DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The following FINAL Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response filed 03/24/2026 regarding Application 18/813,097.
Status of Claim(s)
Claim(s) 1-39 have been cancelled. Newly added Claim(s) 40-41 is/are currently pending and are rejected as follows.
Response to Arguments – 101 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the previously applied 101 rejection have been fully considered but are not deemed persuasive.
Applicant argues that with claims 1-39 cancelled, the previously applied 101 rejection is no longer applicable, and the newly added claims 40-41 are in condition for allowance.
Examiner does not find the arguments persuasive as when analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 101, the newly added claims recite an invention that is directed towards one or more judicial exceptions. First independent claim 40 is analyzed under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework and determined to be directed towards one of the statutory categories, specifically that of a method comprising at least one step. The claims are then analyzed under Step 2A, Prong One, to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea. Claim 40 as currently presented provides a method for conducting user testing in order to determine a net promoter score of respondents to a survey and categorizing the respondents based on the determined scores, and additionally analyzes sentiment from free-text responses, generating metrics for combinations of response sentiments and net promoter score ratings that are organized in a 3x3 rating vs sentiment matrix, defining weight values for the combinations, counting and tabulating responses to the net promoter score surveys, multiplying the response count by the weights, aggregating the weighted average for the metrics, calculating a true net promoter score via the value of said metrics, storing the net promoter scores in a memory, calculating a higher weights to response sentiments to determine a true categorization and evaluation for the respondents, and using the evaluations to estimating influencing metrics. These actions recite method of Organizing Human Activity (Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People), Math (Mathematical Calculations), and a Mental Process (Observations, Evaluations, Judgements, and Opinions that can reasonably be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper). The claims are then analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two do determine if the claims recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent claim 40 recites the additional elements of; a data acquisition module, one or more processing units, a data processing module, non-volatile memory, data storage, interconnect, I/O device interface, random access memory (RAM), and network interface. These additional elements were deemed to be no more than merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Additionally, elements such as the data acquisition module, interconnect, I/O device interface, and network interface represent examples of Well-Understood, Routine, or Conventional Activity within the art. Under Step 2B, it was determinate the even when the claims were considered as a whole, the additional elements were again examples of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, or additionally well-understood, routine, or conventional activity (specifically that of mere data gathering). Therefore Claim(s) 40 and by dependency Claim 41 are ineligible with regard to 35 U.S.C. 101. Further elaboration regarding this determination is given in the amended 101 rejection below.
Response to Arguments – 103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the previously applied 103 rejection have been fully considered and deemed persuasive.
Examiner accordingly withdraws the previously applied prior art rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 40-41 is/are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed
invention(s) is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e. law of nature, a natural
phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 40-41 recite an invention for conducting user testing in order to determine a net promoter score of respondents to a survey and categorizing the respondents based on the determined scores, and additionally analyzes sentiment from free-text responses, generating metrics for combinations of response sentiments and net promoter score ratings that are organized in a 3x3 rating vs sentiment matrix, defining weight values for the combinations, counting and tabulating responses to the net promoter score surveys, multiplying the response count by the weights, aggregating the weighted average for the metrics, calculating a true net promoter score via the value of said metrics, storing the net promoter scores in a memory, calculating a higher weights to response sentiments to determine a true categorization and evaluation for the respondents, and using the evaluations to estimating influencing metrics. These actions fall within the subject matter of abstracts ideas which the courts have considered ineligible (Mental Process (Observations, Evaluations, Judgments, and Opinions with the aid of pen and paper), Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People), and Mathematical Concepts (Mathematical Relationships, Mathematical Formulas or Equations, and Mathematical Calculations)).
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claim(s) 40-41 are directed towards a method comprising at least one step. Accordingly, the claims fall within the
four statutory of invention (method) and will be further analyzed under
Step 2 of the Alice/Mayo framework.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether
the claims recite an abstract idea
Independent claim 40 recite an invention which recite the abstract ideas of Organizing Human Activity, Mental Process, and Math in the following limitations:
receiving a response to a net promoter score survey…using the following steps:
a user providing the response as answers to a net promoter score (NPS) survey, said NPS survey comprising the following questions:
a question one that asks "On a scale from 0 to 10, how likely are you to recommend this product/service/company to a friend or colleague?" wherein the answer is an integer from 0 to 10, otherwise referred to as a rating;
a question two that asks for the reasoning behind the user's answer to the question one, wherein the answer is a free-text response;
calculating a respondent type of promoter, passive or detractor…using the following steps:
receiving the response…:
creating a sorting of the respondent by the following logic:
if the respondent's answer to the question one is 9 or 10, then the respondent is classified as a promoter;
if the respondent's answer to the question one is 7 or 8, then the respondent is classified as a passive;
if the respondent's answer to the question one is 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, then the respondent is classified as a promoter;
and saving said sorting in a memory and a data storage;
classifying the NPS rating into high, medium, and low values…using the following steps:
creating a rating of the response of the respondent based on the following logic:
if the respondent is a promoter, the rating is high;
if the respondent is a passive, the rating is medium;
if the respondent is a detractor, the rating is low;
saving said rating in the memory and the data storage;
analyzing the sentiment of the free-text response…using sentiment analysis, and storing the results of said analysis, also referred to as sentiments, in the memory, wherein each sentiment is determined to be positive, negative, or neutral;
generating a metric for each combination of a response sentiment and a net promoter score rating…using the following step:
creating a 3x3 Rating versus Sentiment matrix mapping the NPS ratings with the response sentiments, wherein each cell of the matrix is labeled with words for what the metric means;
defining a weight value for said combination…;
counting and tabulating the response to the net promotor score survey for said combination…wherein the ..counts and tabulates the total number of responses, promoters, detractors, passives, high ratings, low ratings, and medium ratings store in the memory and the data storage;
multiplying the weight value with the response count for obtaining a weighted segment-wise count utilizing the data processing module, utilizing the one or more processing units;
calculating an aggregate weighted average for the metric…and storing said aggregated weighted average in the memory and the data storage;
interpreting a value of said metric in a business context…and storing said value in the memory and the data storage;
calculating a true net promoter score with equal weightage to response sentiment and net promotor score ratings…defined using the following logic:
if a respondent had a high NPS rating and a free-text response that has positive or neutral sentiment, then they are classified as a true promoter;
if a respondent had a medium NPS rating and a free-text response that has positive sentiment, then they are classified as a true promoter;
if a respondent had a low NPS rating and a free-text response that has negative or neutral sentiment, then they are classified as a true detractor;
if a respondent had a medium NPS rating and a free-text response that has negative sentiment, then they are classified as a true detractor;
if a respondent had a medium NPS rating and a free-text response that has neutral sentiment, then they are classified as a true passive;
if a respondent had a low NPS rating and a free-text response that has positive sentiment, then they are classified as a mixed passive;
if a respondent had a high NPS rating and a free-text response that has negative sentiment, then they are classified as a mixed passive;
storing the true net promoter score with equal weightage to response sentiment and net promotor score ratings in the memory and the data storage;
calculating a true net promotor score with higher weightage to response sentiment than net promoter score rating…using the following steps:
if a respondent had a free-text response that has positive sentiment, then they are classified as a true promoter;
if a respondent had a high NPS rating and a free-text response that has neutral sentiment, then they are classified as a true promoter;
if a respondent had a free-text response that has negative sentiment, then they are classified as a true detractor;
if a respondent had a low NPS rating and a free-text response that has neutral sentiment, then they are classified as a true detractor;
if a respondent had a medium NPS rating and a free-text response that has neutral sentiment, then they are classified as a true passive;
storing the true net promotor score with higher weightage to response sentiment than net promoter score rating in the memory and the data storage;
calculating a true net promotor score with higher weightage to net promoter score rating than response sentiment…using the following steps:
if a respondent had a high NPS rating, then they are classified as a true promoter;
if a respondent had a medium NPS rating and a free-text response that has positive sentiment, then they are classified as a true promoter;
if a respondent had a low NPS rating, then they are classified as a true detractor;
if a respondent had a medium NPS rating and a free-text response that has negative sentiment, then they are classified as a true detractor;
if a respondent had a medium NPS rating and a free-text response that has neutral sentiment, then they are classified as a true passive;
storing the true net promotor score with higher weightage to net promoter score rating than response sentiment in the memory and the data storage; and
interpreting the true net promoter scores in a business context for estimating one or more influencing metrics and impact of customer sentiment…
Dependent claim 41 merely further limits the abstract idea and is therefore for the same reasons enumerated above.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, any additional elements would be considered to see as to whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Independent claim 40 recites:
a data acquisition module,
one or more processing units,
a data processing module,
non-volatile memory,
data storage,
interconnect,
I/O device interface,
random access memory (RAM),
and network interface
These additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered pair do no more than represent mere instructions to implement the abstract idea ("apply it") computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, the claims represent insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). These elements are recited with a high degree of generality, and the specification sets forth the general purpose nature of the technologies required to implement the invention (emphasis added).
Support for this determination can be found in Paragraph(s) [0024]-[0025] and [0050]-[0056] of Applicant’s specification.
Under Step 2B eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e. whether any additional element, o combination of elements, adds an inventive concept to the claims (MPEP 2106.05). As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, there are several additional elements. The data acquisition module, one or more processing units, a data processing module, non-volatile memory, data storage, interconnect, I/O device interface, random access memory (RAM), and network interface are all at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words "apply it" to the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further the data acquisition module, interconnect, I/O device interface, and network interface all represent insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and are additionally actions that are well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art, specifically that of mere data gathering. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Insignificant extra solution activity, especially that which is well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art does not provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements to are not deemed to be sufficient enough to provide an inventive concept onto the abstract idea, therefore, they are not eligible. (Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 134 S. Ct. at 2389, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a §101 that turns on "the draftsman's art")).
Dependent claim 41 does not recite any further additional elements and is therefore rejected for the same reasons provided above.
Reasons for Overcoming Pertinent Prior Art
Claim(s) 40-41 are deemed by Examiner to overcome the pertinent prior art, as any applicable prior art does not disclose, either fully or in combination with other art, such as to read on applicant’s claimed limitations in their entirety. Listed below is the prior art most applicable reasons for application, and their deficiencies.
Kolano (US 2024/0078484 A1) discloses acquisition of survey data to classify respondents based on calculations of the answers to a questionnaire, however, does not disclose the specific questions, evaluations, classification scores, or weight values
McLaughlin (US 2021/0256545 A1) discloses weighted evaluations for determining impact factors with regards to outcomes and classifications, but does not disclose specific survey questions asked to a respondent, specific score ranges, or true classification categories
Samant (US 2023/0062929 A1) discloses a net promoter score prediction based on response and sentiment analysis but does not disclose specific survey questions asked to a respondent, specific score ranges for the responses, or true classification categories based on true weighted scores organized on a matrix
Conclusion
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 concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip N Warner whose telephone number is (571)270-7407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4:00pm.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/Philip N Warner/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights