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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed November 14, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, the Foreign Patent Document does not match with the provided Foreign Patent Document. In this case, the listing in the IDS does not have a zero before 48524.
The listing of references in the PCT international search report is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.” Therefore, the references cited in the international search report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information in the international search report will be the date of submission of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements for the IDS with 37 CFR 1.97, including all timing statement requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1:
a first receiver configured to receive;
a classifier configured to classify …, to output one or more items related to an improvement to the service;
a second receiver configured to … receive … for determining whether an improvement is required;
a calculator configured to calculate;
a presenter configured to present; and
a point allocator configured to grant points.
Claim 2:
a first poll taker configured to present … to receive
a determiner configured to determine
Claim 3:
a second poll taker configured to … receive
the point allocator is configured to grant the points
Claim 4:
the first receiver is configured to receive
the point allocator is configured to increase
the receiver receives
Claim 6:
the first receiver is configured to receive
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitations
Claim 1:
a first receiver configured to receive;
a classifier configured to classify …, to output one or more items related to an improvement to the service;
a second receiver configured to … receive … for determining whether an improvement is required;
a calculator configured to calculate;
a presenter configured to present; and
a point allocator configured to grant points.
Claim 2:
a first poll taker configured to present … to receive
a determiner configured to determine
Claim 3:
a second poll taker configured to … receive
the point allocator is configured to grant the points
Claim 4:
the first receiver is configured to receive
the point allocator is configured to increase
the receiver receives
Claim 6:
the first receiver is configured to receive
invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not provide disclosure or linkage of the corresponding structure for each of the aforementioned invocations under 35 USC 112(f). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regards to claims 1 – 5, the Examiner asserts that the specification, as originally filed, fails to adequately disclose the corresponding structural elements that comprise the system:
Claim 1:
a first receiver configured to receive;
a classifier configured to classify …, to output one or more items related to an improvement to the service;
a second receiver configured to … receive … for determining whether an improvement is required;
a calculator configured to calculate;
a presenter configured to present; and
a point allocator configured to grant points.
Claim 2:
a first poll taker configured to present … to receive
a determiner configured to determine
Claim 3:
a second poll taker configured to … receive
the point allocator is configured to grant the points
Claim 4:
the first receiver is configured to receive
the point allocator is configured to increase
the receiver receives
Claim 6:
the first receiver is configured to receive
Upon review of the specification, the Examiner asserts that the claims are directed to an apparatus and recites the components (see above) that comprise the apparatus. However, the claims and specification fail to disclose the corresponding structural elements that each of the placeholders are intended to represent in order to perform their respective functions. As a result, the structure of the system is unknown. Simply pointing or stating a result is insufficient to meet the written description requirement and has done nothing but provide a “black box” scenario, wherein information is received into this “black box” and an output is recited while failing to explain or disclose the structure that comprise the “black box” environment so as to achieve the corresponding functions and output.
Although one skilled in the art would have found the invention to be enabled because one skilled in the art could possibly come up with one way of configuring an apparatus to be comprised of structural elements to perform the aforementioned functions, one skilled in the art would be unable to determine how the applicant has configured the system, i.e. the specific structural elements, for performing the recited functions and would, therefore, be unable to determine if the applicant had possession of the invention. To put it another way, one skilled in the art would be unable to make and use the invention in the manner intended by the applicant since the applicant has failed to provide sufficient working examples of how the analysis and solution are determined so as to cover the wide scope laid out by the claimed invention and, therefore, one skilled in the art would be unable to determine whether the applicant had possession of the genus since insufficient species have been provided. One skilled in the art would have found that the claimed invention and corresponding specification is attempting to claim all known and unknown possibilities structural configurations for performing the aforementioned functions without providing sufficient examples, in the specification, to allow one skilled in the art to determine whether the applicant had possession of such a wide scope of possibilities.
Finally, as a point of clarification, the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 contains a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. See AriadPharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Col., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F. 2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, the specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention.
Therefore, the test for determining whether or not the applicant’s claims meet the § 112(a) written description requirement is possession, not whether one skilled in the art is enabled to perform the invention. Applying the above legal principles to the facts of the case at hand, the Examiner concludes that the applicant’s disclosure fails to sufficiently disclose possession at the time of the invention. Furthermore, the applicants are attempting to claim any and all possible structural configurations and, consequently, attempting to claim the entire genus of configurations, however, the specification does not demonstrate a generic invention that achieves the claimed result because there is no disclosure of any species. As the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariad:
“generic claim may define the boundaries of a vast genus of chemical compounds, and yet the question may still remain whether the specification, including original claim language, demonstrates that the Appellant has invented the species sufficient to support a claim to a genus. The problem is especially acute with genus claims that use functional language to define the boundaries of a claimed genus. In such a case, the functional claim may simply claim a desired result, and may do so without describing species that achieve that result. But the specification must demonstrate that the Appellant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the Appellant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally- defined genus.”
Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349 (emphasis added). While Ariad relates to chemical compounds, the legal principles are the same. By not providing any specific examples of how an indication of merit (which is “functional language”) could be calculated, the applicant has failed to provide disclosure and, therefore, possession of any species of the genus of structural elements intended to comprise the system to perform the recited functions, as claimed.
Furthermore, the applicant’s claim to such an open-ended genus of configurations is similar to the claims at issue in Ariad that "merely recite a description of the problem to be solved while claiming all solutions to it.” Id. At 1353. Ariad further states that “Patents are not awarded for academic theories [and a] patent is not a hunting license. It is not a reward for the search, but compensation for its conclusion.” Id. Therefore, Ariad requires that when the applicant claims a genus, sufficient materials must be disclosed to demonstrate that the genus has in fact been disclosed which the applicant has not.
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 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
receive from a first user a complaint or a request regarding a service;
classify the complaint or the request received, to output one or more items related to an improvement to the service;
for a part or all of the one or more items, receive from a second user a vote for determining whether an improvement is required;
calculate a vote count score for each of the one or more items by multiplying the vote by a coefficient corresponding to points held by the second user;
present the vote count score for each of the one or more items calculated, to at least one of an administrator of the service or users using the service; and
grant points to the first user in a case in which a remedy for an improvement has been implemented on the one or more items corresponding to the complaint or the request received from the first user
The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of brainstorm meeting, idea session, brainstorming session, discussion, customer service resolution, and the like, which corresponds to “Mental Processes”, “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”, and “Mathematical Concepts” as it is directed towards steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper, fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations, e.g., having a group of humans discuss a topic presented by a first human, provide feedback/votes to a presented topic by the group of humans, aggregating the feedback/votes using a weighted mathematical calculation, writing down and presenting the results of the votes, and assigning points to the first human if their presented topic is implemented.
The limitations of:
receive from a first user a complaint or a request regarding a service;
classify the complaint or the request received, to output one or more items related to an improvement to the service;
for a part or all of the one or more items, receive from a second user a vote for determining whether an improvement is required;
calculate a vote count score for each of the one or more items by multiplying the vote by a coefficient corresponding to points held by the second user;
present the vote count score for each of the one or more items calculated, to at least one of an administrator of the service or users using the service; and
grant points to the first user in a case in which a remedy for an improvement has been implemented on the one or more items corresponding to the complaint or the request received from the first user
are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of a generic apparatus, which could be a generic server (see ¶ 13 of the applicant’s specification). That is, other than reciting a generic apparatus nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic apparatus in the context of this claim encompasses a plurality of humans discussing and providing feedback/votes for a topic presented by a first human, collecting the feedback/votes, performing a weighted mathematical calculation of the feedback/votes, writing down and presenting the results, and awarding the first human with points if their topic is implemented. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic apparatus, then it falls within the “Mental Processes”, “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”, and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – a generic server to communicate and present information, as well as performing operations that a human can perform in their mind and/or pen and paper, i.e. organizing (classifying) topics, performing a weighted mathematical calculation, and awarding points. The generic server in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic server can perform the insignificant extra solution steps of communicating and presenting information (See MPEP 2106.05(g) while also reciting that the a generic server are merely being applied to perform the steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper; "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic server.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements 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 a generic server to perform the steps of:
receive from a first user a complaint or a request regarding a service;
classify the complaint or the request received, to output one or more items related to an improvement to the service;
for a part or all of the one or more items, receive from a second user a vote for determining whether an improvement is required;
calculate a vote count score for each of the one or more items by multiplying the vote by a coefficient corresponding to points held by the second user;
present the vote count score for each of the one or more items calculated, to at least one of an administrator of the service or users using the service; and
grant points to the first user in a case in which a remedy for an improvement has been implemented on the one or more items corresponding to the complaint or the request received from the first user
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.
Additionally:
Claim 2 is directed to the extra-solution activities of presenting (displaying) and receiving data, descriptive subject matter describing data, and the human activity of determining a target item for a vote based on a response(s).
Claim 3 is directed to the extra-solution activity of receiving information, the human activity of voting, and the human activity of awarding points.
Claim 4 is directed to the extra-solution activity of receiving information and collecting and comparing information and, based on a rule(s), identify options.
Claim 5 is directed towards reciting generic technology at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea.
Claim 6 is directed towards the extra-solution activity of receiving information and reciting generic technology at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims are simply directed towards providing additional descriptive factors that are considered for managing a discussion, brainstorming, idea session, customer service resolution, or the like. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wurtele et al. (US PGPub 2014/0280540 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Wurtele discloses a service provision apparatus comprising:
a first receiver configured to receive from a first user a complaint or a request regarding a service (Fig. 1, 3, 6
¶ 43 “In some embodiments, to even better "set the stage", the moderators may in essence conduct a small beta-test of the idea generation process by inviting a group of beta test participants (usually this beta test group will be substantially smaller than main participant group) to further initialize the idea rally software with additional ideas and comments. If this beta test produces results that the moderators and client are happy with, then these beta test ideas and comments may be retained for the subsequent main idea generating session. If not, the beta test ideas and col1ll1lents may be erased. This beta-testing process can continue until the moderators or client are satisfied that the system has been initialized properly.”
¶ 45 “These participants will be able to participate in the idea generation process, and do various functions such as submitting their own ideas and idea comments, as well as voting on the merits of ideas and idea comments submitted by other participants.”
¶ 63 “Note also that the system is encouraging the participants to try to utilize previous ideas and discussions to come up with new ideas.”
¶ 64 “FIG. SB show another view of the system home webpage, here showing a longer list of participant submitted ideas (510) that were not featured by the moderators.”
¶ 74 “In order to help participants keep track of their various ideas and comments, the system can also provide a participant's posting page. This page, shown in FIG. 8, provides a webpage or app screen where all ideas and responses by a given participant, in this example participant Bethany, can be reviewed.”);
a classifier configured to classify the complaint or the request received by the first receiver, to output one or more items related to an improvement to the service (Fig. 1, 3, 4, 5A, 5B
¶ 32 “Here, for example, a main topic or overall topic of "how to make an improved automobile" can in tum be broken down into various related topics such as "improved engines", "in1proved transmissions", "improved streamlining" and the like.”
¶ 53 “In some embodiments it is useful to show participants, each time they log in to the system that day, a list of new ideas that had been submitted since the time the participant last logged in. An example of this is shown in FIG. 4. Alternatively or additionally, the "new ideas" or "active discussions" webpage can be a page that can be accessed by the participant at any time by, for an example, a link from other idea rally webpages.”
¶ 83 “Also, as previously discussed, in some embodiments, it is useful to configure the idea rally software so that the various ideas may be sorted and viewed by the participants and moderators (when displayed on their respective computerized devices), according to such categories as "topic", "all ideas", "new ideas" (e.g. since that participant's last login), "moderator highlighted idea", "ideas with new idea comments", "moderator closed ideas", and the like.”);
a second receiver configured to, for a part or all of the one or more items, receive from a second user a vote for determining whether an improvement is required (Fig. 3, 5A, 5B, 6
¶ 45 “These participants will be able to participate in the idea generation process, and do various functions such as submitting their own ideas and idea comments, as well as voting on the merits of ideas and idea comments submitted by other participants.”
¶ 56 “In a preferred embodiment, the idea rally software is also configured to allow the participants to vote (i.e. give a positive approval vote, or a negative disapproval vote) to the various ideas and idea comments. The idea rally software can also analyze these various votes according to one or more voting analysis algorithms”
¶ 58 “Other voting analysis algorithms, at least those working behind the scenes for the benefit of the moderators and client, may be more complex. Votes may, for example, be weighted differently from one voting participant to the next according to the education, experience level, past system history, or other criteria of the different participants.”
¶ 59 “Additionally, other factors, such as the time that the vote was cast may be used. Here for example, more recent votes, cast after a particular idea or discussion has had more time to be evaluated by other participants, may be weighted more heavily than earlier votes.”);
a calculator configured to calculate a vote count score for each of the one or more items by multiplying the vote by a coefficient corresponding to points held by the second user (¶ 58 “Other voting analysis algorithms, at least those working behind the scenes for the benefit of the moderators and client, may be more complex. Votes may, for example, be weighted differently from one voting participant to the next according to the education, experience level, past system history, or other criteria of the different participants.”
¶ 59 “Additionally, other factors, such as the time that the vote was cast may be used. Here for example, more recent votes, cast after a particular idea or discussion has had more time to be evaluated by other participants, may be weighted more heavily than earlier votes.”
¶ 69 “As one example of a participant reward algorithm, during each period (e.g. daily), the participant reward algorithm can weight that participant's own number of votes (i.e. reward participants that also helped the process by evaluating other ideas and comments via voting), that participant's number of ideas, comments, other participant's votes on the participant's ideas and comments, and moderator votes on the quality of the member's ideas and comments. The participant reward algorithm can also be designed to give heavier weight to ideas, comments and votes that were highlighted by the moderators.”);
a presenter configured to present the vote count score for each of the one or more items calculated by the calculator, to at least one of an administrator of the service or users using the service (¶ 60 “When displaying the voting results to participants, often it is best to simply show the positive and negative votes directly on the screen so that each participant can see that his or her vote has been properly received by the system. However when displaying the voting results to moderators, it often may be useful to display the results from at least one more sophisticated voting analysis algorithms to the moderators, or possibly even the results of several different voting algorithms. Either way, the voting analysis results may often be used to visually mark or sort (e.g. by popularity) at least some of the initial ideas, and participant submitted ideas. In some embodiments, the participant idea comments may also be marked or sorted according to a voting analysis algorithm as well. This way, a highly regarded comment to a lesser regarded initial idea can obtain greater prominence.”
¶ 68 “Various rules and algorithms can be used to assign these participant awards. As one example, the idea rally software can automatically assign participant awards based on a participant reward algorithm that takes into account voting results from other participants, and also according to moderators as well as desired.”
¶ 114 “Additionally, upon completion, the system software, again often running on server (104), can also be configured to either automatically or manually generate a wrap-up report for the client and moderator, as well as for the system administrator. This wrap-up report can include summary metrics related to participation by the various participants, a summary of the key ideas contributed as identified by the peer review process, and often a listing of all ideas and comments which were contributed during the idea generating process.”); and
a point allocator configured to grant points to the first user in a case in which a remedy for an improvement has been implemented on the one or more items corresponding to the complaint or the request received from the first user (¶ 58 “Votes may, for example, be weighted differently from one voting participant to the next according to the education, experience level, past system history, or other criteria of the different participants. A participant with a history of random voting or other indicia of indiscriminate voting may have that participant's vote deweighted versus a participant with a history of more careful voting decisions.”
¶ 67 “In some embodiments, it is also useful to configure the idea rally software to, while the timed portion of the idea generation process is continuing, periodically (often on a daily basis) review the status of the idea generation and prioritization process, and give feedback to encourage, sometimes direct, and also motivate the various participants. Based on empirical evidence, the inventors have found that one particularly effective motivational tool is to give out various periodic (e.g. daily) participation awards.”
¶ 68 “Various rules and algorithms can be used to assign these participant awards. As one example, the idea rally software can automatically assign participant awards based on a participant reward algorithm that takes into account voting results from other participants, and also according to moderators as well as desired.”
¶ 69 “As one example of a participant reward algorithm, during each period (e.g. daily), the participant reward algorithm can weight that participant's own number of votes (i.e. reward participants that also helped the process by evaluating other ideas and comments via voting), that participant's number of ideas, comments, other participant's votes on the participant's ideas and comments, and moderator votes on the quality of the member's ideas and comments.”).
In regards to claim 2, Wurtele discloses the service provision apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a first poll taker configured to present the one or more items output by the classifier to the users using the service, to receive a response indicating whether each of the users using the service desires an improvement to each of the one or more items, and
a determiner configured to determine, from among the one or more items, a target item for the vote based on the response
(¶ 32 “Here, for example, a main topic or overall topic of "how to make an improved automobile" can in tum be broken down into various related topics such as "improved engines", "in1proved transmissions", "improved streamlining" and the like.”
¶ 45 “These participants will be able to participate in the idea generation process, and do various functions such as submitting their own ideas and idea comments, as well as voting on the merits of ideas and idea comments submitted by other participants.”
¶ 56 “In a preferred embodiment, the idea rally software is also configured to allow the participants to vote (i.e. give a positive approval vote, or a negative disapproval vote) to the various ideas and idea comments. The idea rally software can also analyze these various votes according to one or more voting analysis algorithms”
¶ 59 “Additionally, other factors, such as the time that the vote was cast may be used. Here for example, more recent votes, cast after a particular idea or discussion has had more time to be evaluated by other participants, may be weighted more heavily than earlier votes.”
¶ 69 “As one example of a participant reward algorithm, during each period (e.g. daily), the participant reward algorithm can weight that participant's own number of votes (i.e. reward participants that also helped the process by evaluating other ideas and comments via voting), that participant's number of ideas, comments, other participant's votes on the participant's ideas and comments, and moderator votes on the quality of the member's ideas and comments. The participant reward algorithm can also be designed to give heavier weight to ideas, comments and votes that were highlighted by the moderators.”).
In regards to claim 3, Wurtele discloses the service provision apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a second poll taker configured to, for an item to which the remedy has been implemented, receive, from a user having cast a vote indicating that an improvement is required for the item, a response indicating whether the user having cast the vote perceives an effect of the remedy,
wherein the point allocator is configured to grant the points to the first user in a case in which a ratio of users who responded to the second poll taker that the users perceive the effect of the remedy is equal to or higher than a predetermined ratio
(Fig. 6, 8
¶ 58 “Votes may, for example, be weighted differently from one voting participant to the next according to the education, experience level, past system history, or other criteria of the different participants. A participant with a history of random voting or other indicia of indiscriminate voting may have that participant's vote deweighted versus a participant with a history of more careful voting decisions.”
¶ 74 “In order to help participants keep track of their various ideas and comments, the system can also provide a participant's posting page. This page, shown in FIG. 8, provides a webpage or app screen where all ideas and responses by a given participant, in this example participant Bethany, can be reviewed. Note that her idea submission, previously shown being generated in FIG. 7, was subsequently favorably voted upon by the moderators and is here shown highlighted as well (800).”
¶ 79 “To help facilitate an accurate participant reward process, in some embodiments, the idea rally software may be configured so that when a participant submits a new idea, the system may also allow that new idea submitting participant to electronically credit one or more older ideas or comments (often from other participants) as having help inspire the new idea. In these embodiments, the nl1lllber of new ideas that credit earlier ideas can thus be used to help influence participant rewards, and/or help improve the score of various credited participant submitted ideas.”).
In regards to claim 4, Wurtele discloses the service provision apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the first receiver is configured to receive an idea for the remedy for addressing the complaint or the request, together with the complaint or the request, and
the point allocator is configured to increase the points to be granted to the first user in a case in which the first receiver receives an idea for the remedy from the first user together with the complaint or the request, as compared to a case in which the complaint or the request alone is received
(Fig. 6, 8
¶ 58 “Other voting analysis algorithms, at least those working behind the scenes for the benefit of the moderators and client, may be more complex. Votes may, for example, be weighted differently from one voting participant to the next according to the education, experience level, past system history, or other criteria of the different participants.”
¶ 59 “Additionally, other factors, such as the time that the vote was cast may be used. Here for example, more recent votes, cast after a particular idea or discussion has had more time to be evaluated by other participants, may be weighted more heavily than earlier votes.”
¶ 68 “Various rules and algorithms can be used to assign these participant awards. As one example, the idea rally software can automatically assign participant awards based on a participant reward algorithm that takes into account voting results from other participants, and also according to moderators as well as desired.”
¶ 69 “As one example of a participant reward algorithm, during each period (e.g. daily), the participant reward algorithm can weight that participant's own number of votes (i.e. reward participants that also helped the process by evaluating other ideas and comments via voting), that participant's number of ideas, comments, other participant's votes on the participant's ideas and comments, and moderator votes on the quality of the member's ideas and comments. The participant reward algorithm can also be designed to give heavier weight to ideas, comments and votes that were highlighted by the moderators.”
¶ 74 “In order to help participants keep track of their various ideas and comments, the system can also provide a participant's posting page. This page, shown in FIG. 8, provides a webpage or app screen where all ideas and responses by a given participant, in this example participant Bethany, can be reviewed. Note that her idea submission, previously shown being generated in FIG. 7, was subsequently favorably voted upon by the moderators and is here shown highlighted as well.”).
In regards to claim 5, Wurtele discloses the service provision apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the service is a virtual space access service providing an access to a virtual space using a user terminal (Fig. 1, 2, 4, 5A, 5B, 6
¶ 31 “In one embodiment, the invention may be a computerized method of enabling a plurality of moderators to manage a plurality of qualified participants (often recognized thought leaders in their respective field) to engage in a timed, online, crowdsourced idea generation and prioritization process. Usually there will be an overall topic, which in tum may be broken down into one or more other related topics.”
¶ 38 “The invention's software, here designated as "idea rally" software, will often exist as a series of scripts, webpages, database queries and the like running on server (104). This idea rally software will generally be configured to accept participant and moderator provided ideas, usually uploaded from various participant and moderator computerized devices (not shown). To do this, the web server (104) may provide various webpages with suitable html forms and input sections, and the participants and moderators may fill out these forms. The information may then be returned to the server (104) using standard methods such as GET and POST methods, and the like. Alternative methods, e.g. email, SMS messages, and the like may also be used.”
¶ 39 “The server (104), running this idea rally software, will generally store these participant and moderator provided ideas and idea comments in a server database (114), and in response to queries from participants and mediators, will transmit these ideas and comments to the network connected participant and moderator computerized devices, usually in the form of formatted web pages or app screens, such as will be discussed shortly in FIGS. 4-10.”
¶ 41 “As previously discussed, in some embodiments, server (104) will be an Internet web server serving web pages or screen pages over the internet (106) to various moderator and participant computerized devices (usually as web server provided web pages or screen pages running on web browsers or app software running on these computerized devices). In other embodiments, which may be useful when higher degrees of privacy and security are desired, the computer network (106) need not be the Internet. Instead a private local area network (LAN) or other non-internet computer network may be used. In this case, server (104) may still be a server, but not an Internet server.”).
In regards to claim 6, Wurtele discloses the service provision apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the first receiver is configured to receive the complaint or the request, based on an operation, performed on a virtual object corresponding to the complaint or the request by the first user who has accessed the virtual space (Fig. 1, 2, 4, 5A, 5B, 6
¶ 31 “In one embodiment, the invention may be a computerized method of enabling a plurality of moderators to manage a plurality of qualified participants (often recognized thought leaders in their respective field) to engage in a timed, online, crowdsourced idea generation and prioritization process. Usually there will be an overall topic, which in tum may be broken down into one or more other related topics.”
¶ 38 “The invention's software, here designated as "idea rally" software, will often exist as a series of scripts, webpages, database queries and the like running on server (104). This idea rally software will generally be configured to accept participant and moderator provided ideas, usually uploaded from various participant and moderator computerized devices (not shown). To do this, the web server (104) may provide various webpages with suitable html forms and input sections, and the participants and moderators may fill out these forms. The information may then be returned to the server (104) using standard methods such as GET and POST methods, and the like. Alternative methods, e.g. email, SMS messages, and the like may also be used.”
¶ 39 “The server (104), running this idea rally software, will generally store these participant and moderator provided ideas and idea comments in a server database (114), and in response to queries from participants and mediators, will transmit these ideas and comments to the network connected participant and moderator computerized devices, usually in the form of formatted web pages or app screens, such as will be discussed shortly in FIGS. 4-10.”
¶ 41 “As previously discussed, in some embodiments, server (104) will be an Internet web server serving web pages or screen pages over the internet (106) to various moderator and participant computerized devices (usually as web server provided web pages or screen pages running on web browsers or app software running on these computerized devices). In other embodiments, which may be useful when higher degrees of privacy and security are desired, the computer network (106) need not be the Internet. Instead a private local area network (LAN) or other non-internet computer network may be used. In this case, server (104) may still be a server, but not an Internet server.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Tsyganskiy et al. (WO 2004/075089 A2); Williams et al. (WO 02/19601 A2); Soule et al. (US PGPub 2020/0320594 A1); Gatterbauer et al. (US PGPub 2015/0348433 A1); Swan (US PGPub 2015/0229698 A1); Hardas et al. (US PGPub 2013/0332468 A1); Romagnolo et al. (US PGPub 2013/0204664 A1); Blumberg (US PGPub 2013/0024244 A1); Williams et al. (US PGPub 2004/0210550 A1); Tsyganskiy et al. (US PGPub 2004/0162751 A1); Smith III et al. (US PGPub 2003/0036947 A1); Filippov et al. (Think tanks as an intellectual basis to make effective decisions); Yu et al. (Research on the Construction of Strategic Decision-making Platform of Science and Technology Think Tank Based on Multi-agent Collaboration); Maxwell et al. (Outcomes of a virtual think tank to establish collaborative leadership initiative plans (“CLIPs”)) – which discuss systems and methods for managing a brainstorming, think tank, and the like type sessions in computerized environments
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARDO ARAQUE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3747. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4:30.
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.
GERARDO ARAQUE JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/GERARDO ARAQUE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629 8/14/2026
Prosecution Insights