DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the application
This is a Final Office Action in response to the claims as submitted on 10/27/2025.
Claims 1, 7 and 11 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 3 recites the limitation "said non-review option" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Due to the amendments provided by the applicant, the claims do not have antecedent basis for these terms. For examination purposes the claims are interpreted as best understood.
Claims 9 and 10 recites the limitation "said non-review option" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Due to the amendments provided by the applicant, the claims do not have antecedent basis for these terms. For examination purposes the claims are interpreted as best understood.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method, and system are directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process and machine, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-20 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that recite commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Claims 1 and 7 recites the abstract idea of gathering and managing customer reviews of products or services (see paragraphs 002). This idea is described by the following claim steps (claim 1):
managing online reviews for a customer of client;
displaying a review page including one or more review options linked to a third-party review platform and a distinct, client-configurable contact option enabling direct feedback submission to the client.
This idea falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas because it is directed towards commercial interactions such that as required when managing customer reviews of a product or service. The noted abstract idea is also directed to managing interactions between people such as that required during communications when managing customer reviews for a product or service conforms to the requirements of more than one party.
With respect to independent claim 7, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below:
creating a client account with a review management system;
providing a customer of said client access to a system review having one or more review options linked to a third-party platform and an distinct client-configurable contact option enabling direct feedback submission to the client;
displaying options to said customer wherein said options include one or more review options and a non-review option;
As noted, this idea falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas because it is directed towards commercial interactions such that as required when managing customer reviews of a product or service. The noted abstract idea is also directed to managing interactions between people such as that required during communications when managing customer reviews for a product or service conforms to the requirements of more than one party.
Because the above-noted limitations recite steps falling within the Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity abstract idea groupings of the MPEP 2106, they have been determined to recite at least one abstract idea when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry.
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity abstract idea groupings described in the MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below. Claim 7 and recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore determined to recite the same abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are:
a system server;
at least one client PCD communicatively coupled to said server through a network;
at least one customer PCD communicatively coupled to said server through said network;
a system tool running on said server;
displaying a review page;
However, using a computer environment such as a server, and other recited computer elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Managing customer reviews can reasonably be performed by pencil and paper until limited to a computerized environment by requiring a “system review page”.
These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and alternatively serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method, computer system, and computer program product that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1, 7 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a commercial or legal interaction or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-12 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-12 further limits the abstract idea by narrowing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing limitations directed to communication to the customer or client using the system. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of transmitting information and providing communications means in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide high level of generality computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For more information see MPEP 2106.
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 (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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kohm (US Patent Publication 2015/0356643) in view of Roberts (US Patent 10,430,811).
Regarding claim 1, Kohm discloses a system for managing online customer reviews (abstract), the system comprising:
a system server (Fig. 2 “web server 230”);
at least one client PCD communicatively coupled to said server through a network ([0022] FIG. 2 is a block diagram of an architecture of the vendor referral system 140. The vendor referral system 140 allows users to connect with vendors in various ways. For example, users may search for vendors, provide and view comments for vendors, and contact vendors of interest. The vendor referral system 140 shown in FIG. 2 includes a user profile store 205, a vendor profile store 210, a review store 225, and a web server 230. In other embodiments, the vendor referral system 140 may include additional, fewer, or different components for various applications. Conventional components such as network interfaces, security functions, load balancers, failover servers, management and network operation consoles, and the like are not shown so as to not obscure the details of the system architecture.);
at least one customer PCD communicatively coupled to said server through said network (Fig. 1 and [018-019] “client device 110”);
a system tool running on said server for managing online reviews from a customer of a client (See Fig. 2 and [0041] The review store 225 stores reviews provided by users of the vendor referral system 140. The review store 225 may include a rating for the vendor associated with a review (e.g., a one-to-five start rating), a comment from a user about the vendor associated with the review, and indication of the type of business conducted between the user and the vendor associated with the review, and the like. In some embodiments, a review is associated with an industry. This may help to identify which industry of a vendor that is associated with multiple industries the review is directed to. An exemplary review is shown and described further below with reference to FIG. 5A. [0042] The content server 235 links the vendor referral system 140 via the network 120 to the one or more client devices 110, as well as to the professional networking system 130. The content server 235 may for example, provide a user interface to a client device requesting to interact with the vendor referral system 140.); and
said tool displaying a review page on said customer PCD (See Figs. 5A and 5B [0065] FIG. 5A illustrates a user interface showing reviews for a vendor, in accordance with an embodiment of the vendor referral system. FIG. 5A illustrates details of reviews provided by users for vendor 1. The user interface of FIG. 5A includes a button 520 for a user to provide reviews about the vendor. [0066] The user interface of FIG. 5A includes reviews 530. For example, the user interface of FIG. 5A includes 2 reviews. A first review 530A provided by a user with an anonymous profile “MFun,” and a second review 530B provided by a second user with an anonymous profile “Georgie.” ),
the review page comprising:
a distinct, client-configurable contact option enabling direct feedback submission to the client, wherein the contact option is visually differentiated from the review options ([017] The users may provide anonymous comments for vendors to review a vendor, and use a real identity to solicit vendors or contact vendors directly. [0022] FIG. 2 is a block diagram of an architecture of the vendor referral system 140. The vendor referral system 140 allows users to connect with vendors in various ways. For example, users may search for vendors, provide and view comments for vendors, and contact vendors of interest.).
Kohm discloses a review system that allows users to review and contact the vendors, however fails to disclose:
one or more selectable review options linked to a third-party review platform.
However Roberts, which similarly is directed to a customer survey system further teaches:
one or more selectable review options linked to a third-party review platform ([037] For example, referring to FIG. 2, server 140 generates a promotion and forwards it to customer response client 120. At block 222, a customer may be redirected to a Post Survey Site Selection based in part of the content of the customer comments or feedback. As an example, if a customer provided positive feedback, the system could redirect the customer browser 130 to a third party review site, such as Yelp!® or to a website where the customer can register for the merchant's loyalty program. [081] Or as another example, the Exit Page may direct the browser 130 to a third-party review website if the customer's survey responses indicated the customer had a positive experience.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to include in the review system of Kohm one or more selectable review options linked to a third-party review platform since such modification in the system is merely a combination of prior art elements in the art that yield predictable results if a customer provided positive feedback, the system could redirect the customer browser 130 to a third party review site, such as Yelp!® or to a website where the customer can register for the merchant's loyalty program., thereby helping the merchant to promote a good review as disclosed by Roberts [037].
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Kohm discloses:
wherein said non-review option is red in color ([017] The users may provide anonymous comments for vendors to review a vendor, and use a real identity to solicit vendors or contact vendors directly. [0022] FIG. 2 is a block diagram of an architecture of the vendor referral system 140. The vendor referral system 140 allows users to connect with vendors in various ways. For example, users may search for vendors, provide and view comments for vendors, and contact vendors of interest.) The Examiner notes the use of non-functional descriptive material in the claim. It is noted that the color of the option within the interface does not change or alter the system been able to display a non-review option, therefore the claimed limitation have little to no patentable weight.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Kohm discloses:
wherein said non-review option prompts said customer to make contact ([017] The users may provide anonymous comments for vendors to review a vendor, and use a real identity to solicit vendors or contact vendors directly. [0022] FIG. 2 is a block diagram of an architecture of the vendor referral system 140. The vendor referral system 140 allows users to connect with vendors in various ways. For example, users may search for vendors, provide and view comments for vendors, and contact vendors of interest.).
Regarding claim 7, Kohm discloses a method for managing online customer reviews (abstract), the method consisting of:
creating a client account with a review management system (See Fig.3 and [0030] The user profile 310 of FIG. 3 includes a real profile 320 and an anonymous profile 340. The real profile 320 may include personal information 322 and professional information 324. [0031] The anonymous profile 340 may be used to allow users to interact with the vendor referral system without exposing the user's real identity. Users may be more willing to provide more accurate reviews for vendors if the identity of the user is not exposed with the review. For instance, users associated with a real identity (i.e., the user's real name) may tone down a review or be more political when providing a review for a vendor that did not perform as expected. The user may express the user's true opinion more freely when an association between the real identity of the user is not shown to users reading the review. [0032] The real profile 320 of a user may be used for direct interactions involving the user. For instance, the real profile 320 may be used when the user is directly interacting with a vendor the user found through the vendor referral system 140. [0033] Personal information 322 may include descriptive information associated with a user of the vendor referral system. For example, personal information 322 may include first name, last name, date of birth, gender, and the like. Personal information 322 may include information explicitly provided by a user. Personal information 322 may also include information obtained from a third party system such as the professional networking system 130. [0034] Professional information 324 includes information related to a user's professional life. For instance, professional information 324 may include information related to the user's work experience 326, such as prior employers, current employers, educational background 330, skills 328, and the like. Employers may be associated with particular vendors, dates of service, job titles, and the like. A user's educational background 330 may include schools or programs that the user attended, degrees awarded to the user, credentials of the user, awards, and so forth relating to the user's educational qualifications. Skills 328 may describe additional areas of proficiency of the user, which may be provided by other users in describing the user, for example as an endorsement of the user in a particular area or for a particular skillset, such as “patent prosecution” or “graphene.” );
providing a customer of said client access to a system review page ([0065] FIG. 5A illustrates a user interface showing reviews for a vendor, in accordance with an embodiment of the vendor referral system. FIG. 5A illustrates details of reviews provided by users for vendor 1. The user interface of FIG. 5A includes a button 520 for a user to provide reviews about the vendor. [0066] The user interface of FIG. 5A includes reviews 530. For example, the user interface of FIG. 5A includes 2 reviews. A first review 530A provided by a user with an anonymous profile “MFun,” and a second review 530B provided by a second user with an anonymous profile “Georgie.”) having a distinct, client-configurable and visually differentiated contact option enabling direct feedback submission to the client ([017] The users may provide anonymous comments for vendors to review a vendor, and use a real identity to solicit vendors or contact vendors directly. [0022] FIG. 2 is a block diagram of an architecture of the vendor referral system 140. The vendor referral system 140 allows users to connect with vendors in various ways. For example, users may search for vendors, provide and view comments for vendors, and contact vendors of interest.); and
displaying options on said review page to said customer (See Figs 5A and 5B and [0070] FIG. 5B illustrates a user interface showing reviews for a vendor with a site filter set to “legal,” in accordance with an embodiment of the vendor referral system. FIG. 5B illustrates details of reviews provided by users for vendor 1 and filtered using the site filter “legal.” The site filter filters the reviews that are displayed to a user. For instance, when a site filter was not set, as illustrated in FIG. 5A, reviews from user with anonymous profile “MFun” who specified that vendor 1 was used for “legal services” and reviews from user with anonymous profile “Georgie” who specified that vendor 1 was used for “product design.” When the site filter is set to “legal,” comments that are not related to “legal” are not show to the user. For instance, the in user interface of FIG. 5B, the review from the user with anonymous profile “Georgie” is not shown to the user. [0071] In some embodiments, the reviews may also be filtered based on attributes other than an industry associated with the review (e.g., the “used for” field 532). For instance, the reviews may be filtered by the expertise or skills of the reviewer. The vendor referral system may filter reviews provided by users that do not have an education in the legal field, that do not have skills in the legal field, and/or that do not work in the legal field. For example, if the site filter is set to “legal,” the vendor referral system may only provide reviews from users that work in the legal field.).
Kohm discloses a review system that allows users to review and contact the vendors, however fails to disclose:
one or more selectable review options linked to a third-party review platform.
However Roberts, which similarly is directed to a customer survey system further teaches:
one or more selectable review options linked to a third-party review platform ([037] For example, referring to FIG. 2, server 140 generates a promotion and forwards it to customer response client 120. At block 222, a customer may be redirected to a Post Survey Site Selection based in part of the content of the customer comments or feedback. As an example, if a customer provided positive feedback, the system could redirect the customer browser 130 to a third party review site, such as Yelp!® or to a website where the customer can register for the merchant's loyalty program. [081] Or as another example, the Exit Page may direct the browser 130 to a third-party review website if the customer's survey responses indicated the customer had a positive experience.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to include in the review system of Kohm one or more selectable review options linked to a third-party review platform since such modification in the system is merely a combination of prior art elements in the art that yield predictable results if a customer provided positive feedback, the system could redirect the customer browser 130 to a third party review site, such as Yelp!® or to a website where the customer can register for the merchant's loyalty program., thereby helping the merchant to promote a good review as disclosed by Roberts [037].
Regarding claim 8, Kohm discloses
consisting of authenticating said client account ([0023] The vendor profile store 210 stores information related to different vendors registered with the vendor referral system 140. For instance, the vendor profile store 210 may store descriptive information, such as, the vendor's name, address, phone number, web page, business type, and the like. In some embodiments, the vendor profiles are created by each vendor. For instance, a vendor may register with the vendor referral system. During the registration process, a vendor may provide information the vendor wants users to see to the vendor referral system 140. For instance, a vendor may provide a list of the vendor's expertise, one or more case studies, etc. [024] In some embodiments, vendors may claim ownership of a vendor profile created by a user posting a review for the vendor. For instance, a vendor may find that a vendor profile created by a user of the vendor referral system already exists and may claim ownership of the vendor profile. The vendor may then provide with additional information that was not provided by the user, such as contact information, a logo, and the like. When users interact with a vendor profile that has not been entered or claimed by a vendor, an icon or other indication may be displayed to users indicating that the vendor is user-entered and the information may not be reliable. In one embodiment, after a user created a vendor profile for a vendor that is not registered with the vendor referral system 140, the vendor referral system contacts the vendor so that the vendor can claim ownership of the vendor profile or verify the information provided by the user.).
Claim(s) 4-6 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kohm (US Patent Publication 2015/0356643) in view of Roberts (US Patent 10,430,811) and GHORBANI (US Patent Publication 2021/0150593) .
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Kohm does not explicitly disclose:
wherein said system contacts said customer.
However GHORBANI, which similarly is directed to a system for customization of reviews, further teaches:
wherein said system contacts said customer ([0040] The e-commerce platform 100 may enable merchants to reach customers through the online store 138, through POS devices 152 in physical locations (e.g., a merchant's storefront or elsewhere), to promote commerce with customers through dialog via electronic communication, and the like, providing a system for reaching customers and facilitating merchant services for the real or virtual pathways available for reaching and interacting with customers. [0047] Reference is made back to FIG. 1. The e-commerce platform may provide for a communications facility 129 and associated merchant interface for providing electronic communications and marketing, such as utilizing an electronic messaging aggregation facility (not shown) for collecting and analyzing communication interactions between merchants, customers, merchant devices 102, customer devices 150, POS devices 152, and the like, to aggregate and analyze the communications, such as for increasing the potential for providing a sale of a product, and the like. For instance, a customer may have a question related to a product, which may produce a dialog between the customer and the merchant (or automated processor-based agent representing the merchant), where the communications facility 129 analyzes the interaction and provides analysis to the merchant on how to improve the probability for a sale.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to include the teachings of GHORBANI since such modifications are merely combinations of prior art elements previously known in the art providing the known benefit of provide a solution that is able to provide reviews that are better customized for each prospective customer. See [004] and to promote commerce with customers through dialog via electronic communication as disclosed on [040].
Regarding claims 5 and 12, GHORBANI further teaches:
wherein said client contacts said customer ([0040] In various embodiments, a customer may interact through a customer device 150 (e.g., computer, laptop computer, mobile computing device, and the like), a POS device 152 (e.g., retail device, a kiosk, an automated checkout system, and the like), or any other commerce interface device known in the art. The e-commerce platform 100 may enable merchants to reach customers through the online store 138, through POS devices 152 in physical locations (e.g., a merchant's storefront or elsewhere), to promote commerce with customers through dialog via electronic communication, and the like, providing a system for reaching customers and facilitating merchant services for the real or virtual pathways available for reaching and interacting with customers. [0047] Reference is made back to FIG. 1. The e-commerce platform may provide for a communications facility 129 and associated merchant interface for providing electronic communications and marketing, such as utilizing an electronic messaging aggregation facility (not shown) for collecting and analyzing communication interactions between merchants, customers, merchant devices 102, customer devices 150, POS devices 152, and the like, to aggregate and analyze the communications, such as for increasing the potential for providing a sale of a product, and the like. For instance, a customer may have a question related to a product, which may produce a dialog between the customer and the merchant (or automated processor-based agent representing the merchant), where the communications facility 129 analyzes the interaction and provides analysis to the merchant on how to improve the probability for a sale. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to include the teachings of GHORBANI since such modifications are merely combinations of prior art elements previously known in the art providing the known benefit of provide a solution that is able to provide reviews that are better customized for each prospective customer. See [004] and to promote commerce with customers through dialog via electronic communication as disclosed on [040].
Regarding claim 6, GHORBANI further teaches discloses:
wherein said review page is customizable by said client ([042] Themes may be further customized through a theme editor, a design interface that enables users to customize their website's design with flexibility. Themes may also be customized using theme-specific settings that change aspects, such as specific colors, fonts, and pre-built layout schemes. The online store may implement a basic content management system for website content. Merchants may author blog posts or static pages and publish them to their storefront 139 and/or website 104, such as through blogs, articles, and the like, as well as configure navigation menus. Merchants may upload images (e.g., for products), video, content, data, and the like to the e-commerce platform 100, such as for storage by the system. In various embodiments, the e-commerce platform 100 may provide functions for resizing images, associating an image with a product, adding and associating text with an image, adding an image for a new product variant, protecting images, and the like.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to include the teachings of GHORBANI since such modifications are merely combinations of prior art elements previously known in the art providing the known benefit of provide a solution that is able to provide reviews that are better customized for each prospective customer. See [004].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant further argued:
35 USC 101:
“In particular the amended claims recite a specific, structured system that: (i) provides a visually distinct, sentiment driven interface to intercept negative feedback before it becomes a public review (ii) implements a preemptive customer engagement workflow, which is not conventional in review systems; and (iii) enables real-time routing feedback to either the client or to the system for resolution.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies 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. The claims generically discloses creating a client account with a review management system and providing the customer access to provide a review and contact a vendor, thereby generically gathering and managing customer reviews which is considered an abstract idea.
35 USC 102
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., (i) a system that provides a non-review option that is visually distinct and sentiment-driven, (iii) client configuration of review links and routing logic and (iv) use of red (or other) to tie to user behavior research ) 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. US 11580514, Whiteley, Reduced Friction For Merchant Interactions. (94) In some examples, the customer application 118 can present a GUI 900 associated with the electronic receipt, as illustrated in FIG. 9. In some examples, the GUI 900 can include one or more user interface elements 902 that can be used by the customer 108 to provide feedback associated with a transaction. In FIG. 9, the user interface element(s) are illustrated as stars, which can be selected to indicate the customer's rating of the experience. In another example, the user interface element(s) can be a slider, a Likert scale, a dropdown, or any other user interface element that can be used to provide feedback. In some examples, the electronic receipt can be associated with a link, a barcode, a QR code or the like which, when actuated and/or read, can cause a survey or other input mechanism to be presented to the customer 108 for the customer 108 to provide additional feedback. Such feedback can be stored in the user data 126 and/or transaction data 128.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA C SANTOS-DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/MARIA C SANTOS-DIAZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629