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 .
Claims 1-12 and 14-21 are pending for examination. Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-12, and 17-20 are amended. Claim 13 is cancelled. Claim 21 is newly added. This action is made Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/21/2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn as applicant has incorporated the allowable subject matter as noted in the Non-Final rejection dated on 8/21/2025
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong One
Applicant Argues: The Examiner's conclusion that the amended claims recite abstract ideas is fundamentally flawed and contradicts established USPTO guidance regarding the proper scope of abstract idea groupings. The amended claims do not recite any of the enumerated categories of abstract ideas and therefore do not require further eligibility analysis.
[...]
As the 2024 Al SME Update emphasizes, "claim limitations that only encompass Al in a way that cannot practically be performed in the human mind do not fall within this grouping." In fact, the 2024 AlSME Update specifically addresses this issue, explaining that claims involving Al and automated systems should not be presumptively categorized as mental processes when they involve technological implementations that cannot be practically performed by human minds. The claimed feedback nudge generation system must process feedback data through automated analysis algorithms, apply complex rule-based logic to multiple variables, and automatically generate and distribute notifications through technical interfaces. As explained in the specification, the automation module uses "natural language processing and sentiment analysis" to analyze feedback and determine when nudges should be sent. These technological operations cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
The Deputy Commissioner's memorandum specifically warns against expanding the mental process grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, noting that examiners should "be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) from claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis)." The amended claims fall squarely within the latter category-they merely involve abstract concepts in their operation rather than reciting mental processes as their core subject matter.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes the claim recites “wherein the storing of the received feedback responses comprises linking the received feedback responses to a user profile of the feedback requestor, wherein the linking enables feedback submission date and the praise ratio to determine whether a nudge should be generated, in response to determining a nudge should be generated based on the rules, selecting a nudge type and generating a nudge notification based on the nudge type, and sending the nudge notification to a manager of the feedback requestor” and further Applicant’s argument is focuses on the features of “The examiner respectfully notes that these steps (i.e., not struck out) are steps that can be practically be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The concept of mere automation via instructions executed by a processor are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea (as noted in Step 2A-Prong 2). Further, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., ...distribute notifications through technical interfaces... and/or the automation module uses "natural language processing and sentiment analysis"...) 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). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea enumerated under Mental Processes for Step 2A-Prong 1. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: “The Examiner's characterization of the amended claims as merely "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" misapprehends the technological nature of the claimed invention. The claims are not directed to fundamental economic principles, commercial interactions, or personal behavior management-the enumerated categories within methods of organizing human activity. Instead, they recite specific technological operations for automated analysis and notification generation within complex data management systems.
Furthermore, the specification extensively describes the technological implementation of these features, including machine learning models that can "classify feedback comments as constructive, unconstructive, off-topic, etc." using "convolutional neural network model...trained to classify feedback comments." The automation module is configured to "detect inappropriate comments using natural language processing and sentiment analysis" and to "send reminder notifications on a schedule." These are not mental processes but rather specific computer- implemented technological solutions.
In conclusion, the amended claims do not recite any of the enumerated categories of abstract ideas and therefore should not be subjected to further eligibility analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two or Step 2B. The claims are eligible as not reciting judicial exceptions at Step 2A, Prong One.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims focus on receiving, sending, and storing feedback responses in order to generate a nudge. The examiner notes this clearly falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” as they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea enumerated under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for Step 2A-Prong 1. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Further, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., including machine learning models that can "classify feedback comments as constructive, unconstructive, off-topic, etc." using "convolutional neural network model...trained to classify feedback comments." The automation module is configured to "detect inappropriate comments using natural language processing and sentiment analysis" and to "send reminder notifications on a schedule." These are not mental processes but rather specific computer- implemented technological solutions) 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). As similarly noted above, the examiner respectfully notes that the claim does in fact fall under mental processes. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Applicant Argues: The amended claims reflect substantial improvements to computer technology in feedback management systems through specific technological implementations. The claims now specifically recite automated feedback nudge generation comprising "accessing a nudges settings database to identify rules for generating nudges, analyzing the received feedback responses linked to the user profile to determine a last feedback submission date and a praise ratio for the feedback requestor...applying the rules for generating nudges to the last feedback submission date and the praise ratio to determine whether a nudge should be generated, in response to determining a nudge should be generated based on the rules, selecting a nudge type and generating a nudge notification based on the nudge type, and sending the nudge notification to a manager of the feedback requestor." This represents a particular technological solution that goes beyond generic computer implementation.
As the Deputy Commissioner instructed, examiners should consider "whether the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome." The amended claims provide a particular technological solution through automated feedback analysis, rule-based nudge determination, and intelligent notification generation to automatically prompt managers to provide feedback when specific conditions are met. This specific implementation addresses the technological problem of maintaining continuous feedback culture within organizations while reducing the administrative burden on managers and human resources personnel.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above for mental processes the purported improvements lie within the abstract idea itself (i.e., recites “wherein the storing of the received feedback responses comprises linking the received feedback responses to a user profile of the feedback requestor, wherein the linking enables ). The claim recites a processor, memory/(medium), and instructions involving automation as additional elements. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The amended claims recite exactly this type of specific Al application automated analysis of feedback data using natural language processing and sentiment analysis to intelligently determine when managerial intervention is needed to maintain organizational feedback culture.
Examiner’s Response: It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., automated analysis of feedback data using natural language processing and sentiment analysis to intelligently determine when managerial intervention) 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). Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The claims recite specific technological components that meaningfully limit any judicial exception and demonstrate practical application. The specification describes how the "automation module 210" works with the "feedback module 206 to provide automated nudges, reminders, and moderation to streamline the collection and dissemination of impactful group feedback." The system uses "natural language processing and sentiment analysis"6 to analyze feedback content, maintains temporal tracking of feedback submission patterns, calculates sentiment ratios to quantify positive versus constructive feedback, and applies sophisticated rule-based logic to determine appropriate intervention timing.
Examiner’s Response: It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., ...“automation module 210" works with the "feedback module 206”... and "natural language processing and sentiment analysis"6 to analyze feedback content, maintains temporal tracking of feedback submission patterns, calculates sentiment ratios to quantify positive versus constructive feedback, and applies sophisticated rule-based logic to determine appropriate intervention timing) 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). Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The Deputy Commissioner's memorandum warns against "oversimplifying claim limitations" and emphasizes that examiners must "consider all claim limitations when determining patentability." When evaluated as an integrated technological system, the amended claims describe automated feedback management that provide technological advances in computer-based organizational management systems.
The Federal Circuit's analysis in McRO demonstrates how specific technological implementations can establish practical application. As the court found, claims that describe "a specific way" to solve technological problems through "incorporation of the particular claimed rules" that "improved [the] existing technological process" are eligible. Similarly, the amended claims achieve technological improvement through incorporation of automated feedback analysis and intelligent nudge generation capabilities that improve feedback management processes within organizational systems.
The specification extensively describes the technological improvements provided by the claimed system. As explained in paragraphs [0333]-[0334], "Automated feedback moderation by the automation module 210 to detect inappropriate comments using natural language processing and sentiment analysis. Feedback nudges sent by the automation module 210 when managers have not submitted feedback in a certain timeframe." The specification further explains that machine learning can be used to "classify feedback comments as constructive, unconstructive, off-topic, etc." using a "convolutional neural network model...trained to classify feedback comments based on the extracted features."
The Deputy Commissioner's memorandum emphasizes that Step 2A Prong Two "considers the claim as a whole" and that "additional limitations should not be evaluated in a vacuum, completely separate from the recited judicial exception." The amended claims, when analyzed as integrated technological systems, demonstrate that automated feedback analysis works in combination with database integration, rule-based logic evaluation, intelligent notification generation, and systematic distribution mechanisms to provide comprehensive technological solutions for maintaining organizational feedback culture.
The claims reflect improvements beyond merely automating existing processes. The combination of automated feedback response analysis with intelligent rule-based nudge generation provides proactive feedback management functionality that improves upon manual human resources management approaches. As the specification explains, the system addresses the technological problem that "employees often don't provide continuous feedback because they lack a process and/or tool." The claimed technological solution provides automated prompting based on intelligent analysis of feedback patterns, thereby improving organizational feedback culture through computer-automated intervention.
The specific recitation of automated nudge generation with detailed operational steps provides meaningful technological constraints that transform any abstract concept into concrete computer functionality. This automated capability, combined with the feedback linking, database integration, and intelligent notification mechanisms, demonstrates that the claims are directed to improving computer capabilities in organizational feedback management rather than merely applying abstract concepts using generic computers.
The amended claims address specific technological problems in feedback management systems by providing automated analysis and notification capabilities that improve system functionality. The automated nudge generation enables systems to proactively maintain feedback culture by automatically detecting when managers have not provided adequate feedback and generating appropriate prompts without requiring manual monitoring or intervention-a technological advancement that improves both computer functionality and the technical field of organizational feedback management systems.
This technological integration distinguishes the claims from mere automation of abstract ideas. As the Deputy Commissioner noted, examiners should consider whether claims "purport to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology" rather than merely invoking "computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process." The amended claims clearly fall into the former category through their specific automated analysis implementations that enhance feedback management system capabilities.
In conclusion, the amended claims integrate any recited judicial exception into practical applications through specific technological improvements in computer-based feedback management systems, automated analysis using natural language processing and machine learning, intelligent rule-based nudge generation, and comprehensive technological solutions that improve both computer functionality and organizational management technology. These claims are not directed to any judicial exception and are eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. As similarly noted above, the purported improvements lie within the abstract idea itself (i.e., recites “wherein the storing of the received feedback responses comprises linking the received feedback responses to a user profile of the feedback requestor, wherein the linking enables ). The claim recites a processor, memory/(medium), and instructions involving automation as additional elements. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Step 2B
Applicant Argues: Should the analysis proceed to Step 2B, the amended independent claims 1, 19, and 20 provide significantly more than any alleged abstract idea through their specific technological implementations that amount to an inventive concept sufficient to render the claims patent-eligible.
The amended claims now specifically require automated feedback nudge generation comprising "accessing a nudges settings database to identify rules for generating nudges, analyzing the received feedback responses linked to the user profile to determine a last feedback submission date and a praise ratio for the feedback requestor, wherein the praise ratio indicates a proportion of positive feedback, applying the rules for generating nudges to the last feedback submission date and the praise ratio to determine whether a nudge should be generated, in response to determining a nudge should be generated based on the rules, selecting a nudge type and generating a nudge notification based on the nudge type, and sending the nudge notification to a manager of the feedback requestor." This automated feedback management implementation provides a concrete inventive concept that transforms any abstract concept into specific technological innovation.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. As similarly noted above, the purported improvements lie within the abstract idea itself (i.e., recites “wherein the storing of the received feedback responses comprises linking the received feedback responses to a user profile of the feedback requestor, wherein the linking enables database to identify rules for generating nudges, analyzing the received feedback responses linked to the user profile to determine a last feedback submission date and a praise ratio for the feedback requestor, wherein the praise ratio indicates a proportion of positive feedback, applying the rules for generating nudges to the last feedback submission date and the praise ratio to determine whether a nudge should be generated, in response to determining a nudge should be generated based on the rules, selecting a nudge type and generating a nudge notification based on the nudge type, and sending the nudge notification to a manager of the feedback requestor). The claim recites a processor, memory/(medium), and instructions involving automation as additional elements. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive. The claim recites a processor, memory/(medium), and instructions involving automation as additional elements. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The 2024 AlSME Update emphasizes that AI-related inventions can demonstrate patent eligibility through specific technological implementations that go beyond well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The automatic generation of feedback nudges through intelligent analysis of feedback patterns, automated calculation of sentiment ratios, rule-based determination of intervention timing, and automated notification generation represents precisely the type of technological advancement that provides an inventive concept under Step 2B analysis.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 19 and 20, i.e., processor, memory/(medium), and instructions involving automation; amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The Deputy Commissioner's memorandum instructs that "claims that are determined to improve computer capabilities or improve technology or a technical field support a finding that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself." The automated feedback nudge generation provides both practical application integration and significantly more than any abstract concept through its specific technological implementation.
The claims recite processing of feedback responses with sophisticated linking to user profiles, automated temporal analysis to determine "last feedback submission date," intelligent calculation of "praise ratio" indicating proportions of positive feedback, application of configurable rules stored in a dedicated "nudges settings database," conditional logic to determine nudge necessity, intelligent selection among multiple "nudge type" options, and automated generation and transmission of notifications. This sophisticated automated feedback management combined with machine learning and natural language processing analysis represents technological complexity that exceeds routine, conventional computer operations.
The Examiner's assertion that these elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity fails to account for the specific combination of automated feedback analysis, intelligent rule-based decision-making, sentiment ratio calculation, and proactive notification generation working in concert. The Deputy Commissioner's memorandum warns against "oversimplifying claim limitations" and emphasizes that examiners must "consider all claim limitations when determining patentability."
The combination of automated feedback response linking with intelligent nudge generation based on temporal analysis and sentiment quantification creates a technological solution that is not merely conventional database processing or standard notification systems, but rather a specific integration of these technologies to solve particular problems in organizational feedback management. As the specification explains, the system uses machine learning to "classify feedback comments as constructive, unconstructive, off-topic, etc." using trained neural network models with "text embedding and other natural language processing...to extract semantic features from the comments."
The claims require "analyzing the received feedback responses linked to the user profile to determine a last feedback submission date and a praise ratio for the feedback requestor, wherein the praise ratio indicates a proportion of positive feedback." This analysis functionality, combined with intelligent rule-based nudge generation, provides technological capabilities that go beyond conventional feedback management approaches. The automated determination of when managers need prompting to provide feedback, based on sophisticated analysis of feedback patterns and sentiment, represents technological advancement in proactive human resources management systems.
The real-time analysis of feedback responses and automated nudge generation in response to detected patterns represents sophisticated algorithmic processing that cannot be characterized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. This automated analytical capability, working in conjunction with intelligent notification generation, creates a technological system that provides continuous proactive management of organizational feedback culture-functionality that represents a significant technological advancement.
The amended claims integrate automated feedback analysis with sophisticated database linking, intelligent rule evaluation, sentiment quantification, and targeted notification generation to create a comprehensive technological solution. This integration represents more than the sum of its parts and provides an inventive concept that transforms any abstract concepts into concrete technological implementation. As the specification explains, these automated features address the specific technological problem that "employees often don't provide continuous feedback because they lack a process and/or tool" by providing intelligent automated prompting that "will motivate managers to set an example that fosters a culture of public praise."
The McRO court recognized that specific technological combinations can provide inventive concepts even when individual elements might be known. Here, the specific combination of automated feedback response linking with intelligent sentiment analysis, temporal pattern detection, rule-based nudge determination, and automated notification generation creates a technological solution that provides significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.
The automated nudge generation requirement provides concrete technological constraints that meaningfully limit the claimed subject matter. The requirement for automatic analysis of feedback responses to determine temporal patterns and sentiment ratios, application of configurable rules to these automatically-derived metrics, intelligent selection among nudge types, and automated notification generation represents specific technological functionality that cannot be achieved through generic computer implementation or manual human resources management.
The Deputy Commissioner's memorandum emphasizes that technological improvements should be evaluated based on "whether the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome." The automated feedback nudge generation provides exactly this type of particular technological solution to the specific problem of maintaining continuous organizational feedback culture without requiring constant manual monitoring by human resources personnel.
The amended claims address specific technological challenges in feedback management systems through automated analysis and intelligent notification generation. The automatic generation of feedback nudges based on intelligent analysis of temporal patterns and sentiment ratios represents a technological solution to the complex problem of proactively maintaining organizational feedback culture within dynamic organizational structures.
This technological problem-solving capability, implemented through specific automated analysis algorithms applied to linked feedback data with intelligent rule-based notification generation, provides the type of concrete technological advancement that establishes significantly more than any abstract idea. The 2024 AI SME Update specifically addresses how AI-related improvements can demonstrate technological advancement beyond abstract concepts.
The specification provides extensive detail about the technological implementation, explaining that the system can use machine learning to "analyze feedback comments to identify sentiment (positive, negative, neutral) and highlight portions that are especially constructive or unconstructive" and can "generate suggested feedback comments for managers to give their reports" based on "analysis of performance data and reviews." These machine learning and natural language processing capabilities represent sophisticated technological implementations that go well beyond routine data processing.
The amended independent claims 1, 19, and 20 provide significantly more than any alleged abstract idea through their specific automated feedback analysis implementations, sophisticated database linking mechanisms, intelligent rule-based nudge generation, sentiment quantification capabilities, and integrated technological solutions for proactive feedback culture management. These elements, individually and in combination, provide an inventive concept sufficient to render the claims patent-eligible under Step 2B analysis.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. As similarly noted above, claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 19 and 20, i.e., processor, memory/(medium), and instructions involving automation; amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: claim(s) 1-20 are directed to a machine, process, and/or manufacture. Therefore, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 (Step 1: YES). See MPEP 2106.03.
Prong 1, Step 2A: claim 1, and similar claim(s) 19 and 20, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
receiving a selection of a feedback visibility setting for a feedback message from a plurality of predefined feedback visibility settings;
receiving the feedback message and a selection of one or more recipients;
sending the feedback message to the selection of the one or more recipients based on the selection of the feedback visibility setting;
receiving a request for feedback and a selection of one or more feedback providers;
sending the request for feedback to the selection of the one or more feedback providers; and
storing received feedback responses, wherein the storing of the received feedback responses comprises linking the received feedback responses to a user profile of the feedback requestor, wherein the linking enables feedback submission date and the praise ratio to determine whether a nudge should be generated, in response to determining a nudge should be generated based on the rules, selecting a nudge type and generating a nudge notification based on the nudge type, and sending the nudge notification to a manager of the feedback requestor.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations includes for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 19 and 20 includes receiving a selection of a feedback visibility setting for a feedback message from a plurality of predefined feedback visibility settings; receiving the feedback message and a selection of one or more recipients sending the feedback message to the selection of the one or more recipients based on the selection of the feedback visibility setting; receiving a request for feedback and a selection of one or more feedback providers; sending the request for feedback to the selection of the one or more feedback providers; and storing received feedback responses, wherein the storing of the received feedback responses comprises linking the received feedback responses to a user profile of the feedback requestor, wherein the linking enables generating feedback nudges, wherein the generating of the feedback nudges comprises accessing a nudges settings database to identify rules for generating nudges, analyzing the received feedback responses linked to the user profile to determine a last feedback submission date and a praise ratio for the feedback requestor, wherein the praise ratio indicates a proportion of positive feedback, applying the rules for generating nudges to the last feedback submission date and the praise ratio to determine whether a nudge should be generated, in response to determining a nudge should be generated based on the rules, selecting a nudge type and generating a nudge notification based on the nudge type, and sending the nudge notification to a manager of the feedback requestor, thus, the claim 1, and similar claim(s) 19 and 20 falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in that they recite as concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. That is, other than reciting for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 19 and 20, i.e., processor, memory/(medium), and instructions involving automation; nothing in these claim element(s) precludes the step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 1, and similar claim(s) 19 and 20, includes receiving a selection of a feedback visibility setting for a feedback message from a plurality of predefined feedback visibility settings; receiving the feedback message and a selection of one or more recipients sending the feedback message to the selection of the one or more recipients based on the selection of the feedback visibility setting; receiving a request for feedback and a selection of one or more feedback providers; sending the request for feedback to the selection of the one or more feedback providers; and storing received feedback responses, wherein the storing of the received feedback responses comprises linking the received feedback responses to a user profile of the feedback requestor, wherein the linking enables generating feedback nudges, wherein the generating of the feedback nudges comprises accessing a nudges settings database to identify rules for generating nudges, analyzing the received feedback responses linked to the user profile to determine a last feedback submission date and a praise ratio for the feedback requestor, wherein the praise ratio indicates a proportion of positive feedback, applying the rules for generating nudges to the last feedback submission date and the praise ratio to determine whether a nudge should be generated, in response to determining a nudge should be generated based on the rules, selecting a nudge type and generating a nudge notification based on the nudge type, and sending the nudge notification to a manager of the feedback requestor, thus, encompasses steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. For example, a human using pen and paper can perform the receiving, sending steps with respect to visibility and recipients/requestors and further manually store such feedback linked to user profiles (i.e., user records) in order to generate a nudge notification. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea. (Prong 1, Step 2A: YES). The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Prong 2, Step 2A: Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 19 and 20, recite i.e., processor, memory/(medium), and instructions involving automation. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Applicant’s Specification, ⁋[0283] and ⁋⁋ [01090]-[0193]).). These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 19 and 20 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Prong 2, Step 2A: NO). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Since claim 1, and similar claim(s) 19 and 20 recites an abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 19 and 20 is “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A (Step 2A: YES). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: The recitation of the additional elements is acknowledged, as identified above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. These additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea for the same reasons as addressed above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 19 and 20, i.e., processor, memory/(medium), and instructions involving automation; amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 1, and similar claim(s) 19 and 20 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). See MPEP 2106.05.
Accordingly, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 19 and 20 is ineligible.
Regarding Claims 2-12, 14-18, and 21; these claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above w/ respect to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” as the claims recite further concepts of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) i.e., further features related to “managing” feedback and/or further recite “Mental Processes” as the claims recite further concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. These dependent claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (i.e., claims 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 17-18 – implementations of “interface”/“a user interface” and claims 15-16 – implement an application interface); as such elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do no not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ASFAND M SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-1466. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7a-3p (MDT).
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, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at (571)270-3445. 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.
/ASFAND M SHEIKH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626