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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/01/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-37 are pending. Claims 1-37 have been amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/01/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Final Rejection dated 08/22/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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 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 1-11 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Child et al. (Child), US Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0121261 A1, and further in view of Feuerstein, US Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0093220 A1.
As to independent claim 1, Child discloses a computing device, comprising:
at least one processor that executes computer-executable components stored in at least one memory device, the computer-executable components comprising (paragraphs [0150]-[0152]: the computing device 600 can include one or more processors, the computing device include memory, which is coupled to the processor(s), wherein the memory stores data and programs (components) for execution by the processor(s));
a runtime component configured to apply navigation logic corresponding to a dynamically defined navigation mode for a series of views, each view in the series of views comprising a respective prompt (paragraph [0025]: the action sequence system integrates and links isolated computing platforms through a sequence-builder-user interface to generate digital action sequences that efficiently relate actions conventional system rigidly kept separate, wherein the action sequence system can identify a user selection of an event trigger associated with a first platform and identify additional user selections for performing a platform action associated with a second platform in response to the event trigger, and the action sequence system can dynamically link cross-platform events and action in a flexible, user-configurable manner via a single, centralized user interface namely the sequence-builder-user interface; paragraphs [0049], [0053], [0087]: the action sequence system initiates a series of user interface presentations (views) on the computing device that correspond to selecting one or more platform actions triggered by the event trigger, wherein the series of user interface presentations (views) each includes prompts for selections (see Figures 3E-3I). Figures 3E-3I include “Back” button for traversing/navigating of the series of presentations; paragraph [0060]: the action sequence system generates the digital-action-sequence templates utilizing a specially trained machine-learning model, and once trained, the machine-learning model can dynamically process template parameters to predict which combinations of event triggers, conditions, and/or platform action to surface to the administrator client device); and
a coordination component configured to cause presentation of at least one view of the series of views in response to the runtime component applying the navigation logic (paragraph [0087] and Figures 3E-H: based on interactions with the condition-selection option, the action sequence system initiates a series of user interface presentations on the computing device that corresponds to selecting one or more conditions for performing a platform action).
Child, however, does not disclose wherein the runtime component is further configured to apply at least one of branching logic or validation logic to input data responsive to a first prompt in a first view of the series of views and a coordination component configured to cause, based on the input data and at least one of the branching logic or the validation logic, presentation of at least one view of the series of views in response to the runtime component applying the navigation logic.
In the same field of endeavor, Feuerstein discloses a system and method for patient assessment using disparate data sources and data-informed clinician guidance via a shared patient/clinician user interface (Abstract). Feuerstein further discloses the system may be configured to communicate/transfer data via the communications network with the Patient Assessment and Clinician Guidance (PACG) (paragraph [0021]). Feuerstein further discloses a clinician may be assisted in conducting a clinical patient assessment by a patient’s use of a clinician’s Clinician Computing device 100a, 100b, etc., wherein the device displays textual question and/or other prompts to the patient, and the patient may interact with the device 100a, 100b to provide to the device input responsive to the questions/prompts (paragraph [0023]). Feuerstein further discloses the questions/prompts are presented in a predefined sequence that is consistent across patients and sessions, and in the case the sequence is dynamic, such that questions are presented according to predefined logic, but in a fluid sequence that may vary from person to person or session to session, based on input provided actively by the patient, and/or based on input gathered passively from the patient, e.g., using branched logic, machine learning, artificial intelligence (paragraphs [0023], [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Child to include wherein the runtime component is further configured to apply at least one of branching logic or validation logic to input data responsive to a first prompt in a first view of the series of views and a coordination component configured to cause, based on the input data and at least one of the branching logic or the validation logic, presentation of at least one view of the series of views in response to the runtime component applying the navigation logic, as taught by Feuerstein. Feuerstein suggests that using branched logic for selecting next questions/prompts (paragraph [0023]).
As to dependent claim 2, Child and Feuerstein disclose wherein the computer-executable components further comprise a presentation component configured to draw respective user interfaces corresponding to the at least one view (Child, paragraph [0093]-[0095] and Figures 3E-3I), and wherein the presentation component comprises a library of user interface (UI) elements including at least one presentation element and at least one control element (Feuerstein, paragraphs [0067], [0068], [0070]).
As to dependent claim 3, Child and Feuerstein disclose wherein the runtime component configures the dynamically defined navigation mode at runtime and comprises a runtime interface that functionally couples the runtime component to the coordination component (Child, paragraphs [0025], [0060] and [0066]), and wherein the runtime interface exposes multiple functions comprising at least a first function configured to return page elements and prompts corresponding to a current view and a second function configured to pass a response to a prompt (Feuerstein, paragraph [0023], Figures 5-6).
As to dependent claim 4, Child and Feuerstein disclose wherein the series of views represents an interactive electronic document, and wherein the dynamically defined navigation mode defines a manner of traversal of the interactive electronic document (Child, Figures 3E-3I and paragraphs [0025], [0060] and [0066]), and wherein the interactive electronic document is defined in terms of human-readable content formatted according to a core definition language (Feuerstein, paragraphs [0017], [0053]).
As to dependent claim 5, Child and Feuerstein disclose wherein the dynamically defined navigation mode corresponds to a linear mode, a hub-and-spoke mode, or a computer adaptive test (CAT) mode (Child, Figures 3E-3I and paragraphs [0087], [0096] paragraphs [0025], [0060] and [0066]), and wherein the dynamically defined navigation mode is selected at runtime based on one or more parameters comprising a type of user (Feuerstein, paragraph [0023]).
As to dependent claim 6, Child and Feuerstein disclose wherein the interactive electronic document comprises a questionnaire corresponding to one of a clinical outcome assessment, a triage assessment, neuropsychological assessment, a scholastic aptitude assessment, a vocational assessment, a professional certification assessment, a survey, or an independent-task guide (Child, paragraph [0053]), and wherein the clinical outcome assessment comprises one of a patient reported outcome, a performance outcome, a clinician reported outcome, or an observer reported outcome (Feuerstein, paragraph [0017]).
As to dependent claim 7, Child and Feuerstein disclose wherein the series of views represents a consent document, a privacy practice document, or a liability waiver document (Child, paragraphs [0029], [0100]), and wherein each view in the series of views is defined by a respective data structure formatted according to a core definition language.
As to dependent claim 8, Child and Feuerstein disclose wherein causing presentation of the at least one view of the series of views further comprises implementing layout logic in response to the runtime component applying a navigation rule, the layout logic corresponding to a particular combination of two or more of a specific computing device, a natural language, or a user interface (UI) toolkit (paragraphs [0025]), and wherein the layout logic is defined in a configuration file separate from a configuration file defining the series of views (Feuerstein, Figures 5-20).
As to dependent claim 9, Child and Feuerstein disclose a library of user interface (UI) elements including at least one presentation element and at least one control element, wherein the implementing the layout logic comprises: obtaining, via a first interface, a UI element from the library of UI elements; and supplying one or more UI elements for inclusion in a defined layout of areas within a first user interface corresponding to a view of the at least one view (paragraphs [0027], [0036]), wherein the UI element is configured according to one or more visualization resources comprising a graphics resolution and size of visualization area.
As to dependent claim 10, Child and Feuerstein disclose wherein the runtime component is further configured to apply at least one of branching logic or validation logic based on input data responsive to a first prompt in a first view of the at least one view (paragraphs [0036], [0087], [0160] and Figures 3E-3I), and wherein the branching logic comprises human-readable content defining one or more logic statements formatted according to a core definition language.
As to dependent claim 11, Child and Feuerstein disclose wherein the coordination component is further configured to implement translation logic for a first view of the at least one view (Child, paragraph [0030]), and wherein the translation logic is defined in a configuration file that maps data structures formatted according to a core definition language to a desired natural language (Feuerstein, paragraphs [0023], [0041]).
As to dependent claim 35, Child and Feuerstein disclose wherein the dynamically defined navigation mode is defined at runtime (Child, paragraphs [0025], [0060]),
wherein defining the navigation mode at runtime comprises obtaining a group of rules corresponding to the navigation mode in a native format for a rule library included in the runtime component (Child, paragraphs [0020], [0027], [0029], [0033]).
As to dependent claim 36, Child and Feuerstein disclose wherein defining the navigation mode comprises checking one or more parameters, wherein the one or more parameters comprise a type of user (Child, paragraph [0060]), and wherein the type of user comprises one of a patient, a clinician, or an administrator (Feuerstein, Abstract).
As to dependent claim 37, Child and Feuerstein disclose wherein the dynamically defined navigation mode is associated with one or more rules or one or more rulesets (Child, paragraph [0060]), and wherein the runtime component comprises a rules component configured to apply the one or more rules by evaluating facts defining a current state of traversal of the series of views according to an if-then statement of rule being applied (Feuerstein, paragraph [0023]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Child and Feuerstein as applied to claims 1-11 above, and further in view of Ellis et al. (Ellis), US Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0284993.
As to dependent claim 12, Child discloses wherein implementing the translation logic comprises: determining that a translation rule is satisfied for a particular view of the at least one view (paragraph [0030]). In addition, Feuerstein discloses the Voice Analysis Module is responsible for processing the voice data, e.g., to identify and/or analyze, words and language used (paragraph [0035]). Child and Feuerstein, however, do not disclose translating a first natural language statement presented in a first natural language within the particular view to a second natural language statement in a second natural language, wherein the first natural language statement and the second natural language statement are defined in separate configuration files within a configuration package.
In the same field of endeavor, Ellis discloses a computer-implemented method performed at a health study management system for collecting health-related data from data sources, including sensors monitoring system users (Abstract). Ellis further discloses the system receives configuration information for a health study using the health study management system, wherein the configuration information specifying data collection activities for collecting respective health-related data (Abstract). Ellis further discloses a data collection configuration is generated for each user device associated with a study participant, and the configuration may be tailored based on user or device-specific criteria, for example a language configured for a particular user device/participant, for example, by selecting instructional information, input forms, interactive assessments etc., in the required language (paragraph [0189]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of claim claimed invention, to modify the system of Child to include translating a first natural language statement presented in a first natural language within the particular view to a second natural language statement in a second natural language, wherein the first natural language statement and the second natural language statement are defined in separate configuration files within a configuration package, as taught by Ellis for the purpose of allowing users/participants to use any languages when viewing/submitting data.
Allowable Subject Matter
The arguments regarding claims 13-34 (see pages 19-25 of Remarks) are persuasive. Therefore, claims 13-34 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 and 35-37 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to CHAU T NGUYEN at telephone number (571)272-4092. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8am to 5pm (PT).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cesar Paula, can be reached at telephone number 5712724128. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHAU T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2145