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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 11 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim limitation(s)
“means for receiving user data” in Claim 20
“means for generating an input data structure” in Claim 20
“means for executing an improvement tool data determination model” in Claim 20
“means for generating … an improvement tool data presentation element” in Claim 20
“means for presenting … the improvement tool data presentation element” in Claim 20
Invoke(s) 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant's specification does not provide adequate structure for the limitations recited to perform the above actions Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed toward abstract ideas without significantly more.
Step 1 analysis:
Independent Claim 1 recites, in part, a method, therefore falling into the statutory category of process. Independent Claim 8 recites, in part, a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, therefore falling into the statutory category of manufacture. Independent Claim 14 recites, in part, a system comprising one or more processors and a non-transitory memory storing computer-executable instructions, therefore falling into the statutory category of manufacture. Independent Claim 20 recites, in part, a system for determining improvement tool recommendation data, therefore falling into the statutory category of machine.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 1 recites in part:
“generating an input data structure based on the user data”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses organizing data.
“wherein the improvement tool data determination component is configured to determine and provide, in the improvement tool data output, based at least in part on the subjective user data, the communications channel data, and the timing data, a communications channel, a time window, and an improvement tool”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a communication channel, a time window, and an output based on input data.
“generating based at least in part on the communications channel and the improvement tool, an improvement tool data presentation element comprising an indication of the improvement tool”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses creating a visualization of a given improvement.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“receiving, by an improvement tool data determination system, user data comprising: subjective user data associated with a user, communications channel data associated with the user, and timing data associated with the user”. This additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
“by the improvement tool data determination system”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (improvement determination system) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“executing an improvement tool data determination component using the input data structure as input to generate improvement tool data output”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (improvement determination system) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“presenting based at least in part on the time window, the improvement tool data presentation element on a computing device”. This additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. post-solution activity of outputting/displaying data for use in the claimed process.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “receiving, by an improvement tool data determination system, user data comprising: subjective user data associated with a user, communications channel data associated with the user, and timing data associated with the user” is/are recited at a high level of generality and amount(s) to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “by the improvement tool data determination system” and “executing an improvement tool data determination component using the input data structure as input to generate improvement tool data output” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (improvement determination system) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element(s) of “presenting based at least in part on the time window, the improvement tool data presentation element on a computing device” is/are recited at a high level of generality and amount(s) to extra solution activity because it/they is/are a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying/outputting a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 2:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the improvement tool data presentation element comprises a user-selectable control that, when activated, initiates execution of the improvement tool”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (improvement determination system) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “wherein the improvement tool data presentation element comprises a user-selectable control that, when activated, initiates execution of the improvement tool” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (improvement determination system) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 3:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein presenting the improvement tool data presentation element comprises integrating the improvement tool data presentation element into a communication associated with the communications channel”. This additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. post-solution activity of outputting/displaying data for use in the claimed process.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein presenting the improvement tool data presentation element comprises integrating the improvement tool data presentation element into a communication associated with the communications channel” is/are recited at a high level of generality and amount(s) to extra solution activity because it/they is/are a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying/outputting a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 4:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the communication is one of an email, a message, or a social media post”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (communication types) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein the communication is one of an email, a message, or a social media post” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (communication types) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 5:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the improvement tool data determination component comprises one or more of a machine-learned model or a rules-based model”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (model types) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein the improvement tool data determination component comprises one or more of a machine-learned model or a rules-based model” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (model types) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 6:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the subjective user data comprises one or more of current user sentiment data or historical user sentiment data”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (sentiment data) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein the subjective user data comprises one or more of current user sentiment data or historical user sentiment data” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (sentiment data) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 7:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the time window is associated with a scheduled event associated with the user and represented in the timing data”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (timing data) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein the time window is associated with a scheduled event associated with the user and represented in the timing data” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (timing data) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 8:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 1, Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 1, with the exception of the limitations covered below.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (memory and processors) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (memory and processors) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 9:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 3, Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 10:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 4, Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 11:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 7, Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 12:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the subjective user data comprises data representing one or more of a change of user sentiment data or a rate of change of user sentiment data”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (sentiment data) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein the subjective user data comprises data representing one or more of a change of user sentiment data or a rate of change of user sentiment data” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (sentiment data) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 13:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the communications channel data comprises data representing content of communications associated with a communications channel”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (communication channels) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein the communications channel data comprises data representing content of communications associated with a communications channel” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (communication channels) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 14:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claims 1 and 8, Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claims 1 and 8, with the exception of the limitations covered below.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“one or more processors”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (processors) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“a non-transitory memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (memory) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “one or more processors” and “a non-transitory memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (memory and processors) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 15:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 13, Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 16:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claims 3 and 9, Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claims 3 and 9.
Regarding Claim 17:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claims 4 and 10, Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claims 4 and 10.
Regarding Claim 18:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein presenting the improvement tool data presentation element comprises generating a graphical user interface comprising the improvement tool data presentation element”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (improvement tool presentation system) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “wherein presenting the improvement tool data presentation element comprises generating a graphical user interface comprising the improvement tool data presentation element” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (improvement tool presentation system) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 19:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the subjective user data comprises data representing a user sentiment data trend”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (sentiment data) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein the subjective user data comprises data representing a user sentiment data trend” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (sentiment data) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 20:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claims 1, 8, and 14, Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claims 1, 8, and 14.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oehrle et al (US 9569729 B1, hereinafter Oehrle).
Regarding Claim 1:
Oehrle teaches
A method, comprising: receiving, by an improvement tool data determination system, user data comprising: subjective user data associated with a user, (Oehrle [Col 9 lines 19-33]: "Demographic data[1225] about each actor[240] from internal organization records is stored so that distinctions can be made between members[290] occupying different roles in the organization[200]. In the case of online actor identities[260], self-reported[14020] demographic information[14020] is stored, though labeled as self-reported[14020] (and therefore potentially unreliable.) Self-reported data[14020] can be of any format in which the author[250] is asserting any kind of demographic data[1225] about herself. This include, but is not limited to various kinds of online posts[14000] and biographical summaries such as user profiles and résumés[14010]. Derived demographic data[1225] may also be created by some embodiments, either to fill in attributes[420] with no current values, or in preference to the self-reported data"; [Col 17 lines 20-24]: "Sentiment[1305]: We define sentiment[1305] as a non-symmetric relation between a person or “agent” and a topic[1300]. In particular, the relation conveys the agent's beliefs[1290], attitudes[1295] or emotional tone[1302] towards a topic[1300] of his concern."; (EN): applicant's specification defines "subjective user data" as a user's sentiment regarding a topic)
communications channel data associated with the user (Oehrle [Col 10 line 65-Col 11 line 2]: "The system leverages its internal knowledge base[1340] to identify the author's[250] pragmatic intent[25010] to the extent possible. Pragmatic intent[25010] also must be interpreted in the context of the specific medium or channel in which a statement appears.")
and timing data associated with the user (Oehrle [Col 7 lines 50-52]: "Almost all embodiments will collect and store time and date stamp[18090] information for all records");
generating, by the improvement tool data determination system, an input data structure based on the user data (Oehrle [Col 28 lines 19-26]: "The structure of data objects in working memory[1020] is determined by modules[1040] at run-time. At a minimum these data objects should be able to represent sets of feature value pairs[2650], where values[2670] are either composite or simple. Composite values[2670] can themselves be a set of feature value pairs[2650]. Simple values[2670] represent conventional types such as Booleans, integer or floating point numbers, strings and so on.");
executing, by the improvement tool data determination system, an improvement tool data determination component using the input data structure as input to generate improvement tool data output, (Oehrle [Col 12 lines 27-34]: "The purpose of this additional data is to assess the members'[290] general state of mind, in particular their levels of engagement[460] and energy[1380]. Engaged members[290] on the whole display certain behaviors. These include, but are not limited to: Making lots of day-to-day specific comments for improvement, also referred to in this application as “actionable suggestions”")
wherein the improvement tool data determination component is configured to determine and provide, in the improvement tool data output, based at least in part on the subjective user data, the communications channel data, and the timing data, a communications channel, a time window, and an improvement tool (Oehrle [Col 10 line 65-Col 11 line 2]: "The system leverages its internal knowledge base[1340] to identify the author's[250] pragmatic intent[25010] to the extent possible. Pragmatic intent[25010] also must be interpreted in the context of the specific medium or channel in which a statement appears."; [Col 13 lines 58-61]: "Especially since almost all embodiments will only aggregate data within the given time window specified by the particular configuration and embodiment"; [Col 71 lines 11-15]: "Most embodiments will provide the following data objects to their visualizations, and/or alternately third party software: Organization Character[480] & Culture[500] Measures, Actionable Suggestions[1330] & Observations");
generating, by the improvement tool data determination system, based at least in part on the communications channel and the improvement tool, an improvement tool data presentation element comprising an indication of the improvement tool (Oehrle [Col 85 lines 35-42]: "Likewise, many embodiments will apply weights including but not limited to the median perspective score[1320] and the median credibility score[410] of the authors[250] of the items in each bucket as a weight to adjust the display or output order of the buckets. The buckets can then be presented in descending order of score to users in a tabular display in a user interface, or be outputted to third party software.");
and presenting, by the improvement tool data determination system, based at least in part on the time window, the improvement tool data presentation element on a computing device (Oerhle [Col 107 lines 25-35]: "When the user clicks on a phrase inside the Mood Cloud[34000], in most embodiments, a contextual menu shows different actions: Display snippets containing the matched phrase. Unlike the phrases displayed in the mood cloud[34000], when the matching snippet is shown, neither of the three components (prefix, suffix and infix parts of the matched text) is changed in most embodiments; in other words the original text is shown. Display the reasons[1310] associated with the sentiment[1305] in question."; [Col 107 lines 48-51]: "Display related actionable suggestions[1330]. Displayed related observations[1332] Display full text of each item[1215] that contains the phrase,")
Regarding Claim 2:
Oehrle teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the improvement tool data presentation element comprises a user-selectable control that, when activated, initiates execution of the improvement tool (Oerhle [Col 107 lines 25-35]: "When the user clicks on a phrase inside the Mood Cloud[34000], in most embodiments, a contextual menu shows different actions: Display snippets containing the matched phrase. Unlike the phrases displayed in the mood cloud[34000], when the matching snippet is shown, neither of the three components (prefix, suffix and infix parts of the matched text) is changed in most embodiments; in other words the original text is shown. Display the reasons[1310] associated with the sentiment[1305] in question."; [Col 107 lines 48-51]: "Display related actionable suggestions[1330]. Displayed related observations[1332] Display full text of each item[1215] that contains the phrase,").
Regarding Claim 3:
Oehrle teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein presenting the improvement tool data presentation element comprises integrating the improvement tool data presentation element into a communication associated with the communications channel (Oerhle [Col 107 lines 25-35]: "When the user clicks on a phrase inside the Mood Cloud[34000], in most embodiments, a contextual menu shows different actions: Display snippets containing the matched phrase. Unlike the phrases displayed in the mood cloud[34000], when the matching snippet is shown, neither of the three components (prefix, suffix and infix parts of the matched text) is changed in most embodiments; in other words the original text is shown. Display the reasons[1310] associated with the sentiment[1305] in question."; [Col 107 lines 48-51]: "Display related actionable suggestions[1330]. Displayed related observations[1332] Display full text of each item[1215] that contains the phrase"; (EN): it can be inferred by one skilled in the art that since the communications channel(s) used can consist of internal office messages/emails, that displaying the text based actionable suggestions is related to the same communication channel).
Regarding Claim 4:
Oehrle teaches
The method of claim 3, wherein the communication is one of an email, a message, or a social media post (Oehrle [Col 25 lines 43-45]: "Communications: Member[290] communications including but not limited to any kind of text messages, emails, voicemails.").
Regarding Claim 5:
Oehrle teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the improvement tool data determination component comprises one or more of a machine-learned model or a rules-based model (Oehrle [Col 2 lines 38-43]: "An analytics system specifically for assessing certain psychological characteristics of organizations is described. The system is comprised of raw data, metadata and derived model repositories, an NLP parsing engine, and a model computation engine for generating and updating the organizational models").
Regarding Claim 6:
Oehrle teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the subjective user data comprises one or more of current user sentiment data or historical user sentiment data (Oehrle [Col 9 lines 19-33]: "Demographic data[1225] about each actor[240] from internal organization records is stored so that distinctions can be made between members[290] occupying different roles in the organization[200]. In the case of online actor identities[260], self-reported[14020] demographic information[14020] is stored, though labeled as self-reported[14020] (and therefore potentially unreliable.) Self-reported data[14020] can be of any format in which the author[250] is asserting any kind of demographic data[1225] about herself. This include, but is not limited to various kinds of online posts[14000] and biographical summaries such as user profiles and résumés[14010]. Derived demographic data[1225] may also be created by some embodiments, either to fill in attributes[420] with no current values, or in preference to the self-reported data"; [Col 17 lines 20-24]: "Sentiment[1305]: We define sentiment[1305] as a non-symmetric relation between a person or “agent” and a topic[1300]. In particular, the relation conveys the agent's beliefs[1290], attitudes[1295] or emotional tone[1302] towards a topic[1300] of his concern.").
Regarding Claim 20:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 1, Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 1.
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 (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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oehrle as applied to claims 1 and 20 above, and further in view of Soyao et al (US 20150216413 A1, hereinafter Soyao).
Regarding Claim 8:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 1, Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 1, with the exception of the limitations covered below.
Oehrle does not distinctly disclose
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations
However, Soyao teaches
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations (Soyao [0044]: “Furthermore, the systems and methods of the described embodiments are capable of being distributed in a computer program product including a physical, non-transitory computer readable medium that bears computer usable instructions for one or more processors”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the systems and methods for analyzing and predicting the future behavior of organizations of Oehrle with the systems, devices, and methods for generating insights relating to patient health using a social networking platform of Soyao in order to provide hardware components for a general improvement recommendation tool, not limited to healthcare systems, on which to be performed (Soyao [0011]: “Understanding the mindsets, behaviors and decision-making framework of patients is becoming indispensable for marketers to determine the critical factors influencing patient's opinions that they bring into conversations with their physicians and pharmacists. As patients become more medically-informed and assertive about their care, patient insights and sentiments increasingly shape the final prescription and thereafter the final brand choice at point of purchase.”)
Regarding Claim 9:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 3, Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 10:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 4, Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 12:
Oehrle teaches
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the subjective user data comprises data representing one or more of a change of user sentiment data or a rate of change of user sentiment data (Oehrle [Col 4 lines 14-17]: "FIG. 28 is a block diagram of one embodiment of a process of determining sentiment and sentiment trend of an actor of interest on the basis of appearance and associated quotes over time").
Regarding Claim 13:
Oehrle teaches
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the communications channel data comprises data representing content of communications associated with a communications channel (Oehrle [Col 10 line 65-Col 11 line 2]: "The system leverages its internal knowledge base[1340] to identify the author's[250] pragmatic intent[25010] to the extent possible. Pragmatic intent[25010] also must be interpreted in the context of the specific medium or channel in which a statement appears.").
Regarding Claim 14:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claims 1 and 8, Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claims 1 and 8, with the exception of the limitations covered below.
Oehrle does not distinctly disclose
A system comprising: one or more processors;
and a non-transitory memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations
However, Soyao teaches
A system comprising: one or more processors (Soyao [0044]: “Furthermore, the systems and methods of the described embodiments are capable of being distributed in a computer program product including a physical, non-transitory computer readable medium that bears computer usable instructions for one or more processors”);
and a non-transitory memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Soyao [0044]: “Furthermore, the systems and methods of the described embodiments are capable of being distributed in a computer program product including a physical, non-transitory computer readable medium that bears computer usable instructions for one or more processors”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the systems and methods for analyzing and predicting the future behavior of organizations of Oehrle with the systems, devices, and methods for generating insights relating to patient health using a social networking platform of Soyao in order to provide hardware components for a general improvement recommendation tool, not limited to healthcare systems, on which to be performed (Soyao [0011]: “Understanding the mindsets, behaviors and decision-making framework of patients is becoming indispensable for marketers to determine the critical factors influencing patient's opinions that they bring into conversations with their physicians and pharmacists. As patients become more medically-informed and assertive about their care, patient insights and sentiments increasingly shape the final prescription and thereafter the final brand choice at point of purchase.”)
Regarding Claim 15:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 13, Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 16:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claims 3 and 9, Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claims 3 and 9.
Regarding Claim 17:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claims 4 and 10, Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claims 4 and 10.
Regarding Claim 18:
Oehrle teaches
The system of claim 14, wherein presenting the improvement tool data presentation element comprises generating a graphical user interface comprising the improvement tool data presentation element (Oerhle [Col 107 lines 25-35]: "When the user clicks on a phrase inside the Mood Cloud[34000], in most embodiments, a contextual menu shows different actions: Display snippets containing the matched phrase. Unlike the phrases displayed in the mood cloud[34000], when the matching snippet is shown, neither of the three components (prefix, suffix and infix parts of the matched text) is changed in most embodiments; in other words the original text is shown. Display the reasons[1310] associated with the sentiment[1305] in question."; [Col 107 lines 48-51]: "Display related actionable suggestions[1330]. Displayed related observations[1332] Display full text of each item[1215] that contains the phrase").
Regarding Claim 19:
Oehrle teaches
The system of claim 14, wherein the subjective user data comprises data representing a user sentiment data trend (Oehrle [Col 4 lines 14-17]: "FIG. 28 is a block diagram of one embodiment of a process of determining sentiment and sentiment trend of an actor of interest on the basis of appearance and associated quotes over time").
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220343065 A1 – Systems and methods are described for providing empathy corrections and predictions to various communications
US 20200302564 A1 – Systems, methods, and computer program products leveraging the use of data collection, analytics and predictive modeling to selectively provide customized career and education counseling based on each individual user's interests, personality, preferences, geographic location, habits and experiences
US 20190213522 A1 – a method and/or system for improving user metric determination associated with a workplace
US 20180365619 A1 – A method for assessing worker engagement and company culture
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COREY M SACKALOSKY whose telephone number is (703)756-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-3:30pm EST.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at (571) 272-2589. 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.
/COREY SACKALOSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights