DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission of a response on 5/21/26 has been received and considered. In the response, Applicant amended claims 1, 4, 6 and 8. Therefore, claims 1-8 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, without “significantly more”. The claim recites:
a client for optimizing feedback, comprising: a client processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that, when executed, cause the client processor to: allow a user to enter feedback as part of a dynamic feedback system, where multiple parameters are set or adjusted dynamically; receive data from a server related to the feedback before or during a time when the feedback is entered, the data comprising at least one previous rating, an average rating, a rating trend, information from related feedback, or a combination thereof, and receiving first feedback from the users, where the information from related feedback was evaluated for similarity between information received from one or more of the users and/or a provider of the service; display the received data; and send the feedback to the server.
The claim is directed to a dynamic feedback system with prompts for the users and would read on a feedback system used by a merchant as part of a marketing effort. The recited steps soliciting feedback from the purchaser of a product and providing that feedback to the merchant is a commercial interaction concerning advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Consequently, the invention is directed to an abstract idea that falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity", specifically “Commercial or Legal Interactions (Including Agreements in the form of Contracts; Legal Obligations; Advertising, Marketing, or Sales Activities or Behaviors; Business Relations)”, as discussed in MPEP §2106(a)(2) Parts (I) and (II), and in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because a “server”, “client processor”, “computer readable medium”, are generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
There is no improvement made to computer technology since the claims are directed to collecting, analyzing and displaying customer feedback. This is not related to a long standing problem in computer technology. Additionally, there is no practical application as there is no particular machine that is used to implement the claim language, but instead the claims only generic computer components are used to perform the invention. In addition, there is no transformation of the machine used in the application into a different state or thing. Lastly, the claims do not attempt to apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond simply using the claimed machine.
The claim does not recite additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The receiving, identifying, and generating of data does not indicate that the activity is anything other than a generic computer component performing the task. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate these are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions (See receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)), performing repetitive calculations (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)), electronic recordkeeping (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii)), storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)), determining an estimated outcome and setting a price (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(v)), and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining a price (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(vi)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hudda et al. (pub. no. 20210264507).
Regarding claim 8, Hudda discloses a client for optimizing feedback, comprising: a client processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions (“With reference to FIG. 1, an example embodiment of a high-level client-server-based network architecture 100 is shown. A server system 120, in the example forms of a network-based publication system or payment system, provides server-side functionality via a network 104 (e.g., the Internet or wide area network (WAN)) to one or more client devices 102. FIG. 1 illustrates, for example, a web client 112 (e.g., a browser, such as the Internet Explorer® browser developed by Microsoft® Corporation of Redmond, Wash. State), client application(s) 114, and a programmatic client 116 executing on the client device 102”, [0021])
that, when executed, cause the client processor to: allow a user to enter feedback as part of a dynamic feedback system, where multiple parameters are set or adjusted dynamically (“In accordance with a determination that there are predetermined user feedback questions already associated with the product, the server system (e.g., server system 120 in FIG. 1) selects, in operation 708, one or more of the predetermined user feedback questions based on the amount of user feedback previously received for each user feedback question and the preferences of the user. For example, if the user's preferences indicate that the user values battery life highly when evaluating electronic products, the server system 120 is more likely to select user feedback questions related to battery life.
In some example embodiments, a predetermined number of questions can be displayed simultaneously and only the number of user feedback questions that can be simultaneously displayed are selected.
In some example embodiments, if there are more available questions for a particular product than are needed, the server system (e.g., server system 120 in FIG. 1) selects the user feedback questions that have the fewest received responses. In other example embodiments, the user feedback questions are ranked by topic based on the preferences of the user who purchased the product. For example, if a particular user is price sensitive, user feedback questions associated with the price of a product are ranked more highly than other user feedback questions.
In some example embodiments, user feedback questions are selected based on a determination of the relative importance of the questions in evaluating a product. In some example embodiments, the server system (e.g., the server system 120 in FIG. 1) determines, for each user feedback question, the relative impact the user feedback question has on future user purchase decisions.
For example, the server system (e.g., the server system 120 in FIG. 1) analyzes the purchase trends for cameras to determine which user feedback questions were most predictive of user purchase decisions. It determines that Question A was very important to user purchase decisions for cameras because cameras that scored highly on Question A sold a high number of units while cameras that scored lowly on Question A sold a low number of units. In contract Question B was not important to user purchase decisions because cameras that scored highly on Question B sold at similar levels to cameras that scored lowly on Question B, when controlled for other factors. In this example, Question A would be determined to be more important than Question B.
In other example embodiments, the server system (e.g., the server system 120 in FIG. 1) selects questions that are not considered to have reached consensus. For example, if Question C has a high number of high ratings and a high number of low ratings, but relatively few intermediate ratings, the server system (e.g., the server system 120 in FIG. 1) determines that no consensus has bee3n reached for the question and will prioritize Question C for further feedback”, [0094] – [0099]);
receive data from a server related to the feedback before or during a time when the feedback is entered, the data comprising at least one previous rating, an average rating, a rating trend, information from related feedback, or a combination thereof, and receiving first feedback from the users, where the information from related feedback was evaluated for similarity between information received from one or more of the users and/or a provider of the service; display the received data (“Once the one or more questions have been determined, the network-based commerce system presents the questions to the user as part of a web page generated by the network-based commerce system. Each question has an associated visual feedback image presented as part of a user feedback section of a displayed web page (this user feedback section of a displayed web page may be called an aspect card). In some example embodiments, the visual feedback image is a radial graph (e.g., an annulus that has a base color and a filled in section of another color representing a percentage or amount of the data being represented). In one example embodiment, the radial graph represents the portion of users who like Movie A. Thus, if forty percent of users like movie A the radial graph is an annulus (e.g., a circle with a concentric circle removed from the middle) with forty percent of the circle filled in with the color blue while the rest remains the color white”, [0019]);
and send the feedback to the server (“Once the user responds to the one or more feedback questions by selecting one of the presented possible answers, the client system (at which the one or more feedback questions are displayed) transmits the information back to the network-based commerce system. In some example embodiments, there are two possible answers (e.g., yes or no). In other example embodiments, more than two options are displayed. The network-based commerce system updates feedback information in real-time based on a most recent user answer (e.g., an answer that was just received), and sends an update to the visual feedback image back to the client system for presentation to the user. Thus, the user sees the image update in real time based on the answer selected by the user. In this way, the user is more likely to give feedback”, [0020]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on November 23, 2009 have been fully considered but they are not entirely persuasive.
On pages 6 & 7, Applicant argues that the amended claims to not recite an abstract idea that is a Commercial or Legal interaction. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims would read on a feedback system used by a merchant to encourage feedback from purchases. This appear to be commercial interaction concerning advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors.
On pages 7-9, Applicant argues that the amended claims are integrated into a practical application because they improve a technological improvement because they require "a rating trend based on feedback binned according to a temporal resolution determined by a machine learning algorithm to allow an early detection of a change in cooperation, crowd-wisdom, and/or quality”. Examiner agrees in part. Examiner agrees that such a limitation does integrate the abstract idea into a practical application with respect to claims 1-7. However, there is no such limitation in claim 8 and applicant is arguing an unclaimed limitation.
On pages 9 and 10, Applicant argues that the amended claims are eligible because they constitute significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner agrees in part. Examiner agrees that ML-determined temporal-resolution binning constitutes significantly more with respect to claims 1-7. However, there is no such limitation in claim 8 and applicant is arguing an unclaimed limitation.
On pages 11-17, Applicant argues that the amended claim overcome the prior art of record. Examiner agrees in part. Examiner agrees that claims 1-7 overcome the prior art of record because Hudda & Silverstein fail to disclose ML-determined temporal-resolution binning. However, claim 8 does not contain such a limitation is rejected as being anticipated by Hudda as detailed above.
Conclusion
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 LAWRENCE STEFAN GALKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-9 & 12-5.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/LAWRENCE S GALKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights