Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is a Final action on the merits in response to the application filed on 02/25//2026.
Claims 1-6, 8, 14, 16, 17,-19, 23, 26, 27, 30-32, 34, 37, 45 and 53-55 have been amended. Claims 1 – 56 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response has been considered.
In the remarks Applicant argues similar to the rationale in McRO, “that the existing problem relates to a computerized automated system that (a) includes multiple separate computers/servers that (b) communicate and evaluate feedback from a customer regarding a transaction in a specific way, and ( c) provides for a more focused and efficient feedback from a customer, particularly during the limited time-window available for processing of a single transaction, such as a financial or consumer transaction.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In McRO the claims were directed to an improvement in computer related technology by allowing computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters. The court in McRo looked to the specification which described the invention as improving computer animation through the use of specific rules and how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated, utilizing rules in a specific technological way (e.g. a particular way to achieve a desired outcome). The McRO court also noted that the claims described a specific way to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and animation.
Unlike McRO, the instant application focuses on receiving transaction data and a request for a question, automatically selecting a single question from stored questions and rules relating to transaction, sending the single question, presenting the single question to a customer, receive a response and send data related to the question performed using generic computer components (server). The limitations demonstrate abstract concepts such as Certain Methods of Organizing Human activity and may provide a better way to provide a rating system to encourage more accurate feedback, but does not necessarily demonstrate an improvement to technology or a technical field.
Applicant argues according to Berkhieimer, “the claimed steps recited in amended claims 1, 27, 53, and 54, are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” (pgs. 16-17)
Examiner notes, the steps related to sending and receiving data (via a network Spec ¶0135) are considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the requesting device, questions server, or display device, etc. are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Per MPEP guidance on Berkheimer, “A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d), subsection II, as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s),” (MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(B)) is sufficient support a finding of WURC.
Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a processor, requesting device, a question server etc. are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Applicant argues, “…the Examiner recites as many as six different prior art references against various claims of the present application. If the present invention involved some known human activity or an ordered combination that is routine, convention and well-known, the re-construction of the claimed terms with so many prior art references would simply not be necessary.” (pg. 18)
Examiner notes Applicant is conflating arguments for 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 103. Novelty and use of multiple references are not a part of the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis. Further, use of multiple references does necessarily support patentability.
Applicant argues, “ Therefore, because the present invention is clearly integrated into a practical application, and should not be considered an abstract idea under step one or step two of the Alice/Mayo analysis.” (pgs. 20-21)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 27 recite the additional elements of a requesting device, a question server and display device. Claim 4 recites the additional element of a response server. Claim 52 recites one or more computing devices. Claim 53 recites a requesting device comprising a processor and a communication interface, a question server and a display device. Claim 54 recites a questions server comprising a processor, a communications interface and a requesting device. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (see ¶0071).
For instance, sending data relating to a transaction and a request for a question, receiving the data relating to a transaction and request for a question, sending the selected question to the requesting device, sending data related to the response to the questions server are generic sending/receiving of data. The steps of automatically selecting a single question based on the transaction data and rules relating to the transaction involves collecting and analyzing data to select related question. The steps of presenting the question, receiving a response and completing the transaction involves general display functionality and input/ data gathering functionality.
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
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 1-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
a requesting device … to send, to a questions server, data relating to the transaction and a request for a question; the questions server, comprising: a processor; one or more databases storing questions; and a rules engine,
…the questions server to: receive the data relating to the transaction and the request for a question from the requesting device;
automatically select a single question from the stored questions based on the transaction data and rules relating to aspects of the transaction evaluated by the rules engine; and
send the selected single question to the [requesting device];
wherein the requesting device is further configured to: present the question to the customer or instruct a display device to present the question to a customer;
present the single question to the customer or instruct a display device to present the single question to a customer;
[wherein the system is further configured to]: receive a response to the question; and send data related to the response to the questions server or a response database following receipt of the response to the single question relating to the transaction, completing the transaction.
The limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities related to managing personal behavior/interactions and sales activities, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a processor). For example, receiving data from a transaction, requesting a question, selecting a single question from stored questions based on transaction data and rules, and receiving a user response to the survey involves managing customer behavior/interactions. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
In addition, the claim could be seen as Mental Processes as one observing and evaluating data (receiving transaction info, selecting a question based on transaction and rules, and receiving responses).
Independent Claims 27, 53 and 54 substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1 and also include the abstract ideas identified above. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claims 2-4 are directed to receiving a response to a single question; Claims 5-8 are directed to selecting questions; Claim 9-11 are directed to transaction data used to select questions; Claim 12 is directed to weightings for questions; Claim 13 is directed to a random number generator for selecting questions; Claim 14-18 are directed to display apparatus and merchant/service provider websites; Claim 19 is directed to receiving a response to question and proceed with payment transaction; Claim 20 is directed to identification numbers; Claims 21-23 are directed to collecting transaction data; Claim 24 is directed to collecting response data; Claim 25 is directed to dynamically adjusting weightings for questions; Claim 26 is directed to communications; Claim 55 is directed to selecting a question based on rules and from a group of questions and Claim 56 is directed to receiving data and sending acknowledgement. Claims 28-52 substantially recite the subject matter of Claims 2-26 and are rejected based on the same rationale. Thus, the dependent claims further limit the abstract concepts found in the independent claims.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 27 recite the additional elements of a requesting device, a question server and display device. Claim 4 recites the additional element of a response server. Claim 52 recites one or more computing devices. Claim 53 recites a requesting device comprising a processor and a communication interface, a question server and a display device. Claim 54 recites a questions server comprising a processor, a communications interface and a requesting device. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (see ¶0071).
For instance, sending data relating to a transaction and a request for a question, receiving the data relating to a transaction and request for a question, sending the selected question to the requesting device, sending data related to the response to the questions server are generic sending/receiving of data. The steps of automatically selecting a single question based on the transaction data and rules relating to the transaction involves collecting and analyzing data to select related question. The steps of presenting the question, receiving a response and completing the transaction involves general display functionality and input/ data gathering functionality.
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a processor, requesting device, a question server etc. are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, the steps related to sending and receiving data are considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the requesting device, questions server, or display device, etc. are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, Claims 1-56 are not patent eligible.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 10, 14, 19, 21, 26-30,36-39, 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grossman et al. (US 2013/0132156) in view of Simon (US
Claim 1:
Grossman discloses:
A system operable to collect, from a merchant and from a customer, a response to a single question relating to a transaction, the system comprising: (see at least ¶0023, compare consumer transaction information received from a merchant to select a survey)
a requesting device comprising a processor executing computer instructions to send, to a questions server, data relating to the transaction and a request for a question; (see at least ¶0023, compare consumer transaction information received from a merchant to select a survey; see also Figure 2 and associated text; see also ¶0027)
the questions server, comprising: a processor; one or more databases storing questions; and a rules engine, said processor executing computer instructions that operate the questions server to: (see at least Figure 2 and associated text; see also ¶0027-¶0029; see also ¶0044-¶0045, consumer criteria)
receive the data relating to the transaction and the request for a question from the requesting device (see at least ¶0044, transaction info is sent to the survey provider; see also ¶0023)
automatically select a single question from the stored questions based on the transaction data and rules relating to aspects of the transaction evaluated by the rules engine; (see at least Figures 6-7 and associated text; see also ¶0044-¶0045, sending transaction information to survey provider and using consumer criteria to select survey)
and send the selected single question to the requesting device; (see at least Figures 6-7 and associated text; see also ¶0044-¶0045, sending transaction information to survey provider and using consumer criteria to select survey)
wherein the processor on the requesting device further executes computer instructions to: present the single question to the customer or instruct a display device to present the single question to a customer; (see at least Figures 6-7 and associated text; see also ¶0045, transmitted survey to consumer)
wherein the system is further configured to: receive a response to the single question; (see at least ¶0046, survey completion)
and send data related to the response to the questions server or a response database,[ following receipt of the response to the single question relating to the transaction, completing the transaction.] (see at least Figure 3 and ¶0067, presenting questions to consumer and receiving responses; see also ¶0014, probing questions can be presented during the processing of their payment transaction or after payment transaction is complete; see also ¶0010, survey can be transmitted immediately following the transaction whether merely initiated or completed)
While Grossman discloses the above limitations, Grossman does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Simon does disclose:
A system operable to collect, from a merchant and from a customer, a response to a single question relating to a transaction, the system comprising: (see at least ¶0049, consumer feedback incentivizing service may communicate survey including one question to a consumer)
a requesting device comprising a processor executing computer instructions to send, to a questions server, data relating to the transaction and a request for a question; (see at least ¶0049, consumer feedback incentivizing service may communicate survey including one question to a consumer; see also ¶0084, single survey question)
and send data related to the response to the questions server or a response database, following receipt of the response to the single question relating to the transaction, completing the transaction. (see at least ¶0050, a merchant may provide on a customer facing electronic device at a point of sale an opportunity for the consumer to provide feedback during the transaction and/or immediately after completing the transaction; see also Figure 5 and associated text)
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 providing real-time consumer surveys of Grossman with the providing of survey before or after completed transaction of Simon to facilitate rapid responses to consumer surveys (see ¶0002).
Claim 2:
While Grossman and Simon disclose claim 1, Grossman does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Simon does disclose:
wherein the requesting device is configured to receive the response to the single question, and the response is received as an input from the customer at the requesting device. (see at least ¶0049, consumer feedback incentivizing service may communicate survey including one question to a consumer; see also Figure 5 and associated text)
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 providing real-time consumer surveys of Grossman with the providing of survey before or after completed transaction of Simon to facilitate rapid responses to consumer surveys (see ¶0002).
Claim 3:
While Grossman and Simon disclose claim 1, Grossman does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Simon does disclose:
wherein the requesting device is configured to receive the response to the single question, and the response is provided to the requesting device from the display device or another device (see at least Figure 5 and associated text; see also ¶0082-¶0084, presenting question on interface and receiving response)
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 providing real-time consumer surveys of Grossman with the providing of survey before or after completed transaction of Simon to facilitate rapid responses to consumer surveys (see ¶0002).
Claim 4:
Grossman and Simon disclose claim 1. Grossman further discloses:
wherein the system further comprises a response server configured to receive the response to the question and send data related to the response to the single questions server or the response database. (see at least Figure 3 and ¶0067, presenting questions to consumer and receiving responses; see also ¶0014, probing questions can be presented during the processing of their payment transaction or after payment transaction is complete)
Claim 10:
Grossman and Simon disclose claim 1. Grossman further discloses:
wherein the requesting device is configured to send the data relating to the transaction to the questions server, wherein the data relates to one or more of: the customer; a good or service being purchased; the merchant or vendor; the timing of the transaction; the type of transaction; or the payment type. (see at least ¶0031-¶0032, transaction information )
Claim 14:
While Grossman and Simon disclose claim 1, Grossman further discloses:
further comprising customer input and display apparatus arranged in communication with the requesting device, wherein the requesting device is configured to send [the selected single question] to the customer input and display apparatus for display, and the customer input and display apparatus configured to receive an input from the customer in response to the displayed question and to send data related to the input to the requesting device. (see at least ¶0012, survey can be transmitted to a nearby kiosk or terminal at merchant location; see also Figure 6)
While Grossman discloses the above limitations, Grossman does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Simon does disclose:
wherein the requesting device is configured to send [the selected single question] to the customer input and display apparatus for display, and the customer input and display apparatus configured to receive an input from the customer in response to the displayed question and to send data related to the input to the requesting device. (see at least ¶0050, a merchant may provide on a customer facing electronic device at a point of sale an opportunity for the consumer to provide feedback during the transaction and/or immediately after completing the transaction; see also Figure 5 and associated text)
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 providing real-time consumer surveys of Grossman with the providing of survey before or after completed transaction of Simon to facilitate rapid responses to consumer surveys (see ¶0002).
Claim 19:
While Grossman and Simon disclose claim 1 and Grossman further discloses survey can be transmitted immediately following the transaction whether merely initiated or completed (see ¶0010), Grossman does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Simon does disclose:
wherein after receiving the response to the single question, the requesting device proceeds with the payment transaction. (see at least ¶50, consumer can provide feedback during the transaction and/or immediately after completing transaction)
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 providing real-time consumer surveys of Grossman with the providing of survey before or after completed transaction of Simon to facilitate rapid responses to consumer surveys (see ¶0002).
Claim 21:
Grossman and Simon disclose claim 1. Grossman further discloses:
wherein the requesting device collects data relating to the transaction prior to sending the request for a question to the questions server. (see at least Figure 5 and ¶0039, financial transaction meets criteria of survey provider)
Claim 26:
Grossman and Simon disclose claim 1. Grossman further disclose:
wherein the system is configured to perform a two-legged exchange of communications between the requesting device and the questions server, (see at least Figures 1-2 and ¶0022-¶0028)
wherein the first leg of the communications comprises the steps of: sending, by the requesting device to a questions server, data relating to the transaction and the request for a single question, and sending, by the questions server to the requesting device, the selected question; and (see at least Figure 5-6, see also ¶0035-¶0042)
the second leg of the communications comprises the steps of: sending, by the requesting device to the questions server, data relating to the input from the customer in response to the question and data relating to a payment of the transaction, and optionally, sending, by the questions server to the requesting device, an acknowledgement of receipt of the data relating to the input from the customer in response to the single question and data relating to a payment of the transaction. (see at least Figure 5-6, see also ¶0035-¶0042)
While Grossman discloses the above limitations, Grossman does not disclose a single question; however, Simon does disclose:
wherein the first leg of the communications comprises the steps of: sending, by the requesting device to a questions server, data relating to the transaction and the request for a single question, and sending, by the questions server to the requesting device, the selected question(see at least ¶0049, consumer feedback incentivizing service may communicate survey including one question to a consumer; see also ¶0084, single survey question)
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 providing real-time consumer surveys of Grossman with the one or more questions of Simon to facilitate rapid responses to consumer surveys (see ¶0002).
Claim 38:
While Grossman and Simon disclose claim 37, Grossman does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however Simon does disclose:
wherein the second leg of the communications takes place after the payment transaction has been authorized. (see at least ¶0050, a merchant may provide on a customer facing electronic device at a point of sale an opportunity for the consumer to provide feedback during the transaction and/or immediately after completing the transaction; see also Figure 5 and associated text)
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 providing real-time consumer surveys of Grossman with the providing of survey before or after completed transaction of Simon to facilitate rapid responses to consumer surveys (see ¶0002).
Claim 39:
While Grossman and Simon disclose claim 37, Grossman does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however Simon does disclose:
wherein the first leg of the communications takes place before sending a request for payment authorization. (see at least ¶0050, a merchant may provide on a customer facing electronic device at a point of sale an opportunity for the consumer to provide feedback during the transaction and/or immediately after completing the transaction; see also Figure 5 and associated text)
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 providing real-time consumer surveys of Grossman with the providing of survey before or after completed transaction of Simon to facilitate rapid responses to consumer surveys (see ¶0002).
Claim 52:
Grossman and Simon disclose claim 21. Grossman further discloses:
One or more computing devices configured to perform the method of any of claims 27. (see at least Figures 2 and associated text)
Claims 27-30, 36-39, 45, 47 and 52 for a method substantially recites the subject matter of Claims 1-4, 10, 19, 21, and 26 for a system and are rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 27 for a method, Claim 53 for a device and Claim 54 for a server substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1 for a system and are rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 5-7, 9, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 31-33, 35, 44, 46, 48, 50 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grossman et al. (US 2013/0132156) in view of Simon (US 2021/0012366) further in view of Shi et al. (US 2020/0311751).
Claim 5:
While Grossman and Simon disclose claim 1, neither explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Shi does disclose:
wherein the step of selecting a question from the stored questions comprises randomly selecting a single question from the stored questions relevant to the transaction data (see at least ¶0014, may select the first subset of questions from different subsets of questions for probing the first consumer based on a set of rules)
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 providing real-time consumer surveys of Grossman and the providing of survey before or after completed transaction of Simon with the random selection of questions of Shi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 6:
While Grossman and Simon disclose claim 1, neither explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Shi does disclose:
wherein the step of selecting a single question from the stored questions comprises: determining, by the rules engine, if any of a first group of questions of the stored questions is triggered based on an element of the transaction data meeting a requirement, and if any one or more of the first group of questions is triggered selecting one of the triggered first group of questions. (see at least ¶0014, may select the first subset of questions from different subsets of questions for probing the first consumer based on a set of rules)
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 providing real-time consumer surveys of Grossman and the providing of survey before or after completed transaction of Simon with the random selection of questions of Shi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 7:
While Grossman, Simon and Shi disclose claim 6, neither explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Shi does disclose:
wherein if more than one of the first group of questions are triggered, selecting one of the triggered first group of questions based on a random selection or a weighted random selection. (see at least ¶0014, randomly selecting from the subset of questions)
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 providing real-time consumer surveys of Grossman and the providing of survey before or after completed transaction of Simon with the random selection of questions of Shi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 9:
Grossman, Simon and Shi disclose claim 6. Grossman further discloses:
wherein the element of the transaction data meeting a requirement relates at least one of: the customer; a good or service being purchased; the merchant or vendor; the timing of the transaction; the type of transaction; or the payment type. (see at least ¶0011, survey selected based on criteria)
Claim 17:
While Grossman and Simon disclose claim 1, neither explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Shi does disclose:
wherein the requesting device is a server providing a merchant website and the data relating to a transaction is based on a basket of goods selected by a customer on the merchant website. (see at least Figure 1 and ¶0023-¶0024, purchasing from a merchant server)
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 providing real-time consumer surveys of Grossman and the providing of survey before or after completed transaction of Simon with merchant site purchases of Shi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 18:
While Grossman, Simon and Shi disclose claim 17, Simon further discloses incentivizing service may transmit for display on a computing device a survey (see ¶0054) and a single question (see Figure 5), neither explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Shi further discloses:
wherein the question server being configured to instruct a display device to present a question to a customer and receive an input from a customer, is configured to send the single question to the merchant website server for displaying the question on a customer device and receiving input from the customer provided to the merchant website from the customer device. (see at least Figure 3 and ¶0059, presenting questions on a user device; see also Figure 4 and associated text)
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 providing real-time consumer surveys of Grossman and the providing of survey before or after completed transaction of Simon with merchant site purchases of Shi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 20:
While Grossman and Simon disclose claim 19, neither explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Shi does disclose:
wherein communications between the requesting device and the questions server comprise one or more of: a Merchant Identification Number (MID), a Terminal Identification Number (TID) and a Partner Identification Number (PID). (see at least ¶0033, merchant identifier)
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 providing real-time consumer surveys of Grossman and the providing of survey before or after completed transaction of Simon with merchant identifier of Shi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 22:
While Grossman and Simon disclose claim 21, neither explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Shi does disclose:
wherein the collection of data relating to the transaction comprises collecting information relating to each of the products being purchased prior to sending the request for a question to the questions server, and (see at least ¶0044, a user browses a merchant website, selects products to purchase, goes to the checkout process, the merchant server receives purchase information and sends to the service provider)
the sending of data relating to the transaction to the questions server comprises sending the data as a batch after data relating to all products being purchased has been collected. (see at least ¶0044-¶0047, the merchant sends purchase information to the service provider)
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 providing real-time consumer surveys of Grossman and the providing of survey before or after completed transaction of Simon with merchant identifier of Shi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 24:
While Grossman and Simon disclose claim 1, neither explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Shi does disclose:
wherein the requesting device is configured to receive an input from a customer in response to a question, and the requesting device is configured, if no input is received within a pre-determined time period, to time-out from waiting for a customer input and proceed to request payment authorization. (see at least ¶0067, user is no longer active when not providing answers within a predetermined amount of time; see also ¶0014)
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 providing real-time consumer surveys of Grossman and the providing of survey before or after completed transaction of Simon with determining user is not active of Shi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 25:
While Grossman and Simon disclose claim 1, neither explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Shi does disclose:
wherein the weightings of one or more of the questions available for selection are dynamically adjusted after each instance of receiving an input in response to said one or more questions. (see at least ¶0017, a lower weight may be assigned to a subset of questions previously asked)
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 providing real-time consumer surveys of Grossman and the providing of survey before or after completed transaction of Simon with the question weighting of Shi to provide an importance to questions and further, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 31-33, 35, 44, 46, 48, 50, 51 for a method substantially recites the subject matter of Claims 5-7, 9, 17, 20, 22, 24 and 25 for a system and are rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 8, 11, 34, 41, 55 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Grossman et al. (US 2013/0132156) in view of Simon (US 2021/0012366) further in view of Anderson et al. (US 6970831).
Claim 8:
While Grossman and Simon disclose claim 1, and Simon discloses providing one or more questions, neither explicitly discloses the following limitation; however, Anderson does disclose:
wherein the step of selecting a question from the stored questions comprises: determining, by the rules engine, if any of a first group of questions are applicable to the received transaction data based on an element of the transaction data meeting a requirement; (see at least column 3, lines 20-32, two groups of questions, functional and customer service groups; see also column 3, lines 58-65, the random selection may be weighted by survey category)
and from the one or more questions determined from the first group of questions and a second group of questions, selecting a single question, wherein the second group of questions are core questions applicable independent of received data, wherein each of the questions has a weighting, and the selection is based on weighted random selection. (see at least column 3, lines 20-32, two groups of questions, functional and customer service groups; see also column 3, lines 58-65, the random selection may be weighted by survey category)
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 providing real-time consumer surveys of Grossman and the providing of survey before or after completed transaction of Simon with the random selection of questions of Anderson to provide a strategic approach to selecting questions.
Claim 11:
Grossman, Simon and Anderson disclose claim 8. Grossman further discloses:
wherein the question server is configured to compare the data received from the requesting device with rules from the rules engine to determine if the data matches any triggers set by the rules for applying the first group of questions. (see at least ¶0023, consumer criteria)
Claim 56:
While Grossman, Simon and Anderson disclose claim 55. Grossman further discloses:
further configured to: receive data related to the input from the customer; and send, to the requesting device, an acknowledgement of receipt of the data relating to the input from the customer. . (see at least Figure 5-6, see also ¶0035-¶0042)
Claims 34 and 41 for a method and Claims 55 for a server substantially recites the subject matter of Claims 8 and 11 for a system and are rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 12 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grossman et al. (US 2013/0132156) in view of Simon (US 2021/0012366) in view of Anderson et al. (US 6970831) further in view of Sun (US 2006/0121432).
Claim 12:
While Grossman, Simon and Anderson disclose claim 8, Anderson further discloses wherein the weightings of the questions determined from the first group of questions and the second group of questions (see at least column 3, lines 20-32, two groups of questions, functional and customer service groups; see also column 3, lines 58-65, the random selection may be weighted by survey category and Anderson further discloses weighted survey category; see also column 2, lines 63-66), neither explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Sun does disclose:
wherein the weightings of the questions determined from the first group of questions and the second group of questions are normalized with respect to the combined total weightings of the questions determined from the first group of questions and the second group of questions. (see at least ¶0020-¶0022, number of practice questions using the normalized weights)
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 providing real-time consumer surveys of Grossman and the providing of survey before or after completed transaction of Simon and the random selection of questions of Anderson with the normalized weights associated with questions of Sun since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Further, normalization of data improves the quality and consistency of data.
Claim 42 for a method substantially recites the subject matter of Claim 12 and is rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 13 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grossman et al. (US 2013/0132156) in view of Simon (US 2021/0012366) further in view of Anderson et al. (US 6970831) further in view of Sun (US 2006/0121432) further in view of Thomas et al. (US 2018/0374378).
Claim 13:
While Grossman, Simon, Anderson and Sun disclose claim 12, and Sun further discloses the normalized weightings(see at least ¶0020-¶0022, number of practice questions using the normalized weights), neither explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Thomas does disclose:
wherein the questions server comprises a random number generator and the random number generator generates a random number to select a single question from the questions determined from the first group of questions and the second group of questions based on the [normalized] weightings of the questions. (see at least ¶0057, question selector includes a random number generator to generate a random number between 1 and 100)
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 providing real-time consumer surveys of Grossman and the providing of survey before or after completed transaction of Simon, the random selection of questions of Anderson and the normalized weights associated with questions of Sun with the random number generator of Thomas to facilitate question selection to minimize bias and promote fairness in how questions are administered.
Claim 43 for a method substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 13 for a system and is rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grossman et al. (US 2013/0132156) in view of Simon (US 2021/0012366) further in view of Nelson et al. (US 2017/0330189).
Claim 15:
While Grossman and Simon disclose claim 14, neither explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Nelson does disclose:
wherein the customer input and display apparatus is a PIN entry device (PED) or a Customer Display Unit (CDU). (see at least ¶0055, PED; see also ¶0023, display)
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 providing real-time consumer surveys of Grossman and the providing of survey before or after completed transaction of Simon and the Pin entry device of Nelson since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 16:
While Grossman, Simon and Nelson disclose claim 15, neither explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Nelson does disclose:
wherein the customer input and display apparatus is configured to receive as an input in response to the question a single key press or touch. (see at least ¶0005, pin entry device may be used to ask a question about the service and collect answer; see also ¶0015)
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 providing real-time consumer surveys of Grossman and the providing of survey before or after completed transaction of Simon and the Pin entry device of Nelson since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 23 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grossman et al. (US 2013/0132156) in view of Simon (US 2021/0012366) further in view of Burningham et al. (US 2022/0201097).
Claim 23:
While Grossman and Simon discloses claim 1, neither explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Burningham does disclose:
wherein the data relating the transaction comprises information relating to the number of characters that can be displayed on a display device on which the single question will be displayed, and the questions server is configured to remove from the questions available for selection any questions that have more than the number of characters that can be displayed on the display. (see at least ¶0056, survey manager can remove one or more survey questions; see also ¶0091, survey question text may be limited to 160 characters; see also ¶0098, for distribution channel the survey question may be deleted or skipped if it does not meet character limitations)
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 providing real-time consumer surveys of Grossman and the providing of survey before or after completed transaction of Simon with the ability to remove or skip survey questions based on character length of Burningham to help facilitate the administration of survey questions within different channels.
Claim 49 for a method substantially recites the subject matter of Claim 23 and is rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grossman et al. (US 2013/0132156) in view of Simon (US 2021/0012366) in view of Coman et al. (US 10558982).
Claim 40:
While Grossman and Simon discloses claim 27, neither explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Coman does disclose:
wherein the communications are over HTTPS in an XML/JSON format in real-time sent over the Internet. (see at least column 15, lines 6-22, real-time API may include https and XML/JSON)
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 providing real-time consumer surveys of Grossman and the providing of survey before or after completed transaction of Simon and the messaging protocols of Coman since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Nobe (US 2019/0005521) discloses The communication interface receives commodity registration information for a transaction. The processor determines one or more questions relating to the transaction. The display device displays the one or more questions indicated by the questionnaire information and a plurality of answer choices for each . A selection of one of the answer choices to each is received via the operation panel.
Cook (US 2017/0098227) discloses collecting and acting upon user feedback per transaction in real-time, comprising a feedback management server that produces and send feedback prompts to clients via a network and receives feedback responses from clients via a network
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights