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 .
Continuation
This application is a continuation (“CON”) application of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 18/397,978 filed December 27, 2023 and U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 15/958,960 filed April 20, 2018 (“Parent Applications’). See MPEP §201.08. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Applications. Also, in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered “of record’ in the Parent Applications are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Applications are relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/05/2025, 10/24/2025, 12/02/2025, and 04/02/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. The initialed and date copies of applicants’ IDS forms 1449 are attached to this instant Office Action.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are considered in this Office Action. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the “Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (as explained in MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the system (claims 1-7), the computer program product (claim 8-14), and the method (claims 15-20) are directed to an eligible categories of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of managing commercial interactions including sales activities or behavior and business relations, which falls into the “method of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. The claimed invention also recites an abstract idea that fall within a mental process. The limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted in italics and the limitation directed to additional elements highlighted in bold, as set forth in exemplary claim 1, are: A data processing system for controlling automated surveys, comprising: a processor; a data store, storing a plurality of transactions thereon, each transaction comprising transaction metadata and a voice session recording of an inbound call recorded by a call center recording system, the transaction metadata for each transaction comprising an identifier for that transaction; a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions executable on the processor for: identifying, by the processor, a set of transactions from the plurality of transactions that meet the trigger condition; identifying, by the processor, a set of survey targets, the set of survey targets comprising a survey target for each transaction in the set of transactions; generating, by the processor, a worklist for the survey campaign to control conducting of surveys by an automated survey system that is configured to execute the worklist, the worklist comprising a work item for each of the set of transactions and each work item comprising transaction identification data for a transaction from the set of transactions and contact information for the survey target for the transaction corresponding to the transaction identification data in the work item; and providing the worklist to the automated survey system to cause the automated survey system to conduct surveys according to a survey form based on the worklist. Claims 8 and 15 recite substantially recite the same limitation as claim 1 and therefore subject to the same rationale.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to A data processing system, a processor, a data store, and a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions executable on the processor to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification paras. 0063 and 0155 describe high level general purpose computer) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: A data processing system, a processor, a data store, a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions executable on the processor. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification (paras. 0063 and 0155) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of concepts of organizing human activity, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-4, 8-11, 14-18, and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chian Chiu Li (US 2015/0356578 A1, hereinafter “Li”) in view of Terrance Patrick Tietzen (US 2016/0180360 A2, hereinafter “Tietzen”).
Claims 1/8/15:
Li teaches:
A data processing system for controlling automated surveys, comprising [0013 Li is directed to an improved system and method to conduct surveys]: a processor [para. 0026 describes a processor]; a data store [para. 0026 storage module]…; a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions executable on the processor for [para. 0026 Processor 16 may run programs or sets of executable instructions stored in medium 22 for performing various functions and tasks]:
identifying, by the server tier, a set of transactions from the plurality of transactions that meet the trigger condition [para. 0037 describes the following example On the other hand, when a credit card is used for payment, and a smartphone is registered with a survey center, the smartphone may receive instructions to start a survey. Examiner Note: where the trigger is the credit card payment];
identifying, by the processor, a set of survey targets, the set of survey targets comprising a survey target for each transaction in the set of transactions [para. 0037 describes the following example On the other hand, when a credit card is used for payment, and a smartphone is registered with a survey center, the smartphone may receive instructions to start a survey. Survey related information, including case ID, user ID, survey result, and event info, may be sent to server 82 by processor 16 via network 14];
generating, by the processor, a worklist for a survey campaign to control conducting of surveys by an automated survey system that is configured to execute the worklist, the worklist comprising a work item for each of the set of transactions and each work item comprising transaction identification data for a transaction from the set of transactions and contact information for the survey target for the transaction corresponding to the transaction identification data in the work item [para. 0037 describes the following example on the other hand, when a credit card is used for payment, and a smartphone is registered with a survey center, the smartphone may receive instructions to start a survey. Survey related information, including case ID, user ID, survey result, and event info. The following example on the other hand, when a credit card is used for payment, and a smartphone is registered with a survey center, the smartphone may receive instructions to start a survey. Examiner Note: where the trigger is the credit card payment. para. 0043 For example, a user may install an application on a smartphone or computer to set up a system for survey sessions. During the installation process, the user may be asked to give authorization to conduct surveys and to submit personal information for creating an account. The submitted information is then transferred to a facility of survey center, e.g., server 82 of FIG. 1. The info may be stored at database 20. Then after a user shows up in an event, like dining at a restaurant, the restaurant, under an agreement or contract, may send event and user info to a survey center, which in turn may send a message to a device registered with the user, and to prompt a survey session, or add one more event to a survey list prepared for the user];
and providing the worklist to the automated survey system to cause the automated survey system to conduct surveys according to a survey form based on the worklist [para. 0043 Then after a user shows up in an event, like dining at a restaurant, the restaurant, under an agreement or contract, may send event and user info to a survey center, which in turn may send a message to a device registered with the user, and to prompt a survey session, or add one more event to a survey list prepared for the user].
While Li teaches that the survey center may obtain the transaction info and arrange a survey session as described in 0040 and using vocal/voice session to receive response to survey/feedback as described in 0057, and further teaches log database which may store user ID information and survey ID information, which may be used to trace a survey a user participated and survey database which may store survey results and other survey related information, such as information on the survey event as described in 0027. Li does not explicitly discloses storing a plurality of transactions thereon, each transaction comprising transaction metadata and a voice session recording of an inbound call recorded by a call center recording system, the transaction metadata for each transaction comprising an identifier for that transaction and the campaign schedule, however, Tietzen is also in the field of survey and user feedback (Abstract) and discloses:
storing a plurality of transactions thereon, each transaction comprising transaction metadata and a voice session recording of an inbound call recorded by a call center recording system, the transaction metadata for each transaction comprising an identifier for that transaction [fig. 5 illustrates a data store of a managing feedback system, and para. [0133] Feedback component may store merchant records relating to merchant system 104 for data collected from transactions, feedback requests, feedback responses, and so on, while para. 0023 The voice feedback response may be converted into text data for storage and retrieval. The voice feedback response may also be stored as audio or video signals. The feedback response may be saved in a data store separate from the cardholder device 106].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the inventory storing transaction metadata and voice session of surveys/feedback and associating each feedback with transaction ID, as disclosed in Tietzen, within the invention of Li because it is useful for a merchant to solicit and receive feedback from customers regarding its transactions in order to better service and ensure customer satisfaction (Tietzen para. [0003]).
Claim 2/9/16:
Li teaches:
The data processing system of Claim 1, wherein the non-transitory computer readable medium further comprises instructions executable on the processor for processing the worklist to control the conducting of the surveys according to the survey form [para. 0043 Then after a user shows up in an event, like dining at a restaurant, the restaurant, under an agreement or contract, may send event and user info to a survey center, which in turn may send a message to a device registered with the user, and to prompt a survey session, or add one more event to a survey list prepared for the user].
Claim 3/10/17:
Li teaches:
The data processing system of Claim 1, wherein the campaign information further includes a campaign type selected from a plurality of campaign types [fig. 2 and para. 0054 describe and illustrate two campaign types voice (vocal ) and web survey (click or tap survey type)].
Claim 4/11/18:
Li teaches:
The data processing system of Claim 3, wherein the campaign types comprise a voice survey campaign and a web survey campaign [fig. 2 and para. 0054 describe and illustrate two campaign types voice (vocal ) and web survey (click or tap survey type)].
Claim 14/21:
While Li teaches that the survey center may obtain the transaction info and arrange a survey session as described in 0040 and using vocal/voice session to receive response to survey/feedback as described in 0057, and further teaches log database which may store user ID information and survey ID information, which may be used to trace a survey a user participated and survey database which may store survey results and other survey related information, such as information on the survey event as described in 0027. Li does not explicitly discloses transaction metadata attribute for each of the plurality of transactions to identify the set of transactions, however, Tietzen is also in the field of survey and user feedback (Abstract) and discloses:
The computer program product of Claim 8, wherein the non-transitory computer readable medium further comprises instructions executable on the processor for executing an operation on the transaction metadata attribute for each of the plurality of transactions to identify the set of transactions[fig. 5 illustrates transaction records which include transaction ID and transaction attributes, wherein Transaction records 506 may include transaction attributes such as item cost, total cost, date, time, location, goods, services, and so on as described in 0135, which are collected using the feedback component and stored at the data store].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the inventory storing transaction metadata, as disclosed in Tietzen, within the invention of Li because it is useful for a merchant to solicit and receive feedback from customers regarding its transactions in order to better service and ensure customer satisfaction (Tietzen para. [0003]).
Claims 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 19, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Tietzen, as applied in claim 1, 8, and 15, and further in view of Leroy Smith JR. (US 2002/0128898 A1, hereinafter “Smith”).
Claim 5/12/19:
While Li teaches examples of survey questions in paras. [0030-0033]. Li does not explicitly disclose providing of the questions in the sequence of questions to survey recipients, however, Smith is also in the field of survey and user feedback (Abstract) and discloses:
Smith teaches:
The data processing system of Claim 1, wherein non-transitory computer readable medium further comprises instructions executable on the processor for receiving, by the processor, survey form information defining the survey form, the survey form comprising a sequence of questions, allowable answers for questions in the sequence of questions and branching instructions, the branching instructions configured to control providing of the questions in the sequence of questions to survey recipients [[0096] In certain embodiments, the client may include " branching" in defining the survey. The inclusion of branching in the survey allows for a different survey question to be presented based on previous response(s). By including branching in the survey, if in responding to question 402 a network user taking the survey selects the response option of "I do not read any newspapers" in response 404, then network user may next be presented with question 410 and with response 412. However, if the network user selects a response other than "I do not read any newspapers" then the network user may instead be presented with question 406 and response 408.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the inventory to provide questions in the sequence of questions to survey recipients, as disclosed in Smith, within the invention of Li, because it is useful for a merchant to solicit and receive relevant feedback from customers regarding its transactions in order to better service and ensure customer satisfaction (Tietzen para. [0003]).
Claim 6/13/20:
While Li teaches examples of survey questions in paras. [0030-0033]. Li does not explicitly disclose providing of the questions in the sequence of questions to survey recipients, however, Smith is also in the field of survey and user feedback (Abstract) and discloses:
The data processing system of Claim 5, wherein the non-transitory computer readable medium further comprises instructions executable on the processor for executing the branching instructions to control providing the questions in the sequence of questions to the survey recipients[[0096] In certain embodiments, the client may include " branching" in defining the survey. The inclusion of branching in the survey allows for a different survey question to be presented based on previous response(s). By including branching in the survey, if in responding to question 402 a network user taking the survey selects the response option of "I do not read any newspapers" in response 404, then network user may next be presented with question 410 and with response 412. However, if the network user selects a response other than "I do not read any newspapers" then the network user may instead be presented with question 406 and response 408.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the inventory to provide questions in the sequence of questions to survey recipients, as disclosed in Smith, within the invention of Li, because it is useful for a merchant to solicit and receive relevant feedback from customers regarding its transactions in order to better service and ensure customer satisfaction (Tietzen para. [0003]).
Claim 7:
While Li teaches that the survey center may obtain the transaction info and arrange a survey session as described in 0040 and using vocal/voice session to receive response to survey/feedback as described in 0057, and further teaches log database which may store user ID information and survey ID information, which may be used to trace a survey a user participated and survey database which may store survey results and other survey related information, such as information on the survey event as described in 0027. Li does not explicitly discloses transaction metadata attribute for each of the plurality of transactions to identify the set of transactions, however, Tietzen is also in the field of survey and user feedback (Abstract) and discloses:
The data processing system of Claim 5, wherein the non-transitory computer readable medium further comprises instructions executable on the processor for executing the operation on the transaction metadata attribute for each of the plurality of transactions to identify the set of transactions [fig. 5 illustrates transaction records which include transaction ID and transaction attributes, wherein Transaction records 506 may include transaction attributes such as item cost, total cost, date, time, location, goods, services, and so on as described in 0135, which are collected using the feedback component and stored at the data store].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the inventory storing transaction metadata, as disclosed in Tietzen, within the invention of Li because it is useful for a merchant to solicit and receive feedback from customers regarding its transactions in order to better service and ensure customer satisfaction (Tietzen para. [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jonathan Eisenstein (US 20030105659 A1): A system to administer a survey includes reception of indications from a user of one or more fields of a database, the fields specifying information, determination that the one or more criteria have been satisfied based on information specified in the one or more fields, and transmission of the survey to a respondent based on the determination.
David Niu (US 20160196522 A1): A pulsed-survey service may be provided by obtaining a question sequence including a number of survey questions, and determining a base survey-pulse rate, such as once per week, but no more frequent than once per day. During each pulse period, for each of a number of subscriber entities, a pulsed survey is performed. Each survey pulse poses and collects responses for at least one, but no more than ten percent of the survey questions. Both intra- and inter-entity benchmark statistics are determined for the pulsed-survey responses, and the statistics and survey results are provided for presentation to the subscriber entity via a survey-results interface.
Tyler G. Wardhaugh(US 20080010351 A1): Survey polling system and method allows an administrator to set up a survey and manipulate and segment responders based on simple answers to certain questions. The survey polling system utilizes heuristics to automatically categorize responders based upon their responses. an administrator may create a survey and send the survey to a subscriber list or base with the intent of getting the population into relevant groupings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-0419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571)-270-5389. 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.
/REHAM K ABOUZAHRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights