Detailed Action
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is in reply to the Application filed on 12/23/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim of priority to Provisional Application 62203837 is acknowledged; the provisional application does not provide support for at least the step of based on the determining, selecting one or more predetermined user feedback questions based on a determination of relative impact each predetermined user feedback question has on future user purchase decisions or based on whether a consensus has been reached.
Applicant’s claim of priority to US Application 14986091 is acknowledged. The claims are therefore afforded an effective filing date of 8/11/2015.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 10/24/2024 was received and has been considered.
Non-Statutory 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20, of US Patent 12217302B2, hereinafter ‘302, in view of Keller et al (US 8122371 B1), hereinafter Keller.
Instant Claim 1
302 Claim 8
A method comprising: …
selecting one or more predetermined user feedback questions based on a determination of relative impact each predetermined user feedback question has on future user purchase decisions …
A method comprising:
selecting one or more predetermined user feedback questions based on a determination of relative impact each predetermined user feedback question has on future user purchase decisions …;
generating a user feedback page comprising a graphical feedback element associated with a user feedback question from the one or more predetermined user feedback questions and a first user feedback graphic, the graphical feedback element comprising a first graphic indicator and a second graphic indicator that each represents an answer to the user feedback question, the first user feedback graphic displaying an indication of previous feedback results for the user feedback question;
generating a user feedback page comprising a graphical feedback element associated with a user feedback question from the one or more predetermined user feedback questions and a first user feedback graphic, the graphical feedback element comprising a first graphic indicator and a second graphic indicator that each represents an answer to the user feedback question, the first user feedback graphic …displays a percentage corresponding to previous answers to the user feedback question …;
causing presentation of the generated user feedback page on a user interface of a client device of a user;
causing presentation of the generated user feedback page on a user interface of a client device of a user;
receiving, via the user interface, an indication of a selection of the first graphic indicator or the second graphic indicator;
receiving, via the user interface, an indication of a selection of the first graphic indicator or the second graphic indicator;
in response to receiving the indication, generating a second user feedback graphic that includes feedback data from the user based on the selection of the first graphic indicator or the second graphic indicator;
in response to receiving the indication, generating a second user feedback graphic that includes feedback data from the user based on the selection of the first graphic indicator or the second graphic indicator;
and causing an update to the user interface that replaces the first user feedback graphic with the second user feedback graphic and visually distinguishes the selected first graphic indicator or the selected second graphic indicator.
and causing an update to the user interface that replaces the first user feedback graphic with the second user feedback graphic and visually distinguishes the selected first graphic indicator or the second graphic indicator.
However, while ‘302 teaches selecting one or more predetermined user feedback questions based on a determination of relative impact each predetermined user feedback question has on future user purchase decisions, it does not explicitly claim determining whether predetermined user feedback questions already exist for a product; or the optional limitation of the selecting instead being based on whether a consensus has been reached.
However, Keller teaches a criterion-based feedback page [Abstract], including:
determining whether predetermined user feedback questions already exist for a product (Keller: “ Once the default criteria are determined, a default question or statement and at least one default can be determined for each default criterion 1808. These can be predetermined for the application, or can be selected based on factors such as popular questions for a criterion in related items. ” Col. 16, line 60-Col. 17, line 10 - “A number of criterion-based statements can be displayed … and these statements are continually sorted … upon each request for a page containing that information… in a number of other ways, such as by weighting certain criteria, weighting votes of certain users, or any other appropriate way of utilizing a weighted sort known or used in the art.” Col. 7, line 67- Col. 8, line 11); and
based on the determining, selecting one or more predetermined user feedback questions based on whether a consensus has been reached (Keller: “A number of criterion-based statements can be displayed … and these statements are continually sorted … upon each request for a page containing that information… in a number of other ways, such as by weighting certain criteria, weighting votes of certain users, or any other appropriate way of utilizing a weighted sort known or used in the art.” Col. 7, line 67- Col. 8, line 11 – “a minimum number of responses might be required for the durability responses to count in the sort, or the number of responses could be used as a weighting factor for the sort such that a small number of responses does not undesirably skew the results of the sort. ” Col. 16, lines 25-45– “only a new submission or submission without at least a minimum number of votes will have such an element displayed. For example, if a question has 1000 responses spread relatively evenly over two responses, there likely is no need to have a reporting element. Further, in such a case the provide might not wish to waste the resources of having to review requests relating to feedback that many users obviously find useful. ” Col. 14, lines 25-35 – “since the feedback displayed can be sorted so that the questions or statements with the most responses are presented first, any user-submitted questions or feedback that are not utilized by the “community” will fade toward the bottom of the displayed feedback and will not get in the way of a user attempting to find what the community implicitly determines to be more important or useful. In some systems, a question or statement that exists for a certain period of time (such as a year) without any feedback other than that submitted by the originating user may be removed or deleted in order to attempt to ensure that only the most useful information is displayed.” Col. 14, line 60-Col. 15, line 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, ‘302 would continue to teach selecting one or more predetermined user feedback questions based on a determination of relative impact each predetermined user feedback question has on future user purchase decisions, except that now it would also teach determining whether predetermined user feedback questions already exist for a product; and based on the determining, selecting one or more predetermined user feedback questions based on whether a consensus has been reached, according to the teachings of Keller. This is a predictable result of the combination.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because it would result in an improved ability to give users a better overall impression of the worth of feedback data (Keller: Col. 6, lines 45-50).
Instant Claim 2
302 Claim 8
The method of claim 1, wherein the determination of relative impact comprises analyzing purchase trends for a product or type of product to determine which one or more predetermined user feedback questions were most predictive of user purchase decisions.
…a determination of relative impact …by analyzing purchase trends for a product or type of product to determine which predetermined user feedback questions were most predictive of user purchase decisions…
Instant Claim 3
302 Claim 8
The method of claim 1, wherein the first feedback graphic comprises a feedback image that graphically displays a percentage corresponding to at least one previous answer to the user feedback question.
… the first user feedback graphic … that graphically displays a percentage corresponding to previous answers to the user feedback question …
Instant Claim 4
302 Claim 10
The method of claim 1, wherein the selecting further comprises selecting the one or more predetermined user feedback questions from a plurality of predetermined user feedback questions ranked by topic based on preferences of the user.
The method of claim 8, wherein the selecting further comprises selecting the one or more predetermined user feedback questions from a plurality of predetermined user feedback questions ranked by topic based on the preferences of the user.
Instant Claim 5
302 Claim 11
The method of claim 1, wherein the selecting further comprises selecting the one or more predetermined user feedback questions with a fewest received responses.
The method of claim 8, wherein the selecting further comprises selecting the one or more predetermined user feedback questions with a fewest received responses.
Instant Claim 6
302 Claim 12
The method of claim 1, wherein no predetermined user feedback questions already existing for the product, the method further comprising: identifying a class of products associated with the product, wherein the one or more predetermined user feedback questions are selected from predetermined questions associated with the class of products.
The method of claim 8, further comprising:…
in response to determining that there are no predetermined user feedback questions already associated with the product, identifying a class of products associated with the product, wherein … the one or more predetermined user feedback questions for the product is based on predetermined questions associated with the class of products …
Instant Claim 7
302 Claim 13
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a purchase request for the product from the user, wherein generating the user feedback page is in response to receiving the purchase request.
The method of claim 8, further comprising:
receiving a purchase request … from a current user, wherein generating the user feedback page is in response to receiving the purchase request.
Instant Claim 8
302 Claim 14
The method of claim 1, wherein generating the user feedback page comprises generating a set of aspect cards, each aspect card comprising a corresponding graphical feedback element associated with a different user feedback question and a corresponding user feedback graphic illustrating a percentage corresponding to at least one previous answer to the different user feedback question.
The method of claim 8, wherein generating the user feedback page comprises generating a set of aspect cards, each aspect card comprising a corresponding graphical feedback element associated with a different user feedback question and a corresponding user feedback graphic illustrating percentages corresponding to previous answers to the different user feedback question.
Instant Claim 9
302 Claim 8
The method of claim 1, wherein the user feedback page comprises a second graphical feedback element associated with a second user feedback question from the one or more predetermined user feedback questions and a second user feedback graphic, the second user feedback graphic displaying an indication of previous feedback results for the second user feedback question.
… generating a second user feedback graphic that includes feedback data from the user based on the selection of the first graphic indicator or the second graphic indicator; and causing an update to the user interface that replaces the first user feedback graphic with the second user feedback graphic and visually distinguishes the selected first graphic indicator or the second graphic indicator.
Regarding Claims 10-18, the limitations of claims 10-18 are closely parallel to the limitations of pending claims 1-9, and are rejected over claims 1-7 of ‘302 in view of Keller for similar reasons to those outlined above with respect to claims 1-9.
Regarding Claims 19-20, the limitations of claims 19-20 are closely parallel to the limitations of pending claims 1 and 9, and are rejected over claim 15 of ‘302 in view of Keller for similar reasons to those outlined above with respect to claims 1 and 9.
Claim Eligibility - 35 USC § 101
The claims recite eligible subject matter. Specifically, the amended claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims recite steps including generating a user feedback page comprising a graphical feedback element associated with a user feedback question from the one or more predetermined user feedback questions and a first user feedback graphic, the graphical feedback element comprising a first graphic indicator and a second graphic indicator that each represents an answer to the user feedback question, the first user feedback graphic displaying an indication of previous feedback results for the user feedback question; causing presentation of the generated user feedback page on a user interface of a client device of a user; receiving, via the user interface, an indication of a selection of the first graphic indicator or the second graphic indicator; in response to receiving the indication, generating a second user feedback graphic that includes feedback data from the user based on the selection of the first graphic indicator or the second graphic indicator; and causing an update to the user interface that replaces the first user feedback graphic with the second user feedback graphic and visually distinguishes the selected first graphic indicator or the selected second graphic indicator. These limitations recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment, providing an interactive and adaptive user interface specifically configured for the claimed operations, allowing real-time adaptation of the UI in response to user engagement (Spec: [0020]), such that the claims provide an inventive concept to the claim as a whole [MPEP 2106.05(e)]. The claims as a whole are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception [MPEP 2106.04(d)], and are therefore eligible under 101.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejection – 35 USC § 103
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 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1,3, 6-10, 12, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al (US 8122371 B1), hereinafter Keller, and further in view of Gerken (US 20080059308 A1), hereinafter Gerken.
Regarding claim 1, Keller discloses a method comprising:
determining whether predetermined user feedback questions [criterion-based statements] already exist for a product (Keller: “ Once the default criteria are determined, a default question or statement and at least one default can be determined for each default criterion 1808. These can be predetermined for the application, or can be selected based on factors such as popular questions for a criterion in related items. ” Col. 16, line 60-Col. 17, line 10 - “A number of criterion-based statements can be displayed … and these statements are continually sorted … upon each request for a page containing that information… in a number of other ways, such as by weighting certain criteria, weighting votes of certain users, or any other appropriate way of utilizing a weighted sort known or used in the art.” Col. 7, line 67- Col. 8, line 11);
based on the determining, selecting one or more predetermined user feedback questions based on a determination of relative impact each predetermined user feedback question has on future user purchase decisions or based on whether a consensus has been reached (Keller: “A number of criterion-based statements can be displayed … and these statements are continually sorted … upon each request for a page containing that information… in a number of other ways, such as by weighting certain criteria, weighting votes of certain users, or any other appropriate way of utilizing a weighted sort known or used in the art.” Col. 7, line 67- Col. 8, line 11 – “a minimum number of responses might be required for the durability responses to count in the sort, or the number of responses could be used as a weighting factor for the sort such that a small number of responses does not undesirably skew the results of the sort. ” Col. 16, lines 25-45– “only a new submission or submission without at least a minimum number of votes will have such an element displayed. For example, if a question has 1000 responses spread relatively evenly over two responses, there likely is no need to have a reporting element. Further, in such a case the provide might not wish to waste the resources of having to review requests relating to feedback that many users obviously find useful. ” Col. 14, lines 25-35 – “since the feedback displayed can be sorted so that the questions or statements with the most responses are presented first, any user-submitted questions or feedback that are not utilized by the “community” will fade toward the bottom of the displayed feedback and will not get in the way of a user attempting to find what the community implicitly determines to be more important or useful. In some systems, a question or statement that exists for a certain period of time (such as a year) without any feedback other than that submitted by the originating user may be removed or deleted in order to attempt to ensure that only the most useful information is displayed.” Col. 14, line 60-Col. 15, line 10);
generating a user feedback page comprising a graphical feedback element associated with a user feedback question from the one or more predetermined user feedback questions and a first user feedback graphic [percentage] (Keller: “FIG. 3 illustrates an example user interface 300 in a browser window showing feedback …information such as an image, title or name information, and data or other information about the item is displayed, along with options to purchase the item, write a full review, or provide a general rating for the item.” Col. 6, lines 4-10 – Figure 3 illustrates a question “do you agree?” Such questions are further discussed in Col. 6, lines 13-30. The “78%” is recognized as a graphical element showing feedback.),
the graphical feedback element comprising a first graphic indicator and a second graphic indicator that each represents an answer to the user feedback question (Keller: “in the case of a binary question or statement such as the first statement, the user can be presented with a set of user-selectable elements 308 (such as selectable buttons, checkboxes, icons, etc.). In this case the user can simply click on a “yes” or “no” element, and the user feedback will be submitted for the user and the feedback rating will be automatically aggregated and updated in the displayed first statement 304.” Col. 6, lines 54-61 – With reference to Figure 3, the first and second indicators may be “yes” and “no” respectively.),
the first user feedback graphic displaying an indication of previous feedback results for the user feedback question (Keller: “As displayed, this statement indicates that 78% of the voting users have indicated that they believe the laptop is durable.” Col. 6, lines 16-17);
causing presentation of the generated user feedback page on a user interface of a client device of a user (Keller: The interface is displayed in a browser window. Col. 6, lines 4-10 – “graphical user interface … for a browser application on a client device” Col. 4, lines 55-56);
receiving, via the user interface, an indication of a selection of the first graphic indicator or the second graphic indicator (Keller: “In this case the user can simply click on a “yes” or “no” element, and the user feedback will be submitted for the user” Col. 6, lines 57-64);
in response to receiving the indication, generating a second user feedback graphic that includes feedback data from the user based on the selection of the first graphic indicator or the second graphic indicator (Keller: “In this case the user can simply click on a “yes” or “no” element, and the user feedback will be submitted for the user and the feedback rating will be automatically aggregated and updated in the displayed first statement 304. … The interface (or a portion thereof) can be refreshed in order to show the updated rating.” Col. 6, lines 57-64 – “After the user submits the feedback, the user can be directed back to the display of the item information 500 as illustrated in FIG. 5. As can be seen, the statement displayed 502 for that criterion has been updated to reflect the newly submitted feedback from the user.” Col. 7, lines 63-67 – See Figures 3-5.); and
causing an update to the user interface that replaces the first user feedback graphic with the second user feedback graphic (Keller: “the feedback rating will be automatically aggregated and updated in the displayed first statement 304” Col. 6, lines 59-61 – “the statement displayed 502 for that criterion has been updated to reflect the newly submitted feedback from the user” Col. 7, lines 65-67),
but does not specifically teach that the update visually distinguishes the selected first graphic indicator or the selected second graphic indicator.
However, Gerken teaches an answer aggregation system (Gerken: Abstract), including that the update visually distinguishes the selected first graphic indicator or the second graphic indicator (Gerken: “the user has selected to vote for Katie Couric, and the GPM immediately reflects the user's choice by highlighting the selected answer option and updating the graphical and text Voting results.” [0143] – “When a user clicks on one of the answer buttons, … the vote may be immediately registered if that user has not already voted on the GPM during the current tally window. The vote completion may be made apparent to the user. Such as with a slight graphical change to the selected answer button and, if practical, an immediate update to the displayed results.” [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Keller would continue to teach causing an update to the user interface that replaces the first user feedback graphic with the second user feedback graphic, except that now it would also teach that the update visually distinguishes the selected first graphic indicator or the second graphic indicator, according to the teachings of Gerken. This is a predictable result of the combination.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because it would result in an improved ability to aggregate and present an immediate measure of public opinion (Gerken: [0003], [0005]).
Regarding claim 3, Keller/Gerken teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first feedback graphic comprises a feedback image that graphically displays a percentage corresponding to at least one previous answer to the user feedback question (Keller: “As displayed, this statement indicates that 78% of the voting users have indicated that they believe the laptop is durable.” Col. 6, lines 16-17 – See Figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, Keller/Gerken teach the method of claim 1, wherein no predetermined user feedback questions already existing for the product, the method further comprising: identifying a class of products associated with the product, wherein the one or more predetermined user feedback questions are selected from predetermined questions associated with the class of products (Keller: “FIG. 18 illustrates an example method 1800 for determining such default information that can be used ... information is received for an item 1802. This can include, for example, specification information for an item from a manufacturer … this can include parsing any reviews submitted for this item or a similar items. A parsing process can analyze the specification information to perform functions such as extracting keywords and determining at least one category for the item 1804. Based on the keyword(s) and/or category(ies), the system can determine at least one default criterion for the item 1806. In the case of a laptop, the category laptop might have the criterion ‘durability’ set as a default criterion... detecting keywords in the specification information such as “screen size' or “battery life' can lead to corresponding keywords being set as defaults for the item. Once the default criteria are determined, a default question or statement and at least one default can be determined for each default criterion 1808. These can be predetermined for the application, or can be selected based on factors such as popular questions for a criterion in related items. When a user subsequently accesses information for this item, the user can see the default statements and/or questions 1810, or at least can see these as default options when the user wishes to submit feedback for the item.” Col. 16, line 49- Col. 17, line 6).
Regarding claim 7, Keller/Gerken teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a purchase request for the product from the user (Keller: “a user-selectable purchase element 206 allowing the user to purchase the laptop (or at least place the laptop into a virtual shopping cart or shopping bag as known in the art for subsequent purchase). Mechanisms for … providing for user purchasing, and other related functionality are well known in the art” Col. 4, line 62-Col. 5, line 2 – “information such as an image, title or name information, and data or other information about the item is displayed, along with options to purchase the item, write a full review, or provide a general rating for the item.” Col. 6, lines 6-10),
wherein generating the user feedback page is in response to receiving the purchase request (Keller: “information such as an image, title or name information, and data or other information about the item is displayed, along with options to purchase the item, write a full review, or provide a general rating for the item.” Col. 6, lines 6-10 – “the rating of experienced … users … will give more weight to users who have indicated that they actually own or have purchased the item.” Col. 8, lines 14-17 – “a user must have made at least one purchase through the system in order to obtain the privileges to Submit feedback.” Col. 8, lines 53-56).
Regarding claim 8, Keller/Gerken teach the method of claim 1, wherein generating the user feedback page comprises generating a set of aspect cards, each aspect card comprising a corresponding graphical feedback element associated with a different user feedback question and a corresponding user feedback graphic illustrating a percentage corresponding to at least one previous answer to the different user feedback question (Keller: “A user also can respond to any of a number of existing questions and statements for an item, in order to provide more useful feedback in a way that is quick and easy for the user” Col. 5, lines67-Col. 7, line 3 – “the user interface 500 can also …allowing the user to view any additional statements and responses for this item, … On such a page, the user can view all responses to all statements and questions submitted for criterion relating to the item.” Col. 8, lines 19-27).
.
Regarding claim 9, Keller/Gerken teach the method of claim 1, wherein the user feedback page comprises a second graphical feedback element associated with a second user feedback question from the one or more predetermined user feedback questions and a second user feedback graphic, the second user feedback graphic displaying an indication of previous feedback results for the second user feedback question (Keller: “A user also can respond to any of a number of existing questions and statements for an item, in order to provide more useful feedback in a way that is quick and easy for the user” Col. 5, lines67-Col. 7, line 3 – “the user interface 500 can also …allowing the user to view any additional statements and responses for this item, … On such a page, the user can view all responses to all statements and questions submitted for criterion relating to the item.” Col. 8, lines 19-27).
Regarding claims 10, 12, 15-18, the limitations of claims 10, 12, 15-18 are closely parallel to the limitations of claims 1, 3, 6-9, with the additional limitation of a system comprising: one or more hardware processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, causes the one or more hardware processors to perform operations (Keller: Col. 4, Col 17-18), and are rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claims 19-20, the limitations of claims 19-20 are closely parallel to the limitations of claims 1, 9, with the additional limitation of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a machine, cause the machine to perform operations (Keller: Col. 18, Claim 24), and are rejected on the same basis.
Claims 4-5, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller, in view of Gerken, and further in view of Reynolds et al (US 20080235375 A1), hereinafter Reynolds.
Regarding claim 4, Keller/Gerken teach the method of claim 1, but do not specifically teach that the selecting further comprises selecting the one or more predetermined user feedback questions from a plurality of predetermined user feedback questions ranked by topic based on preferences of the user.
However, Reynolds teaches systems for user surveys (Reynolds: Abstract), including that the selecting further comprises selecting the one or more predetermined user feedback questions from a plurality of predetermined user feedback questions ranked by topic based on preferences of the user (Reynolds: “survey questions may also be selected … based on user-specific information … may learn the user's identity and leverage this information to select an appropriate question. …access to the user's account information or other personal information pertaining to the user, and may select a question based on some characteristic of the user. … retrieve a student's …major, … campus activities, etc., …and then select a survey question more applicable to the student.” [0021] – It is understood that the selection of questions relevant to such a preference constitutes a ranking of those questions as the most relevant.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Keller/Gerken would continue to teach selecting one or more predetermined user feedback questions, except that now it would also teach that the selecting further comprises selecting the one or more predetermined user feedback questions from a plurality of predetermined user feedback questions ranked by topic based on preferences of the user, according to the teachings of Reynolds. This is a predictable result of the combination.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because it would result in an increased accuracy of the survey. (Reynolds: [0022]).
Regarding claim 5, Keller/Gerken teach the method of claim 1, but do not specifically teach that the selecting further comprises selecting the one or more predetermined user feedback questions with a fewest received responses.
However, Reynolds teaches systems for user surveys (Reynolds: Abstract), including that the selecting further comprises selecting the one or more predetermined user feedback questions with a fewest received responses (Reynolds: “sending one or more user questions …receiving a user response corresponding to each of the one or more user questions” Claim 1 – “wherein at least one of the user questions is selected from a plurality of predetermined questions based on a determination of which of the plurality of predetermined questions has received the least number of responses.” Claim 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Keller/Gerken would continue to teach selecting one or more predetermined user feedback questions, except that now it would also teach that the selecting further comprises selecting the one or more predetermined user feedback questions with a fewest received responses, according to the teachings of Reynolds. This is a predictable result of the combination.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because it would result in an increased accuracy of the survey. (Reynolds: [0022]).
Regarding claims 13-14, the limitations of claims 13-14 are closely parallel to the limitations of claims 4-5, and are rejected on the same basis.
Allowable over Prior Art of Record
Claims 2 and 11 are allowable over prior art though rejected on other grounds (e.g. Double Patenting) as discussed above. The combination of elements of the claim as a whole are not found in the prior art.
Claims 2 and 11 would be allowable over prior art if rewritten to overcome the rejections above and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the totality of the evidence, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention.
In the present application, claims 2 and 11are allowable over prior art. The most related prior art patent of record include Keller, Gerken, and Reynolds.
Keller discloses a system for presenting criterion-based statements on a product page, where a user may provide feedback by selecting a button, causing the percentage of reviewers to express their answer to the question to update in real-time. These questions are selected for displaying based on a continual sorting of the available questions upon each request for the page. The questions can be weighted based on the votes of certain users or other criteria. For instance, a minimum number of responses can be required to ensure a level of consensus among respondents, to avoid a small number of erroneous answers to “skew the results.” Questions with an established answer may not be provided with a means to respond, such that only those considered to not have achieved consensus will be presented to allow response. Questions with the most responses can be presented first, with those that are determined to not be impactful, due to not having been answered for a period of time, are removed or sorted lower.
Gerken teaches an answer aggregation system [Abstract] in which questions are presented along with a real-time display of user responses [0143], and which allows users to select a response, changing the visual representation of the selected icon [0051].
Reynolds teaches systems for user surveys [Abstract], including selecting user questions to receive a response [CLM 1] based on a determination of which questions have received the least number of responses [CLM 10].
However, each of these limitations fail to disclose or render obvious at least the limitations of: selecting one or more predetermined user feedback questions based on a determination of relative impact each predetermined user feedback question has on future user purchase decisions, wherein the determination of relative impact comprises analyzing purchase trends for a product or type of product to determine which one or more predetermined user feedback questions were most predictive of user purchase decisions.
Each of these references fail to disclose or render obvious the combination of limitations in claims 2 and 11, alone or in obvious combination. Therefore, at least for the combination of elements recited in the independent claims, the independent claims and those that depend thereon are allowable over prior art if rewritten 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:
Bedard et al (US 20060282304 A1) teaches systems for collaborative rating and recommending of items, including multi-category reviews that are represented as pie charts.
Summers (US 20100042422 A1) teaches systems for displaying product scores based on user ratings.
Finklestein et al (US 20120123823 A1) teaches systems for processing user feedback after completion of a purchase, including multiple categories of feedback.
Brun (US 20120245923 A1) teaches feedback systems that summarize user ratings in a pie chart.
Taghaddos et al (US 20130111323 A1) teaches survey feedback systems that present multiple graphic elements associated with a feedback question, and summarize responses in a pie chart.
Reference U (NPL -see attached) discusses e-commerce rating and review systems, including dynamic representations of overall customer ratings of a product.
Reference V (NPL – see attached) discusses aggregate ratings of multiple customers to represent an overall rating of a product, including different representations of customer feedback and presentations of review-based product recommendations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9736. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-5 MT.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on (571) 272-6764. 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.
/T.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights