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 a non-final, first office action in response to the application filed 21 March 2025.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 21 March 2025 was filed before the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an information server; a central server communicatively coupled to the information server; and at least one user device sends an information query to the information server, the central server, or both through a communication network; wherein the information query comprises a request for data related to at least one entity, at least one review, or a combination thereof; wherein the central server or the information server receives the information query and aggregates the data related to the at least one entity, the at least one review, or a combination thereof based on the information query; wherein the central server provides the at least one review related to the at least one entity in the information query.
The limitations of sending an information query to a party, wherein the information query comprises a request for data related to at least one entity, at least one review, or a combination thereof, wherein the party receives the information query and aggregates the data related to the at least one entity, the at least one review, or a combination thereof based on the information query, and wherein the party provides the at least one review related to the at least one entity in the information query; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass the management of commercial activity (marketing, business relations), and steps that can be performed in the human mind. That is, other than reciting the use of generic computer elements (information server, central server, communication network, user device), the claims recite an abstract idea. In particular, the claims recite sending an information query to a party requesting information related to an entity and/or review, the party receiving the request and aggregating the information, and the party providing the information; which encompasses managing marketing (business information and reviews), and managing the business relations between the party and the businesses. As such, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, the claims further recite sending an information query to a party, said party receiving the query and aggregating a response, and said party providing the response; which encompass elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement). As such, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements, taken individually and in an ordered combination, that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer elements (information server, central server, communication network, user device) as tools to carry out the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are directed to non-patent eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 2-4, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea. In particular, the claims further recite the party communicating with the user (these parties being the generic computer elements identified in claim 1), to compute a review; which encompasses computing the review requested; which is the management of commercial activities, and the performance of elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement); as such the claims further recite elements that fall under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 2). In addition, the claims further recite the content of a query, which is deemed merely narrowing the field of use; and thus, does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 3). In addition, the claims further recite the content of a review, which is deemed merely narrowing the field of use; and thus, does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 4).
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite receiving a request for a review process initiation for at least one user interaction; presuming a review for at least one entity for the at least one user interaction based on historical data; sending a confirmation request with the review to the at least one user; initiating a counter against the confirmation request, wherein the counter is based on time, attempts, or a combination thereof; and updating the review based on a response of the user to the confirmation request or counter expiration.
The limitations of receiving a request for a review process initiation for at least one user interaction, presuming a review for at least one entity for the at least one user interaction based on historical data, sending a confirmation request with the review to the at least one user, initiating a counter against the confirmation request, and updating the review based on a response of the user to the confirmation request or counter expiration; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses the management of commercial activity (marketing, business relations), and steps that can be performed in the human mind. That is, other than reciting the use of generic computer elements (user device, server), the claims recite an abstract idea. In particular, the claims recite receiving a request for a review process initiation from a user, presuming a review for the user based on historical information, providing the presumed review to the user along with a time limit to confirm or reject the review, and updating the review based on the user confirmation; which encompasses the writing a review for a user upon request, and receiving their approval/disapproval in a time period; which is the management of commercial activity (reviews/marketing, business relations between the user and a business). As such, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, the claims further recite receiving a request for a review process initiation from a user, presuming a review for the user based on historical information, providing the presumed review to the user along with a time limit to confirm or reject the review, and updating the review based on the user confirmation; which encompass elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement). As such, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements, taken individually and in an ordered combination, that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer elements (user device, server) as tools to carry out the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are directed to non-patent eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 6-9, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea. In particular, the claims further recite determining an identifier of the user interaction and business; which encompasses determining the relevant business and interaction to review, which is the management of commercial activities, and the performance of elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement); as such the claims further recite elements that fall under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 6). In addition, the claims further recite predicting a review based on historical data using present rules; which encompasses predicting a user’s review based on their past experiences; which is the management of commercial activities, and the performance of elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement); as such the claims further recite elements that fall under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 7). In addition, the use of “artificial intelligence” is recited at such a high level of generality, that it is deemed merely “apply it,” and thus, does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 7). In addition, the claims further recite determining a rating and confidence level based on the user interaction and historical data; which encompasses predicting a user’s review and the confidence level of said review being correct based on collected data; which is the management of commercial activities, and the performance of elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement); as such the claims further recite elements that fall under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 8). In addition, the claims further recite updating the review based on user responses to the presumed review; which is the management of commercial activities, and the performance of elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement); as such the claims further recite elements that fall under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 9).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Narula (US 2021/0365968 A1) (hereinafter Narula).
With respect to claim 1, the Narula teaches:
An information server; a central server communicatively coupled to the information server; and at least one user device sends an information query to the information server, the central server, or both through a communication network; Wherein the information query comprises a request for data related to at least one entity, at least one review, or a combination thereof (See at least paragraphs 81, 90, and 91 which describe a user requesting a review lookup, wherein the request is sent to a server, and includes the business they are interested in receiving the review for and their information).
Wherein the central server or the information server receives the information query and aggregates the data related to the at least one entity, the at least one review, or a combination thereof based on the information query; Wherein the central server provides the at least one review related to the at least one entity in the information query (See at least paragraphs 81, 90, and 91 which describe a user requesting a review lookup, wherein the request is sent to a server, and includes the business they are interested in receiving the review for and their information, and wherein the server provides retrieved reviews to the user).
With respect to claim 2, Narula discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Narula teaches:
Wherein the central server communicates with the information server, at least one user device, or a third-party server to compute the review (See at least paragraphs 81, 90, and 91 which describe a server communicating with a database and the user to aggregate reviews).
With respect to claim 3, Narula discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Narula teaches:
Wherein the information query contains a unique identifier (See at least paragraphs 81, 90, and 91 which describe the user requesting a review, and providing a unique identifier (e.g. phone number, business name) which identifies the parties they wish to receive a review regarding).
With respect to claim 4, Narula discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Narula teaches:
Wherein the at least one review comprises a star rating, a score, a comment, a badge, a comparative metric, or a combination thereof (See at least paragraphs 80, 90, and 91 which describe the reviews as including comments and ratings on a scale).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman et al. (US 2019/0340659 A1) (hereinafter Chapman), in view of Bowen (US 2020/0160612 A1) (hereinafter Bowen).
With respect to claims 5 and 10, Chapman teaches:
Receiving a request for a review process initiation for at least one user interaction (See at least paragraphs 14, 15, 23, 42, 46, and 47 which describe receiving a initiation review process for user interactions with services/businesses)
Presuming a review for at least one entity for the at least one user interaction based on historical data (See at least paragraphs 15, 24, 25, 47, and 52 which describe predicting a review for a product/service for the user based on historical information of the user and other users).
Sending a confirmation request with the review to the at least one user; Updating the review based on a response of the user to the confirmation request or counter expiration (See at least paragraphs 15, 25, 26, 47, 49, 52, and 53 which describe presenting the generated reviews to a user and receiving their approval, disapproval, or edit of the review based on their experience with the product/service, wherein the user profile and review is updated based on the user response).
Chapman discloses all of the limitations of claims 5 and 10 as stated above. Chapman does not explicitly disclose the following, however Bowen teaches:
Initiating a counter against the confirmation request, wherein the counter is based on time, attempts, or a combination thereof (See at least paragraphs 342 and 342 which describe presenting a user for confirmation regarding the output of a CNN, wherein the presentation includes a countdown timer for which the user has to approve or deny the presented information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of generating a predicted review for a product/service based on user interactions and historical data, wherein a user is presented with the predicted review and is able to approve/disapprove/edit it based on their own experience, and updating their profile and the reviews based on the response of Chapman, with the system and method of presenting a user for confirmation regarding the output of a CNN, wherein the presentation includes a countdown timer for which the user has to approve or deny the presented information of Bowen. By providing a user with a countdown timer to respond to confirmation request, a service will predictably be able to free up resources in a faster manner due to time constraints on the user. Additionally, by placing a timer on a user to confirm a predicted review, a system will predictably be able to ensure that reviews are current and relevant.
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Chapman and Bowen discloses all of the limitations of claim 5 as stated above. In addition, Chapman teaches:
Wherein presuming a review includes predicting a review based on the historical data using artificial intelligence or preset rules (See at least paragraphs 15, 22, 24, 25, 47, and 52 which describe predicting a review for a product/service for the user based on historical information of the user and other users, and wherein the prediction is down using machine learning).
With respect to claim 8, Chapman/Bowen discloses all of the limitations of claims 5 and 7 as stated above. In addition, Chapman teaches:
Wherein predicting the review includes determining a rating and a confidence level based on the at least one user interaction and the historical data (See at least paragraphs 15, 22, 24, 25, 27-29, 47, and 52 which describe predicting a review for a product/service for the user based on historical information of the user and other users, wherein the prediction is down using machine learning, and wherein the predicted review including a rating and a confidence level that the user will like the target based on user interactions and historical data).
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Chapman and Bowen discloses all of the limitations of claim 5 as stated above. In addition, Chapman teaches:
Wherein updating the review based on a response of the user to the confirmation request or counter expiration; wherein the response includes: a. Acceptance of the review; b. Rejection with an updated review; c. Rejection; or d. No response (See at least paragraphs 15, 25, 26, 47, 49, 52, and 53 which describe presenting the generated reviews to a user and receiving their approval, disapproval, or edit of the review based on their experience with the product/service, wherein the user profile and review is updated based on the user response).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman and Bowen as applied to claim 5 as stated above, and further in view of Narula.
With respect to claim 6, Chapman/Bowen discloses all of the limitations of claim 5 as stated above. Chapman and Bowen do not explicitly disclose the following, however Narula teaches:
Wherein the review process initiation comprises determining a unique identifier related to the at least user interaction and corresponding entity (See at least paragraphs 83-85 and 87-89 which describe a user requesting a review, wherein the user provides identifiers for the business they wish to review and themselves).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of generating a predicted review for a product/service based on user interactions and historical data, wherein a user is presented with the predicted review and is able to approve/disapprove/edit it based on their own experience, and updating their profile and the reviews based on the response of Chapman, with the system and method of presenting a user for confirmation regarding the output of a CNN, wherein the presentation includes a countdown timer for which the user has to approve or deny the presented information of Bowen, with the system and method of a user requesting a review, wherein the user provides identifiers for the business they wish to review and themselves of Narula. By providing user identity information and business identity information, a system will predictably be able to confirm that the user did in fact utilize the business/service, therefore preventing fraud.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571)-270-1833. 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.
Michael Harrington
Primary Patent Examiner
19 February 2026
Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628