PTAB

IPR2025-00677

GetTattle Inc v. AfterWords Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Transaction-Specific Surveys
  • Brief Description: The ’811 patent discloses a system for generating context-based survey questions based on specific menu-level items purchased by a customer. The system architecture involves three distinct components: a point-of-sale (POS) client, a customer response client, and a server engine that coordinates the generation and delivery of surveys.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Douglas - Claims 1-7, 10, 13, 16, 18-19 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Douglas.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Douglas (Application # 2015/0193794).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Douglas, which discloses a system for generating real-time customer surveys based on trigger events, teaches every element of the challenged claims. Petitioner asserted that Douglas’s "merchant device 107" functions as the claimed "point-of-sale interface," its "survey system 101" serves as the "survey server computing device," and its "customer device 106" acts as the "vendor survey interface." Petitioner contended that Douglas discloses configuring the merchant device to record transaction data, including purchase details (e.g., SKUs) and a survey token to identify the customer. The survey system in Douglas allegedly receives this data, generates surveys with questions tailored to the purchased items, transmits a survey module to the customer's device for display in a graphical user interface, and receives user responses. Petitioner argued this mapping satisfies all limitations of independent system claim 1 and independent method claim 19, as well as the additional limitations of the challenged dependent claims regarding web-based interfaces, mobile applications, and specific question types (e.g., product, service, and general questions).

Ground 2: Anticipation by Ganesh - Claims 1-7, 10, 13, 16, 18-19 are anticipated under §102 by Ganesh.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ganesh (Application # 2014/0337098).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ganesh, which discloses a system and method for a "time of purchase consumer survey," anticipates all challenged claims. Petitioner mapped Ganesh's "POS 125" to the claimed "point-of-sale interface," its "survey server 105A" to the "survey server," and its "personal computing device (PCD) 110" to the "vendor survey interface." Petitioner asserted that Ganesh describes tracking items scanned at the POS, using that data to select specific survey content, and providing a survey ID (e.g., a QR code) to the consumer, which functions as the claimed "survey token." The survey server in Ganesh allegedly receives transaction data, retrieves the corresponding survey, generates a survey module for display on the consumer's PCD, and records responses in a database. Petitioner contended these disclosures meet every limitation of independent claims 1 and 19. Further, Petitioner argued Ganesh’s disclosure of using a QR code to direct a consumer to a website satisfies limitations in dependent claims related to web server implementations and that its descriptions of follow-up questions based on user responses satisfy limitations related to event-triggered notifications.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Point of Sale Interface: Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "an executable software component embedded within a point-of-sale terminal." This construction was based on the specification's description of the interface comprising computer-executable instructions.
  • survey token: Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a data field generated by the point-of-sale system and provided to the customer... for pairing a customer with a survey." This construction was derived from the specification’s definition of a token and its specific application as a survey token.
  • purchase detail identifier: Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a data category that identifies elements of a commercial transaction as generated by the POS terminal." This construction was inferred from the ordinary meaning of "purchase detail" and the patent's use of "data category."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-7, 10, 13, 16, 18-19 of the ’811 patent as unpatentable.