DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reference to the communication filed on 14 MAY 2026.
Amendments to claims 21, 31, 36 entered and considered. No claims currently or previously canceled.
Claims 21-40 are present and have been examined.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As explained below, the claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One: Is the Claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? YES
With respect to claim(s) 21-40 the independent claim(s) 21, 31, 36 recite(s) a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? YES
With respect to claim(s) 21-40 the independent claim(s) 21, 31, 36 recite(s) is/are directed, in part, to:
A
receiving, at
analyzing,
analyzing the the determined tree structure comprising nodes corresponding to survey inquiries, analysis operations, and potential responses connected by pathways, and defining a machine interpretable representation for determining the survey inquiries to present ;
providing,
receiving,
determining a meaning associated with the natural language input of the and associating the meaning with one or more nodes of the determined tree structure,
generating, based on the at least one candidate survey outcome, a survey response corresponding to the
These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which include managing personal behavior/relationships/interactions between people, including social activities and following instructions. A survey is inherently a behavior between two entities – one asking, one responding. When a user replies to a question, the answer is recorded in some manner thereby creating a response corresponding to the original question. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial and legal interactions, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) additional element: an “electronic survey system” which “receives data packages,” as well as a “processor” which analyzes information and an “instant messenger platform.” Claims 31, 36 further recites a “non- transitory computer readable medium storing instructions” and a “computer device” to perform the claim steps. As a preliminary, Examiner notes that the processors, non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, and a computer device, are recited at a high level of generality — i.e. analyzing sent and received data such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The “electronic survey system” which receives data packages from a third party system, and an “instant messenger platform” are further found to constitute essentially an “application” or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer/computing environment, as well as to be “insignificant extra solution activity” (see MPEP 2106.05g), and further only generally fink the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological field/environment of online communications in the form of surveys deployed via an instant messengering platform. Examiner does not find these elements to be an application or use of the judicial exception beyond generally linking (see MPEP 2106.05e), and further finds that the use of an instant messenger platform/electronic survey system as currently claimed does not constitute an improvement to the functioning of the computer or any other technology/technical field (see MPEP 2106.05a). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO.
The independent claim(s) is/are additionally directed to claim elements such as “electronic survey system” which “receives data packages from a third party system” based on a trigger event; as well as a “processor” which analyzes information, and an “instant messenger platform,” as well as “a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, and a computer device” in claims 31, 36. When considered individually, the “processor, non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, and a computer device” claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims; i.e. that which is well understood, routine and conventional such as generic computing equipment sending and receiving data. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification, for example, at ([034-037] the specification recites that the survey is administered via a messenger platform, or that the survey system utilizes a messenger platform.
At [0165] “Embodiments of the present disclosure may comprise or utilize a special purpose or general-purpose computer including computer hardware, such as, for example, one or more processors and system memory, as discussed in greater detail below. Embodiments within the scope of the present disclosure also include physical and other computer-readable media for carrying or storing computer-executable instructions and/or data structures. In particular, one or more of the processes described herein may be implemented at least in part as instructions embodied in a non-transitory computer-readable medium and executable by one or more computing devices (e.g., any of the media content access devices described herein). In general, a processor (e.g., a microprocessor) receives instructions, from a non-transitory computer-readable medium, (e.g., a memory, etc.), and executes those instructions, thereby performing one or more processes, including one or more of the processes described herein.”
These passages, as well as others, makes it clear that the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense — i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. The specification clearly recites that the invention merely operates either on or via the survey system and the instant messenger platform. These passages, as well as others, makes it clear that the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
As per dependent claims 22-30, 32-35, 37-40:
Dependent claims 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 35, 37, 38, 40 : These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claim which are directed to a method of organizing human activity which include interpersonal activities. These claims provide additional context to the abstract idea(s) in the form of narrowing how the survey questions are selected and presented in sequence, as well as providing a new or additional survey inquiry. However, these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they are directed to abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 23, 26, 33, 34, 39 are not directed any additional abstract ideas these claims do recite non-abstract elements – such as natural language processing, a browsing session, a client device, and a hyperlink. and using natural language to do so. However, as discussed above, the use of natural language processing as claimed represents merely an application of a technology (natural language processing) to the abstract idea (administering surveys, i.e. human behaviors including interpersonal relations). The use of a hyperlink/conversion thereof as claimed represents merely an application of a technology (URL tracking) to the abstract idea (administering surveys, i.e. human behaviors including interpersonal relations). Further, determining that a link has been clicked does not constitute a practical application of an abstract idea nor significantly more thereof. Examiner finds similarly with regard to the client device(s) as discussed with regard to the processor/computing elements identified above. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 21- 40 are believed to be free of the prior art.
The closest prior art of record is believed to be Smullen (US20170180284), Lu (US 20180332167), and Herold (US 20120030301).
Smullen as cited teaches a messaging platform operating via a third party system, analyzing the intent or attributes of the user interaction, querying a survey database, providing the first survey inquiry, receiving and analyzing the messages/inquiries as received, and generating/providing survey the survey results themselves. Sly teaches wherein the third party system is completely separate, as well as more information about the trigger event and where it occurs, as well as using that trigger event to search a database, and the use of a natural language messenger platform to execute the survey itself. Herold teaches the more particular points of the actual inquiries as triggered by the event/third party system — i.e. the predetermined responses of the survey system itself, and the analysis of the messages in terms of selecting the subsequent inquiry of the survey communication event. Examiner finds the tree structure in communication/conjunction with the messaging/databases – the tree as claimed in terms of generation and resulting structure is not fairly found in the prior art references of record separately or in combination.
The Examiner hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence neither anticipates nor renders obvious the particular combination of elements as claimed. That is, the Examiner emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for combining or otherwise modifying the available prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
Response to Arguments
Applicants remarks as filed on 14 MAY 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the 23 APRIL 2026 interview are noted on page 14.
Applicant turns to the rejection under 35 §101 on page 14 of the remarks, with a short summary of USPTO policy regarding subject matter eligibility. On page 15 Applicant discusses Enfish regarding software making a non abstract improvement to computer technology. Examiner does not find analogy between the current claims and Enfish, in that there is no analogous structure to the self-referential table to improve the functioning of the computing technology. Examiner does not find any improvement to the functioning of a computer in the claims as amended, and instead finds a description of the organization of the survey inquiries embodied in a computing environment. Applicant’s discussion of the user meanings/processing as currently claimed instead perhaps recite an improvement to the process of administering a survey, rather than the computing elements themselves. The claims appear to rely on, or apply the computer itself to the abstract idea(s) identified – i.e. a person could customize or select the appropriate answers in the same manner as claimed to be using a computer. Using data packets does not provide for a specific improvement as the self-referential table in Enfish did – nor does the use of a natural language query. Applicant’s claims at best improve the survey process itself, rather than anything technical or technical adjacent.
Applicant’s remaining remarks on pages 17, 18 are found moot in view of the discussion above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at 571-270-1813. 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.
/KATHERINE . KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights