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 ACTION
Response to Amendment
This communication is responsive to Amendment filed on 09/23/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 8, 15 are independent claims. This Office Action is made Final.
Examiner Notes
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill et al. (“Hill”, US PG-Pub. 2016/0078186 A1) in view of Peyman et al. (“Peyman”, US 2022/0093229 A1) and Masri et al. (“Masri”, US PG-Pub. 2016/0078186 A1).
Re-claim 1,
Hill teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, at a user's device associated with a user, data corresponding to a digital questionnaire, the digital questionnaire including a plurality of virtual pages (Figs. 4-8, [0013-0016] . Hill describes the digital questionnaire including a plurality of virtual pages shown in Figures 4-7);
causing, by an application running on the user's device, data for a first virtual page from the plurality of virtual pages to be presented on an interactive display of the user's device; processing a first input signal corresponding to a first user input on the interactive display, wherein the first input signal is generated at least in part while the first virtual page is presented on the interactive display; determining whether the first input signal includes data corresponding to a first gesture, wherein the first gesture is received at the interactive display; determining a character of the first gesture; assigning a first value corresponding to the first gesture; assigning the first value as a response to a first question on the first virtual page (Figs. 4, 8, [0061, 0078, 0087, 0108] . Hill describes the first client-server patient questionnaire 400 is prompted in Figure 4 and the patient can answer the question with multi-modal input gesture including tap, swipe, air gesture (i.e. camera capture motion), voice, etc. First questionnaire answer gesture (i.e. either “Yes” 410 or “No” 420 selection) is assigned to either binary value (i.e. either “Q1=0” 810 as a “Yes” or “Q1=1” 805 as a “No” selection, respectively));
tracking at least three of a hand tremor, a facial expression, an eye movement, or pupillometry while the first virtual page is being presented on the interactive display (Fig. 8, [0078] . Hill describes the patient can answer the questions with multi-modal input gesture including tap, swipe, air gesture (i.e. camera capture motion), voice, or otherwise indicate);
causing, by the application running on the user's device, data for a second virtual page from the plurality of virtual pages to be presented on the interactive display of the user's device; processing a second input signal corresponding to a second user input on the interactive display, wherein the second input signal is generated at least in part while the second virtual page is presented on the interactive display; determining the second input signal includes data corresponding to a second gesture, wherein the second gesture is received at the interactive display; determining a character of the second gesture; assigning a second value corresponding to the second gesture; assigning the second value as a response to a second question on the second virtual page (Figs. 5, 8, [0064, 0078, 0087, 0108] . Hill describes the second client-server patient questionnaire 500 is prompted in Figure 5 and the patient can answer the question with multi-modal input gesture including tap, swipe, air gesture (i.e. camera capture motion), voice, etc. Second questionnaire answer gesture (i.e. either “Yes” 510 or “No” 520 selection) is assigned to either binary value (i.e. either “Q2=1” 830 as a “Yes” or “Q2=0” 825 as a “No” selection, respectively) );
causing, by the application running on the user's device, data for a third virtual page from the plurality of virtual pages to be presented on the interactive display of the user's device; processing a third input signal corresponding to a third user input on the interactive display, wherein the third input signal is generated at least in part while the third virtual page is presented on the interactive display; determining whether the third input signal includes data corresponding to a third gesture, wherein the third gesture is received at the interactive display; determining a character of the third gesture; and assigning a third value corresponding to the second gesture (Figs. 6, 8, [0067, 0078, 0087, 0108] . Hill describes the third client-server patient questionnaire 600 is prompted in Figure 6 and the patient can answer the question with multi-modal input gesture including tap, swipe, air gesture (i.e. camera capture motion), voice, etc. Third questionnaire answer gesture (i.e. either 610-650 selections) is assigned to either value (i.e. either “Q3=1” 845 or “Q3=2” 850, etc. to “Q3=5” 865 selection, respectively)).
Hill fails to teach:
determining a state of the user based on the user responses;
However, Peyman teaches:
determining a state of the user based on the user responses ([0041]. Peyman describes “… A survey type of questions can also be asked from the patient to determine the state of the patient, such as pain, anxiety levels, mood, and any external events affecting the mental state of the user …”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the survey system teachings of Hill with the health survey monitoring factor teaching of Peyman to determine the health state of the patient to determine the appropriated treatment to the patient.
Modified Hill does not specifically teaches:
receiving, at a user's device associated with a user, data corresponding to a digital questionnaire from a server.
However, Masri teaches:
receiving, at a user's device associated with a user, data corresponding to a digital questionnaire from a server (Fig. 1A, [0021]. Masri describes the online survey system, in which the remote server 110 transmitting and processing the survey including multiple questions to client device 150).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the survey system teachings of modified Hill with the online survey system teaching of Masri to show the centralized survey system can be implemented online as Masri or semi-online as Hill to diversify the system providing to users.
Re-claim 2,
in addition to what Hill-Peyman-Masri teaches in claim 1, Hill also teaches the method, wherein the character of at least one of the first gesture, the second gesture, or the third gesture comprises a swipe ([0078] . Hill describes the client-server patient questionnaire 400-600 are prompted in Figures 4-6 and the patient can answer the question with multi-modal input gesture including tap, swipe, air gesture (i.e. camera capture motion), voice, etc.).
Re-claim 3,
in addition to what Hill-Peyman-Masri teaches in claim 1, Hill also teaches the method, wherein at least one of the first value, the second value, or the third value comprises one of a binary value (Fig. 8, [0078, 0087] . Hill describes the client-server patient questionnaire 400-600 are prompted in Figures 4-6 and the patient can answer the question with multi-modal input gesture including tap, swipe, air gesture (i.e. camera capture motion), voice, etc. Each questionnaire answer gesture (i.e. either “Yes” 410 or “No” 420 selection) is assigned to either binary value (i.e. either “Q1=0” 810 as a “Yes” or “Q1=1” 805 as a “No” selection, respectively)).
Re-claim 4,
in addition to what Hill-Peyman-Masri teaches in claim 1, Hill also teaches the method, wherein at least one of the data for the second virtual page or the data for the third virtual page is selected based at least in part on at least one of the first value or the second value (Fig. 8, [0087] . Hill describes “A second question is for determining whether the patient had difficulty swallowing solid food 820. An answer option indicating that the patient did not have difficulty swallowing solid food is assigned the numeric element 0 (e.g., Q2=0) 825. An answer option indicating that the patient did have difficulty swallowing solid food is assigned the numeric element 1 (e.g., Q2=1) 830. A third question for determining what action the patient took to correct or relieve difficulty swallowing food 840. In this embodiment, display of a third question for determining what action the patient took to correct or relieve difficulty swallowing food 840 is contingent on an affirmative answer to a second question for determining whether the patient had difficulty swallowing solid food 820. Accordingly, in this embodiment, where a patient indicates that they did not have difficulty swallowing solid food, a third question for determining what action the patient took to correct or relieve difficulty swallowing food is automatically assigned the numeric element 0 (e.g., Q3=0) 835” that indicates the value of 835 is selected from the value of 825 or the value of 840 is selected from the value 830).
Re-claim 5,
in addition to what Hill-Peyman-Masri teaches in claim 1, Hill also teaches the method, further comprising: causing, by the application running on the user's device, data for a fourth virtual page from the plurality of virtual pages to be presented on the interactive display of the user's device; and processing a fourth input signal corresponding to a fourth user input on the interactive display, wherein the fourth input signal is generated at least in part while the fourth virtual page is presented on the interactive display, wherein the fourth input signal does not include data corresponding to a gesture ([0078] . Hill describes the client-server patient questionnaire 400-600 are prompted in Figures 4-6 and the patient can answer the question with multi-modal input gesture including entered text, voice, etc. that include the data not corresponding to a gesture).
Re-claim 6,
Hill-Peyman-Masri teaches the method in claim 1, but Hill fails to teach a method, further comprising assessing at least one additional data during at least a portion of a time period between said causing data for the first virtual page to be presented on the interactive display of the user's device and said processing the first input signal corresponding to the first user input on the interactive display.
However, Masri teaches:
further comprising assessing at least one additional data during at least a portion of a time period between said causing data for the first virtual page to be presented on the interactive display of the user's device and said processing the first input signal corresponding to the first user input on the interactive display (Fig. 1C, [0088]. Masri describes the addition data (i.e. response duration 130a1) can be assessed during displaying the a survey questionnaire).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the survey system teachings of Hill with the online survey system teaching of Masri to show the centralized survey system can be implemented online as Masri or semi-online as Hill to enhance the data collection in the survey for better study or research.
Re-claim 7,
Hill-Peyman-Masri teaches the method in claim 6, but Hill fails to teach a method, wherein the at least one additional data comprises at least one of a duration of the time period, a signal from a camera of the user's device, or biometric data.
However, Masri teaches:
wherein the at least one additional data comprises at least one of a duration of the time period, a signal from a camera of the user's device, or biometric data (Fig. 1C, [0088]. Masri describes the addition data (i.e. response duration 130a1) can be assessed during displaying the a survey questionnaire).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the survey system teachings of Hill with the online survey system teaching of Masri to show the centralized survey system can be implemented online as Masri or semi-online as Hill to enhance the data collection in the survey for better study or research.
Re-claim 8,
Hill teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a memory; an interactive display; and a processor (Fig. 4, [0008, 0113]. Hill describes a mobile device having a memory, an interactive display and a processor) operatively coupled to the memory and the interactive display, the processor configured to perform a method having similar limitations in scope of claim 1 taught by Hill in view of Peyman and Masri; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claims 9-14,
in addition to what Hill-Peyman-Masri teaches in claim 8, claims 9-14 are system claims having similar limitations in scope of claims 2-7, respectively; therefore, they are rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 15,
claim 15 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 1 taught by Hill in view of Peyman and Masri; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claims 16-20,
in addition to what Hill-Peyman-Masri teaches in claim 15, claims 16-20 are non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims having similar limitations in scope of claims 2-6, respectively; therefore, they are rejected under similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/23/2025 with respect to amended claims 1, 8 and 15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7612. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached 571-272-4034. 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.
/TUAN S NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights