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 .
Detail Action
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 1/17/2025.
Claims 1 and 8 are amended, claims 5-7 and 12-20 are canceled and claims 21-23 are new.
Claims 1-4, 8-11 and 21-23 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-4, 8-11 and 21-23 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.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 23 recite(s) the limitation of “the user’s usage patterns overtime” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims of the above independent claims inherit the limitation and deficiency of the respective independent claims and are rejected for similar reason above.
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 1-4, 8-11, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Per claim 8,
[step 1], Claim 8 claims a computer system that falls into one of the four statutory subject matter.
[Step 2A], the instant claim recites the limitation of “analyzing the collected data to determine one or more suggested responses to one or more questions in a feedback form; preparing the feedback form for the user based on the suggested responses; and training the machine leaning model based on feedback based on feedback from the user on the prepared feedback form. ” corresponding to Mental processes (per MPEP 2106.04(a) 3) can reasonably be interpreted as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or using paper and pencil (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III)
[Step 2B], the instant claim recites additional elements of “a processor set; one or more computer readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media to cause the processor set to perform operations comprising” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The additional elements “collecting data about a user’s experience of a software application wherein collecting data includes collecting input data including inputs submitted by the user from an input device on a device while the user is engaged with the software application and collecting eye-tracking data of the user while the user is engaged with the software application on the device, wherein the input data and eye-tracking data are time-stamped;” the input device appears to be mouse/keyboard and webcam. Essentially, the collected data includes mouse clicks, keystrokes and data captured by a webcam. The mouse, keyboard, or webcam are generic computer peripherals and therefore data collected via the generic computer peripherals are still fall into the category of insignificant extra resolution of data collection by a generic computer peripherals without significantly more than the abstract idea.
“presenting the prepared feedback form to the user.” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The additional element of “a machine learning model trained on historical user experience data associated with the software application, the collected data to determine one or more suggested responses to one or more questions in a feedback form based on the user's usage patterns over time based on the input data and eye-tracking data;” appears to recite using machine learning model in the analysis of collected data. The user’s data usage patterns over time based on the input data and eye-tracking data are characteristics of data source corresponds to extra resolution and is not considered significantly more.
“preparing the feedback form for the user based on the suggested responses; [[and]] presenting the prepared feedback form to the user; and training the machine learning model based on feedback from the user on the prepared feedback form”. Per court ruling Receptive Analytics vs. Fox Corp., the use of generic machine learning technology in carrying out the claimed method is considered conventional corresponds to “apply it” and is not sufficient to transform the abstract idea into practical application. And therefore, applying machine learning to existing abstract idea is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites additional limitation of “the preparing includes pre-populating the feedback form with the suggested responses.”, further recites mental process and does not integrate into practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites additional element of “determining a question to modify on a preexisting feedback form, and wherein the preparing includes modifying the preexisting feedback form.”, further recites mental process and does not integrate into practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites additional element of “the presenting is performed at a time determined based on a portion of the analyzed data.”, further recites mental process and does not integrate into practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 21 recites additional element of “collecting input data includes inputs submitted by the user from a mouse and from a keyboard communicatively coupled to the device, wherein collecting eye-tracking data is completed by collecting visual data of the user's eyes by a webcam integrated within the device, wherein the visual data is processed into eye-tracking data on the device, wherein the collecting, analyzing, preparing, presenting, and training are completed by the device” the collecting, analyzing, preparing and presenting and training data are similarly as explained above and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-4 and 21 are method claims reciting corresponding limitation of claims 8-11 and 22 and are similarly rejected.
Claim 23 is device claim corresponding to claim 8. Additional elements of “A device comprising: a processor set; one or more computer readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media to cause the processor set to perform operations comprising:” is considered generic computer and does not transform the abstract idea into practical application either.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamat et al. (US 2018/0316636 Al) in view of Lawrence (US 2022/0334790 A1)
Per claim 1,
Kamat discloses
collecting data about a user’s experience of a software application;([0024-0027], see user history downloaded in user history data store; user is calling technical support with software)
analyzing the collected data to determine one or more suggested responses to one or more questions in a feedback form;([0029], see determine the most likely responses to this question based on a knowledge… information stored in user history data store.)
preparing the feedback form for the user based on the suggested responses;([0029], see possible answers can be populated…to prepopulate a different response.)
and presenting the prepared feedback form to the user. (Fig. 3, [0019-0030], for example, [0027], discloses user interface corresponding feedback form)
Kamat does not, however, Lawrence discloses
wherein collecting data includes collecting input data including inputs submitted by the user from an input device on a device while the user is engaged with the software application and collecting eye-tracking data of the user while the user is engaged with the software application on the device, wherein the input data and eye-tracking data are time-stamped; ([0090], discloses application contextual data…collected data including user input data, eye tracking data with time stamp. [0037], discloses interactive context using different modalities… camera, keyboard, mouse…)
a machine learning model trained on historical user experience data associated with the software application, based on the user's usage patterns over time based on the input data and eye-tracking data; ( [0048], discloses ML/AI model trained using any amount and/or types of data…retaining may be performed. [0044], discloses training ML based previously learned patterns. [0050], see learned pattern …associations to the live data.)
and training the machine learning model based on feedback from the user on the prepared feedback form. ([0051], discloses training an updated model using feedback and updated training data set.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lawrence into the teachings of Kamat to include the limitation disclosed by Lawance. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to using trained machine learning model to predict intended usage to better serve the user as suggested by Lawrence ([0092])
Per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Kamat/Lawrence discloses
wherein the preparing includes pre-populating the feedback form with the suggested responses. (Kamat, [0029], see prepopulating response)
Per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Kamat//Lawrence discloses
wherein the analyzing includes determining a question to modify on a preexisting feedback form, and wherein the preparing includes modifying the preexisting feedback form. (Kamat, [0030], discloses requesting clarification from user appears to corresponds to modifying preexisting feedback form, or prepopulate a different response.)
Per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Kamat/Lawrence discloses
wherein the presenting is performed at a time determined based on a portion of the analyzed data. (Kamat, [0030], see the context for the user’s previous question is no clear appears to show the presenting in real time corresponding to a time determines based on portion of data collected at that moment)
Per claim 21, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Kamat/Lawrence discloses
wherein collecting input data includes inputs submitted by the user from a mouse and from a keyboard communicatively coupled to the device, wherein collecting eye-tracking data is completed by collecting visual data of the user's eyes by a webcam integrated within the device, wherein the visual data is processed into eye-tracking data on the device, wherein the collecting, analyzing, preparing, presenting, and training are completed by the device.( Lawrence, [00159-0160], disclose input device including mouse, keyboard and camera that captures image then convert to eye tracking data, wherein the claimed device can be the generic computer.)
Per claims 8-11 and 22, see rejections of claims 1-4 and 21 respectively.
Per claim 23, see rejections of claim 1.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip Wang whose telephone number is 571-272-5934. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:00AM -4:00PM. Any inquiry of general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC2100 Group receptionist: 571-272-2100.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lewis Bullock, can be reached at 571-272-3759. 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).
/PHILIP WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199