Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA
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
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter 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. Claim(s) 21, 27, and 33 is/are directed to method, system, and medium respectively as seen below:
Re claim 21, a computer-implementable method for performing a human experience operation within a human experience enhancement environment, the human experience enhancement environment comprising a human experience enhancement system and a human experience data source, comprising:
performing an extraction operation via an extraction engine, the extraction engine extracting human experience related data from the human experience data source, the extraction operation abstracting the human experience related data into standardized human experience concepts and categorized human experience concepts;
performing an enrichment operation via an enrichment engine, the enrichment engine receiving the standardized human experience concepts and categorizing the standardized human experience concepts into corresponding classes of standardized human experience concepts;
performing an analysis operation via the analysis engine, the analysis engine receiving the categorized corresponding concepts and the corresponding classes of standardized human experiences and mapping the categorized human experience concepts and the corresponding classes of standardized human experience concepts to provide a mapped human experience insight, the mapped human experience insight comprising a human experience insight, the human experience insight comprising information associated with how to enhance a relationship of a customer with an organization during a lifecycle of a customer relationship between the customer and the organization; and,
providing the mapped human experience insight to the results engine, the results engine using the mapped human experience insight generate a human experience recommendation, the human experience recommendation comprising a proposed course of action to enhance a human experience of the customer to provide a human experience result, the human experience result enhancing the human experience of the customer with the organization; and wherein
the human experience of the customer includes a customer experience of the customer and a user experience of the customer, the customer experience of the customer reflecting a holistic perception of the organization based upon interactions throughout a lifecycle of a customer relationship, the user experience of the customer reflecting an attitude of the customer about using a particular product, system or service of the organization; and,
the human experience of the customer refers to characteristics of the customer that shape what the customer expects from the organization, the human experience of the customer being based at least in part on the customer experience of the customer and the user experience of the customer.
Wherein claims 27 and 33 further include additional elements including processor, data buss…, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium…
Under Prong I step 2A for these independent claims 21, 27 and 33, the limitations in italic above are considered as abstract idea limitations since these limitations can be mentally be done in human mind with given the data set. In another words, given the human experience data sources, one ordinary skill in the art can extract specific type of data by filtering/extracting, then standardize, categorize as needed in order to further analyze the data set to produce a set of recommendations by observation, evaluation, and making judgement on the data set.
Under Prong II step 2A, all the non-italic limitations in these claims are considered as additional elements however, these additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely, either individually or in combination, considered as high level generalized computer system structure as processor, memory, and/or software tool/engine. In addition, other additional elements including receiving the data is considered as pre-activity solution for collecting/gathering the information over the network which is insignificantly amount to the judicial exception. Thus, they do not integrate into the practical application.
Under step 2B, all the non-italic limitations in these claims are considered as additional elements however, these additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely, either individually or in combination, considered as high level generalized computer system structure as processor, memory, and/or software tool/engine, see MPEP 2106.05.(d). In addition, other additional elements including receiving the data is considered as pre-activity solution for collecting/gathering the information over the network which is insignificantly amount to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, they do not integrate into the practical application.
Other limitations in dependent claims 22-26 below further reciting abstract idea limitations that can be mentally done in human. Thus, they do not recite any additional elements that would either individually or in combination that would significantly amount to the judicial exception.
Re claim 22, iterating the analysis operation to generate a refined mapped human experience insight.
Re claim 23, the analysis operation applies a ranked hierarchy of standardized human experience concepts when providing the mapped human experience insight.
Re claim 24, the analysis operation includes plotting a plurality of human experience insights via a scatter plot; and, identifying the mapped human experience insight based upon the scatter plot.
Re claim 25, the scatter plot comprises a weighted Cartesian scatter plot.
Re claim 26, a relative importance of each of the plurality of human experience insights is indicated by a respective location of each insight on the weighted Cartesian scatter plot and a proportional size of a depiction of each insight on the weighted Cartesian scatter plot.
Re claims 27-32, these claims are system claims having similar limitations cited in claims 27-32. Thus, claims 27-32 are also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claims 27-32 respectively above.
Re claims 33-38, these claims are medium claims having similar limitations cited in claims 27-32. Thus, claims 33-38 are also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claims 27-32 respectively above.
Re claims 39-40, these limitations “the computer executable instructions are deployable to a client system from a server system at a remote location and the computer executable instructions are provided by a service provider to a user on an on-demand basis.” are considered as additional elements under Prong II step 2A, however these additional elements is considered as “apply it” with the judicial exception which mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer system. Thus, it does not integrate into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-23, 27-29, 33-35 and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Frank et al. (U.S. 11,232,466 B2).
Re claim 21, Frank et al. disclose in Figures 1-33 a computer-implementable method for performing a human experience operation within a human experience enhancement environment, the human experience enhancement environment comprising a human experience enhancement system and a human experience data source (e.g. abstract and Figures 8-10), comprising: performing an extraction operation via an extraction engine, the extraction engine extracting human experience related data from the human experience data source, the extraction operation abstracting the human experience related data into standardized human experience concepts and categorized human experience concepts (e.g. col. 5 line 64 to col. 6 line 12, col. 151 lines 33-45, and col. 161 lines 15-32 with feature extraction); performing an enrichment operation via an enrichment engine, the enrichment engine receiving the standardized human experience concepts and categorizing the standardized human experience concepts into corresponding classes of standardized human experience concepts (e.g. col. 192 lines 9-27, col. 193 line 60 to col. 194 line 5, col. 233 lines 40-65 and col. 260 line 54 to col. 261 line 7 with classifier); performing an analysis operation via the analysis engine, the analysis engine receiving the categorized corresponding concepts and the corresponding classes of standardized human experiences and mapping the categorized human experience concepts and the corresponding classes of standardized human experience concepts to provide a mapped human experience insight, the mapped human experience insight comprising a human experience insight, the human experience insight comprising information associated with how to enhance a relationship of a customer with an organization during a lifecycle of a customer relationship between the customer and the organization (e.g. col. 234 lines 9-67 and col. 259 line 65 to col. 260 line 20 with data analysis on the collected information); and, providing the mapped human experience insight to the results engine, the results engine using the mapped human experience insight generate a human experience recommendation, the human experience recommendation comprising a proposed course of action to enhance a human experience of the customer to provide a human experience result, the human experience result enhancing the human experience of the customer with the organization (e.g. col. 19 line 60 to col. 20 line 2, col. 125 lines 22 – 37, col. 214 lines 30-43, and col. 220 line 62 to col. 221 line 11 modeling with recommendation to the user); and wherein the human experience of the customer includes a customer experience of the customer and a user experience of the customer, the customer experience of the customer reflecting a holistic perception of the organization based upon interactions throughout a lifecycle of a customer relationship, the user experience of the customer reflecting an attitude of the customer about using a particular product, system or service of the organization (e.g. col. 8 lines 35-55, col. 50 line 60 to col. 51 line 13, and col. 331 line 62 to col. 332 line 25 with reflecting experience toward an object); and, the human experience of the customer refers to characteristics of the customer that shape what the customer expects from the organization, the human experience of the customer being based at least in part on the customer experience of the customer and the user experience of the customer (e.g. abstract and claim 1).
Re claim 22, Frank et al. disclose in Figures 1-33 iterating the analysis operation to generate a refined mapped human experience insight (e.g. col. 50 line 60 to col. 51 line 14 and col. 278 line 62 to col. 279 line 25).
Re claim 23, Frank et al. disclose in Figures 1-33 the analysis operation applies a ranked hierarchy of standardized human experience concepts when providing the mapped human experience insight (e.g. Figure 24 and col. 2 lines 7-14).
Re claim 27, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 21. Thus, claim 27 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 21 above.
Re claim 28, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 22. Thus, claim 28 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 22 above.
Re claim 29, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 23. Thus, claim 29 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 23 above.
Re claim 33, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 21. Thus, claim 33 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 21 above.
Re claim 34, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 22. Thus, claim 34 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 22 above.
Re claim 35, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 23. Thus, claim 35 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 23 above.
Re claim 39, Frank et al. disclose in Figures 1-33 the computer executable instructions are deployable to a client system from a server system at a remote location (e.g. Figures 24 and 33).
Re claim 40, Frank et al. disclose in Figures 1-33 the computer executable instructions are provided by a service provider to a user on an on-demand basis (e.g. col. 212 lines 40-55 with request).
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.
Claims 24-25, 30-31, and 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. (U.S. 11,232,466 B2) in view of Kozine et al. (U.S. 2013/0342538 A1).
Re claim 24, Frank et al. fail to disclose the analysis operation includes plotting a plurality of human experience insights via a scatter plot; and, identifying the mapped human experience insight based upon the scatter plot. However, the analysis operation includes plotting a plurality of human experience insights via a scatter plot; and, identifying the mapped human experience insight based upon the scatter plot (e.g. abstract and paragraphs [0072 and 0086]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add the analysis operation includes plotting a plurality of human experience insights via a scatter plot; and, identifying the mapped human experience insight based upon the scatter plot as seen in Kozine et al.’s invention into Frank et al.’s invention because it would enable to visual the data efficiently for identifying information.
Re claim 25, Frank et al. in view of Kozine et al. disclose the scatter plot comprises a weighted Cartesian scatter plot (e.g. Kozine et al. - paragraph [0086]).
Re claim 30, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 24. Thus, claim 30 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 24 above.
Re claim 31, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 25. Thus, claim 31 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 25 above.
Re claim 36, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 24. Thus, claim 36 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 24 above.
Re claim 37, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 25. Thus, claim 37 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 25 above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,086,729 B2 in view of Frank et al. (U.S. 11,232,466 B2).
The claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,086,729 B2 anticipates every limitations correspond and respectively in claims 21-40 of pending application. However, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,086,729 B2 fails to disclose the limitation “performing an enrichment operation via an enrichment engine, the enrichment engine receiving the standardized human experience concepts and categorizing the standardized human experience concepts into corresponding classes of standardized human experience concepts”. This limitation can be in Frank et al. wherein Frank et al. disclose performing an enrichment operation via an enrichment engine, the enrichment engine receiving the standardized human experience concepts and categorizing the standardized human experience concepts into corresponding classes of standardized human experience concepts (e.g. col. 192 lines 9-27, col. 193 line 60 to col. 194 line 5, col. 233 lines 40-65 and col. 260 line 54 to col. 261 line 7 with classifier). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add performing an enrichment operation via an enrichment engine, the enrichment engine receiving the standardized human experience concepts and categorizing the standardized human experience concepts into corresponding classes of standardized human experience concepts as seen in Frank et al.’s invention into Paten No. 12,086,729 because it would enable to create a structure data set for efficiently analyze and manage.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 respectively of U.S. Patent No 11,748,637 B2 in view of Frank et al. (U.S. 11,232,466 B2).
The claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,748,637 B2 anticipates every limitations correspond and respectively in claims 21-40 of pending application. However, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,748,637 B2 fails to disclose the limitations “performing an extraction operation via an extraction engine, the extraction engine extracting human experience related data from the human experience data source, the extraction operation abstracting the human experience related data into standardized human experience concepts and categorized human experience concepts;” and “performing an enrichment operation via an enrichment engine, the enrichment engine receiving the standardized human experience concepts and categorizing the standardized human experience concepts into corresponding classes of standardized human experience concepts”. These limitations can be in Frank et al. wherein Frank et al. disclose performing an extraction operation via an extraction engine, the extraction engine extracting human experience related data from the human experience data source, the extraction operation abstracting the human experience related data into standardized human experience concepts and categorized human experience concepts (e.g. col. 5 line 64 to col. 6 line 12, col. 151 lines 33-45, and col. 161 lines 15-32 with feature extraction); performing an enrichment operation via an enrichment engine, the enrichment engine receiving the standardized human experience concepts and categorizing the standardized human experience concepts into corresponding classes of standardized human experience concepts (e.g. col. 192 lines 9-27, col. 193 line 60 to col. 194 line 5, col. 233 lines 40-65 and col. 260 line 54 to col. 261 line 7 with classifier). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add performing an extraction operation via an extraction engine, the extraction engine extracting human experience related data from the human experience data source, the extraction operation abstracting the human experience related data into standardized human experience concepts and categorized human experience concepts; performing an enrichment operation via an enrichment engine, the enrichment engine receiving the standardized human experience concepts and categorizing the standardized human experience concepts into corresponding classes of standardized human experience concepts as seen in Frank et al.’s invention into Paten No. 11,748,637 because it would enable to create a structure data set for efficiently analyze and manage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26, 32, and 38 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and Double Patenting rejections, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20210150341-A1
US-20130282628-A1
US-20130073473-A1
US-20250086088-A1
US-9245243-B2
US-11232466-B2
US-20130342538-A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUOC H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am -3:30 pm.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHUOC H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451