teaches of further storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
receive, from a client device prior to ingesting the subset of the second data set, a user indication of the at least one index; and
wherein identifying the subset of the operational data items from the second data set that correlate with the at least one index comprises:
identifying index values correlated with the at least one index from the response data items; and
identifying one or more operational data items comprising the index values at the at least one index (pg. 2, [0016] which describes how the system monitors such transactions and identifies those that involve consumers participating in the survey program and also determines whether the identified transaction is in a category of transactions for which the research firm would like to solicit survey information; and pg. 5, [0106] which describes that transaction records are scanned and filtered so only those transactions that are relevant to a survey are identified, where the monitoring interface uses predetermined criteria for the evaluation of transaction records; and pg. 6, [0118-0119] which describes how the research firm can determine which categories of products are services are indicative of the customers from which it would like to receive feedback, where once a transaction has met the payment amount criteria, then the category of the purchase is determined, where if the category of the product of service is one of the designated categories, then the transaction is identified for further evaluation; and pg.6, [0122] which describes how the data provider creates a separate repository of data that is collected from the transactions, where the collected data is primarily transaction records, which may include the identification of the customer, the merchant, and other transaction specific information).
As per claim 13, Morsberger in view of Vosburgh discloses all the elements of claim 8, and Morsberger further teaches of further storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to receive one or more user-selected indices associated with the first data set and one or more user-selected indices associated with the second data set (pg. 2, [0016] which describes how the system monitors such transactions and identifies those that involve consumers participating in the survey program and also determines whether the identified transaction is in a category of transactions for which the research firm would like to solicit survey information; and pg. 5, [0106] which describes that transaction records are scanned and filtered so only those transactions that are relevant to a survey are identified, where the monitoring interface uses predetermined criteria for the evaluation of transaction records).
As per claim 14, Morsberger in view of Vosburgh discloses all the elements of claim 13, and Morsberger further teaches wherein generating the third data set is further based on the one or more user-selected indices associated with the first data set and the one or more user-selected indices associated with the second data set (pg. 6, [0118-0119] which describes how the research firm can determine which categories of products are services are indicative of the customers from which it would like to receive feedback, where once a transaction has met the payment amount criteria, then the category of the purchase is determined, where if the category of the product of service is one of the designated categories, then the transaction is identified for further evaluation; and pg.6, [0122] which describes how the data provider creates a separate repository of data that is collected from the transactions, where the collected data is primarily transaction records, which may include the identification of the customer, the merchant, and other transaction specific information).
As per claim 15, Morsberger in view of Vosburgh discloses all the elements of claim 8, and Morsberger further teaches of storing instruction thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to:
receive the first data set by receiving the first data set in a first organization from a first data source; and
receive the second data set by receiving the second data set in a second organization from a second data source, wherein the first organization is different from the second organization (pg. 1, [0013-0014] which describes how individual customers are invited to complete surveys regarding specific transactions and/or merchants, where consumers may register for the survey program by providing requested information about themselves, which is stored in profiles that correspond to each particular consumer that registers; and pg. 1, [0015] which describes how the system uses transaction records for transactions involving payments for products or services by a participating consumer; and pg. 5, [0101] which describes how transaction records are stored in an electronic or digital form and are typically between a customer and a merchant).
As per claim 16, Morsberger in view of Vosburgh discloses all the elements of claim 8, and Morsberger further teaches of storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause they system to:
receive a segment query associated with the third data set and specifying one or more index values at one or more indices; and
generate a query response to the segment query by identifying response data items and operational data items from the third data set that comprise the specified one or more index values at the one or more indices (pg. 6, [0118-0119] which describes how the research firm can determine which categories of products are services are indicative of the customers from which it would like to receive feedback, where once a transaction has met the payment amount criteria, then the category of the purchase is determined, where if the category of the product of service is one of the designated categories, then the transaction is identified for further evaluation; and pg.6, [0122] which describes how the data provider creates a separate repository of data that is collected from the transactions, where the collected data is primarily transaction records, which may include the identification of the customer, the merchant, and other transaction specific information; pg. 9, [0172-0173] which describes collecting the survey information from participants, processing the collected information and generating an output, such as a report, where the responses of each participant are associated with the participant’s profile and stored, where the output may be in the form of a table, chart, report, etc. and are stored on the survey database).
As per claim 18, Morsberger in view of Vosburgh discloses all the elements of claim 17, and Morsberger further teaches of in response to receiving the first data set and receiving the second data set, organizing the response data items in the first data set and the operational data items in the second data set into a common schema comprising a plurality of indices (pg. 5, [0109-0110] which describes how an identifying system is generated to identify the participants of a survey panel, using a unique identification code for each of the participants, where each of the codes is associated with a participant and the participant’s profile; and pg. 6, [0111] which describes how the identification codes are utilized by the monitoring interface or technology as part of the customer related criteria to determine relevant transactions for the survey, where the monitor interface scans the transaction records of the data provider to identify those records involving a customer with a code that matches one of the participant codes).
As per claim 19, Morsberger in view of Vosburgh discloses all the elements of claim 18, and Morsberger further teaches wherein identifying the subset of the operational data items from the second data set that correlate with the at least one index comprises:
aligning, based on the common schema, the response data items from first data set and the operational data items from the second data set across an index of the common schema; and
identifying the aligned operational data items as the subset of the operational data items from the second data set (pg. 2, [0016] which describes how the system monitors such transactions and identifies those that involve consumers participating in the survey program and also determines whether the identified transaction is in a category of transactions for which the research firm would like to solicit survey information; and pg. 5, [0106] which describes that transaction records are scanned and filtered so only those transactions that are relevant to a survey are identified, where the monitoring interface uses predetermined criteria for the evaluation of transaction records; and pg. 6, [0118-0119] which describes how the research firm can determine which categories of products are services are indicative of the customers from which it would like to receive feedback, where once a transaction has met the payment amount criteria, then the category of the purchase is determined, where if the category of the product of service is one of the designated categories, then the transaction is identified for further evaluation; and pg.6, [0122] which describes how the data provider creates a separate repository of data that is collected from the transactions, where the collected data is primarily transaction records, which may include the identification of the customer, the merchant, and other transaction specific information).
As per claim 20, Morsberger in view of Vosburgh discloses all the elements of claim 19, and Morsberger further teaches of receiving a query defining a subset of the third data set according to a plurality of specified index values at corresponding indices within the third data set; and
generating a query response comprising at least one a response data items or an operational data item from the third data set that comprise the plurality of specified index values at the corresponding indices within the third data set (pg. 6, [0118-0119] which describes how the research firm can determine which categories of products are services are indicative of the customers from which it would like to receive feedback, where once a transaction has met the payment amount criteria, then the category of the purchase is determined, where if the category of the product of service is one of the designated categories, then the transaction is identified for further evaluation; and pg.6, [0122] which describes how the data provider creates a separate repository of data that is collected from the transactions, where the collected data is primarily transaction records, which may include the identification of the customer, the merchant, and other transaction specific information; pg. 9, [0172-0173] which describes collecting the survey information from participants, processing the collected information and generating an output, such as a report, where the responses of each participant are associated with the participant’s profile and stored, where the output may be in the form of a table, chart, report, etc. and are stored on the survey database).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reynolds et al. (US 2017/0364568 A1) teaches of interactive interfaces as computerized tools to present summarization data of dataset attributes for collaborative datasets.
Stamm (US 2004/0172323 A1) teaches of a customer feedback method and system.
Sawicka et al. (US 2023/0351431 A1) teaches of a system, method, and computer program product for segmenting users using a machine learning model based on transaction data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY Y YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5294. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, 9:00a-3:00p, EST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/ASHLEY Y YOUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625