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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 08/08/2025.
Claims 1,12, 19 have been amended.
Claims 4, 10, 15, 21 have been canceled.
Claims 1-3,5-9,11-14,16-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 08/08/2025 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claims 1-3,5-9,11-14,16-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argues that “ amended claim 1 recites automatically analyzing, in accordance with an adjusted hierarchy, open-ended user experience survey results with an LLM to create a LLM summary - which are not an abstract idea of mental processes. Moreover, the features are both practically integrated and recite significantly more making them eligible for patent protection. Because claim 1 is eligible for patent protection in accordance with 35 USC § 101, reconsideration of this rejection is respectfully requested. The remaining claims depend from claim 1, or recite similar limitations, and should therefore be allowable for at least the same reasons (page 1 /4)”.
Examiner disagrees. The applicant's argument that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 1 because the steps of (cannot be performed by a human being) is not convincing. The only abstract idea bucket in which performance by a human is required is the "Mental Process" bucket which requires that the steps be capable of being performed in the human mind. The claims of the instant invention have not been identified as a "Mental Process".
Instead the claims of the instant invention have been identified as "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities". The Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines indicate that "advertising, marketing or sales related activities" is a subcategory of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities". There is no requirement that these "advertising, marketing, or sales related activities" be performed by a human being. Therefore, all steps involved in the performance of advertising, marketing or sales related activities are part of the abstract idea itself irrespective of whether they are performed by a computer or performed by a human being. Thus, the applicant's arguments are moot.
Furthermore, automatically analyzing, in accordance with an adjusted hierarchy, open-ended user experience survey results with an LLM to create a LLM summary fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Also, neither the independent claims nor the dependent claims recite an improvement in another technology or technical field nor do they purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as they are seen to be mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer using a processor and a tangible computer readable medium storing a computer program product configured to store instructions.
The additional element of using LLM to create LLM summary does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use.
Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-3,5-9,11-14,16-20 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
With regard to claim 1 rejection under 35 USC § 102: Applicant’s arguments are considered, but they are moot based on new ground of rejection.
With regard to claims 6 and 17 rejection under 35 USC § 102:
Applicant argues that “Applicants have reviewed the cited references and respectfully submit that they do not, taken alone or in combination, disclose or suggest using information from all of these types of channels. This is an additional reason why reconsideration of the rejection of claims 6 and 17 is respectfully requested (page 2/4)”.
Examiner disagrees. BaderEddin, in at least paragprh 37 discloses (the digital experience system can provide prompts from a template of prompts across multiple content experiences. For example, the digital experience system provides prompts from the prompt template across multiple user visits (e.g., sessions) to the content experience. In some embodiments, the digital experience system provides the prompts for the same content experience across different media channels (e.g., via a website and mobile application that provide the content experience). BaderEddin, also in at least paragraph 132 discloses (The digital experience system 104 can employ further media channels to provide prompts, such as electronic messages (e.g., email, instant message, or message boards).
Further more, BaderEddin, in at least paragraph 138 ( the first prompt 610a asks the respondent about recommending the content experience to others (social media). As shown, the digital experience system 104 provides the first prompt 610a as a net promoter score (NPS) prompt that enables the respondent to select a rating between one and ten). Lastly, BaderEddin, in at least paragprh 159, discloses (After the threshold amount of time has elapsed, the digital experience system 104 can provide the notification message to the respondent using alternative media channels, such as push notification, email, text, electronic message, or social media; paragraph 186 (the response feedback is provided to the user via a communication sent to the user, such as an electronic message).
As such the cited reference of BaderEddin, discloses the claimed features. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 6 and 17 over the cited prior art under 35 USC § 102 is maintained.
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 1-3,5-9,11-14,16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The analysis for this determination is explained below:
Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claim(s) 1-3,5-9,11 are directed to a machine (i.e. a system); claim (s) 12-14,16-18 are directed to a process (i.e. a method); claim (s) 19-20 are directed to a manufacture (i.e. a non transitory computer medium).
The claimed invention is directed to at least one judicial exception (i.e a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 for instance recite(s) the following abstract idea of: “ an enterprise product hierarchy data store that contains information about a hierarchy of product nodes, each product node being associated with a user application; and a user experience survey tool, coupled to the enterprise product hierarchy data store, receive from the enterprise an adjustment to the hierarchy of product nodes, store an adjusted hierarchy of product nodes into the enterprise product hierarchy data store, retrieve user experience survey results for a plurality of user applications, automatically aggregate the retrieved user experience survey results in accordance with the adjusted enterprise product hierarchy and an aggregation rule selected by the enterprise, and output to the enterprise an indication of the aggregated user experience survey results ”.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of “ system, a computer processor, and a computer memory”. The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo). Rather, the limitations merely add 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes). When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the additional elements of “ system, a computer processor, and a computer memory”. to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally 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, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraphs 23,25-26, 47 ); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
receive from the enterprise an adjustment to the hierarchy of product nodes,
store an adjusted hierarchy of product nodes into the enterprise product hierarchy data store,
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e. MPEP Step 2B=No). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 12 and 19.
The dependent claims 2-3,5-9,11-14,16-20 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), by adding the additional steps of: automatic aggregation is performed on the basis of single user experience survey answers (claims 2 and 13); automatic aggregation is performed on the basis of unweighted user experience survey results for all user applications below a particular node (claims 3 and 14); wherein the retrieved user experience survey results are associated with at least one of: (i) an existing standard user experience survey contained as a template, (ii) Customer Satisfaction (“CSAT”) data, (iii) Net Promoter Score (“NPS”) data, (iv) Usability Metric for User Experience (“UMUX”) data, (v) System Usability Scale (“SUS”) data, (vi) User Experience Questionnaire (“UEQ”) data, (vii) a customer defined survey, (viii) demographic information, (ix) a user role, and (x) a length of application use (claims 5 and 16); wherein the retrieved user experience survey results are associated with multiple channels, (claims 6 and 17); wherein the indication of the aggregated user experience survey results output to the enterprise includes at least one of: (i) Key Performance Indicators (“KPIs”), (ii) confidence intervals, and (iii) significance indicators (claims 7 and 18); wherein the user experience survey tool is further to perform at least one of: (i) automatically generate a user survey from a template library, and (ii) receive a user experience survey defined by the enterprise (claims 8 and 20); wherein the user experience survey tool interacts with multiple enterprises and is further to automatically generate a user experience survey link and analyze open-ended user experience survey results using Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) algorithms to create a summary (claims 9,11); which is considered part of the abstract idea and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2B=No). Thus, the dependent claims further narrows the abstract idea and/or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent 1, 12 and 19.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-6,8-9, 11-14, 16-17, 19-20 are rejected over BaderEddin, US Pub No: 2020/0218405 A1 in view of Ravichandran, US Pub No: 2019/0244225 A1.
Claims 1,12, 19:
BaderEddin discloses:
an enterprise product hierarchy data store that contains information about a hierarchy of product nodes, each product node being associated with a user application; and a user experience survey tool, coupled to the enterprise product hierarchy data store, including: a computer processor, and a computer memory storing instructions that when executed by the computer processor cause the user experience survey tool to: receive from the enterprise an adjustment to the hierarchy of product nodes, store an adjusted hierarchy of product nodes into the enterprise product hierarchy data store, retrieve user experience survey results for a plurality of user applications, automatically aggregate the retrieved user experience survey results in accordance with the adjusted enterprise product hierarchy and an aggregation rule selected by the enterprise, and output to the enterprise an indication of the aggregated user experience survey results (see at least paragraphs 69-75, 142, 154-155;186; paragraph 70 (FIG. 3A shows a hierarchy structure 304 for a content experience 306 (i.e., The Online Fashion Shop). For purposes of explanation, the content experience 306 is shown as a website having multiple web pages, however, as described above, the content experience can include other types of media channels, such as a mobile application having various interfaces. In addition, while the content experience 306 shows web pages to view and purchase products offered by the content provider, one will appreciate that the principles disclosed herein apply to other types of content experiences (e.g., non-shopping content experiences, digital media experiences, application use, streaming services, and any other type of content experience); paragprh 186 (he series of acts 1000 can also include a number of additional acts. In one or more embodiments, the series of acts 1000 includes the act of modifying the content experience based on the received responses. In addition, the series of acts 1000 can include the act of providing, based on modifying the content experience, response feedback to the user that indicates the modified content experience); paragraph 142 (the digital experience system 104 provides a second prompt 610 b in line with the first product (e.g., the thumbs-up or thumbs-down). Indeed, the digital experience system 104 identifies and provides a prompt to the respondent regarding their opinion of a product, such as the first product. Upon the respondent selecting one of the available answers, the digital experience system 104 can hide the second prompt 610 b and/or provide results of other respondents to the second prompt 610 b (e.g., 78% thumbs-up and 12% thumbs-down); paragraph 154 (FIG. 8B illustrates a second graphical user interface 802 b that includes a notification message 810. The notification message 810 indicates that a product which the respondent previously responded about (e.g., Product X) is in stock. Further, the notification message 810 includes a link 812 to directly navigate the user to a product page for Product X);
BaderEddin does not specifically disclose, but Ravichandran however discloses:
wherein the automatic aggregation is performed on the basis of weighted user experience survey results for all user applications below a particular node and automatically analyzing, in accordance with the adjusted hierarchy, open-ended user experience survey results using an Artificial Intelligence ("AI") Large Language Model ("LLM") to create a LLM summary; and outputting to the enterprise an indication of the aggregated user experience survey results and the LLM summary ( see at least paragraphs 63-66, 77,78, 83-89, 110; paragraph 77 (a neuron in the artificial neural network can include (1) a set of input values and associated weights; and (2) a function that sums the weights and maps the results to an output.); paragraph 78 (the data processing system 202 can use pattern classification, artificial neural networks, perceptron learning, machine learning, or logistic regressions to mine the feedback. The data processing system 202 can use the neural network to perform sentiment analysis. For example, the data processing system can use a word2vec process, vector space model, logistic regression, probabilistic latent semantic analysis, or other machine learning algorithm (i.e. LLM) to determine a sentiment associated with one or more feedback data; paragraph 83 ( The dashboard builder 208 can generate an electronic dashboard that enumerate the feedback into one or more categories. The feedback enumerated into categories by the dashboard builder 208 can be a set of feedback corresponding to a sentiment. For example, the dashboard builder 208 can enumerate negative sentiment feedback into one or more categories. The dashboard builder 208 can enumerate positive sentiment feedback into one or more categories. The dashboard builder 208 can enumerate neutral sentiment feedback into one or more categories. The dashboard builder 208 can generate multiple electronic dashboards for the different sentiment, or allow a user to interactively toggle between different sentiments. The dashboard builder 208 can combine the enumeration of feedback with different sentiments into a single electronic dashboard); (paragraph 110 (The operational block diagram 400 can include collecting customer feedback at block 402. The data processing system can collect customer feedback at block 402. The data processing system can collect the customer feedback from one or more data sources 218a-n. The data sources 218a-n can include, for example, a customer escalation cases databases 218a, emails 220b, social media and public forums 220c, or customer feedback/ratings 220d. These can collectively be referred to as data sources 218a-n (or data sources 218). The data processing system can receive feedback data from data sources 218a-n. The data processing system can request data from one or more of the data sources 218a-n, crawl one or more of the data sources 218a-n, query one or more of the data sources 218a-n, or poll one or more of the data sources 218a-n. The data processing system can receive or otherwise obtain the data from the data sources 218a-n at the same time, substantially the same time, synchronously, asynchronously, or as feedback at a data source 218a-n becomes available); paragraph 120 ( the data processing system can include generate the electronic dashboard to be interactive. For example, the interactive component can include a multiple drill down reports for a category, such as the sentiment breakdown 418);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of BaderEddin’s digital experiences using touch point -based prompts with Ravichandran teaching of data analytics for international product quality and user experience in order to efficiently and accurately collecting and analyzing product/ service customer satisfaction and hence increase productivity and marketability.
Claims 2,13:
The combination of BaderEddin/ Ravichandran teaches the limitations as shown above.
BaderEddin further discloses:
automatic aggregation is performed on the basis of single user experience survey answers ( see at least paraphs 3-9, 11, 29, 41, paragraph 11 (the system generates and provides custom prompts (e.g., electronic survey questions) based on monitoring a user's journey through a digital content experience and detecting that the user interacts with one or more separately triggered touchpoints within the digital content experience ); paragraph 29 (the digital experience system provides a prompt (e.g., an electronic survey question) to a user); paragprh 41 (when the digital experience system modifies the content experience based on multiple users providing the same feedback, the digital experience system can consolidate the feedback to a single actionable item (e.g., a customer service ticket);
Claims 3,14:
The combination of BaderEddin/ Ravichandran teaches the limitations as shown above.
BaderEddin further discloses:
automatic aggregation is performed on the basis of unweighted user experience survey results for all user applications below a particular node ( see at least paragraph 31 (one or more users can provide feedback regarding a potential improvement they would like to see changed regarding the content experience);
Claims 5,16:
The combination of BaderEddin/ Ravichandran teaches the limitations as shown above.
BaderEddin further discloses:
wherein the retrieved user experience survey results are associated with at least one of: (i) an existing standard user experience survey contained as a template, (ii) Customer Satisfaction (“CSAT”) data, (iii) Net Promoter Score (“NPS”) data, (iv) Usability Metric for User Experience (“UMUX”) data, (v) System Usability Scale (“SUS”) data, (vi) User Experience Questionnaire (“UEQ”) data, (vii) a customer defined survey, (viii) demographic information, (ix) a user role, and (x) a length of application use (see at least paragraphs 29, 33,41, 144, paragraph 33 (the digital experience system can associate a prompt to a touchpoint from a template of prompts (e.g., list of survey questions); paragraph 41 (when the digital experience system modifies the content experience based on multiple users providing the same feedback, the digital experience system can consolidate the feedback to a single actionable item (e.g., a customer service ticket);
Claims 6,17:
The combination of BaderEddin/ Ravichandran teaches the limitations as shown above.
BaderEddin further discloses:
wherein the retrieved user experience survey results are associated with multiple channels ( see at least paragraphs 31, 37, 93, paragraph 31 (the digital experience system provides notifications to the users via other media channels regarding the updated content experience. In this manner, users of the content experience receive validation for the feedback they provide); paragprh 37 (the digital experience system can provide prompts from a template of prompts across multiple content experiences. For example, the digital experience system provides prompts from the prompt template across multiple user visits (e.g., sessions) to the content experience. In some embodiments, the digital experience system provides the prompts for the same content experience across different media channels (e.g., via a website and mobile application that provide the content experience); paragraph 132 (The digital experience system 104 can employ further media channels to provide prompts, such as electronic messages (e.g., email, instant message, or message boards); paragraph 138 ( the first prompt 610a asks the respondent about recommending the content experience to others (social media). As shown, the digital experience system 104 provides the first prompt 610a as a net promoter score (NPS) prompt that enables the respondent to select a rating between one and ten); paragprh 159, discloses (After the threshold amount of time has elapsed, the digital experience system 104 can provide the notification message to the respondent using alternative media channels, such as push notification, email, text, electronic message, or social media; paragraph 186 (the response feedback is provided to the user via a communication sent to the user, such as an electronic message);
Claims 8,20:
The combination of BaderEddin/ Ravichandran teaches the limitations as shown above.
BaderEddin further discloses:
wherein the user experience survey tool is further to perform at least one of: (i) automatically generate a user survey from a template library, and (ii) receive a user experience survey defined by the enterprise ( see at least paragraph 33 (the digital experience system can associate a prompt to a touchpoint from a template of prompts (e.g., list of survey questions); paragraph 41 (when the digital experience system modifies the content experience based on multiple users providing the same feedback, the digital experience system can consolidate the feedback to a single actionable item (e.g., a customer service ticket);
Claims 7, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over BaderEddin, US Pub No: 2020/0218405 A1 in view of Ravichandran, US Pub No: 2019/0244225 A1 in view of Basu et al, US Pat No: 8,738,425 B1.
Claims 7 and 18:
The combination of BaderEddin/ Ravichandran teaches the limitations as shown above.
BaderEddin further discloses:
wherein the indication of the aggregated user experience survey results output to the enterprise paragraph 142 (the digital experience system 104 provides a second prompt 610 b in line with the first product (e.g., the thumbs-up or thumbs-down). Indeed, the digital experience system 104 identifies and provides a prompt to the respondent regarding their opinion of a product, such as the first product. Upon the respondent selecting one of the available answers, the digital experience system 104 can hide the second prompt 610 b and/or provide results of other respondents to the second prompt 610 b (e.g., 78% thumbs-up and 12% thumbs-down);
the combination of BaderEddin/ Ravichandran does not specifically disclose, but Basu however discloses,
survey includes at least one of: (i) Key Performance Indicators (“KPIs”), (ii) confidence intervals, and (iii) significance indicators ( see at least column 12, lines 63-67 ((A) Customer Experience & Loyalty KPIs--Such are KPIs whose values are obtained from the customer feedback (i.e., email survey) system. The email survey for such a Technical Support Call Center provides the customers with a scale system (such as 9-point, 5-point, 3-point) to respond to the questions in this group. These KPIs are typically categorical (ordinal) response variables in nature);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of BaderEddin’s/ Ravichandran digital experiences using touch point -based prompts with Basu’s teaching for processing analyzing or displaying data related to performance metrics in order to provide a system for business to manage their business processes carefully at different time intervals and hence increase productivity and marketability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Kruclick, US Pub no: 2015/0369705 A1, teaches device telemetry for user experience predictions .
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 files within TWO MONTHS from 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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [ Mon-Thursday 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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 Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622