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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office Action is in response to communication filed on 9/26/2025.
Priority
The Examiner has noted the Applicants claiming Priority from Provisional Application 63127920 filed 12/18/2020.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6, 9-16, 19 are currently pending.
Claims 7-8, 17-18 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 9-10, 19 are currently amended.
Claims 1-6, 9-16, 19 are currently under examination and have been rejected as follows.
IDS
The information disclosure statement filed on 07/20/2023 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejections under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in view of the amendments.
The previously pending rejections under 35 USC 102 are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
New grounds for rejection 35 USC 103 are applied as necessitated by the amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s remarks pertaining to 35 USC 101:
Step 2A Prong Two:
Applicant argues on page 6 of remarks 9/26/2025:
In response to Examiner's objections Applicant has combined the limitations of claims 7 and 8 with claim 1, and claims 17 and 18 with claim 10, and has clarified that the elements of such claims include a swipeable graphical user interface display. This added degree of physicality, and interaction with the use (in addition to the other physical elements of the claimed system and method now satisfy the requirements of 35 USC§ 101, and the MPEP provisions including the requirements of Step 2A Prong Two. Accordingly, independent claims 1 and 10, and all claims dependent thereon are allowable.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per Applicant’s amendments, the only additional computer-based elements added to the independent claims appear to be “swipeable graphical user interface”, “application”, and “webpage”. The functions of these additional elements include examples such as displaying a description or image of products, prompting respondents to like or dislike the products by swiping, and collecting the data from the respondents. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing functions of collecting, communicating and presenting data, etc.) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. To the extent that the technical details regarding the swipeable graphical user interface are discussed, Applicant specification appears to go no further than ¶ [0020]: “In yet another implementation, the one or more choice exercises are configured to be run on computing devices having touch screen functionality”; or ¶ [0023]: “In yet another implementation, the selecting is done by swiping the description or image of the product in one of two opposing directions on the graphical user interface and/or selecting yes or no on the graphical user interface.” Therefore, these functions can be viewed as not meaningfully different than a business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i). The claims are directed to an abstract idea and the judicial exception does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Applicant’s remarks pertaining to 35 USC 102:
Applicant argues on page 6 of remarks 9/26/2025:
“Cited reference Malek US 20050261953 (‘Malek’) does not include the limitation from
former claims 7 and 17 that the display is made ‘through an application or web page’.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the limitation ‘through an application or webpage’ can be interpreted as either ‘through and application’ or “through a webpage’ but not necessarily both. Examiner further submits that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “application” in the context of the claims includes examples such as computer programs, software, or other executable instructions through which a user can interact with a computer. Applicant specification ¶ [0083] states “Examples of computer storage media include RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which can be used to store the desired information and which can be accessed by an application, module, or both.” Thus, Examiner interprets Malek as teaching the limitation “wherein the respondent module is configured to display, by the graphical user interface displayed on the respondent device through an application….” (Malek ¶ [0045]: … The invention also includes systems utilizing multiple levels of genetic or evolutionary computation techniques where, for example, the output of a first algorithm is used as the input of the next. The computer programs [application] may embody various acceleration strategies, i.e., code implementing logic that reduces the participants' voting load….”
Applicant argues on page 6 of remarks 9/26/2025:
“Applicant also notes that claims 8 and 18, which have been incorporated into independent claims 1 and 11, respectively, include a limitation that the ‘selecting is done by swiping the description or image of the product in one of two opposing directions ... and selecting yes or no ...’. Malek simply does not describe or suggest these two actions.”
Examiner finds new grounds for rejection under 35 USC 103. Examiner notes that claims 8 and 18, prior to incorporation into claims 1 and 11 via amendment, originally recited “wherein the selecting is done by swiping the description or image of the product in one of two opposing directions on the graphical user interface and/or selecting yes or no on the graphical user interface.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of the original claims includes the incorporation of either of the two actions, but not necessarily both. As necessitated by the removal of “and/or” and replacement with “and”. Examiner presents prior art reference Karty US 12033169 B1 hereinafter Karty which teaches the contested claims as amended:
“a swipeable graphical user interface display on the respondent device, [..], and wherein the selecting is done by swiping the description or image [..] in one of two opposing directions on the graphical user interface” (See Karty Figures 5-15, 88 and related text. Col. 44 line 10: Continuing with the example of FIG. 5, the next several figures show a series of interactions and states for this example interface. FIG. 6 shows an initial positive swipe on the first dimension, with the hand icon indicating the respondent's gesture… FIG. 10 shows a negative swipe on the second dimension with the hand icon indicating the respondent's gesture….).
Applicant argues on page 6-7 of remarks 9/26/2025:
“Finally, claim 2 includes ‘parallelized statistical analysis by the multiple cores’, whereas Malek describes multiple client systems. There is no description of the detailed requirement of parallelized statistical analysis. This is a processing computation run at the same time on multiple processors or cores. Malek at best has a bunch of computers accessible over a network (which is consistent with the computer architecture of 2004, when Malek was filed). These are both physically and functionally different things. Similarly the parallelized statistical analysis by the GPU has little to do with what is disclosed in Malek, which is just a basic computer network.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As presented in the previous Office Action with additional emphasis added, Malek teaches the claim limitation “the platform has access to a processor having multiple cores and the data modeling module is configured to run parallelized statistical analysis by the multiple cores” (Malek ¶ [0080]: FIG. 1 shows one embodiment of an environment in which the present invention may be used. Selectors may use one or more client systems 10, 20, 30, 40 to communicate with one or more server computing systems 50, 52, 54 [EN: multiple cores] over a network 100. ¶ [0310]: FIG. 24 depicts a [EN: statistical] non-convergent experiment running generally in parallel with a [EN: statistical] convergent experiment. This embodiment begins by sending selectors, before the experiment begins, to one of two exercise setups. One setup is a [EN: statistical] convergent exercise 2402 and the other is a [EN: statistical] non-convergent exercise 2404. In some embodiments, which setup the selector, or respondent, goes to is determined at random). Examiner interprets, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, “one or more server computing systems” as multiple cores, and “convergent experiment” and “non-convergent experiment” as statistical analyses. Also see ¶ [0095, 0106] for additional support regarding statistical analysis.
Accordingly, the previously pending rejections under 35 USC 102 are withdrawn in view of the amendments and new grounds for rejection 35 USC 103 are applied as necessitated by the amendments. See 103 section below for additional information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 1-6, 9-16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-6, 9 are directed to a system or machine which is a statutory category.
Claims 10-16, 19 are directed to a method or process which is a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong One: The claims recite, describe, or set forth a judicial exception of an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Specifically, the claims recite, describe or set forth advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors including: “presentation of choice modeling insights”, “present insights to the client”, “run one or more choice exercises”, “output one or more data insights”, “generate the one or more choice exercises based on the product list”, “display a description or image of at least one product”, and “prompt the respondent to select whether they like or dislike the at least one product”. Collecting consumer product choices and preferences and generating insights based on the data fall within marketing or sales activities or behaviors, which are commercial or legal interactions under the larger abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Independent claims 1, 10 recite the following additional elements: “computing device”, “computing platform”, “client module”, “interface”, “client devices”, “respondent module”, “respondent devices”, “data modeling module”, “database”, “swipeable graphical user interface”, “application”, and “webpage”. The functions of these additional elements include examples such as “communicating with… devices”, “present data insights”, “run one or more choice exercises”, “output choice data”, “run in real time statistical analysis for choice modeling of the choice data”, and “output one or more data insights”, “storing the choice data and choice model output and data insights”. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing functions of calculating statistics, communicating and presenting data, etc.) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, these functions can be viewed as not meaningfully different than a business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i). The claims are directed to an abstract idea and the judicial exception does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: According to MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), considering whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claims fail to recite the technological details of how the actual technological solution to the actual technological problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover an entrepreneurial and thus abstract solution to an entrepreneurial problem with no technological details on how the technological result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2, 11 recite the additional elements “processor”, “cores”, and “GPU”. Dependent claims 7-9, 17-19 recite the additional element “graphical user interface”. The functions of these additional elements include examples such as “run parallelized statistical analysis” and “prompt the respondent to select”. The additional elements are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing functions of calculating statistics, communicating and presenting data, etc.) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Further, dependent claims 2-9, 11-19 merely incorporate the additional elements recited in claims 1, 10 along with further narrowing of the abstract idea of claims 1, 20 along with their execution of the abstract idea. Specifically, dependent claims narrow the computing device, computing platform, client module, interface, client devices, respondent module, respondent devices, data modeling module, database, processor, cores, GPU, and graphical user interface to capabilities such as receive, generate, output, run, and display various forms of data such as products, product lists, choice exercises, choices, descriptions, prompts, and images, etc. which, when evaluated per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) represent mere invocation of computers to perform existing processes. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually and in combination fail to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) and for the same reasons they also fail to provide significantly more (Step 2B). Thus, claims 1-6, 9-16, 19 are reasoned to be patent ineligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiner Note: Some rejections will contain bracketed comments preceded by an “EN” that will denote an examiner note. This will be placed to further explain a rejection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 1-6, 9-16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Malek US 20050261953 A1 hereinafter Malek in view of
Karty US 12033169 B1 hereinafter Karty. As per,
Regarding Claims 1, 10: Malek teaches “A system (claim 1) / method (claim 10) for automating the integration of collection of choice data, choice modeling analysis of the choice data, and presentation of choice modeling insights generated by the choice modeling analysis” (Malek Abstract: Disclosed are methods and apparatus for conducting market research and developing product designs. The methods involve generating and presenting, typically electronically, generations of design alternatives [EN: choices] to persons participating in the design, selection, or market research exercise. The participants transmit data indicative of their preferences among or between the presented design alternatives. Some of the data is used to conduct a conjoint analysis or non-convergent exercise to investigate the drivers of the preferences of the group or its members, and at least a portion are used to derive follow-on generations of design alternatives or proposals. The follow-on designs are preferably generated through the use of an evolutionary or genetic computer program, influenced by the participants' preferences. The process results in the generation of one or more preferred product forms and information permitting a better understanding [insights] of what attributes of the product influence the preferences of the test group members), “the system (claim 1) / method (claim 10) comprising:
“providing (claim 10) at least one computing device configured to provide a computing platform, the computing platform comprising:
“at least one client module providing an interface for communicating with one or more client devices, at least one client module being configured to present data insights to the client” (Malek ¶ [0082]: …a client system 40 is an information kiosk located in a retail establishment. In these embodiments, the client nodes 40 may include a touch sensitive screen or membrane keyboard for receiving consumer input. In other embodiments, the client system 40 is a retail point-of-sale terminals that collects consumer reference information from sale transactions. Client system 30 in FIG. 1 depicts an embodiment of a selector that is a proxy for a real person, such as a computer programmed and trained as a neural net, a statistical model, a distribution estimation algorithm, a reinforcement or Q learning method, a learning classifier system, or other machine learning methods or expert systems. In these embodiments, client system 30 may be one or more processes (threaded or otherwise) that implement evaluative models or algorithms, such as neural net models, learning classifier system, statistical models, or an expert system, which emulate the voting preferences of a human and which vote by proxy. ¶ [0309]: …the experiment designer or the client may request a report with findings [data insights] based both on analyzing the state of the converged population, as well as the conjoint analysis on the convergent exercise voting trail, giving the client or designer a more balanced view of the experiment run);
“at least one respondent module providing an interface for communicating with one or more respondent devices, at least one respondent module being configured to run one or more choice exercises and output choice data” (Malek ¶ [0080]: FIG. 1 shows one embodiment of an environment in which the present invention may be used. Selectors [EN: respondents] may use one or more client systems 10, 20, 30, 40 [EN: respondent devices] to communicate with one or more server computing systems 50, 52, 54 [EN: respondent modules] over a network 100. ¶ [0081]: As shown in FIG. 1, client systems 10, 20 may be client computing systems typically used by a user, such as any personal computer (e.g., 286-based, 386-based, 486 based, Pentium-based, iTanium-based, Power PC-based), Windows-based terminal, Network Computer, wireless device, information appliance, X-device, WorkStation, minicomputer, mainframe computer, personal digital assistant, or other computing device. ¶ [0083]: In many embodiments, one of the servers 50, 52, 54 [EN: respondent modules] is responsible for presenting to selectors [respondents] the initial population of product forms, generating the derived product forms to be presented to the selector, and capturing and processing the data that is indicative of the selector's preference. This server is referred to as the “presentation server.” At least one attribute database 60 stores the possible attributes available for generating product forms. At least one voting database 70 stores the preference data obtained from the selector during the course of the process [EN: choice exercise]. In Some embodiments a single database is used to store both the possible product attributes as well as obtained preference data. [Also see Fig. 7A interface for making selection and related text]); “and
“a data modeling module configured to run in real time statistical analysis for choice modeling of the choice data to output one or more data insights, the data insights comprising one or more of: share of choice output and/or simulator, source of volume output and/or simulator, Total Unduplicated Reach and Frequency output and/or simulator, and network mapping visualizations” (Malek ¶ [0094]: …the data may be used, however, to populate one or more focus windows viewed by the selectors in a convergent exercise [EN: choice model]. ¶ [0097]: Once the initial population is generated, it is presented to the selector for evaluation. This step is represented by 216. Presenting the possible solutions may require using the genotype to phenotype transformation scheme that was determined in 213. Step 216 may involve presenting the whole population of possible solutions to the selector, or it might involve presenting a subset of that population. In some particular embodiments, the selector is presented with subsets of, or “windows” onto, the global (in this case, the initial) population. At a minimum, two of the possible
solutions are presented to the selector. At 216, along with the presentation of the product forms, the selector also is presented with means for expressing a preference among them. Mid-¶ [0046]: Visual sensing of the presentation is not a requirement of the invention as the product being designed or selected may by an audible product [EN: source of volume output and/or simulator] sensed aurally such as a tune or a jingle. [Also see steps 214, 215, Fig. 2 and related text]);
“a database for storing the choice data and choice model output and data insights, the database being accessible by the data modeling module” (Malek ¶ [0083]: At least one attribute database 60 stores the possible attributes available for generating product forms. At least one voting database 70 stores the preference data obtained from the selector during the course of the process. In Some embodiments a single database is used to store both the possible product attributes as well as obtained preference data. [Also see Fig. 1 and related text]); “and
“a [..] graphical user interface display on the respondent device, wherein the respondent module is configured to display, by the graphical user interface displayed on the respondent device through an application or web page, a description or image of at least one product and to prompt the respondent to select whether they like or dislike the at least one product (Malek ¶ [0045]: … The invention also includes systems utilizing multiple levels of genetic or evolutionary computation techniques where, for example, the output of a first algorithm is used as the input of the next. The computer programs [EN: application] may embody various acceleration strategies, i.e., code implementing logic that reduces the participants' voting load… ¶ [0144]: FIG. 7A shows a typical screen 700 that would be seen by a participant once he or she reaches the exercise proper. Such a screen presents the participant with a number of alternative choices for the design (or decision) object 702, 704, 706, 708, 710, 712. In this figure, the design object is a polo shirt, and the number of alternatives presented in this particular screen is six. Next to each design alternative, a “thumbs up” 720 and a “thumbs down” 722 button are provided as means for the participant (also referred to as “voter”) to express their opinion about the design alternative in question. FIG. 7B shows the same screen after the participant has given the design alternative 704 a positive vote, and design alternative 708 a negative vote)), “and
“[..] selecting yes or no on the graphical user interface” (Malek mid-¶ [0144]: FIG. 7B shows the same screen after the participant has given the design alternative 704 a positive vote, and design alternative 708 a negative vote. In some embodiments, green and red borders may be used as a visual feedback mechanism to remind the participant of their assessment for the corresponding alternatives [Also see Fig. 7A and related text]).
Although Malek teaches collecting positive and negative consumer feedback on products through a user interface, Malek does not specifically teach the swiping functionality on the interface.
However, Karty in analogous art of collecting consumer preference data teaches or suggests:
“a swipeable graphical user interface display on the respondent device, [..], and wherein the selecting is done by swiping the description or image [..] in one of two opposing directions on the graphical user interface” (See Karty Figures 5-15, 88 and related text. Col. 44 line 10: Continuing with the example of FIG. 5, the next several figures show a series of interactions and states for this example interface. FIG. 6 shows an initial positive swipe on the first dimension, with the hand icon indicating the respondent's gesture. FIG. 7 shows a gamified reaction to this gesture, in which a ‘plus’ sign appears, floats away, and is replaced by an icon indicating that the score has been incremented by one. FIG. 8 shows an end state after this first gesture 801. FIG. 9 shows an end state after four such positive gestures 901. In FIG. 8 and FIG. 9, the display is configured to reflect up to nine positive or nine negative effortful intuitive gestures, however the total permitted number of effortful intuitive gestures can be a different number (or even unlimited) without changing the nature of the invention. FIG. 10 shows a negative swipe on the second dimension with the hand icon indicating the respondent's gesture 1001. FIG. 11 shows a gamified reaction to the negative gesture 1101, in which a ‘minus’ icon appears, floats away, and is replaced by an icon that is shaded differently from the positive icon. FIG. 12 shows an example of an end state after the respondent has executed four effortful intuitive gestures indicating positive response for the first dimension 1201, three effortful intuitive gestures indicating negative response for the second dimension 1202, and three effortful intuitive gestures indicating a positive response on the third dimension 1203. FIG. 13 shows an example of a respondent executing a gesture 1301 to decrement the first dimension by one by swiping left after having given the stimulus four positive gestures for that dimension. FIG. 14 shows the gamified reaction 1401 in response to the action taken in FIG. 13, indicating the loss of an icon, which fades out from the right side of the dimension 1402. FIG. 15 shows an example of an end state after a respondent has made two effortful intuitive gestures to decrement the score on the first dimension 1501 from the status observed in FIG. 12).
Karty and Malek are found as analogous art of collecting consumer preference data. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Malek’s design preference determination apparatus and method to have included Karty’s teachings around the use of swiping on a user interface to collect consumer preference data. The benefit of these additional features would have improved survey interactions on small screen multi-media devices and gathered improved response data on conscious and subconscious thought processes (Karty col. 1 lines 15-20). The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Malek in view of Karty (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of collecting consumer preference data. In such combination each element would have merely performed the same function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Malek in view of Karty above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claims 2, 11: Malek / Karty teach all the limitations of claims 1, 10 above.
Malek further teaches “The system of claim 1 (claim 2) / method of claim 10 (claim 11), wherein:
“the platform has access to a processor having multiple cores and the data modeling module is configured to run parallelized statistical analysis by the multiple cores” (Malek ¶ [0080]: FIG. 1 shows one embodiment of an environment in which the present invention may be used. Selectors may use one or more client systems 10, 20, 30, 40 to communicate with one or more server computing systems 50, 52, 54 [EN: multiple cores] over a network 100. ¶ [0310]: FIG. 24 depicts a [EN: statistical] non-convergent experiment running generally in parallel with a [EN: statistical] convergent experiment. This embodiment begins by sending selectors, before the experiment begins, to one of two exercise setups. One setup is a [EN: statistical] convergent exercise 2402 and the other is a [EN: statistical] non-convergent exercise 2404. In some embodiments, which setup the selector, or respondent, goes to is determined at random); or
“the platform has access to a graphics processing unit (GPU), and the data modeling module is configured to run parallelized statistical analysis by the GPU.”
Regarding Claim 3: Malek / Karty teach all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Malek further teaches “The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more client modules are further configured to receive a product list from at least one of the client devices” (Malek ¶ [0143]: In the embodiment shown in FIG. 6, three design exercises are presented to the user: a polo shirt design exercise; a tee shirt design exercise, and a “demo” exercise. [See product list presented to client device in Fig. 6]).
Regarding Claim 4: Malek / Karty teach all the limitations of claim 3 above.
Malek further teaches “The system of claim 3, wherein the one or more respondent modules are further configured to receive the product list from the one or more client modules and to generate a choice exercise for outputting choice data specific to the product list” (Malek ¶ [0122]: …The items may be presented by the server computing nodes 30, 32, 34 or the client computing nodes 10, 20. Selection of items to be presented for display may be performed by the client nodes 10, 20 [EN: client modules], the server nodes 30, 32, 34 [EN: respondent modules], or some combination of client nodes and server nodes. ¶ [0144]: FIG. 7A shows a typical screen 700 that would be seen by a participant once he or she reaches the exercise proper. Such a screen presents the participant with a number of alternative choices for the design (or decision) object 702, 704, 706, 708, 710, 712. In this figure, the design object is a polo shirt, and the number of alternatives presented in this particular screen is six. Next to each design alternative, a “thumbs up” 720 and a “thumbs down” 722 button are provided as means for the participant (also referred to as “voter”) to express their opinion about the design alternative in question. FIG. 7B shows the same screen after the participant has given the design alternative 704 a positive vote, and design alternative 708 a negative vote).
Regarding Claim 5: Malek / Karty teach all the limitations of claim 4 above.
Malek further teaches “The system of claim 4, wherein the data insights are specific to the product list and/or the platform is further configured to automatically generate the one or more choice exercises based on the product list” (Malek mid-¶ [0144]: Once the participant has input his or her assessments, votes are submitted by clicking on the “Vote” button 730. This results in a new set of design alternatives being presented for assessment to the participant, triggering a new iteration in the process described above. FIG. 7C shows a screen containing one such set of derived alternative designs. In the particular implementation described in this section, the assessment or voting information [EN: data insights] provided by the participant at each iteration is used in a number of ways…. ¶ [0143]: In the embodiment shown in FIG. 6, three design exercises are presented to the user: a polo shirt design exercise; a tee shirt design exercise, and a “demo” exercise [EN: based on product list presented to client device in Fig. 6]. [Also see Fig. 7A and related text]).
Regarding Claim 6: Malek / Karty teach all the limitations of claim 4 above.
Malek further teaches “The system of claim 4, wherein:
“the one or more choice exercises are configured to be run on computing devices having touch screen functionality” (Malek ¶ [0082]: In other embodiments, a client system 40 is an information kiosk located in a retail establishment. In these embodiments, the client nodes 40 may include a touch sensitive screen or membrane keyboard for receiving consumer input); “and/or
“at least one of the choice exercises comprises a single elimination bracket of products in the product list” (Malek ¶ [0248]: Alternatively, when direct picks are enabled, the participant is allowed to drag the desired candidate from its location in the voting window onto the picks panel area, which will place a copy of it there. Once the participant makes a direct pick, the direct pick buttons are again disabled for a preset number of voting iterations. The pick panel has a fixed number of slots to hold the picks, and when a new pick is inserted by clicking its direct pick button, it gets placed at the top of the Pick Panel, while everything else moves down one slot, the design occupying the bottom slot being discarded. If the pick is made by dragging it onto the pick panel, then the picked design either replaces the item in the slot onto which it is dragged and dropped, or the items at that slot and below are shifted down one slot (item in bottom slot again discarded)).
Regarding Claim 12: Malek / Karty teach all the limitations of claim 10 above.
Malek further teaches “The method of claim 10, wherein the one or more client modules are further configured to receive a product list from at least one of the client devices” (Malek ¶ [0143]: In the embodiment shown in FIG. 6, three design exercises are presented to the user: a polo shirt design exercise; a tee shirt design exercise, and a “demo” exercise. [See product list presented to client device in Fig. 6]), “and
“the one or more respondent modules are further configured to receive the product list from the one or more client modules and to generate a choice exercise for outputting choice data specific to the product list” (Malek ¶ [0144]: FIG. 7A shows a typical screen 700 that would be seen by a participant once he or she reaches the exercise proper. Such a screen presents the participant with a number of alternative choices for the design (or decision) object 702, 704, 706, 708, 710, 712. In this figure, the design object is a polo shirt, and the number of alternatives presented in this particular screen is six. Next to each design alternative, a “thumbs up”720 and a “thumbs down”722 button are provided as means for the participant (also referred to as “voter”) to express their opinion about the design alternative in question. FIG. 7B shows the same screen after the participant has given the design alternative 704 a positive vote, and design alternative 708 a negative vote).
Regarding Claim 13: Malek / Karty teach all the limitations of claim 12 above.
Malek further teaches “The method of claim 12, wherein the data insights are specific to the product list” (Malek mid-¶ [0144]: Once the participant has input his or her assessments, votes are submitted by clicking on the “Vote” button 730. This results in a new set of design alternatives being presented for assessment to the participant, triggering a new iteration in the process described above. FIG. 7C shows a screen containing one such set of derived alternative designs. In the particular implementation described in this section, the assessment or voting information [EN: data insights] provided by the participant at each iteration is used in a number of ways…. [Also see Fig. 7A and related text]).
Regarding Claim 14: Malek / Karty teach all the limitations of claim 12 above.
Malek further teaches “The method of claim 12, wherein the platform is further configured to automatically generate the one or more choice exercises based on the product list” (Malek ¶ [0143]: In the embodiment shown in FIG. 6, three design exercises [EN: choice exercises] are presented to the user: a polo shirt design exercise; a tee shirt design exercise, and a “demo” exercise [EN: based on product list presented to client device in Fig. 6]. [Also see Fig. 7A and related text]).
Regarding Claim 15: Malek / Karty teach all the limitations of claim 12 above.
Malek further teaches “The method of clam 12, wherein the one or more choice exercises are configured to be run on computing devices having touch screen functionality” (Malek ¶ [0082]: In other embodiments, a client system 40 is an information kiosk located in a retail establishment. In these embodiments, the client nodes 40 may include a touch sensitive screen or membrane keyboard for receiving consumer input).
Regarding Claim 16: Malek / Karty teach all the limitations of claim 12 above.
Malek further teaches “The method of claim 12, wherein at least one of the choice exercises comprises a single elimination bracket of products in the product list” (Malek ¶ [0248]: Alternatively, when direct picks are enabled, the participant is allowed to drag the desired candidate from its location in the voting window onto the picks panel area, which will place a copy of it there. Once the participant makes a direct pick, the direct pick buttons are again disabled for a preset number of voting iterations. The pick panel has a fixed number of slots to hold the picks, and when a new pick is inserted by clicking its direct pick button, it gets placed at the top of the Pick Panel, while everything else moves down one slot, the design occupying the bottom slot being discarded. If the pick is made by dragging it onto the pick panel, then the picked design either replaces the item in the slot onto which it is dragged and dropped, or the items at that slot and below are shifted down one slot (item in bottom slot again discarded)).
Claims 9, 19: Malek / Karty teach all the limitations of claims 4, 12 above.
Malek further teaches “The system of claim 4 (claim 9) / method of claim 12 (claim 19), wherein the respondent module is further configured to simultaneously display, by a graphical user interface on the respondent device, a description or image of two or more alternative products and to prompt the respondent to select a preferred product of the two or more alternative products” (Malek ¶ [0144]: FIG. 7A shows a typical screen 700 that would be seen by a participant once he or she reaches the exercise proper. Such a screen presents the participant with a number of alternative choices [EN: preferences] for the design (or decision) object 702, 704, 706, 708, 710, 712…. Once the participant has input his or her assessments, votes are submitted by clicking on the “Vote” button 730. This results in a new set of design alternatives being presented for assessment to the participant, triggering a new iteration in the process described above. FIG. 7C shows a screen containing one such set of derived alternative designs).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The following art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Allison et al. WO 03009199 A1, Providing marketing decision support.
Duzevik et al. US 20090292588 A1, Methods and systems for the design of choice experiments and deduction of human decision-making heuristics.
Karty US 7877346 B2, Method and system for predicting personal preferences.
Keil et al. WO 2004012679 A2, System to quantify consumer preferences.
Mazen Danaf, Felix Becker, Xiang Song, Bilge Atasoy, Moshe Ben-Akiva, Online discrete choice models: Applications in personalized recommendations, Decision Support Systems, Volume 119, 2019, Pages 35-45, ISSN 0167-9236, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2019.02.003.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923619300181)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REED M. BOND whose telephone number is (571) 270-0585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/REED M. BOND/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
November 14, 2025
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 November 17, 2025