DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s communication of 10/29/25, Applicant, on 1/23/26, amended claims 1, 3-8, 11, 12, 16, 17, and 19, cancelled claims 2, 9, 10, 13, 18, and 20, and added new claims 21-26. Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 12, 14-17, 19, and 21-26 are now pending and have been rejected as indicated below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 11, 12, 14-17, 19, and 21-26 in regard to abstract ideas has been maintained in light of Applicant’s amendments and explanations.
The 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments and explanations.
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, 3-8, 11, 12, 14-17, 19, and 21-26 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 significantly more. Here, under considerations of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, Examiner finds that the Applicant invented a method and system for determining satisfaction through evaluation information for a plurality of interaction sessions with software. Examiner formulates an abstract idea analysis, following the framework described in the MPEP as follows:
Step 1: The claims are directed to a statutory category, namely a "method" (claims 16, 17, and 21) and "system" (claims 1, 3-8, 11, 12, 14-15, 19, and 22-26).
Step 2A - Prong 1: The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely, regarding claim 1:
automatically intercepting, during execution of software, interaction events generated by user interface elements via a user interface event handling mechanism, the interaction events including at least one of control activation events, navigation events, pointer- based input events, text-entry events, or timing-related events, and recording the interaction events with associated element identifiers and system-generated timestamps;
maintaining… an interaction session context during execution of the software, and associating the recorded interaction events with the interaction session context:
receiving user-provided evaluation inputs … in association with the interaction session context;
constructing… a structured evaluation record in memory for a system-defined interaction context, the structured evaluation record comprising fields populated with interaction-derived attributes obtained from recorded interaction events associated with one or more interaction sessions and evaluation attributes obtained from user- provided evaluation inputs that are correlated with the system-defined interaction context;
constructing… a feature vector for the system-defined interaction context, the feature vector comprising at least a portion of the interaction-derived attributes and at least a portion of the evaluation attributes included in the structured evaluation record;
performing a multi-modal analysis on the feature vector to jointly evaluate the interaction-derived attributes and the evaluation attributes and to identify a degraded interaction condition associated with the system-defined interaction context, wherein the degraded interaction condition is identified based on a score computed from the feature vector when the feature vector includes both the interaction-derived attributes and the evaluation attributes, wherein the degraded interaction condition is not identified when either the interaction-derived attributes or the evaluation attributes are excluded;
identifying, based on the multi-modal analysis, one or more interaction-derived attributes contributing to the degraded interaction condition;
displaying a report identifying the one or more interaction-derived attributes contributing to the degraded interaction condition; and
receiving a modification to code of the software that alters behavior of at least one software feature corresponding to the identified interaction-derived attributes.
Independent claims 16 and 19 recite substantially similar claim language.
Dependent claims 3-8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 21-26 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claims 1, 16, and 19 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s) to particular data characterization and/or additional data analyses performed as part of the abstract idea.
The limitations in claims 1, 3-8, 11, 12, 14-17, 19, and 21-26 above falling well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts, specifically the claims are found to correspond to the category of:
"Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)" as the limitations identified above are directed to determining satisfaction through evaluation information for a plurality of interaction sessions with software and thus is a method of organizing human activity including at least commercial or business interactions or relations and/or a management of user personal behavior; and/or
"Mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)" as the limitations identified above include mere data observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, e.g. including user observation and evaluation by determining satisfaction through evaluation information for a plurality of interaction sessions with software, which is capable of being performed mentally and/or using pen and paper.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 12, 14-17, 19, and 21-26 are found to clearly be directed to the abstract idea identified above because the claims, as a whole, fail to integrate the claimed judicial exception into a practical application, specifically the claims recite the additional elements of:
" displaying a survey on a user interface, the user interface displaying one or more questions; receiving a response to a question of the one or more questions through the user interface; storing the response as a value of an evaluation attribute in association with an identifier of the interaction session " (claim 5), however the aforementioned elements directed to the receiving of user input/selection of data to view via a dashboard and displaying corresponding data via the dashboard merely amount to generic GUI elements of a general purpose computer used to "apply" the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract idea of determining satisfaction through evaluation information for a plurality of interaction sessions with software to a particular field of use/technological environment of a GUI dashboard (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore the GUI dashboard input and display of data fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
" A computing system comprising: at least one hardware processor; at least one memory coupled to the at least one hardware processor; and one or more computer-readable storage media comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising / A method, implemented in a computing system comp1ising at least one hardware processor and at least one memory coupled to the at least one hardware processor, the method comprising / One or more computer-readable storage media comprising: computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a computing system comprising at least one hardware processor and at least one memory coupled to the at least one hardware processor, cause the computing system to" (claims 1, 16, and 19) however the aforementioned elements merely amount to generic components of a general purpose computer used to "apply" the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.0S(f)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, furthermore the high-level recitation of receiving data from a generic "computing system" is at most an attempt to limit the abstract to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.0S(h), e.g.: "For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie lndem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags).") and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPE 2106.05(g)) and thus further fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
Step 2B: Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 12, 14-17, 19, and 21-26 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 merely amount to a general purpose computer that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment (MPEP 2106.0S(f)), including merely limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use of KPI analysis by a "computer system" and a GUI "interface", as explained above, and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering or output, (MPEP 2106.0S(g)), as identified above, which is further found under step 2B to be merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser's back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to determining satisfaction through evaluation information for a plurality of interaction sessions with software.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 12, 14-17, 19, and 21-26 are accordingly rejected under 35 USC§ 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of any claim otherwise styled as a machine or manufacture, for example, would be subject to the same analysis.
For further authority and guidance, see:
MPEP § 2106
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility
Subject Matter Overcoming Prior Art
Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 12, 14-17, 19, and 21-26 are found to be provisionally allowable. The claims would be found to be allowable if they overcame the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Reasons for Overcoming the Prior Art
It appears that the instant invention is beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly the invention would NOT have been obvious because one of ordinary skill could not have been expected to achieve it, NOR would they have been able to predict the results, and as such, they would have had no capability of expecting success.
The following is an examiner's statement of features not found in the prior art of record:
Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 12, 14-17, 19, and 21-26 overcome the prior art of record and are found to be provisionally allowable. The following limitations of claim 1,
…
automatically intercepting, during execution of software, interaction events generated by user interface elements via a user interface event handling mechanism, the interaction events including at least one of control activation events, navigation events, pointer- based input events, text-entry events, or timing-related events, and recording the interaction events with associated element identifiers and system-generated timestamps;
maintaining, by the computing system, an interaction session context during execution of the software, and associating the recorded interaction events with the interaction session context:
receiving user-provided evaluation inputs via a user interface in association with the interaction session context;
constructing, by the computing system, a structured evaluation record in memory for a system-defined interaction context, the structured evaluation record comprising fields populated with interaction-derived attributes obtained from recorded interaction events associated with one or more interaction sessions and evaluation attributes obtained from user- provided evaluation inputs that are correlated with the system-defined interaction context;
constructing, by the computing system, a feature vector for the system-defined interaction context, the feature vector comprising at least a portion of the interaction-derived attributes and at least a portion of the evaluation attributes included in the structured evaluation record;
performing a multi-modal analysis on the feature vector to jointly evaluate the interaction-derived attributes and the evaluation attributes and to identify a degraded interaction condition associated with the system-defined interaction context, wherein the degraded interaction condition is identified based on a score computed from the feature vector when the feature vector includes both the interaction-derived attributes and the evaluation attributes, and wherein the degraded interaction condition is not identified when either the interaction-derived attributes or the evaluation attributes are excluded;
identifying, based on the multi-modal analysis, one or more interaction-derived attributes contributing to the degraded interaction condition;
displaying a report identifying the one or more interaction-derived attributes contributing to the degraded interaction condition; and
receiving a modification to code of the software that alters behavior of at least one software feature corresponding to the identified interaction-derived attributes
in combination with the remainder of the claim limitations are neither taught nor suggested, singularly or in combination, by the prior art of record. Furthermore, neither the prior art, the nature of the problem, nor knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art provides for any predictable or reasonable rationale to combine prior art teachings. Independent claims 16 and 19, and dependent claims 3-8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 21-26 are likewise provisionally allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
The closest prior art of record is described as follows:
Gates et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0332287) - The abstract provides for the following: A system and method for real-time prediction of contact center customer satisfaction including means and steps for capturing an interaction between a customer and a customer service agent, converting the captured interaction into transcribed text, analyzing the transcribed text to extract a plurality of unstructured features most closely related to customer satisfaction, combining the extracted features with a plurality of structured features obtained from other contact center data, generating a customer satisfaction score from the combination of extracted unstructured features and structured features, and presenting the customer satisfaction score to contact center personnel.
Ulwick (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0153183) - The abstract provides for the following: A technique to obtain desirable product-specific outcomes is disclosed. An example of a method using the technique includes parameterizing a job to identify steps; defining a market as a job executor of the job; deconstructing the job to determine achievable outcomes at each step in the job; using outcome statements associated with the achievable outcomes as bases for segmentation; allocating customers into segments of customers with different unmet needs, revealing segment of opportunity; uncovering segments of customers that struggle to achieve desirable outcomes at one or more steps of the job; revealing an opportunity to help at least one customer achieve desirable outcomes related to a specific market; designing a product that helps the at least one customer achieve desirable outcomes.
Vlachogiannis et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0055071) - The abstract provides for the following: A quality score for a computer application release is determined using a first number of unique users who have launched the computer application release on user devices and a second number of unique users who have encountered at least once an abnormal termination with the computer application release on user devices. Additionally or optionally, an application quality score can be computed for a computer application based on quality scores of computer application releases that represent different versions of the computer application. Additionally or optionally, a weighted application quality score can be computed for a computer application by further taking into consideration the average application quality score and popularity of a plurality of computer applications.
Kenedy et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0169342) - The abstract provides for the following: Computer based systems, methods, software and databases are presented in which correlations between web item preferences and pangenetic (genetic and epigenetic) attributes of individuals are used for pangenetic based web item satisfaction prediction in which a user can request and receive online predictions of their satisfaction with web items that are based on the user's pangenetic makeup. Data masking can be used to maintain privacy of sensitive portions of the pangenetic data
Allen (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0066020) - The abstract provides for the following: Machine learning and adaptive multi-variable assessment systems and methods are provided herein. Methods include obtaining independent variables of entrepreneur data across a plurality of network modalities, performing, by the server, a dynamic measurement of the independent variables against one or more dependent variables to predict performance of the entrepreneur, engaging in a business opportunity with the entrepreneur based on the dynamic measurement, collecting additional entrepreneur data during the business opportunity and recalculating the dynamic measurement as the additional entrepreneur data is received
Jamil Hussain et al. “A Multimodal Deep Log-Based User Experience (UX) Platform for UX Evaluation.” The abstract provides for the following: The user experience (UX) is an emerging field in user research and design, and the development of UX evaluation methods presents a challenge for both researchers and practitioners. Different UX evaluation methods have been developed to extract accurate UX data. Among UX evaluation methods, the mixed-method approach of triangulation has gained importance. It provides more accurate and precise information about the user while interacting with the product. However, this approach requires skilled UX researchers and developers to integrate multiple devices, synchronize them, analyze the data, and ultimately produce an informed decision. In this paper, a method and system for measuring the overall UX over time using a triangulation method are proposed. The proposed platform incorporates observational and physiological measurements in addition to traditional ones. The platform reduces the subjective bias and validates the user’s perceptions, which are measured by different sensors through objectification of the subjective nature of the user in the UX assessment. The platform additionally offers plug-and-play support for different devices and powerful analytics for obtaining insight on the UX in terms of multiple participants.
Fanning et al. (WO Patent Application Publication Number WO 2024/058913 A1) - The abstract provides for the following: Static analysis of a code base is expanded beyond finding faults to also find code instances where a particular fault could have occurred but did not. A conformance count reflects code portions that satisfy a specified coding rule per static analysis, and a nonconformance count reflects code portions that do not satisfy the coding rule. Various metrics computed from the conformance count and nonconformance count drive software development quality assessments. For example, bugs or bug categories may be prioritized for developer attention, static analysis tools are evaluated based on the metrics, to reduce noise by eliminating low-value bug alerts. Particular areas of expertise of developers and developer groups are objectively identified. Source code editors are enhanced to provide specific recommendations in context. Other quality enhancements are also provided..
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible under 35 USC 101. (See Applicant’s Remarks, 1/23/2026, pgs. 11-14). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the 35 USC 101 analysis presented above, the claims recite an abstract concept that is encapsulated by decision making analogous to a method of organizing human activity. Examiner notes that each of the limitations that encapsulate the abstract concepts are recited in the above 35 USC 101. Additionally, the claims do not recite a practical application of the abstract concepts in that there is no specific use or application of the method steps other than to make conclusory determinations and provide for direction for either a person or machine to follow at some future time. The claims do not recite any particular use for these determinations and directions that improve upon the underlying computer technology (in this instance the computer software, processor, and memory). Instead, Examiner asserts that the additional elements in the claim language are only used as implementation of the abstract concepts utilizing technology. The concepts described in the limitations when taken both as a whole and individually are not meaningfully different than those found by the courts to be abstract ideas and are similarly considered to be certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. The steps are then encapsulated into a particular technological environment by executing these steps upon a computer processor and utilizing features such as a computer interface or sending and receiving data over a network or displaying information via a computerized graphical user interface. However, sending and receiving of information over a network and execution of algorithms on a computer are utilized only to facilitate the abstract concepts (i.e. selecting data on an interface, publishing/displaying information, etc.). As such, Examiner asserts that the implementation of the abstract concepts recited by the claims utilize computer technology in a way that is considered to be generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, Examiner does not find that the claims recite a practical application of the abstract concepts recited by the claims.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW H. DIVELBISS whose telephone number is (571) 270-0166. The fax phone number is 571-483-7110. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, 7:00 - 5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787.
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.
/M. H. D./
Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624