DETAILED
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
Introduction
The following is a final office action in response to the communications received on April 22, 2026. Claims 1, 4, 11, 12 and 18 have been amended, claims 3, 5 and 21 have been canceled, and claims 22-23 have been added.
Currently, claims 1-2, 4, 6-20 and 22-23 are pending, and claims 1, 12 and 18 are independent.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection in this Office Action.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection to claim 18 as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-2, 4, 6-20 and 22-23 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1-20 is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed on April 22, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 11, Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that none of the recited claim limitations fall within one or the three groups of abstract ideas, thus, the claims are not directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea as alleged by the Office.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Taking claim 18 for example, the claim recites limitations, at least in part, “asking the consumer to provide an overall rating of experience with the good or service, receiving the consumer’s response, analyzing the text of said response to identify the presence of the user-defined entity or user-defined attribute, parsing the response to generate a parse tree, identifying a subject, object, and verb from the parse tree to form a subject-verb-object representation, and determining whether the user-defined entity present in the text corresponds to the user-defined attribute”, are forms of fundamental economic practices for the purpose to “study the behavior of group of people and in particular to understand consumer preferences and consumer satisfaction with the goods and services of a business and industry” (see ¶ 19). The Specification also describes that “One purpose of consumer surveys is to gather data on attributes, impressions, opinions, satisfaction level, etc. by polling a section of consumers in order to gauge consumer satisfaction; Data used to ascertain customer satisfaction can be obtained from multiple disparate data sources, including in-store consumer surveys, post-sale online surveys, voice surveys, comment cards, social media, imported CRM data, and broader open market consumer polling, for example. Several factors are included in determining a composite score or numerical representation of customer satisfaction.” (See ¶ 15-16). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity. Further, the claim encompasses a person can perform the steps: asking the consumer survey to provide an overall rating, analyzing/parsing the response, and determining whether the user-defined entity present in the text corresponds to the user-defined attribute, in the mind or by a human using a pen and paper, which is an abstract idea that falls within the mental processing grouping.
Although the claim recites the method under control of one or more computer systems, storing a set of user-defined entities and a set of user-defined attributes in a data storage, and a processor for executing instructions stored in a memory. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. However, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).
In the Remarks on page 13, Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that even assuming for the pure sake of argument that a limitation recited in a currently pending claim is directed to an abstract idea under revised Step 2A – Prong One, the subject matter of the pending claims is integrated into a practical application and, thus, eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for a claim to integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claimed elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See Revised 2019 Guidance. Here, claim 18 recites the additional elements of “one or more computer systems”, “a data storage” for storing a set of user-defined entities and a set of user-defined attributes, and “a processor” for executing instructions stored in “a memory”. The specification describes that “The processor is configured to execute one or more software applications to control the operation of the various modules of the server. The processor is also configured to access the internal memory of the server or the external storage to read and/or store data. The processor may be any conventional general purpose single or multi-chip processor as is known in the art.” (see ¶ 67). These computer components are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. The additional elements, whether taken individually or in an order of combination including executing instructions, asking the consumer, receiving the consumer’s response, analyzing the response and parsing the response, do not reflect any improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, or another technology or technical field. Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea with the generic computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims merely adapts the abstract idea to an execution of steps performed by a processor. See Credit Acceptance, 859 F.3d at 1055 ("The courts have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.").
In the Remarks on page 15, Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the pending claims recite “improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technological field,” where the “any other technology or technological field” is the technological field of computer-administered consumer survey analysis using natural language processing.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Using natural language processing for consumer survey analysis is merely adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Analyzes the text of a response and parses the text of the response do not reflect any improvement to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Similarly, using natural language processing to perform such task may improve the speed and efficiency of consumer survey analysis, but no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. “The focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computer as tools.” FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the Remarks on page 16, Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the amended claims are similar to Diehr, the pending claims recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the alleged judicial exception. For example, amended claim 1 recites, in part: (1) a consumer response module that “parses the response to generate a parse tree, identifies a subject, object, and verb from the parse tree to form a subject-verb-object representation…; (2) “wherein if the consumer response module determines that a user-defined entity is located in the response and an attribute corresponding to the user-defined entity is not located in the response…generates a follow-up prompt prompting the consumer to provide additional information regarding the located entity.”
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant does not adequately explain how, parses the response to generate a parse tree, identifying a subject, object and verb from the parse tree to form a subject-verb-object representation, and generating a follow-up prompt prompting the consumer to provide additional information, is similar to controlling a physical process, like the rubber molding process in Diehr.
The claims in Diehr were directed to a process for curing synthetic rubber, and recited a series of steps (e.g., the loading of a molding press with raw, uncured rubber, closing the press, constantly determining the mold temperature, constantly recalculating the cure time, and automatically opening the press at the proper time) that together provided a significant and novel practical application of the well-known Arrhenius equation, and transformed uncured synthetic rubber into a new state or thing. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184–87. In contrast, Applicant’s invention aims to solve an entrepreneurial problem—conducting consumer survey by asking the consumer to answer at least one open-end question about their overall experience with respect to a particular good or service. Claim 1 does not involve any “physical and chemical process,” and does not involve the “transformation of an article . . . into a different state or thing.”, but rather use the existing technologies to perform the abstract idea. The Supreme court has repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Bancorp Services, L.L. C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer "employed only for its most basic function ... does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.").
In the Remarks on page 17, Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that even assuming for the pure sake of argument that the pending claims are directed to an abstract idea as alleged by the Office without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, the pending claims clearly recite “significantly more” than a mere abstract idea.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Step 2B is to determine whether any “inventive concept” which can transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The “inventive concept” may arise in one or more of the individual claim limitations or in the ordered combination of the limitations. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. An “inventive concept” that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer. Id. at 2358.
In the present case, beyond the abstract idea, the claim recites the additional elements of “one or more computer systems”, “a data storage” for storing a set of user-defined entities and a set of user-defined attributes, and “a processor” for executing instructions stored in “a memory”. The specification describes that “The processor is configured to execute one or more software applications to control the operation of the various modules of the server. The processor is also configured to access the internal memory of the server or the external storage to read and/or store data. The processor may be any conventional general purpose single or multi-chip processor as is known in the art.” (see ¶ 67). These computer components are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. However, these steps have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Therefore, the additional elements, whether taken alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In the Remarks on page 18-19, Applicant argues that the references, individually and in combination, fail to teach or suggest the features of “wherein the consumer response module parses the response to generate a parse tree, identifies a subject, object, and verb from the parse tree to form a subject-verb-object representation, applies a domain-specific linguistic taxonomy to the subject-verb-object representation, and derives a sentiment therefrom.” However, Applicant’s argument is directed to the newly amended claims, and therefore, the newly amended claims will be fully addressed in this Office Action.
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 1-2, 4, 6-20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Here, claims 1-2, 4, 6-11 and 22 are directed to a system comprising a processor and a memory, which falls within the statutory category of a machine; claims 12-17 are directed to a system comprising a processor and a memory, which falls within the statutory category of a machine; claims 18-20 and 23 are directed to a method for conducting real-time dynamic consumer surveys, which falls within the statutory category of a process.
In Step 2A of Alice, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking the method as representative, claim 18 recites a method for conducting real-time dynamic consumer surveys. More specifically, the claims recite the limitations of “providing a set of user-defined entities of interest related to a good or service stored in a data storage, providing a set of user-defined attributes of interest related to a good or service, providing a processor coupled to the data storage, asking the consumer to provide an overall rating of experience with the good or service and providing an open-ended prompt to the consumer of the specific good or service regarding the consumers experience with good or service, receiving the consumer’s response, analyzing the text of said response to the open-ended prompt to identify the presence of the user-defined entity, parsing the response to generate a parse tree, identifying a subject, object, and verb from the parse tree to form a subject-verb-objection representation, applying a domain-specific linguistic taxonomy to the subject-verb-object representation, deriving a sentiment therefrom, and determining whether the user-defined entity present in the text corresponds to the user-defined attribute, evaluating the linguistic connectivity between the user-defined entity and the user-defined attribute, determining the subject object, and verb of the consumer response, evaluating the linguistic connectivity between the user-defined entity and the user-defined attribute”. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are methods that allow a user to conduct customer surveys regarding the consumer related to a good or service, which fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity including fundamental economic principles, commercial interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See Under the 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. The mere nominal recitation of “under control of one or more computer systems”, “providing a processor” and “a memory device” do not take the claims out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping and mental processes grouping. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and the analysis proceed to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite the additional elements of “under control of one or more computer systems”, “a data storage”, “a memory device storing instructions”, and “executed by the processor”. While providing a processor is part of the abstract idea (allocating resource), and merely reciting under control of one or more computer systems in the preamble does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2111.02. Here, the memory device including instructions and executed by the processor are no more than generic computer components. The specification describes that “The processor is configured to execute one or more software applications to control the operation of the various modules of the server. The processor is also configured to access the internal memory of the server or the external storage to read and/or store data. The processor may be any conventional general purpose single or multi-chip processor as is known in the art.” (see ¶ 67). These computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. The additional elements, whether taken individually or in an order of combination, do not reflect any improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, or another technology or technical field. Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea with the generic computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims merely adapts the abstract idea to an execution of steps performed by a processor. See Credit Acceptance, 859 F.3d at 1055 ("The courts have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology."); see also Bancorp Services, L.L. C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer "employed only for its most basic function ... does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."). Accordingly, the claims as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis proceed to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite the additional elements of “under control of one or more computer systems”, “providing a processor”, “a memory device including instructions”, and “executed by the processor”. While providing a processor is part of the abstract idea (allocating resource), and merely reciting under control of one or more computer systems in the preamble does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2111.02. Here, the memory device including instructions and executed by the processor are no more than generic computer components. The specification describes that “The processor is configured to execute one or more software applications to control the operation of the various modules of the server. The processor is also configured to access the internal memory of the server or the external storage to read and/or store data. The processor may be any conventional general purpose single or multi-chip processor as is known in the art.” (see ¶ 67). These computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. However, these steps have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Therefore, the additional elements, whether taken alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05.
For the foregoing reasons, claims 18-20 and 23 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under §101 as discussed above, the other claims 1-2, 4, 6-11, 12-17 and 22 parallel claims 18-20 and 23—similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 6-12 and 14-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Luchene (US 2007/0192166), and in view of Tadashi Mimura (JP 3291966 B2, hereinafter: Tadashi), and further in view of Aarskog, (US 8265925 B2).
Regarding 1, Van Luchene discloses a system for administering real-time dynamic consumer surveys (see ¶ 315), the system under control of one or more computer systems configured with executable instructions, comprising:
a user-defined data storage containing a user-defined list of entities (see Abstract; ¶ 142, ¶ 168-170, ¶ 267, and ¶ 303-308);
a user-defined data storage containing a user-defined list of attributes (see Abstract; ¶ 79-83, ¶ 101, ¶ 196, and ¶ 315);
a user-defined data storage containing user-defined entities corresponding to individual attributes in the user-defined list of attributes (see ¶ 78-81, and ¶ 310-312);
a user-defined data storage containing user-defined attributes corresponding to individual entities in the user-defined list of entities (see ¶ 78-81, and ¶ 310-312);
a processor (See ¶ 53-54);
a memory device including instructions that, when executed by the processor (see ¶ 54, ¶ 61), causes the processor to execute:
a prompt generation module that provides prompt over a network to a consumer of the specific good or service located remotely from the processor, the prompt being directed to the consumer’s experience with said good or service (See ¶¶ 85, 100, 315 and ¶ 654);
a consumer response module that (i) analyzes the text of a response received from the consumer to the prompt (see ¶ 267, ¶ 310 and ¶ 610), (ii) parses the text of the response into component parts (see ¶ 196, ¶ 199-201 and ¶ 494), (iii) accesses the user-defined data storage containing a user-defined list of entities to determine if any component parts of the text of the response correspond to any of the list of entities (see ¶ 52, ¶ 142 and ¶ 315), and (iv) accesses the user-defined data storage containing a user-defined list of attributes to determine if any component parts of the text of the response correspond to any of the list of attributes (See ¶ 101, ¶ 477 and ¶ 315);
wherein if the consumer response module determines that a user-defined attribute is located in the response, the consumer response module accesses the data storage containing user-defined entities corresponding to individual attributes to determine if an entity corresponding to the located user-defined attribute is present in the response (see ¶ 65-71, ¶ 105-108, ¶ 121-122, ¶ 196, ¶ 487 and ¶ 730-734);
wherein if the consumer response module determines that a user-defined entity is located in the response, the consumer response module accesses the data storage containing user-defined attributes corresponding to individual entities to determine if an attribute corresponding to the located user-defined entity is present in the response (see ¶ 65-71, ¶ 121-122, ¶ 144-148, ¶ 196, ¶ 315, ¶ 487 and ¶ 676);
wherein if the consumer response module determines that a user-defined attribute is located in the response and an entity corresponding to the user-defined attribute is not located in the response, a prompt follow-up module generates a follow-up prompt prompting the consumer to provide additional information regarding the located attribute (see ¶ 65-71, ¶ 121-122, ¶ 144-148, ¶ 166, ¶ 196, ¶ 315, ¶ 487 and ¶ 676); and
wherein if the consumer response module determines that a user-defined entity is located in the response and an attribute corresponding to the user-defined entity is not located in the response, the prompt follow-up module generates a follow-up prompt prompting the consumer to provide additional information regarding the located entity (see ¶ 65-71, ¶ 121-122, ¶ 144-148, ¶ 166, ¶ 196, ¶ 315, ¶ 487 and ¶ 676).
Van Luchene discloses a database or repository contains information about an end user’s previous search activity; and a number of database such as, survey database may be used to maintain and track survey question, survey answers, such as questions associated with Hyundai dealer and answers corresponding to the questions (see ¶ 77-83, and ¶ 86).
Van Luchene does not explicitly disclose a user-defined data storage for storing the various data; however, Tadashi in an analogous art for presenting user-defined data discloses
a user-defined data storage for storing user-defined data (see pg. 3, ¶ 2; pg. 24, claim 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Van Luchene to include the teaching of Tadashi in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for data management, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Van Luchene and Tadashi do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Aarskog in an analogous art for textual exploration discloses
wherein the consumer response module parses the response to generate a parse tress, identifies a subject, object, and verb from the parse tree to form a subject-verb-object representation, applies a domain-specific linguistic taxonomy to the subject-verb-object representation, and derives a sentiment therefrom (see col. 11, line 63 to col. 12, line 13; col. 38, lines 38-44; col. 42, lines 23-58; col. 42, lines 1-22, col. 84, lines 3-17; col. 85, lines 12-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Van Luchene and in view of Tadashi to include the teaching of Aarskog in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, and in turn operational efficiency. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding 2, Van Luchene discloses the system of claim 1, wherein if the consumer response contains both a user-defined entity and a user-defined attribute, the consumer response module analyzes the consumer response to assess linguistic connectivity between the attribute and the entity (see ¶ 48-49, ¶ 103, ¶ 168, ¶ 188, ¶ 311, ¶ 317).
Regarding 6, Van Luchene discloses the system of claim 1, wherein if the consumer response module locates a user-defined attribute, the prompt follow-up module generates a closed-ended question directed to a located attribute (see ¶ 66, ¶ 107, ¶ 165-166, ¶ 196).
Regarding 7, Van Luchene discloses the system of claim 1, wherein if the consumer response module locates a user-defined entity, the prompt follow-up module generates a closed-ended question directed to a located entity (see ¶ 84, ¶ 165-166).
Regarding 8, Van Luchene discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the closed-ended question comprises a request to rate consumer sentiment with respect to the located attribute (see ¶ 105, ¶ 109, ¶ 116-117).
Regarding 9, Van Luchene discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the closed-ended question comprises a request to rate consumer sentiment with respect to the located entity (see ¶ 105, ¶ 109, ¶ 116-117).
Regarding 10, Van Luchene discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising the step of providing a plurality of icons on a computer display of the consumer, each icon corresponding to a user-defined topic of interest corresponding to the consumer’s experience with the specific goods or services, wherein if the consumer response module determines that an entity/attribute pair is present in the consumer response, the consumer response module determines if the entity/attribute pair corresponds to one of the user-defined topics corresponding to one of the plurality of icons (see ¶ 76, ¶ 100, ¶ 109, ¶ 128).
Regarding 11, Van Luchene discloses the system of claim 10, wherein if the consumer response module determines that an entity/attribute pair corresponding to one of the user-defined topics corresponding to one of the plurality of icons is present in the response, the consumer response module causes the visual appearance of the icon corresponding to said user-defined topic to be modified (see ¶ 26, ¶ 115, ¶ 146, ¶ 185, ¶ 270-271).
Regarding 12, Van Luchene discloses a system for administering real-time dynamic consumer surveys (see ¶ 315), the system under control of one or more computer systems configured with executable instructions, comprising:
one or more user-defined data storage units containing a user-defined list of entities (see Abstract; ¶ 142, ¶ 168-170, ¶ 267, and ¶ 303-308), a user-defined list of attributes (see Abstract; ¶ 79-83, ¶ 101, ¶ 196, and ¶ 315), a user-defined data storage containing user-defined entities corresponding to individual attributes in the user-defined list of attributes (see ¶ 78-81, and ¶ 310-312), and a user-defined data storage containing user-defined attributes corresponding to individual entities in the user-defined list of entities (see ¶ 78-81, and ¶ 310-312);
a processor coupled to the user-defined storage units (See ¶ 53-54);
a memory device including instructions that, when executed by the processor (see ¶ 54, ¶ 61), causes the processor to execute:
(a) a closed-ended question generation module that provides a closed-ended question over a network to a consumer of a specific good or service located remotely from the processor, the closed-ended question being directed to a user-defined topic related to the consumer’s experience with the specific good or service (see ¶ 66, ¶ 107, ¶ 165-166, ¶ 196);
(b) an open-ended question generation module that provides an open-ended question over the network to the consumer of the specific good or service, the open-ended question being directed to the consumer’s experience with said good or service (see ¶ 120, ¶ 165-167);
(c) a consumer response module that (i) analyzes the text of a response received from the consumer to the open-ended question (see ¶ 267, ¶ 310 and ¶ 610), (ii) parses the text of the response into component parts (see ¶ 196, ¶ 199-201 and ¶ 494), (iii) accesses the user-defined data storage unit containing the user-defined list of entities to determine if any component parts of the text of the response correspond to any of the list of entities (see ¶ 52, ¶ 142 and ¶ 315), and (iv) accesses the user-defined data storage containing the user-defined list of attributes to determine if any component parts of the text of the response correspond to any of the list of attributes (see ¶ 52, ¶ 101, ¶ 477 and ¶ 315);
(d) wherein the consumer response module determines if a user-defined entity or a user-defined attribute are present in the response (see ¶ 65-71, ¶ 105-108, ¶ 121-122, ¶ 196, ¶ 487 and ¶ 730-734); and
(e) wherein if the consumer response module fails to locate a user-defined entity or a user-defined attribute, a question follow-up module provides an open-ended question to the consumer directed to the user-defined topic used in the closed-ended question (see ¶ 65-71, ¶ 121-122, ¶ 144-148, ¶ 196, ¶ 315, ¶ 487 and ¶ 676).
Van Luchene and Tadashi do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Aarskog in an analogous art for textual exploration discloses
wherein the consumer response module parses the response to generate a parse tress, identifies a subject, object, and verb from the parse tree to form a subject-verb-object representation, applies a domain-specific linguistic taxonomy to the subject-verb-object representation, and derives a sentiment therefrom (see col. 11, line 63 to col. 12, line 13; col. 38, lines 38-44; col. 42, lines 23-58; col. 42, lines 1-22, col. 84, lines 3-17; col. 85, lines 12-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Van Luchene and in view of Tadashi to include the teaching of Aarskog in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, and in turn operational efficiency. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding 14, Van Luchene discloses the system of claim 12, following the open-ended follow-up question in element (d), if the consumer response module determines that a user-defined attribute is located in the response, the consumer response module accesses the data storage unit containing user-defined entities corresponding to individual attributes to determine if an entity corresponding to the located user-defined attribute is present in the response (see ¶ 65-71, ¶ 105-108, ¶ 121-122, ¶ 196, ¶ 487 and ¶ 730-734);
if the consumer response module determines that a user-defined entity is located in the response, the consumer response module accesses the data storage unit containing user-defined attributes corresponding to individual entities to determine if an attribute corresponding to the located user-defined entity is present in the response (see ¶ 65-71, ¶ 105, ¶ 121-122, ¶ 133-135, ¶ 196, ¶ 267 and ¶ 424);
if the consumer response module determines that a user-defined attribute is located in the response and an entity corresponding to the user-defined attribute is not located in the response, a question follow-up module generates a follow-up question prompting the consumer to provide additional information regarding the located attribute (see ¶ 65-72, ¶ 105-106, ¶ 196, ¶ 487 and ¶ 491); and
if the consumer response module determines that a user-defined entity is located in the response and an attribute corresponding to the user-defined entity is not located in the response, a question follow-up module generates a follow-up question prompting the consumer to provide additional information regarding the located entity (see ¶ 65-71, ¶ 105, ¶ 121-122, ¶ 133-139, ¶ 196, ¶ 267 and ¶ 424).
Regarding 15, Van Luchene discloses the system of claim 14, wherein a plurality of terms within the user-defined data storage units are tagged as yielding insufficient information to the user of the system (see ¶ 318-321 and ¶ 482-483).
Regarding 16, Van Luchene discloses the system of claim 15, wherein if the consumer response module determines that a tagged term is located within the text of the response, the question follow-up module provides a follow-up question prompting the consumer to provide additional information with respect to the tagged term (see ¶ 65, ¶ 196, ¶ 424 and ¶482).
Regarding 17, Van Luchene discloses the system of claim 16, wherein, the follow-up question prompting the consumer to provide additional information with respect to the tagged term comprises a located attribute or entity and the tagged term (see ¶ 65 and ¶ 482).
Regarding 18, Van Luchene discloses a method for conducting real-time dynamic consumer surveys (see ¶ 315), the method under control of one or more computer systems, comprising:
providing a set of user-defined entities of interest related to a good or service stored in a data storage (see Abstract; ¶ 142, ¶ 168-170, ¶ 267, and ¶ 303-308);
providing a set of user-defined attributes of interest related to a good or service stored in a data storage (see Abstract; ¶ 79-83, ¶ 101, ¶ 196, and ¶ 315);
providing a processor coupled to the data storage (See ¶ 53-54);
executing, by the processor (see ¶ 54, ¶ 61), instruction stored in a memory device, the instructions causing the processor to perform:
(a) beginning a consumer survey by asking the consumer to provide an overall rating of experience with the good or service and providing an open-ended prompt to the consumer of the specific good or service regarding the consumers experience with said good or service (see ¶ 150, ¶ 490, ¶ 653-654, ¶ 695);
(b) receiving the consumer’s response to said open-ended prompt (see Fig. 5; ¶ 311, ¶ 424);
(c) analyzing the text of said response to the open-ended prompt to identify the presence of the user-defined entity or user-defined attribute (see ¶ 267, ¶ 310, ¶ 312, ¶ 610); and
(e) determining whether the user-defined entity present in the text corresponds to the user-defined attribute (see ¶ 148, ¶ 312, ¶ 315, ¶ 610).
Van Luchene and Tadashi do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Aarskog in an analogous art for textual exploration discloses
(d) parsing the response to generate a parse tress, identifying a subject, object, and verb from the parse tree to form a subject-verb-object representation, applying a domain-specific linguistic taxonomy to the subject-verb-object representation, and deriving a sentiment therefrom (see col. 11, line 63 to col. 12, line 13; col. 38, lines 38-44; col. 42, lines 23-58; col. 42, lines 1-22, col. 84, lines 3-17; col. 85, lines 12-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Van Luchene and in view of Tadashi to include the teaching of Aarskog in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, and in turn operational efficiency. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding 19, Van Luchene discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the step of determining whether the user-defined entity present in the text corresponds to the user-defined attribute comprises evaluating the linguistic connectivity between the user-defined entity and the user-defined attribute (see ¶ 48-49, ¶ 103, ¶ 168, ¶ 188, ¶ 311, ¶ 317).
Regarding 20, Van Luchene discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the step of evaluating the linguistic connectivity of the user-defined entity and the user-defined attribute comprises a determination of a verb-phrase within the text of the response (see ¶ 124, ¶ 128).
Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Luchene and in view of Tadashi and Aarskog as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-12 and 14-20 above, and further in view of Bandholz et al., (US 2010/0318536, hereinafter: Bandholz).
Regarding 4, Van Luchene, Tadashi and Aarskog do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Bandholz discloses system of claim 2, wherein the consumer response module analyzes the consumer response and parses the response into component parts to identify an adjective in the response (see Abstract, ¶ 22, ¶ 34-35, claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Van Luchene and in view of Tadashi and Aarskog to include the teaching of Bandholz in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional layer of analysis, resulting in more focused solution, enabling better decision making. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 13 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Luchene and in view of Tadashi and Aarskog as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-12 and 14-20 above, and further in view of Chase (US 2004/0230659).
Regarding 13, Van Luchene discloses the user may entering his request via a keyboard in to a browser (see ¶ 143).
Van Luchene, Tadashi and Aarskog do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Chase discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the consumer response module is configured to detect the time between consumer keystroke’s and to analyze the text of the consumer’s response to the open-ended question only after a predetermined period of time has passed from the consumer’s last keystroke (See at least Chase ¶ 165 detect a plurality of different keystroke actions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Van Luchene and in view of Tadashi and Aarskog to include the teaching of Chase in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional layer of data analysis, resulting in more focused solution, enabling better decision making. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Luchene and in view of Tadashi and Aarskog as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-12 and 14-20 above, and further in view of Brun (US 2012/0245924).
Regarding 22, Van Luchene, Tadashi and Aarskog do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Brun in an analogous art for customer review discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system displays a comment-strength indicator on a user interface of the consumer that visually changes based on whether the response includes at least one entity/attribute pair, and wherein a submission control for finalizing the response is disabled until the comment-strength indicator indicates detection of the entity/attribute pair (see Fig. 2; (30-31, ¶ 99). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Van Luchene and in view of Tadashi and Aarskog to include the teaching of Brun in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more visualized presentation, enabling better decision making. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding 23, Van Luchene, Tadashi and Aarskog do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Brun discloses the method of claim 18, wherein a comment-strength indicator is displayed on a user interface of the consumer that visually changes based on whether the response includes at least one entity/attribute pair, and wherein a submission control for finalizing the response is disabled until the comment-strength indicator indicates detection of the entity/attribute pair (see Fig. 2; (30-31, ¶ 99). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Van Luchene and in view of Tadashi and Aarskog to include the teaching of Brun in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more visualized presentation, enabling better decision making. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Marsico et al., (US 2013/0048710) discloses a system for surveying a user using a scan-able information encoded graphic image for collecting, processing and reporting survey data.
Corston et al., (JP 2010079915) discloses a system for processing textual input using natural language processing technique.
Parker et al., (US 2002/0052774) discloses a method for conducting survey including receiving and analyzing survey responses to determine market performance.
Boe et al., (US 2012/0109711) discloses a method for profiling customers for targeted marketing using an on-line interaction between a customer and a survey system.
Anderson (US 2010/0023380 A1) discloses a method for analyzing customer satisfaction data generated on the basis of on-line surveys through application of a questionnaire to visitors of a web site.
Schmitt, “Experience Marketing: Concepts, Frameworks and Consumer Insights”, Foundations and Trends in Marketing, Vol. 5., No. 2 (2010) 55-122.
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 PAN G CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached on 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights