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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 7, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 15 has been amended.
Claims 7 and 11 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-6, 8-10 and 12-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
The previously pending rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 USC § 112(b) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8-10 and 12-15 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained. Please see the Response to Arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claim 1 recites “the modifying information is added to protect user privacy”. Applicant’s disclosure does not describe that by adding the modifying information will protect the user privacy. Applicant’s disclosure describes more about the aggregated survey transformation as shown at least in paragraph 0022. The same rationale applies to claim 15. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 8-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Per MPEP 2106.03 Eligibility Step 1: The Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter [R-07.2022]. Step 1 is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Herein, claims 1-6, 8-10 and 12falls within statutory class of a process, claims 13-14 falls within statutory class of an article of manufacturing and claim 15 falls within statutory class of a machine. Hence, the claims qualify as potentially eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C §101. With Step 1 being directed to a statutory category, per MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception [R-07.2022] . Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test). The 2019 PEG makes two changes in Step 2A: It sets forth new procedure for Step 2A (called “revised Step 2A”) under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. The two-prong inquiry is as follows: Prong One: evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If claim recites an exception, then Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea indicated by non-boldface font and additional limitations indicated by boldface font:
MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception [R-07.2022]
Claim 1:
- providing the survey by a first central electronic computing device of the survey system;
- modifying, by the first central electronic computing device the survey by adding a modifying information to the survey, wherein the modifying information is an initial aggregation of the survey and/or includes random noise data, and wherein the modifying information is added to protect user privacy;
- transmitting, by the first central electronic computing device, the modified survey to a first local electronic computing device of the survey system for editing the modified survey;
- receiving an input of a first person for editing the at modified survey by the local electronic computing device;
- aggregating the modified survey and the input to an aggregated survey by the local electronic computing device;
- transmitting the aggregated survey to the first central electronic computing device by the local electronic computing device; and
- providing, by the first central electronic computing device the aggregated survey for a second further central electronic computing device of the survey system depending on a privacy related release criterion;
wherein after a reception of the aggregated survey edited by the first person, the aggregated survey is transmitted to a second person as the modified survey to be edited by the second person
Claim 15:
comprising at least one local electronic computing device, one central electronic computing device, and one further central electronic computing device, wherein the survey system is configured for performing the method steps of:
- providing the survey by the first central electronic computing device of the survey system;
- modifying, by the first central electronic computing device, the survey by adding a modifying information to the survey, wherein the modifying information includes an initial aggregation of the survey and/or random noise data, and wherein the modifying information is added to protect user privacy;
- transmitting the modified survey to a first local electronic computing device of the survey system for editing the modified survey;
- receiving an input of a first person for editing the modified survey by the first local electronic computing device;
- aggregating the modified survey and the input to an aggregated survey by the local electronic computing device;
- transmitting the aggregated survey to the central electronic computing device by the local electronic computing device; and
- providing, by the first central electronic computing device, the aggregated survey for the second further central electronic computing device of the survey system depending on a privacy related release criterion;
wherein after a reception of the aggregated survey edited by the first person, the aggregated survey is transmitted to a second person as the modified survey to be edited by the second person.
Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within Mental Processes, concepts performed in the human mind including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinion and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as managing personal behavior or relationship or interactions between people including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions. Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The first central electronic computing device, local electronic computing device and the second further electronic computing device is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computing and processing system. This first central electronic computing device, local electronic computing device and the second further electronic computing device is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing devices each comprising at least a processor, memory and display device. Further, processor configured to cause receiving/determining/transmitting data is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More [R-07.2022] directed to Step 2B. Therein, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of first central electronic computing device, local electronic computing device and the second further electronic computing device. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, executing all the steps/functions by a user/service subsystem is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic first central electronic computing device, local electronic computing device and the second further electronic computing device type structure at paragraphs 0032: “A computing unit may in particular be understood as a data processing device, which comprises processing circuitry. The computing unit can therefore in particular process data to perform computing operations.” Paragraph 0066: “The memory 204 comprises suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to store the set of instructions, which are executed by the processor 202. In an embodiment, the memory 204 may be configured to store one or more programs, routines, or scripts that are executed in coordination with the processor 202. The memory 204 may be implemented based on a Random-Access Memory (RAM), a Read-Only Memory (ROM), a Hard Disk Drive (HDD), a storage server, and/or a Secure Digital (SD) card.” Paragraph 0033: “the computing unit may include one or more computers, one or more microcontrollers, and/or one or more integrated circuits, for example, one or more application-specific integrated circuits, ASIC, one or more field-programmable gate arrays, FPGA, and/or one or more systems on a chip, SoC. The computing unit may also include one or more processors, for example one or more microprocessors, one or more central processing units, CPU, one or more graphics processing units, GPU, and/or one or more signal processors, in particular one or more digital signal processors, DSP. The computing unit may also include a physical or a virtual cluster of computers or other of said units”. See also figure 1.
Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims). The dependent claims 2-6, 8-10, 12 and 14 do not cure the above stated deficiencies, and in particular, the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 2 further limit the abstract idea that the release criterion is a predefined amount of distinct participants, who edited the survey (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 3 further limit the abstract idea that each aggregated survey is released individually by each person (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 4 further limit the abstract idea that each person is invited for participation by the first central electronic computing device (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 5 further limit the abstract idea that each survey for each person is individualized depending on the roles of the person in the organization (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 6 further limit the abstract idea that the aggregated survey is securely encrypted before transmitting to the first central electronic computing device (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 8 further limit the abstract idea that private data of a person is just released via the transmitted, aggregated surveys, if the person approves the private data release (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 9 further limit the abstract idea that the data of a person is anonymized in each survey before aggregating (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 10 further limit the abstract idea that an incompletely edited survey is received by the first central electronic computing device (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 12 further limit the abstract idea that a peer-to-peer architecture is provided (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). And claim 14 further limit the abstract idea with a computer-readable storage medium comprising the computer program product (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).The identified recitation of the dependents claims falls within the Mental Processes, concepts performed in the human mind including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinion and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as managing personal behavior or relationship or interactions between people including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101. Thus, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant argues that (1) “currently amended independent claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the claim recites a specific technical architecture for privacy-preserving survey data collection that addresses a particular technical problem in the field of data privacy. (Remarks pages 9-12).
With regard to the 35 U.SC. 103 rejection, Applicant argues that (2) “Applicant contends that claims 1-6, 8, 11 and 13-15 are not obvious and unpatentable over Rajaganesan et al. in view of Smith et al. because the combination of cited references does not teach or render obvious each and every element of the claims.” And (3) with regard to claim 2 “the reference does not connect the participation to a release criterion”(Remarks, pages 13-19).
In response to Applicant’s argument (1). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The first central electronic computing device, local electronic computing device and the second further electronic computing device is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving/determining/transmitting data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Considering the claims as a whole, these additional limitations merely add generic computer activities i.e., receiving/determining/transmitting to receive inputs to modify/edit the survey, analyze/aggregate the modified survey and inputs in order to be transmitted based on an analysis of privacy related release criterion. The recited first central electronic computing device, local electronic computing device and the second further electronic computing device, merely links the abstract idea to a computer environment. In this way, the first central electronic computing device, local electronic computing device and the second further electronic computing device involvement is merely a field of use which only contributes nominally and insignificantly to the recited method, which indicates absence of integration. Claim 1 uses the first central electronic computing device, local electronic computing device and the second further electronic computing device as a tool, in its ordinary capacity, to carry out the abstract idea. As to this level of computer involvement, mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not necessarily indicate a patent-eligible improvement in computer technology. Considered as a whole, the claimed method does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field of data privacy. Further, a processor configured to cause receiving/determining/transmitting data to a device is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The same rationale applies to claim 15.
Applicant's claims do not apply the additional elements in a manner beyond what has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional for computers and computing devices, the computer is merely used as a tool, there is no improvement to the field of computer technology. Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more, similar how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. The rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument (2) that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., further aggregating the modified survey and the input to an aggregated survey for privacy protection reasons) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In addition, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the updated rejection below as necessitated by amendments. In addition, Applicant disclosure describes in figure 1 that reference characters 20, 22 and 24 are local electronic computing device inputs 34 are entered to the modified survey 32 and transmitted as aggregated survey 36 to the first central electronic device 26. Rajaganesan teaches aggregating the modified survey and the input to an aggregated survey by the local electronic computing device; transmitting the aggregated survey to the first central electronic computing device by the local electronic computing device; and in ¶ 0027: “On receiving the completed survey from the employee (as depicted in FIG. 3), the mapping module 205 may check for any similar questions which were present initially in the statement(s). The mapping module 205 may use the information stored by the aggregator 203.” See also ¶ 0029: “The controller 201 may store the completed survey(s) in a suitable location such as the survey database 104, […] The controller 201 further sends the completed survey(s) to the report generation module 206.” and Figures 1 and 2. In a broadest reasonable interpretation and to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed the completed survey submitted by the employee equates to an aggregated survey since include the inputs to the modified survey in order to generate a report.
In response to applicant's argument (3) Examiner respectfully disagrees. Rajaganesan teaches the release criterion is a predefined amount of distinct participants, who edited the survey in ¶ 0035: “The controller 201 may auto-close the statement once sampling adequacy is met (when a statistically significant number of participation is achieved).” Rajaganesan also teaches providing. by the first central electronic computing device, the aggregated survey for a second central electronic computing device of the survey system depending on a privacy related release criterion in ¶ 0029: “The controller 201 may send the completed survey(s) to the report generation module 206, on receiving a request from the employee, the administrator 103 or any other employee authorized to view report for the employee.” And claim 23: “wherein the survey manager encrypts the at least one completed survey”. In a broadest reasonable interpretation and to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed providing a report of completed surveys i.e., the aggregated survey, to an authorized employee, i.e., a second further central computing device (manager of the organization) to view the report based on a privacy related release criterion i.e., sampling met of significant participation is achieved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajaganesan et al., (US 2016/0063408 A1) hereinafter “Rajaganesan” in both view of FLOYD JACKSON FOWLER, JR, How unclear terms affect survey data Public Opinion Quarterly, Volume 56, Issue 2, SUMMER 1992, Pages 218–231, hereinafter “Fowler” and Smith et al., (US 2018/0122256 A) hereinafter “Smith”.
Claim 1:
Rajaganesan as shown discloses a method for providing a survey by a survey system and protecting user privacy , the method comprising:
providing the survey by a first central electronic computing device of the survey system (¶ 0021: “The survey manager 101 may enable an administrator 103 to administer the survey.” See also figure 2);
modifying, by the first central electronic computing device, the survey by adding a modifying information to the survey, wherein the modifying information is an initial aggregation of the survey […] and wherein the modifying information is added to protect user privacy (¶ 0042: “In the case of 360 Degree Feedback, the controller 201 may keep the completed surveys confidential and anonymous. The controller 201 may encrypt the completed surveys and only an aggregate of relevant responses in the completed surveys by all employees is shown..”);
As explained above Rajaganesan teaches the modifying information in order to protect user privacy. Rajaganesan is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Fowler in an analogous art of survey management purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
and/or includes random noise data, (page 219: “The most important issue, however, is the way question ambiguity affects the quality of survey data. There are two ways that ambiguous terms can affect the resulting data . If the effect of ambiguity on answers is unsystematic, there is more error in the measurement and the ability to reach valid conclusions about relationships will be reduced, but the estimates of means and the overall distributions may not be affected . If the ambiguity systematically leads respondents to err in one direction, by definition , estimates based on the answers will be biased. Although neither kind of error is desirable, most researchers probably would be particularly concerned about unclear questions that produced biased estimates—estimates that consistently differed from the true value of what they were trying to measure.”);
Both Rajaganesan and Fowler teach survey management. Rajaganesan teaches in the Abstract: “dynamically generating a single survey representation document that includes the disparate components of an electronic survey maintained across one or more repositories by an electronic survey system.” Fowler teaches in the Abstract “Researchers who do not adequately test respondent understanding of questions must assume that ambiguity will not have a large or systematic effect on their results.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Fowler would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Fowler to the teaching of Rajaganesan would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as random noise data into similar systems. Further, as noted by Fowler “The most important message from this study is that a commitment to identifying unclear terms in questions and providing adequate definitions is an essential part of good survey research design. When measuring objective phenomena, telling interviewers to say, "Whatever it means to you," is not an adequate substitute for writing clear, well-defined questions.” (Fowler, page 230).
In addition, Rajaganesan teaches:
transmitting, by the first central electronic computing device, the modified survey to a first local electronic computing device of the survey system for editing the modified survey; receiving an input of a first person for editing the modified survey by the local electronic computing device (¶ 0026: “The controller 201 may enable a timer for a pre-defined period of time on presenting the survey to the employee 102, wherein the employee 102 has to complete the survey within the pre-defined period of time.” See also figure 1, note employee 1 … n ¶ 0020: “The survey manager 101 may be connected to at least one employee 102. The survey manager 101 may be connected to the employees 102” ¶ 0023: “The interface 204 further enables at least one employee 102 to take survey,”)
aggregating the modified survey and the input to an aggregated survey by the local electronic computing device; transmitting the aggregated survey to the first central electronic computing device by the local electronic computing device; and (¶ 0027: “On receiving the completed survey from the employee (as depicted in FIG. 3), the mapping module 205 may check for any similar questions which were present initially in the statement(s). The mapping module 205 may use the information stored by the aggregator 203.” See also ¶ 0029: “The controller 201 may store the completed survey(s) in a suitable location such as the survey database 104,” and Figures 1 and 2);
providing, by the first central electronic computing device, the aggregated survey for a second central electronic computing device of the survey system depending on a privacy related release criterion; (¶ 0029: “The controller 201 may send the completed survey(s) to the report generation module 206, on receiving a request from the employee, the administrator 103 or any other employee authorized to view report for the employee.” And claim 23: “wherein the survey manager encrypts the at least one completed survey”);
wherein after a reception of the aggregated survey edited by the first person, the aggregated survey is transmitted to a second person as the modified survey to be edited by the second person (¶ 0042: “In the case of 360 Degree Feedback, the controller 201 may keep the completed surveys confidential and anonymous. The controller 201 may encrypt the completed surveys and only an aggregate of relevant responses in the completed surveys by all employees is shown. The employees who give the feedback to a manager (for instance) will be able to view an abridged version of the report by default.” See also claim 18 and ¶ 0015: “enabling an automated survey platform to capture (give and receive) feedback based on at least one survey, which may be used towards individual and organizational development”);
Rajaganesan describes a Survey Manager in a system for performing surveys in an organization as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 describes communications between employees and the survey manager. As explained above the system allows an administrator and an employee to provide inputs as describe in ¶ 0023: “The interface 204 comprises of a means for enabling the administrator 103 to connect to the survey manager 101 and administer the survey. […] The interface 204 further enables at least one employee 102 to take survey,” Figure 2 describes the components of the Survey Manager. Rajaganesan in view of Fowler is silent with regard to the computing devices in the system. However, Smith in an analogous art of survey management provides the computing devices for performing surveys in figures 9 and 10.
Both Rajaganesan and Smith teach survey management. Rajaganesan teaches in the Abstract “enabling an automated survey platform to capture feedback based on at least one survey, which may be used towards individual and organizational development.” Smith teaches in the Abstract “provide guidance to create an electronic survey”. Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Smith would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Smith to the teaching of Rajaganesan in view of Fowler would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as computing devices into similar systems.
Claim 15:
The limitations of claim 15 encompass substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, those similar limitations are rejected in substantially the same manner as claim 1, as described above. The following limitations differs from claim 1:
Rajaganesan as shown discloses a system for providing a survey ,
Rajaganesan describes a Survey Manager in a system for performing surveys in an organization as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 describes communications between employees and the survey manager. As explained above the system allows an administrator and an employee to provide inputs as describe in ¶ 0023: “The interface 204 comprises of a means for enabling the administrator 103 to connect to the survey manager 101 and administer the survey. […] The interface 204 further enables at least one employee 102 to take survey,” Figure 2 describes the components of the Survey Manager. Rajaganesan is silent with regard to the computing devices in the system. However, Smith in an analogous art of survey management purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
comprising at least one local electronic computing device, one first central electronic computing device, and one second further central electronic computing device (Figure 10 and ¶ 0183: “ Network environment 1000 includes a client device 1006, and a server device 1002 connected to each other by a network 1004. Although FIG. 10 illustrates a particular arrangement of client system 1006, server device 1002, and network 1004, this disclosure contemplates any suitable arrangement of client device 1006, server device 1002, and network 1004. As an example and not by way of limitation, two or more of client device 1006, and server device 1002 may be connected to each other directly, bypassing network 1004. As another example, two or more of client device 1006 and server device 1002 may be physically or logically co-located with each other in whole, or in part. Moreover, although FIG. 10 illustrates a particular number of client devices 1006, server devices 1002, and networks 1004, this disclosure contemplates any suitable number of client devices 1006, server devices 1002, and networks 1004. As an example and not by way of limitation, network environment 1000 may include multiple client devices 1006, server devices 1002, and networks 1004.”);
Both Rajaganesan and Smith teach survey management. Rajaganesan teaches in the Abstract “enabling an automated survey platform to capture feedback based on at least one survey, which may be used towards individual and organizational development.” Smith teaches in the Abstract “provide guidance to create an electronic survey”. Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Smith would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Smith to the teaching of Rajaganesan would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as at least one local electronic computing device, one first central electronic computing device, and one second further central electronic computing device into similar systems.
Claim 2:
Rajaganesan as shown disclose the following limitations:
wherein the release criterion is a predefined amount of distinct participants, who edited the survey (¶ 0035: “The controller 201 may auto-close the statement once sampling adequacy is met (when a statistically significant number of participation is achieved).”);
Claim 3:
Rajaganesan as shown disclose the following limitations:
wherein each aggregated survey is released individually by each person (¶ 0026: “The controller 201 may enable a timer for a pre-defined period of time on presenting the survey to the employee 102, wherein the employee 102 has to complete the survey within the pre-defined period of time.” And ¶ 0027: “On receiving the completed survey from the employee (as depicted in FIG. 3),”);
Claim 4:
Rajaganesan as shown disclose the following limitations:
wherein each person is invited for participation by the first central electronic computing device (¶ 0021: “the survey manager 101 automatically make at least one survey available to the employees”);
Claim 5:
Rajaganesan as shown disclose the following limitations:
wherein each survey for each person is individualized depending on the roles of the person in the organization (¶ 0036: “The controller 201 enables performance of a role based survey, wherein the survey is role specific and may provide a 360 degree feedback.”);
Claim 6:
Rajaganesan as shown disclose the following limitations:
wherein the aggregated survey is securely encrypted before transmitting to the first central electronic computing device (claim 23: “wherein the survey manager encrypts the at least one completed survey”);
Claim 8:
Rajaganesan as shown disclose the following limitations:
wherein private data of a person is just released via the transmitted, aggregated surveys, if the person approves the private data release (¶ 0042: “The controller 201 may encrypt the completed surveys and only an aggregate of relevant responses in the completed surveys by all employees is shown. The employees who give the feedback to a manager (for instance) will be able to view an abridged version of the report by default. The manager has the option of the making his/her report public, wherein the entire organization can view the same.”);
Claim 13:
Rajaganesan describes a Survey Manager in a system for performing surveys in an organization as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 describes communications between employees and the survey manager. As explained above the system allows an administrator and an employee to provide inputs as describe in ¶ 0023: “The interface 204 comprises of a means for enabling the administrator 103 to connect to the survey manager 101 and administer the survey. […] The interface 204 further enables at least one employee 102 to take survey,” Figure 2 describes the components of the Survey Manager. Rajaganesan is silent with regard to the computing devices in the system. However, Smith in an analogous art of survey management purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
a computer program product comprising program code means for performing a method according to claim 1 (¶ 0165: “computer-readable media for carrying or storing computer-executable instructions and/or data structures.”);
Both Rajaganesan and Smith teach survey management. Rajaganesan teaches in the Abstract “enabling an automated survey platform to capture feedback based on at least one survey, which may be used towards individual and organizational development.” Smith teaches in the Abstract “provide guidance to create an electronic survey”. Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Smith would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Smith to the teaching of Rajaganesan would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as a computer program product comprising program code into similar systems.
Claim 14:
Rajaganesan describes a Survey Manager in a system for performing surveys in an organization as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 describes communications between employees and the survey manager. As explained above the system allows an administrator and an employee to provide inputs as describe in ¶ 0023: “The interface 204 comprises of a means for enabling the administrator 103 to connect to the survey manager 101 and administer the survey. […] The interface 204 further enables at least one employee 102 to take survey,” Figure 2 describes the components of the Survey Manager. Rajaganesan is silent with regard to the computing devices in the system. However, Smith in an analogous art of survey management purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
a computer-readable storage medium comprising the computer program product according to claim 13 (¶ 0165: “computer-readable media for carrying or storing computer-executable instructions and/or data structures..”);
Both Rajaganesan and Smith teach survey management. Rajaganesan teaches in the Abstract “enabling an automated survey platform to capture feedback based on at least one survey, which may be used towards individual and organizational development.” Smith teaches in the Abstract “provide guidance to create an electronic survey”. Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Smith would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Smith to the teaching of Rajaganesan would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as at least a computer-readable storage medium comprising the computer program product into similar systems.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajaganesan et al., (US 2016/0063408 A1) hereinafter “Rajaganesan”, FLOYD JACKSON FOWLER, JR, How unclear terms affect survey data Public Opinion Quarterly, Volume 56, Issue 2, SUMMER 1992, Pages 218–231, hereinafter “Fowler” and Smith et al., (US 2018/0122256 A) hereinafter “Smith” as applied to claim 1, further in view of Lee et al., (US 2023/0316185 A1) hereinafter “Lee”.
Claim 9:
Rajaganesan teaches in ¶ 0042: “In the case of 360 Degree Feedback, the controller 201 may keep the completed surveys confidential and anonymous.” Rajaganesan in view of Fowler and Smith is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Lee in an analogous art of survey management for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
wherein data of a person is anonymized in each survey before aggregating (¶ 0034: “A security module 204 is configured to implement security measures associated with collecting anonymous feedback data, including protecting the anonymity of user”);
Both Rajaganesan and Lee teach survey management. Rajaganesan teaches in the Abstract: “dynamically generating a single survey representation document that includes the disparate components of an electronic survey maintained across one or more repositories by an electronic survey system.” Lee teaches in the ¶ 0026 “allow anonymous feedback to be submitted by one or more users in the first place with respect to the one or more input mechanisms, such for a particular question in a survey.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Lee would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Lee to the teaching of Rajaganesan in view of Fowler and Smith would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as wherein data of a person is anonymized in each survey before aggregating into similar systems. Further, as noted by Lee “to provide sufficient security, such as a means to protect the anonymity of the individuals from which the entity seeks information.” (Lee, ¶ 0005).
Claim 12:
Rajaganesan teaches in ¶ 0042: “In the case of 360 Degree Feedback, the controller 201 may keep the completed surveys confidential and anonymous.” Rajaganesan in view of Fowler and Smith is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Lee in an analogous art of survey management for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
wherein a peer-to-peer architecture is provided (¶ 0030: “could equally well find application in a client-server, distributed, or peer-to-peer system”);
Both Rajaganesan and Lee teach survey management. Rajaganesan teaches in the Abstract: “dynamically generating a single survey representation document that includes the disparate components of an electronic survey maintained across one or more repositories by an electronic survey system.” Lee teaches in the ¶ 0026 “allow anonymous feedback to be submitted by one or more users in the first place with respect to the one or more input mechanisms, such for a particular question in a survey.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Lee would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Lee to the teaching of Rajaganesan in view of Fowler and Smith would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as wherein a peer-to-peer architecture is provided into similar systems. Further, as noted by Lee “to provide sufficient security, such as a means to protect the anonymity of the individuals from which the entity seeks information.” (Lee, ¶ 0005).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajaganesan et al., (US 2016/0063408 A1) hereinafter “Rajaganesan”, FLOYD JACKSON FOWLER, JR, How unclear terms affect survey data Public Opinion Quarterly, Volume 56, Issue 2, SUMMER 1992, Pages 218–231, hereinafter “Fowler” and Smith et al., (US 2018/0122256 A) hereinafter “Smith” as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Official Notice as evidenced by Milind Kopikare (US 2019/0318370 A1) hereinafter “Kopikare”.
Claim 10:
Rajaganesan in view of Fowler and Smith teaches survey management as explained above. Rajaganesan in view of Smith is silent with regard to wherein an incompletely edited survey is received by the first central electronic computing device. However Examiner takes Official Notice that is old and well known in the survey management arts and to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to receive incompletely edited survey as evidenced by Kopikare in ¶ 0005: Incomplete or misleading response data then takes up additional computing resources without providing any benefit, especially when dealing with large amounts of response data, making it difficult to filter and find useful response data.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Official Notice evidenced by Kopikare would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADJA CHONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3939. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 2:00 pm ET, 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, RUTAO WU can be reached on 571.272.6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NADJA N CHONG CRUZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights