DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
[2] A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 March 2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
[3] This communication is in response to the Amendment and the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 12 March 2026. It is noted that this application is a Continuation of United States Patent Application Serial No. 17/030,814 filed 24 September 2020, which benefits from United States Provisional Patent Application Nos. 62/905,605 and 62/923,686, filed 25 September 2019 and 21 October 2019, respectively. Claim 1 has been cancelled. Claims 2, 5, and 7 have been amended. Claims 2-11 are pending.
Continuation Application
[4] This application is a Continuation of United States Patent Application Serial No. 17/030,814 filed 24 September 2020, which benefits from the effective filing date of 25 September 2019, now abandoned. In accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
[5] Applicant's remarks filed 12 March 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
[i] In response to rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-11 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 16 October 2025, Applicant provides the following remarks:
"…The combination of features of…claim 2 recite operations that the human mind is incapable of performing…the combined features…describe a ‘survey structure and architecture’ supporting ‘easily updating risk surveys to comport with changes in best practices…’…The survey structure and architecture links ‘the questions, rules, and answer options…within a database of data network structure to maintain associations while the survey data adjusts and expands over time’…As in ADASA, the subject matter of…claim 2 is a ‘data structure focused on improvements to the technological process by which that data is encoded’ rather that a mere mental process. The survey structure and architecture allows for continuity in automated analysis while adapting to changes in best practices over time…”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to any similarity between the linking of questions, rules, and answer options within a database network structure to maintain associations between/among survey data and adjustment or expansion thereof and the encoding of data on RFID tags with pre-authorized blocks of serial numbers present in the claims at issue in ADASA Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp., as noted by Applicant, the noted encoding is understood to constitute a hardware-based data structure, rather than mere mental process. In contrast, the associations and linking of the instant claims is limited to associations between or among stored data elements, e.g., questions, answers, and rules. Respectfully, the storage of data elements in association with each other is reasonably accomplished by applying an analysis of the data, determining relationships between questions and answers, and storing and retrieving the stored information elements (e.g., questions, answers, and rules) as required to administer a survey and record the results. Absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited processors and/or devices, Examiner respectfully maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily be relied upon to select surveys and associated questions and analyze responses in accordance with defined rules by employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
While the instant claims serve to define relationships among stored data elements in a database structure, the instant claims as currently constructed do not provide for any improvement in the underlying database and/or “logical linking” technology. The claims as presented are limited to mental processes assisted by the storage of information useful to direct the administration of surveys to business managers, collect and organize of survey responses from managers with respect to stored risk metrics, apply specified to rules to the answers/metrics, and determine and report the relative adherence of the mangers to best practices for managing business risks, which is an ineligible inventive process limited to claimed mathematical calculations and human mental observations and evaluations. While the claimed system/method employs generic data storage and retrieval technology, claim 2, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, the claimed determining and evaluating adherence to risk management best practices by mangers of an entity through the use of surveys and questionnaires benefits from, but fails o improve, commercially available technology at the time of the invention, at least as presently claimed. The rejection of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is respectfully maintained.
[ii] Applicant’s remaining remarks in response to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-11 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 16 October 2025 are reasonably considered to have been fully addressed in the context of the revised rejection of the claims presented above responsive to the amendments to the subject claims and in consideration of the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05).
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.
[6] Previous rejection(s) of claims 2-11 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more has/have not been overcome by the amendments to the subject claims and is/are maintained. The revised statement of rejection presented below is necessitated by amendment and addresses the present amendments to the pending claims.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05). Claim(s) 2-11 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claim 2 is directed to a system and is reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, claim 2 is determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 2, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of determining and evaluating adherence to risk management best practices by mangers of an entity, which is reasonably considered to be method of limited to steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions). In particular, the general subject matter to which the claims are directed illustrates functions and stored information useful to direct the administration of surveys to business managers, collect and organize of survey responses from managers with respect to stored risk metrics, apply specified to rules to the answers/metrics, and determine and report the relative adherence of the mangers to best practices for managing business risks, which is an ineligible inventive process limited to claimed mathematical calculations and human mental observations and evaluations.
The courts have previously identified subject matter limited processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper to be ineligible abstract ideas (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Further, mental processes or concepts performed in the human mind including observation and evaluation are considered to be ineligible abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
With respect to functions/steps limited to processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper, representative claim 2 as presented by amendment recites:
“…prepare, for presentation to a recipient manager of the plurality of managers…an interactive survey, wherein preparing the interactive survey comprises based at least in part of the one or more investment vehicle strategies of the recipient manager, selecting, from the plurality of questionnaire formats, a selected questionnaire format corresponding to at least one of i) a respective level of survey of the plurality of levels of survey content for presenting to the recipient manager or ii) a respective type of end user of the plurality of types of end users corresponding to a role of the recipient manager, and providing…survey to the recipient manager, wherein the interactive survey comprises, for each respective question of the subset of questions of the selected questionnaire format, a set of user-selectable answers corresponding to a most recent set of standardized answer options of the at least one set of standardized answer options linked to the respective question, responsive to providing the interactive survey to the recipient manager, receive…a set of responses comprising, for each given question of at least a portion of the respective subset of questions of the selected questionnaire format, a selected standardized answer of the most recent set of standardized answer options linked to the given question…select, from the plurality of sets of analysis rules, at least one set of analysis rules based at least in part on the type of end user, wherein each set of analysis rules of the at least one set of analysis rules corresponds to a current timeframe of the plurality of timeframes, analyze the first timestamped set of survey response data with the at least one set of analysis rules to produce a set of risk data, wherein each risk data value of a plurality of risk data values of the set of risk data represents one of a compliance with best practices or an exception to the best practices…the set of risk data in relation to a timestamp of the interactive survey, wherein each risk data value of the plurality of risk data values of the first timestamped set of risk data is logically linked to one or more questions of the respective subset of questions, access a relevant set of benchmark classifications of the at least one set of benchmark classifications relevant to a group of managers of the plurality of managers, wherein the group of managers comprises the recipient manager, and determine, based on comparing each respective risk data value of the plurality of risk data values of the first timestamped set of risk data to a corresponding risk element of the relevant set of benchmark classifications, a market practice compliance status or a market practice deviation status for the respective risk data value…”
Respectfully, absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited processors and/or devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily be relied upon to select surveys and analyze responses employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
As presented by amendment, the technical elements identified in claim 2 are limited to: “one or more processors”, “remote computing device”, “network”, “interactive survey”, and “a non-transitory computer readable data store”. These technical elements have been considered at each step of Examiner’s analysis but are determined to constitute generic computing structures executing generic computing functions previously identified by the courts, as further analyzed under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B below.
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Additional elements of claim 2 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject matter include: “one or more processors”, “remote computing device”, “network”, “interactive survey”, and “a non-transitory computer readable data store”.
(1) The “one or more processors” is identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “remote computing device”, “network”, “interactive survey” are presented such that the remote device receives and presents the interactive survey to a recipient and the network is used to communication the survey and responses to and from the remote device.
(3) The “non-transitory computer readable data store” is identified as storing the survey architecture answers, questions, analysis rules, questionnaire formats, timestamped response data and risk data, and benchmark classifications. As presented by amendment, the data store is further identified as storing “…manager data comprising, for each manager of a plurality of managers, one or more investment vehicle strategies of a plurality of investment strategies, wherein each question of at least a portion of the plurality of questions is logically linked to a respective investment strategy of the plurality of investment strategies;”.
With respect to the manager data stored in the data store as part of the “survey architecture”, the storage and retrieval of the recited “manager data” as presented provides an additional technical element of storing and retrieving data from a generic computer memory which fails to establish an integrating technical element under Step 2A prong 2 or an element constituting significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B. With respect to the determination of generic computing processes of storing and retrieving information in memory, see at least Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: Adding 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); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g); and/or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Each of the limitations of claim 1 states a result (e.g., questions and answers are administered and gathered, propensities are calculated, risk metrics are accessed etc.) as associated with a respective “database/data store” or “processing circuitry/one or more processors”. Beyond the general statement that these results are achieved “by the processing circuitry”, the limitations provide no further clarification with respect to the functions performed by the recited circuitry in producing the claimed result. A recitation of “by processing circuitry/one or more processors”, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an instruction to implement the step/idea on a computer and/or a general linking of the judicial exception to a technical environment. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) storing and retrieving information (e.g., survey related data, risk metrics, questions/answers, and rules in a database), (2) performing tasks that are otherwise performable in the human mind (e.g., calculating propensities, identifying best practices, and generating a report), and (3) sending and receiving information over a network (e.g., receiving or obtaining survey responses) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 1 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of determining and evaluating adherence to risk management best practices by mangers of an entity using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed determining and evaluating adherence to risk management best practices by mangers of an entity benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes paragraphs [0193]-[0209]. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
The claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include:
(1) The “one or more processors” is identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “remote computing device”, “network”, “interactive survey” are presented such that the remote device receives and presents the interactive survey to a recipient and the network is used to communication the survey and responses to and from the remote device.
(3) The “non-transitory computer readable data store” is identified as storing the survey architecture answers, questions, analysis rules, questionnaire formats, timestamped response data and risk data, and benchmark classifications. As presented by amendment, the data store is further identified as storing “…manager data comprising, for each manager of a plurality of managers, one or more investment vehicle strategies of a plurality of investment strategies, wherein each question of at least a portion of the plurality of questions is logically linked to a respective investment strategy of the plurality of investment strategies;”.
With respect to the manager data stored in the data store as part of the “survey architecture”, the storage and retrieval of the recited “manager data” as presented provides an additional technical element of storing and retrieving data from a generic computer memory which fails to establish an integrating technical element under Step 2A prong 2 or an element constituting significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B. With respect to the determination of generic computing processes of storing and retrieving information in memory, see at least Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) storing and retrieving information (e.g., survey related data, risk metrics, questions/answers, and rules in a database), (2) performing tasks that are otherwise performable in the human mind (e.g., calculating propensities, identifying best practices, and generating a report), and (3) sending and receiving information over a network (e.g., receiving or obtaining survey responses).
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of determining and evaluating adherence to risk management best practices by mangers of an entity. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., determining and evaluating adherence to risk management best practices by mangers of an entity, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of determining and evaluating adherence to risk management best practices by mangers of an entity benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Dependent claims 3-11, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
Viewed 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. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In accordance with all relevant considerations and aligned with previous findings of the courts, the technical elements imparted on the method that would potentially provide a basis for meeting a “significantly more” threshold for establishing patent eligibility for an otherwise abstract concept by the use of computer technology fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
Allowable Subject Matter
[7] Claims 2-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Subject Matter Overcoming Art of Record
[8] The most closely applicable prior art of record is referred to in the Office Action mailed 3 January 2025 as Saraf et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0227868, hereinafter “Saraf”). Saraf provides system and method which utilizes risk self-assessments system to assess adherence to best business practices. The system and method include a risk self-assessment interactive survey which provides for the generation of risk elements, risk categories, risk parameters, risk scorecards, and risk heat maps all based on questionnaire and answers directed to compliance practices and control processes. The system and method further apply rules to analysis of responses.
While Saraf is similar to the instant application in many respects, there are clear patentable distinctions. Initially, while the application of rules is similar to the rules-based analysis of the instant invention, Saraf does not select sets of rules associated with particular surveys and applied for a specific to a timeframe where the risk data and responses are timestamped to select a different rule set based on the timeframe as derived from the response and risk timestamped data.
Accordingly, Saraf fail to disclose or otherwise render obvious at least “...prepare…an interactive survey, wherein preparing the interactive survey comprises selecting, from the plurality of questionnaire formats, a selected questionnaire format corresponding to at least one of i) a respective level of survey of the plurality of levels of survey content for presenting to the recipient or ii) a respective type of end user of the plurality of types of end users corresponding to a role of the recipient, and providing…survey to the recipient, wherein the interactive survey comprises, for each respective question of the subset of questions of the selected questionnaire format, a set of user-selectable answers corresponding to a most recent set of the at least one set of standardized answer options linked to the respective question, responsive to providing the interactive survey to the recipient, receive…a set of responses comprising, for each given question of at least a portion of the subset of questions of the interactive survey, a selected standardized answer of the most recent set of standardized answer options linked to the given question…select, from the plurality of sets of analysis rules, at least one set of analysis rules based at least in part on the type of end user, wherein each set of analysis rules of the at least one set of analysis rules corresponds to a current timeframe of the plurality of timeframes, analyze the first timestamped set of survey response data with the at least one set of analysis rules to produce a set of risk data, wherein each risk data value of a plurality of risk data values of the set of risk data represents one of a compliance with best practices or an exception to the best practices…the set of risk data in relation to a timestamp of the interactive survey, wherein each risk data value of the plurality of risk data values of the first timestamped set of risk data is logically linked to one or more questions of the subset of questions, access a relevant set of benchmark classifications of the at least one set of benchmark classifications, and determine, based on comparing each respective risk data value of the plurality of risk data values of the first timestamped set of risk data to a corresponding risk element of the relevant set of benchmark classifications, a market practice compliance status or a market practice deviation status for the respective risk data value...”, as required by claim 2.
Conclusion
[9] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Joshi et al., Computer Systems, Methods and User-interfaces For Tracking An Investor's Unique Set Of Social And Environmental Preferences, United States Patent No. 11,188,983, column(s) 2-4: Relevant Teachings: Joshi discloses a system/method that provides for tracking of investment advisor performance with respect t to defined practices and priorities. The system and method utilize a survey/questionnaire process to gather data on respective advisors and clients.
Phinney, Jr. et al., Data Processing System And Method For Deriving And Publishing Knowledge Of Registered Investment Advisors And Related Entities And People, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0012535, paragraphs [0063]-[0066]: Relevant Teachings: Phinney discloses a system/method that includes steps/functions of accumulating/tracking investment advisor performance data and comparing advisor performance to peer groups.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Beth V Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625