DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final office action is in response to application 18/677,381 filed on 4/28/2025. Examiner notes continuation relationship to application 16/871,913 filed 5/11/2020 which claims the benefit of provisional applications 63/006,366 filed 4/7/2020 and 62/847,102 filed 5/13/2019. IDS filed 6/10/2024 has been considered.
Status of Claims
Claims 21-29 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
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 21-29 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (method). Claims 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (‘2019 PEG”), Claims 21-29 are directed toward the statutory category of a process (reciting a “method”).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1 of the 2019 PEG, Claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea by reciting […] causing … presentation … to the respondent a stimulus in the context of instructions, to the respondent, to indicate, by a responding set of gestures, a set of elements of the stimulus according to a set of objectives; causing … in a course of (i) receiving … the responding set of gestures indicating the set of elements of the stimulus, … corresponding to the responding set of gestures and the set of audiovisual responses; receiving … the respondent data corresponding to the responding set of gestures and the set of audiovisual responses and storing the respondent data in association with an identification of the respondent.
The claims are considered abstract because these steps recite certain methods of organizing human activity like commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and mental processes. The claims recite steps to present survey stimuli and instructions for respondents to indicate stimulus elements and record audiovisual responses, and collect, store, aggregate, analyze, and interpret the response data.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and the additional elements such as a server system in communication with a mobile computing device, operated by a respondent, the server system executing computer code establishing computer processes; a display of the mobile computing device; and (ii) also receiving and recording by the mobile computing device a set of audiovisual responses of the respondent associated with the indicated set of elements, transmission of respondent data by the mobile computing device to the server system) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a-c, e)).
Dependent claims 22-29 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations recite 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).
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional elements have been considered above in Step 2A Prong 2. The claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea because the limitations recite 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).
Applicant's claims mimic conventional, routine, and generic computing by their similarity to other concepts already deemed routine, generic, and conventional [Berkheimer Memorandum, Page 4, item 2] by the following [MPEP § 2106.05(d) Part (II)]. The claims recite steps like: “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” Symantec, “Performing repetitive calculations,” Flook, and “storing and retrieving information in memory,” Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. (citations omitted), by performing steps of “causing” presentation of a stimulus, “causing” receiving and recording of response data for transmission, and “receiving” the response data.
By the above, the claimed computing “call[s] for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions ‘on a set of generic computer components' and display devices” [Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355] operating in a “normal, expected manner” [DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d at 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014)].
Conclusively, Applicant's invention is patent-ineligible. When viewed both individually and as a whole, Claims 21-29 are directed toward an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and lacking an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Robinson et al., US 20130096985 A1, hereinafter Robinson, in view of
Chen et al., US 20150248388 A1, hereinafter Chen. As per,
Claim 21
Robinson teaches
A computer-implemented method for gathering response data in a market research survey and a set of associated audiovisual responses, the method implemented by a server system in communication with a mobile computing device, operated by a respondent, the server system executing computer code establishing computer processes comprising: (Robinson fig. 1; [0007]; [0046])
causing by the server system presentation on a display of the mobile computing device to the respondent a stimulus in the context of instructions, to the respondent, to indicate, […], a set of elements of the stimulus according to a set of objectives; (Robinson fig. 2; [0035] “FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary survey of the survey system 100, as provided to a mobile computing device 300 … a survey provided through the mobile survey application 110 may comprise various query formats … a survey need not only ask quantitative queries (e.g., accepting answers via Likert scale, radio buttons, or check boxes), but may also enable the respondent to attach media to the survey response” note the survey stimulus in fig. 2 and the set of elements)
causing by the server system, […], transmission of respondent data by the mobile computing device to the server system […]; (Robinson [0039] “The mobile survey application 100 may store the survey response locally, transmit it to a remote location, such as to the database 120, or may both store it and transmit it” note the mobile device transmitting the response data to the server)
receiving, by the server system from the mobile computing device, the respondent data […] and storing the respondent data in association with an identification of the respondent. (Robinson [0040] “When the respondent submits his response to a survey, various data corresponding to that response may be transmitted to a remote location, such as the database 120 for storage, later retrieval, or analysis. The transmitted data may include, for example, user identification” note the server receiving and storing the response data and including identification of the respondent)
Robinson does not explicitly teach, Chen however in the analogous art of gestural annotations teaches
[…] by a responding set of gestures […]; (Chen [0004] “Gestural annotation is described, for example where sensors such as touch screens and/or cameras monitor document annotation events made by a user;” [0026] “The examples described herein include equipment to sense gestural and optionally also other modalities of annotation that a first user makes to a document. The other modalities may include sound (audio annotations) and digital ink annotations (also known as electronic ink annotations);” fig. 6 noting the set of gestures)
[…] in a course of (i) receiving, on the display of the mobile computing device, the responding set of gestures indicating the set of elements of the stimulus, and (ii) also receiving and recording by the mobile computing device a set of audiovisual responses of the respondent associated with the indicated set of elements […] corresponding to the responding set of gestures and the set of audiovisual responses; (Chen [0025] “The examples described below use mobile computing devices;” [0035] “Devices 102 and 108 may take the form of tablet computing devices, smart phones or other devices capable of capturing streams of audio and gestures on a touch screen” note the device capturing streams of audio and gestures on a touch screen; see also [0038])
[…] corresponding to the responding set of gestures and the set of audiovisual responses […]. (Chen [0038] noting the recorded audio, gestures, and section of the document displayed)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Robinson’s survey system to include gestures and audiovisual response data in view of Chen in an effort to better understand response data (see Chen ¶ [0061] & MPEP 2143G).
Claim 22
Robinson teaches
wherein the computer processes further comprise: providing, by the server system to the respondent […]; (Robinson fig. 2)
receiving, by the server system […] indicating a set of elements of the stimulus pertaining to an associated objective; receiving, by the server system […], associated with the indicated set of elements and pertaining to the associated objective; storing data, by the server system, […] as response data pertinent to the stimulus, pertaining to the associated objective, and associated with the respondent; and storing, by the server system, […] pertinent to the stimulus, pertaining to the associated objective, and associated with the respondent. (Robinson [0040] “When the respondent submits his response to a survey, various data corresponding to that response may be transmitted to a remote location, such as the database 120 for storage, later retrieval, or analysis. The transmitted data may include, for example, user identification” note the server receiving and storing the response data and including identification of the respondent)
Robinson does not explicitly teach, Chen however in the analogous art of gestural annotations teaches
[…] via the display of the mobile computing device, directions relating to a set of gestures, wherein each set of gestures is associated with a different objective; (Chen fig. 6 noting the set of gestures, each associated with a different objective; [0031] “Some types of gestures are recognized by a gesture recognition component as being ones which control manipulation of the document”)
[…] a responding set of gestures, made by the respondent on the display of the mobile computing device, […]; […] a set of audiovisual responses, made by the respondent, and recorded by the mobile computing device […]; […] corresponding to the responding set of gestures […]; […] the set of audiovisual responses […]. (Chen [0038] noting the recorded audio, gestures, and section of the document displayed)
The motivations/rationales to combine Robinson with Chen persists.
Claim 23
Robinson teaches
wherein the computer processes further comprise: providing the respondent control of the recording mechanism in the mobile computing device to influence a set of audiovisual responses associated with a set of stimuli, wherein the control of the recording mechanism is selected from the group consisting of starting recording, pausing recording, resuming recording, stopping recording, deleting a recording, deleting a portion of a recording, reviewing a recording, reviewing a portion of the recording, submitting a recording, submitting a portion of a recording, and combinations thereof. (Robinson fig. 7; [0029] “As shown in FIG. 7, for example, the mobile survey application 110 may enable the respondent to turn a mobile device camera, on the mobile computing device, toward himself, tap the screen once to start video recording, and tap the screen once again to stop recording. Accordingly, a qualitative media response may be coupled to the qualitative query in the respondent's survey result”)
Claim 24
Robinson teaches
wherein the computer processes further comprise: causing by the server system presentation to the respondent on a display of the mobile computing device, visual cues selected from the group consisting of: visual cues signifying response data provided by the respondent pertaining to the stimulus; visual cues signifying aspects of a set of audiovisual responses; visual cues signifying a relationship between a particular set of respondent response data and a particular set of audiovisual responses; and combinations thereof. (Robinson [0037] “For each survey provided to a respondent, the application 110 may display statements, retrieved from the database 120 through a connection to a PHP file, concerning different aspects of a given survey subject. For example, an exemplary statement is: "Health reform should include a public option insurance plan." Multi-point sliders may be dynamically provided beneath each statement. The user may record his opinion about each statement by dragging the handle of the corresponding slider” noting the slider beneath the slider presented to the respondent corresponding to visual cues signifying response data provided by the respondent)
Claim 26
Robinson teaches
wherein the computer processes further comprise: accessing, by the server system, a centralized datastore that records respondent response data and audiovisual responses. (Robinson fig. 1; [0025] “remotely from a central system that compiles the results;” [0029] “he mobile survey application 110 may automatically initiate a media recording to capture the user-provided entry, which may be, for example, in the form of video, audio, image, or text”)
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Robinson in view of Chen in view of
Yan, US 20140278786 A1, hereinafter Yan. As per,
Claim 25
Robinson / Chen do not explicitly teach, Yan however in the analogous art of survey data teaches
wherein the stimulus is an assemblage of a set of stimuli selected by the respondent earlier in a survey. (Yan [0093] “If the user chooses to reject the items, the engine registers this and surfaces Personalization Panels from User Settings that allow the user to either select another set of items and/or use tools to search for items they wish to rate and/or self input items of their choice;” [0095] “The items appear in the Personalization Panels for the user's selection. Upon selection, items are registered into the database as time-stamped updates of the user's personal preference settings;” [0098] “Any items they've evaluated will be stored in the system's memory and may be offered to the user as an item to rate again at a future date” noting the items the user is offered to rate again at a future data)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Robinson’s survey system and Chen’s gestural and audiovisual response data to include resurfacing previous stimuli in view of Yan in an effort to benchmark the respondents perception and track the changes over time (see Yan ¶ [0098] & MPEP 2143G).
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Robinson in view of Chen in view of
Nicolov et al., US 20090306967 A1, hereinafter Nicolov. As per,
Claim 27
Robinson / Chen do not explicitly teach, Nicolov however in the analogous art of survey data teaches
wherein the computer processes further comprise: using a process selected from the group consisting of machine learning, artificial intelligence algorithms, and combinations thereof to encode a set of audiovisual responses into a set of structured data fields that indicate aspects of the set of audiovisual responses. (Nicolov [0013] “the method may include generating metadata annotations (e.g., paragraph identification, tokenization, sentence boundary detection, part-of-speech tagging, clause detection, phrase detection (chunking), syntactic analysis, word sense disambiguation, and semantic analysis, etc.) based upon the text of the one or more answers;” [0022] “the sentiment analysis may be supplemented with audio or video data corresponding to the answers. The audio or video data may be used to determine sentiment based upon tone of voice or other social cues” noting the audiovisual responses; [0078] “The system may use different levels of merging for different phrases, based upon the semantic distances between the phrases. In some embodiments, the phrases may be clustered using soft or hard clustering, flat (e.g., k-means clustering) or hierarchical clustering (e.g., agglomerative clustering);” [0079] Note the machine learning algorithms)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Robinson’s survey system and Chen’s gestural and audiovisual response data to include machine learning algorithmic analyses in view of Nicolov in an effort to gain an improved estimate of opinions (see Nicolov ¶ [0011] & MPEP 2143G).
Claim 28
Robinson / Chen do not explicitly teach, Nicolov however in the analogous art of survey data teaches
wherein the computer processes further comprise: aggregating, by the server system, data from a centralized datastore that contains data selected from the group consisting of respondent response data, encoded structured data, and combinations thereof derived from audiovisual responses; and (Nicolov [0038] “The survey analysis system 102 may comprise a survey database 103 stored on the data storage system configured to store the survey questions and answers provided by the sources 101;” [0039] “The survey analysis system 102 may provide the survey results to a sentiment analysis system 105;” [0040] “The results of sentiment analysis may be provided to a sentiment reporting system 108. The sentiment reporting system 108 may be configured to aggregate the results of the sentiment analysis”)
applying, by the server system, a process selected from the group consisting of numerical algorithms, statistical processes, and combinations thereof, to aggregated data from a set of respondents to create derived metrics pertaining to a set selected from the group consisting of a set of respondents, a set of stimuli, a set of associated stimulus items, and combinations thereof. (Nicolov [0040] “The sentiment reporting system 108 may be configured to aggregate the results of the sentiment analysis into quantitative data describing group opinions. The sentiment reporting system may also be configured to generate one or more graphical representations of the sentiment analysis” note the numerical/statistical derived metrics)
The motivations/rationales to combine Robinson / Chen with Nicolov persists.
Claim 29
Robinson / Chen do not explicitly teach, Nicolov however in the analogous art of survey data teaches
wherein the computer processes further comprise: determining, by the server system, a set of derived metrics that are derived from a set of surveys using a process selected from the group consisting of numerical algorithms, statistical processes, and combinations thereof; and (Nicolov [0040] “The sentiment reporting system 108 may be configured to aggregate the results of the sentiment analysis into quantitative data describing group opinions. The sentiment reporting system may also be configured to generate one or more graphical representations of the sentiment analysis” note the numerical/statistical derived metrics)
characterizing, by the server system, the set of derived metrics to create a framework selected from the group consisting of an interpretive framework, a predictive framework, and combinations thereof. (Nicolov figs. 3-5 noting the cluster, line, and bar graphs corresponding to an interpretive framework)
The motivations/rationales to combine Robinson / Chen with Nicolov persists.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 7257774 B2; Yu et al., Capture, recognition, and visualization of human semantic interactions in meetings, 2010; WO 2017184724 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5847. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-4:30PM.
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, PATRICIA MUNSON can be reached on (571) 270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights