DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to claims in application 18/356,559 filed on 4/17/2024.
The instant application claims benefit to foreign provisional application JP2022-116322 with a priority date of 7/21/2022.
The Pre-Grant publication # 20240029578 is published on 1/25/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claimed invention is to a process, apparatus and a computer devices. Thus fall within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are directed to an method, apparatus and devices administering a questionnaire to a plurality of respondents, each respondent using a respective terminal to complete the questionnaire, the questionnaire comprising a plurality of questions wherein at least one question has a plurality of prepared answer options; receiving, at an aggregation computer, selection information for each completed questionnaire, the selection information corresponding to a manner in which one or more of the plurality of prepared answer options are selected. These steps are drawn to concept that can be categorized as an actions that are of accessing, administrating, receiving, observing, identifying, evaluating and judging of questionnaire and answer textual inputs. A concept that are mental processes and by including recorded as a selection manner and processing of information they falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” along with “Mental Processes” that groups into abstract ideas subject to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The use of calculating a importance of each of the selected one or more options by a question and answer model could also be categorized as a use mathematical calculations falling within some mathematical concepts They are generally categorized as a grouping of an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1 YES).
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to be significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations of “a computer system with interface display”, “a processor’, “a memory’, "network remote storage", " .” determining based on the selection information an importance score for the prepared answer options, the importance score for each prepared answer option representing a respondent importance relative to the other prepared answer options”, are software analysis and execution by a computer are merely use of generic computer functions and computer parts. That is simply selecting process from one or more options and recording of the selection manner only a corresponding filtered session for evaluation and not an improvement in machine. Hence not indicative of integration of a practical application (Step 2A: Prong 2 No).
The steps in the recited claims that are highlighted are a well-understood, routine, and conventional activities known in art. Fig.1,2 of the instant specification depict respondents and user for internet or intranet services in touch with questionnaire aggregation apparatus for a hardware/ software in a standard environment implement the process claimed here. . The interactions disclosed in a manner that indicates that those features are well-known, routine, and conventional. They are not dealing with actual improvements to, e.g., machine learning, etc. As an example in case of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, the activities of storing and retrieving of information in a memory of consumer electronic for a field of use purposes are recognized to be computer functions well-understood, routine, and conventional, when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. Further, there found to be no additional elements here in the claim recitation that improves the functioning of a computer itself to overcome the abstract idea rejection (Step 2B: No).
The dependent claims 2-9,11-18 and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective function as discussed above. In other words, these claims merely apply an abstract idea to a programmable processor or computer and do not improve the performance of the process or computer itself or provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. They do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, the underlying computing elements remain method with recording of selection manner, selection order and calculating the importance time taken, cancellation of the selection, option arrangements, reflecting the importance on the questionnaire answer
and outputting on computer display each of the plurality of questions and the plurality of options or exclusion of options as prepared in advance as answers to each of the questions are based on a fact that the time taken for the option to be selected is a predetermined time or less.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, for these reasons, it appears that claims 2-9,11-8 and 20 are also not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number US 20190212890 A1 HONG et al. (Hong) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number. US 20160028890 A1 to SUGIBUCHI et al. (Sugibuchi).
Claim 1.Hong teaches a method for generating respondent insights from a questionnaire administered on a computer (Fig.2 S01, S02, S03) , comprising:
administering a questionnaire to a plurality of respondents, each respondent using a respective terminal to complete the questionnaire, the questionnaire comprising a plurality of questions wherein at least one question has a plurality of prepared answer options (Fig.2 element S04-S08 plurality of options for answer log in shared response to plurality of questions);
receiving, at an aggregation computer, selection information for each completed questionnaire, the selection information corresponding to a manner in which one or more of the plurality of prepared answer options are selected (Fig.3,4, 5 elements 310, 3213 questionnaire icon and response selection criteria as manner could be recorded at an aggregation computer ); and
Hong does not explicitly identify determining based on the selection information an importance score for the prepared answer options, the importance score for each prepared answer option representing a respondent importance relative to the other prepared answer options
Sugibuchi, however, teaches the determining based on the selection information an importance score for the prepared answer options, the importance score for each prepared answer option representing a respondent importance relative to the other prepared answer options (Para 0003 calculation unit scoring an amount of information on a receptionist's or user answer to a question from a questioner ; Para 003 the amount of information on an answer may include machine learning etc.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate determining based on the selection information an importance score for the prepared answer options, the importance score for each prepared answer option representing a respondent importance relative to the other prepared answer options, as taught by Sugibuchi, into the system of Hong, in order to provide a quick ranking of answer options.
Claim 2. . Hong in combination teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the selection information plurality of prepared answer options are selected, and determining the importance score assigning a higher importance to a prepared answer option selected earlier than a prepared answer option selected later ( Sugibuchi: Para 0033 Any function for higher importance or weightage would be depending on calculated amount of information capable of determining a score for a selected answer to a question used and as a matter of design choice ).
Claim 3. Hong in combination teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the information recorded as the selection manner is a time taken for each of the one or more options to be selected ( Sugibuchi : Para 0073 real time scoring), and calculating the importance includes calculating the importance such that a importance of an option for which the taken time is shorter is higher than a importance of an option for which the taken time is longer (Para 0074 scoring in real-time as a matter of design option could calculate the importance of an option for which the taken time is shorter is higher).
Claims 4. Hong in combination teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein calculating the importance includes setting a importance of an option selected after selection and cancellation of the selection are repeated, lower than a importance of a selected option other than the option selected after selection and cancellation of the selection are repeated, prepared answer option selected without a prior selection of the prepared answer option and cancellation of the selection ( Para 0040 operator whose specialty is highest among currently available operators may be assigned using the operator management table for importance of an option).
Claims 5. . Hong in combination teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein when each of a plurality of options is selected in an order in which the options are arranged, calculating the importance includes skipping the calculating the importance of the selected options.
Claim 6. . Hong in combination teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: reflecting the importance on the questionnaire answer; and outputting the questionnaire answer on which the importance is reflected (Sugibuchi: Fig.3 element 310 outputting of questionnaire).
Claim 7. . Hong in combination teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: causing a terminal accessing the computer to display each of the plurality of questions and the plurality of options prepared in advance as answers to each of the questions; and receiving, from the terminal, the information recorded as the selection manner in which the one or more options are selected (Fig.3,4 records the selection manner for various options on display monitor).
Claim 8. . Hong in combination teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein causing the terminal to display includes causing one screen of the terminal to display all options to one question (Fig.3 element310 all options on screen terminals).
Claim 9. . Hong in combination teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising excluding an option from options for which the importance is calculated, based on a fact that the time taken for the option to be selected is a predetermined time or less ( Hong: Fig.2 element S09 display refreshed after answer log entry that could be designed as to exclude an option for importance where predetermined or less timing are selected).
Claim 10. Hong teaches a questionnaire aggregation apparatus comprising: a memory to store a plurality of instructions; and a processor to execute the plurality of instructions, the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, causing the processor to perform: comprising:
administering a questionnaire to a plurality of respondents, each respondent using a respective terminal to complete the questionnaire, the questionnaire comprising a plurality of questions wherein at least one question has a plurality of prepared answer options (Fig.2 element S04-S08 plurality of options for answer log in shared response to plurality of questions);
receiving, at an aggregation computer, selection information for each completed questionnaire, the selection information corresponding to a manner in which one or more of the plurality of prepared answer options are selected (Fig.3,4, 5 elements 310, 3213 questionnaire icon and response selection criteria as manner could be recorded at an aggregation computer ); and
Hong does not explicitly identify determining based on the selection information an importance score for the prepared answer options, the importance score for each prepared answer option representing a respondent importance relative to the other prepared answer options
Sugibuchi, however, teaches the determining based on the selection information an importance score for the prepared answer options, the importance score for each prepared answer option representing a respondent importance relative to the other prepared answer options (Para 0003 calculation unit scoring an amount of information on a receptionist's or user answer to a question from a questioner ; Para 003 the amount of information on an answer may include machine learning etc.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate determining based on the selection information an importance score for the prepared answer options, the importance score for each prepared answer option representing a respondent importance relative to the other prepared answer options, as taught by Sugibuchi, into the system of Hong, in order to provide a quick ranking of answer options.
Claim 11. . Hong in combination teaches the questionnaire aggregation apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the information recorded as the selection manner is a selection order in which the one or more options are selected, and calculating the importance includes calculating the importance such that a importance of an option selected earlier is higher than a importance of an option selected later (Fig.10 elements S1050 S1070, S1080 importance obtained after count corrected and output results after correct numerical value of answer choice processed using calculated variation) .
Claim 12. . Hong in combination teaches the questionnaire aggregation apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the information recorded as the selection manner is a time taken for each of the one or more options to be selected, and calculating the importance includes calculating the importance such that a importance of an option for which the taken time is shorter is higher than a importance of an option for which the taken time is longer (Para 0074 scoring in real-time as a matter of design option could calculate the importance of an option for which the taken time is shorter is higher).
Claim 13. . Hong in combination teaches the questionnaire aggregation apparatus according to claim 10, wherein calculating the importance includes setting a importance of an option selected after selection and cancellation of the selection are repeated, lower than a importance of a selected option other than the option selected after selection and cancellation of the selection are repeated ( Sugibuchi : Para 006 question and answer removal and repetitions affects cancellation calculating the importance includes setting a importance of an option selected after selection and cancellation of the selection ).
Claim 14. . Hong in combination teaches the questionnaire aggregation apparatus according to claim 10, wherein when each of a plurality of options is selected in an order in which the options are arranged, calculating the importance includes skipping the calculating the importance of the selected options.
Claim 15. . Hong in combination teaches the questionnaire aggregation apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the plurality of instructions further cause the processor to perform: reflecting the importance on the questionnaire answer; and outputting the questionnaire answer on which the importance is reflected (Fig.4 elements 310 plurality of options prepared in advance as answers to each of a plurality of questions).
Claim 16. . Hong in combination teaches the questionnaire aggregation apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the plurality of instructions further cause the processor to perform: causing a terminal accessing the questionnaire aggregation apparatus to display each of the plurality of questions and the plurality of options prepared in advance as answers to each of the questions; and receiving, from the terminal, the information recorded as the selection manner in which the one or more options are selected (Fig.5 element 310 as options to questions).
Claim 17. . Hong in combination teaches the questionnaire aggregation apparatus according to claim 16, wherein causing the terminal to display includes causing one screen of the terminal to display all options to one question (Hong: Fig.3 element310 all options to questions displayed).
Claim 18. . Hong in combination teaches the questionnaire aggregation apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the plurality of instructions further cause the processor to exclude an option from options for which the importance is calculated, based on a fact that the time taken for the option to be selected is a predetermined time or less (Hong: Fig.2 element S09 display refreshed after answer log entry that could be designed as to exclude an option for importance where predetermined or less timing are selected).
Claim 19. . Hong in combination teaches a non-transitory computer-readable information recording medium storing a plurality of instructions, the plurality of instructions, when executed by a processor, causing the processor to perform: accessing a questionnaire answer consisting of one or more options selected from a plurality of options prepared in advance as answers to each of a plurality of questions ( Fig.2 element S01-S05 plurality of options for answer log in shared response), and information recorded as a selection manner in which the one or more options are selected; and calculating a importance of each of the selected one or more options, based on the information recorded ( Fig.2 S08 record of one entry of answer log entry; Fig.4, 5elements 310, 322 questionnaire icon and response selection criteria as manner could be recorded).
With following steps:
administering a questionnaire to a plurality of respondents, each respondent using a respective terminal to complete the questionnaire, the questionnaire comprising a plurality of questions wherein at least one question has a plurality of prepared answer options (Fig.2 element S04-S08 plurality of options for answer log in shared response to plurality of questions);
receiving, at an aggregation computer, selection information for each completed questionnaire, the selection information corresponding to a manner in which one or more of the plurality of prepared answer options are selected (Fig.3,4, 5 elements 310, 3213 questionnaire icon and response selection criteria as manner could be recorded at an aggregation computer ); and
Hong does not explicitly identify determining based on the selection information an importance score for the prepared answer options, the importance score for each prepared answer option representing a respondent importance relative to the other prepared answer options
Sugibuchi, however, teaches the determining based on the selection information an importance score for the prepared answer options, the importance score for each prepared answer option representing a respondent importance relative to the other prepared answer options (Para 0003 calculation unit scoring an amount of information on a receptionist's or user answer to a question from a questioner ; Para 003 the amount of information on an answer may include machine learning etc.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate determining based on the selection information an importance score for the prepared answer options, the importance score for each prepared answer option representing a respondent importance relative to the other prepared answer options, as taught by Sugibuchi, into the system of Hong, in order to provide a quick ranking of answer options.
Claim 20. . Hong in combination teaches the computer-readable information recording medium according to claim 19, wherein the information recorded as the selection manner is a selection order in which the one or more options are selected, and calculating the importance includes calculating the importance such that a importance of an option selected earlier is higher than a importance of an option selected later.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments/amendments filed on January 22, 2026 have been considered.
Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as necessitated by amendments changing the scope of the claims.
35USC101
Applicant om pages 9 and 10 of 11 indicate that claims recite receiving selection information for each of a plurality of questionnaires relating to the manner in which one or more answers are selected. Answers are selected, then assigning an importance score based on the selection information. Applicant asserts that the claims, in the process, provide a technical solution to a known problem by enabling insight into the relative importance of answer options from the perspective of the respondent population.
Examiner respectfully traverses the argument and would like to indicate that though computer recited questionnaire aggregation and answer selection based on importance score and displays, these are only learning or teaching tools and interaction descriptions that are happening on generic interfaces. There found to be no determination of technology improving functionalities of computers. No indication of special manner found in which a computer user interface could function. Use of common computers does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea.
35USC101 maintained.
35USC103
Applicant page 10/11 indicated that the secondary prior cited "selection criteria" relating to the content of a user answer, not a manner in which the answer is provided. Examiner has included a new prior art Sugibuchi et al. to include a manner such that amount of acquired information is calculated on an answer.
35USC103 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10817790 B2 Akolkar; Rahul P. et al. (time factor)
Automated distractor generation by identifying relationships between reference keywords and concepts.
US 20220254267 A1 HARA; Motoaki
APPARATUS AND CONTROL METHOD OF INFORMATION (number of times) PROCESSING APPARATUS
US 20230080674 A1 Attali; Yigal et al.
Systems and Methods for Automated Generation of Passage-Based Items for Use in Testing or Evaluation
US 9754504 B2 Allen; Corville O. et al.
Generating multiple choice questions and answers based on document text
US 20160217209 A1 Beamon; Bridget B. et al. (set of answer to input question)
Measuring Corpus Authority for the Answer to a Question
US 20200105156 A1 Naidu; Karthik Dundee Jayachandar et al.
ADAPTIVE INTERVIEW PREPARATION FOR CANDIDATES
US 10289729 B2 Wang; Weizhao et al.
Question and answer interface based on contextual information
Generating multiple choice questions and answers based on document text
US 20240185735 A1 Shah; Viral Prakash et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DYNAMIC ITEM GENERATION BY GENERATOR FUNCTION FOR ASSESSMENT IN CANDIDATE CONSOLE
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 SADARUZ ZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3137. Hong teaches the examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm CST.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. Hong teaches 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.
/S.Z/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
March 17, 2026
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights