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 .
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.
Step 1
Claims 1-7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are directed to an apparatus, claim 12 is directed to a method, and claim 13 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable recording medium; thus, each of the pending claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1, representative of the claimed invention, recites units performing functions of a storage unit that stores one or more pieces of question information that are used to judge a blood sugar constitution type and include a question regarding lifestyle; an output unit that outputs the one or more pieces of question information; an acceptance unit that accepts, from a user, answer information corresponding to the one or more pieces of question information; a processing unit that determines a blood sugar constitution type of the user, using the one or more pieces of answer information accepted by the acceptance unit; and an information output unit that outputs output information regarding the blood sugar constitution type.
The limitations above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass mental processes and also certain methods of organizing human activity. The claimed steps recite several steps that include observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions, and “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” which have been considered by the courts to be a mental process. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). The claimed steps also are directed towards managing personal behavior (e.g., diagnosing a patient using answers to questions).
Apart from the use of generic technology (discussed further below), each of the limitations recited above describes activities that would encompass actions performed in collecting information from a patient via questionnaire and providing diagnostic data regarding a blood sugar constitution type.
Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, these activities describe concepts relating to managing personal behavior and mental processes in that the activities relate to collecting and performing analysis of data to providing diagnostic data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, commercial interactions, or fundamental economic practices, then it falls within the “Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The recited steps also are considered to be a mental process as methods that can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 12, and 13 recites the additional elements of a device comprising units for performing functions. Examiner notes the use of means and step for type language, the specification provides non-limiting examples of these elements. In particular wireless or wired communication means, a processor, memory and software. The units are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computing elements performing a generic computer function of receiving information, performing calculations, and providing/transmitting information) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. 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 elements of using a processor to perform the steps of “a storage unit that stores one or more pieces of question information that are used to judge a blood sugar constitution type and include a question regarding lifestyle; an output unit that outputs the one or more pieces of question information; an acceptance unit that accepts, from a user, answer information corresponding to the one or more pieces of question information; a processing unit that determines a blood sugar constitution type of the user, using the one or more pieces of answer information accepted by the acceptance unit; and an information output unit that outputs output information regarding the blood sugar constitution type” 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.
Step 2B
Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, e.g., a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, as discussed in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
ii. Improvements to any other technology or technical field, e.g., a modification of conventional rubber-molding processes to utilize a thermocouple inside the mold to constantly monitor the temperature and thus reduce under- and over-curing problems common in the art, as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
iii. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, e.g., a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web, as discussed in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP § 2106.05(b));
iv. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, e.g., a process that transforms raw, uncured synthetic rubber into precision-molded synthetic rubber products, as discussed in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184, 209 USPQ at 21 (see MPEP § 2106.05(c));
v. Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, e.g., a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
vi. Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g., an immunization step that integrates an abstract idea of data comparison into a specific process of immunizing that lowers the risk that immunized patients will later develop chronic immune-mediated diseases, as discussed in Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1066-68, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1499-1502 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Claims 1, 12, and 13 are not similar to any of these limitations.
Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claims 1, 12, and 13 recite additional elements that are regarded as “apply it” as seen in the Step 2A Prong 2 discussion above. The claims do not set forth a solution to a problem rooted in technology (e.g., technical solution), as collecting and analyzing user answers to perform diagnostics related to blood sugar constitution predate the use of computers or machine learning models.
Looking at the limitations of claims 1, 12, and 13 as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, effects a transformation of subject matter to a different state or thing, applies the use of a particular machine, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, claims 1, 12, and 13 are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea and do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. None of dependent claims 2-11recite any further additional elements.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9-11 further narrow the scope of the abstract idea in claims 1 by providing additional information or considerations used in the analysis. Dependent claims 4-5 also further narrow the scope of the abstract idea in independent claim 1 by reciting additional elements of a machine learning algorithm. The machine learning model is implemented as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f): “[u]se 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.” An example where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instruction to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process includes a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223 (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). The use of a machine learning model emulates what the medical practitioner does in questioning and diagnosing a patient. Thus, even considering the additional elements in combination, the claims do not include elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, claims 1-7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 12,131,661 to Pauley et al. in view of U.S. Patent 11,456,080 to Jain et al.
As to claims 1, 12, and 13, Pauley discloses a blood sugar constitution determination device comprising:
a storage unit that stores one or more pieces of question information that are used to judge a blood sugar constitution type and include a question regarding lifestyle (Pauley column 63 lines 11-51 see “chat interface to ask questions relating to diabetes management and general health and fitness. In some examples, the chat may be handled by a BOT, such as a Q&A BOT.”);
an output unit that outputs the one or more pieces of question information (Pauley column 63 lines 11-51 see “chat interface to ask questions relating to diabetes management and general health and fitness. In some examples, the chat may be handled by a BOT, such as a Q&A BOT.”);
an acceptance unit that accepts, from a user, answer information corresponding to the one or more pieces of question information (Pauley column 63 lines 11-51 see “chat interface to ask questions relating to diabetes management and general health and fitness. In some examples, the chat may be handled by a BOT, such as a Q&A BOT.”);
a processing unit that determines a blood sugar constitution type of the user, using the one or more pieces of answer information accepted by the acceptance unit (Pauley columns 77 and 78 see example 92; see also figure 2); and
an information output unit that outputs output information regarding the blood sugar constitution type (Pauley columns 77 and 78 see example 92).
However, Pauley does not explicitly teach the blood sugar constitution determination device wherein the one or more pieces of question information in the storage unit are questions acquired by a simple questionnaire acquisition device, and
the simple questionnaire acquisition device includes:
an estimated type acquisition unit that acquires an estimated type identifier, using answers to M questions out of answers that are answers to N questions and that correspond to any actual type identifier of two or more actual type identifiers, where M is less than N;
a question determination unit that, when an accuracy regarding a degree of matching between the estimated type identifier acquired by the estimated type acquisition unit and the actual type identifier satisfies a predetermined accuracy condition, determines M questions corresponding to the estimated type identifier; and
a simple questionnaire output unit that outputs a simple questionnaire that is information regarding a question group that is a group of the M questions determined by the question determination unit.
Jain discloses the determination device wherein the one or more pieces of question information in the storage unit are questions acquired by a simple questionnaire acquisition device (Jain column 96 lines 1-30), and
the simple questionnaire acquisition device includes:
an estimated type acquisition unit that acquires an estimated type identifier, using answers to M questions out of answers that are answers to N questions and that correspond to any actual type identifier of two or more actual type identifiers, where M is less than N (Jain column 96 lines 1-30);
a question determination unit that, when an accuracy regarding a degree of matching between the estimated type identifier acquired by the estimated type acquisition unit and the actual type identifier satisfies a predetermined accuracy condition, determines M questions corresponding to the estimated type identifier (Jain column 96 lines 1-30); and
a simple questionnaire output unit that outputs a simple questionnaire that is information regarding a question group that is a group of the M questions determined by the question determination unit (Jain column 96 lines 1-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention by applicant to use adaptive logic when questioning a user as in Jain in the system of Pauley to reduce the time needed for the user to interact with the interface.
As to claim 2, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Pauley discloses the blood sugar constitution determination device wherein the storage unit includes:
a first question storage unit that stores one or more first questions that are used to judge presence or absence of a risk related to blood sugar and include a question regarding lifestyle (Pauley column 15 lines 7-57 see series of questions used to populate user data and column 18 lines 1-12 see “One example prediction process can include a model for determining a user's blood glucose concentration or a parameter related to blood glucose based on user data”); and
a second question storage unit that stores one or more second questions that are used to judge a blood sugar constitution type and include a question regarding lifestyle (Pauley column 15 lines 7-57 see series of questions used to populate user data and column 18 lines 1-12 see “One example prediction process can include a model for determining a user's blood glucose concentration or a parameter related to blood glucose based on user data”),
the one or more pieces of question information are the first questions or the second questions, the acceptance unit includes:
a first answer acceptance unit that accepts first answers to the one or more first questions from the user (Pauley column 15 lines 7-57 see series of questions used to populate user data and column 18 lines 1-12 see “One example prediction process can include a model for determining a user's blood glucose concentration or a parameter related to blood glucose based on user data”); and
a second answer acceptance unit that accepts second answers to the one or more second questions from the user (Pauley column 15 lines 7-57 see series of questions used to populate user data and column 18 lines 1-12 see “One example prediction process can include a model for determining a user's blood glucose concentration or a parameter related to blood glucose based on user data”),
the processing unit includes:
a first judgment unit that judges presence or absence of a risk related to a blood sugar of the user, using the one or more first answers accepted by the first answer acceptance unit (Pauley column 15 lines 7-57 see series of questions used to populate user data and column 18 lines 1-12 see “One example prediction process can include a model for determining a user's blood glucose concentration or a parameter related to blood glucose based on user data”); and
a second judgment unit that determines a blood sugar constitution type of the user, using the one or more second answers accepted by the second answers acceptance unit (Pauley column 15 lines 7-57 see series of questions used to populate user data and column 18 lines 1-12 see “One example prediction process can include a model for determining a user's blood glucose concentration or a parameter related to blood glucose based on user data”), and
the output unit includes:
a first question output unit that outputs the one or more first questions (Pauley column 15 lines 29-57 see “For example, the user can be asked a series of health-related questions at the start of the program that the system 100 can periodically prompt the user to update if appropriate”); and
a second question output unit that outputs the one or more second questions when the first judgment unit judges that a risk is present (Pauley column 15 lines 29-57 see “For example, the user can be asked a series of health-related questions at the start of the program that the system 100 can periodically prompt the user to update if appropriate”).
As to claim 3, see the discussion of claim 2, additionally, Pauley discloses the blood sugar constitution determination device
wherein the second judgment unit additionally uses the one or more first answers accepted by the first answer acceptance unit to determine the blood sugar constitution type of the user (Pauley column 15 lines 7-57 see series of questions used to populate user data and column 18 lines 1-12 see “One example prediction process can include a model for determining a user's blood glucose concentration or a parameter related to blood glucose based on user data”).
As to claim 4, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Pauley discloses the blood sugar constitution determination device further comprising:
a learner storage unit that stores a learner acquired by performing machine learning processing on two or more pieces of training data that each contain one or more pieces of answer information and a blood sugar constitution type (Pauley column 26 lines 14-67 and column 15 lines 7-57),
wherein the processing unit acquires a blood sugar constitution type by performing machine learning prediction processing, using the one or more pieces of answer information accepted by the acceptance unit and the learner (Pauley column 26 lines 14-67 and column 15 lines 7-57).
As to claim 5, see the discussion of claim 2, additionally, Pauley discloses the blood sugar constitution determination device further comprising:
a learner storage unit that stores a learner acquired by performing machine learning processing on two or more pieces of training data that each contain one or more second answers and a blood sugar constitution type (Pauley column 26 lines 14-67 and column 15 lines 7-57),
wherein the second judgment unit acquires a blood sugar constitution type by performing machine learning prediction processing, using the one or more second answers accepted by the second acceptance unit and the learner (Pauley column 26 lines 14-67 and column 15 lines 7-57).
As to claim 6, see the discussion of claim 2, additionally, Pauley discloses the blood sugar constitution determination device further comprising:
an advice storage unit that stores one or more pieces of advice information in association with one or more type identifiers identifying the blood sugar constitution type (Pauley column 23-30 see features of the coaching engine),
wherein the information output unit outputs output information that contains one or more pieces of advice information associated with a type identifier identifying the type determined by the second judgment unit (Pauley column 23-30 see features of the coaching engine).
As to claim 7, see the discussion of claim 6, additionally, Pauley discloses the blood sugar constitution determination device further comprising:
an output information formation unit that acquires one or more pieces of advice information associated with a type identifier identifying the type determined by the second judgment unit, and forms output information that contains the type identifier and the one or more pieces of advice information (Pauley column 23-30 see features of the coaching engine and at least mobility),
wherein the information output unit outputs the output information formed by the output information formation unit (Pauley column 23-30 see features of the coaching engine and at least mobility).
As to claim 9, see the discussion of claim 2, however, Pauley does not explicitly teach the blood sugar constitution determination device,
wherein the one or more first questions in the first question storage unit are questions acquired by a simple questionnaire acquisition device, and
the simple questionnaire acquisition device includes:
an estimated type acquisition unit that acquires estimated risk presence/absence information, using answers to M questions out of answers that are answers to N questions and that correspond to actual risk presence/absence information specifying presence or absence of the risk, where M is less than N:
a question determination unit that, when an accuracy regarding a degree of matching between the estimated risk presence/absence information acquired by the estimated type acquisition unit and the actual risk presence/absence information satisfies a predetermined accuracy condition, determines M questions corresponding to the estimated risk presence/absence information (Jain column 96 lines 1-30); and
a simple questionnaire output unit that outputs a simple questionnaire that is information regarding a question group that is a group of the M questions determined by the question determination unit.
Jain discloses wherein the one or more first questions in the first question storage unit are questions acquired by a simple questionnaire acquisition device (Jain column 96 lines 1-30), and
the simple questionnaire acquisition device includes:
an estimated type acquisition unit that acquires estimated risk presence/absence information, using answers to M questions out of answers that are answers to N questions and that correspond to actual risk presence/absence information specifying presence or absence of the risk, where M is less than N (Jain column 96 lines 1-30):
a question determination unit that, when an accuracy regarding a degree of matching between the estimated risk presence/absence information acquired by the estimated type acquisition unit and the actual risk presence/absence information satisfies a predetermined accuracy condition, determines M questions corresponding to the estimated risk presence/absence information (Jain column 96 lines 1-30); and
a simple questionnaire output unit that outputs a simple questionnaire that is information regarding a question group that is a group of the M questions determined by the question determination unit (Jain column 96 lines 1-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention by applicant to use adaptive logic when questioning a user as in Jain in the system of Pauley to reduce the time needed for the user to interact with the interface.
As to claim 10, see the discussion of claim 2, however, Pauley does not explicitly teach the blood sugar constitution determination device
wherein one or more kinds of questions of the one or more second questions in the second question storage unit are questions acquired by a simple questionnaire acquisition device, and
the simple questionnaire acquisition device includes:
an estimated type acquisition unit that acquires an estimated type identifier, using answers to M questions out of answers that are answers to N questions and that correspond to any actual type identifier of two or more actual type identifiers, where M is less than N;
a question determination unit that, when an accuracy regarding a degree of matching between the estimated type identifier acquired by the estimated type acquisition unit and the actual type identifier satisfies a predetermined accuracy condition, determines M questions corresponding to the estimated type identifier; and
a simple questionnaire output unit that outputs a simple questionnaire that is information regarding a question group that is a group of the M questions determined by the question determination unit.
Jain discloses wherein one or more kinds of questions of the one or more second questions in the second question storage unit are questions acquired by a simple questionnaire acquisition device (Jain column 96 lines 1-30), and
the simple questionnaire acquisition device includes:
an estimated type acquisition unit that acquires an estimated type identifier, using answers to M questions out of answers that are answers to N questions and that correspond to any actual type identifier of two or more actual type identifiers, where M is less than N (Jain column 96 lines 1-30);
a question determination unit that, when an accuracy regarding a degree of matching between the estimated type identifier acquired by the estimated type acquisition unit and the actual type identifier satisfies a predetermined accuracy condition, determines M questions corresponding to the estimated type identifier (Jain column 96 lines 1-30); and
a simple questionnaire output unit that outputs a simple questionnaire that is information regarding a question group that is a group of the M questions determined by the question determination unit (Jain column 96 lines 1-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention by applicant to use adaptive logic when questioning a user as in Jain in the system of Pauley to reduce the time needed for the user to interact with the interface.
As to claim 11, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Pauley discloses the blood sugar constitution determination device wherein the blood sugar constitution type is a combination of a type of insulin sensitivity and a type of insulin secretion (Pauley column 20 lines 1-29).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that with respect to the 101 rejection that claimed invention improves the technical field of determining a blood sugar constitution type of the patients. Determining a blood sugar constitution type is not a technical field (i.e. the claim does not solve a problem that could not exist without that technology e.g. an internet problem). Determining a blood sugar constitution type is part of the abstract idea.
With respect to the 103 rejection, Applicant argues that Jain does not teach “a question determination unit that, when an accuracy regarding a degree of matching between the estimated type identifier acquired by the estimated type acquisition unit and the actual type identifier satisfies a predetermined accuracy condition, determines M questions corresponding to the estimated type identifier”. Jain discloses “when a user provides a response indicating a risk or uncertainty, the system can expand the set of questions to ask more detailed questions in the corresponding area. Similarly when available data indicates that data is already collected when available data indicates that data is already collected further questions can be skipped.” That is, the indicated risk or uncertainty corresponds to an accuracy regarding a degree of matching between the estimated type identifier and the set of questions corresponds to M questions corresponding to the estimated type identifier.
The reference therefore teaches the limitation and the rejection is maintained.
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.
ny inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eliza Lam whose telephone number is (571)270-7052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30PST.
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, Peter Choi can be reached at 469-295-9171. 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.
/ELIZA A LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681