101 Rejection Reference Database – Art Unit 3629

EXAMINER: WHITAKER, ANDREW B

CAPTURING SENSOR INFORMATION FOR PRODUCT REVIEW NORMALIZATION

ASSIGNEE

IBM

APPLICATION

15/708742

PATENT ABSTRACT

An approach is provided for normalizing reviews. A user’s request is received for a view of reviews of a first product. An identity of the user is determined. Based on the identity, data is retrieved specifying a behavior of the user which describes usage by the user of a second product. Based on the data specifying the behavior of the user, topics are identified which specify (i) a behavior of reviewer(s), where the behavior is directed to the first product and matches the behavior of the user specified by the retrieved data or (ii) an aspect of the first product which matches an aspect of the second product to which the behavior of the user is directed. The reviews are normalized based on the identified topics.

REASON FOR 101 REJECTION    |    CTFR 8/30/2019

The claims recite a process that covers certain methods of organizing human activity. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps of the method as being categorized as organizing human interactions other than reciting the use of a computer. The computer system recited in the claims is at such a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component.

Remarks on Overcoming the 101 Rejection    |    REM 12/2/2019

Applicant notes that a claimed feature of receiving data from one or more sensors that monitors the user activities are patent eligible. As such, the applicant submits that the receipt of data from sensors is not a human activity and therefore is not in the category of certain methods of organizing human activities. The claims further incorporate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by normalizing reviews of a product by presenting a subset of reviews that include identified topics that specify an aspect of a first product to be compared to an aspect of a second product to which the behavior of the user is directed.

EXAMINER: WHITAKER, ANDREW B.

SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF GENERATING CONSCIOUSNESS AFFECTS

ASSIGNEE

TWIIN

APPLICATION

15/561981

PATENT ABSTRACT

A method of generating a consciousness effect is described. The method includes: (i) receiving, from a client device, a first and a second consciousness inputs, wherein the client device is associated with one or more users and the two consciousness inputs are different from each other; (ii) calculating a consciousness effect for one or more of the users; (iii) storing, in memory of the server and/or the client device, the consciousness effect; and (iv) wherein the first consciousness input includes at least one input chosen from a group comprising emotional state input, reasoned input, location information input, physical awareness input and spiritual insight input, and the second consciousness input is at least one input chosen from a group comprising reasoned input, location information input, physical awareness input and spiritual insight input.

REASON FOR 101 REJECTION    |    CTFR 2/24/2020

The claimed invention recited calculating a consciousness effect which is a mental process. The steps recited in the claim of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion are concepts that can be performed in the human mind but for the recitation of a generic computer component. The context of the claims encompasses the user calculating a “consciousness effect” from some input, is based on perceived human thought that happens in the mind constantly, and thus is the epitome of abstraction. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the elements of the claim simply focus on how to output the results; a simple transmission of data, and further does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite additional limitations further limiting how the output is presented which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea

Remarks on Overcoming the 101 Rejection    |    REM 4/24/2020

The claims have been amended to recite the language “posted on a website and/or a client device application”. Applicant submits that the pending claims recite a method of transforming one or more shares posted on a website and/or a computer application into a visual and/or audible consciousness effect, which does not fall under one of the four statutory categories. The pending claims are directed to technical improvements in transforming one or more submissions to arrive at “a visual consciousness effect” that conveys a consciousness effect or, in the alternate a sentiment. The examiner has erroneously deemed the claims to not integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the Applicant recognized a technical problem and a deficiency in the art and offered an improvement to the technical problem. To accomplish this technical improvement, the pending claims recite specific, additional limitations that require specific features to represent the method.

EXAMINER: WHITAKER, ANDREW B.

HOME SELECTION AND DISPLAY

ASSIGNEE

WELLS FARGO

APPLICATION

15/351938

PATENT ABSTRACT

A home analysis and display system and process includes receiving first data regarding home criteria. A pool of homes is assembled based on the first data, which includes a plurality of properties. The pool of homes is displayed, and a route for viewing the properties is determined. Feedback regarding the properties is received, and the pool of homes and/or the route is modified based on the received feedback.

REASON FOR 101 REJECTION    |    CTFR 3/9/2020

The claims recite the abstract idea of organizing human activities such as managing personal behavior as well as commercial interactions such as marketing homes for sale. As presented, the claims currently encompass a user manually searching for a pool of homes, mapping a route, and modifying the route based upon some sort of feedback. This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and the additional elements recited in the claims do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.

Remarks on Overcoming the 101 Rejection    |    REM 5/11/2020

The claims integrate the judicial exception identified by the Examiner into a practical application because the claims recite limitations that improve upon the relevant existing technology. Features of the claims enable the user to view appropriate homes without a human agent, but rather with a virtual agent provided via an interactive graphical of a user device, thereby streamlining and simplifying the process. The claims do not merely apply a method of the abstract idea in a technological environment. Rather, the claims rely on a particular technological environment and physical components of that environment (GPS, interactive GUI) that are also specific to that environment in order to carry out an inventive method. Interactivity with an interactive graphical display is integrated into the claim in a way that is essential to carrying out the claimed method thereby making the claimed subject matter patent-eligible.

EXAMINER: WHITAKER, ANDREW B.

DIGITAL SCREENING PLATFORM WITH PRECISION THRESHOLD ADJUSTMENT

ASSIGNEE

PRIME RESEARCH SOLUTIONS

APPLICATION

16/842533

PATENT ABSTRACT

Systems and methods for tuning a digital screen to provide high-quality data are provided. Methods include determining a target level of participant data quality associated with accurate completion of an online survey, determining a participant screening threshold based on the target level of participant data quality, and adjusting a survey screen based on the participant screening threshold. Methods may achieve high data quality without sacrificing participant diversity. Methods may also include transmitting the survey screen to a computing device associated with a participant and receiving a response of the participant to the survey screen on the computing device. When the response fails to achieve a predetermined threshold response, methods may include rejecting the participant from the survey.

REASON FOR 101 REJECTION    |    CTNF 4/7/2021
The claims are rejected because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As presented, the claims recite filtering a pool of candidates against a predetermined threshold. The claims, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activities, 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 acti\lities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social acti\lities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as well as some mathematical concepts-, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components (Step 2A Prong 1).
Remarks on Overcoming the 101 Rejection    |    REM 5/13/2021

During the interview applicant and examiner discussed additional technical details of the claims that could be incorporated to overcome the 101 rejections. The Applicant then amended the claims to include reference to an interactive user interface. This changed the Examiner’s perspective on the 101, overcoming the mathematical concept issues with the ‘screening threshold’ computation.

When you visit our website, it may store information through your browser from specific services, usually in form of cookies.