Detailed Action
This action is in response to RCE filed on 09/29/2025.
This application was filed on 09/14/2023 which is continuation of application no. 17/435332 (now U.S. patent #11797756) filed on 08/31/2021, which claims benefit to PCT/CN2019/085243 filed on 04/30/2019.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/29/2025 has been entered.
Applicant's Response
In Applicant's Response dated 09/29/2025, Applicant amended claims 1, 9, and 10. Applicant argued against various rejections set forth in the office mailed on 04/17/2025.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a detection module for detecting… first presenting module for providing… an edit operation receiving module for receiving… automatically updates… automatically generates… document presenting module for presenting” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, see at least figures 1, 17-20 and accompanying text. Furthermore, the following are interpreted as non-specialized functions: “first presenting module for providing… receiving module for receiving… document presenting module for presenting”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below 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 or disclosed by the examiner.
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 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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otero et al. (US 20140372857 A1, referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Bosworth et al. (US 20200364400 A1, referred hereinafter as D4) in view of Dhawan et al. (US 20160124930 A, referred hereinafter as D3) in view of Dalle et al. (US 20180181866 A1, referred hereinafter as D5) in view of Peterson et al. (US 20170357627 A1, referred hereinafter as D6).
As per claim 1, D1 discloses,
A method for document auto-completion, comprising, (D1, title, abstract).
identifying a target entity in an application of a user, (D1, 0026-0031, 0051, figure 2A-2E, 9 discloses searching/identifying a target entity (e.g., data sets) in an application (e.g., search engines etc.) of/accessible to a user.).
providing, in a first user interface, a prompt selectable for creating a [updated] document, the prompt determined based on the target entity and an intent of the user, (D1, 0026-0031, 0051, figure 2A-2E, 9 discloses searching/identifying a target entity (e.g., data sets) based user entered fields (e.g., intent) as shown the figures, providing, in a first user interface shown in figure 2B, a prompt selectable (e.g. fill suggestions as shown in fig 2B/215) for creating a [updated] document, the prompt determined based on the target entity (e.g. searched data) and an intent of the user (e.g. user entered data))
receiving an instruction via selection of the prompt in the first user interface to create the [updated] document, (D1, 0026-0031, 0051, figure 2A-2E, 9 discloses searching/identifying a target entity (e.g., data sets) based user entered fields (e.g., intent) as shown the figures, and based on receiving user selections via selection of the prompt (e.g., commit selection) in the first user interface to create the [updated] document)
presenting, in a second user interface, the [updated] document in response to the instruction, the [updated] document comprising a form, (D1, 0026-0031, 0051, figure 2A-2E, 9 discloses searching/identifying a target entity (e.g., data sets) based user entered fields (e.g., intent) as shown the figures, and based on receiving user selections via selection of the prompt (e.g., commit selection) in the first user interface to create the [updated] document, including presenting, in a second/updated user interface as shown in figure 2C, the [updated] document in response to the instruction, the [updated] document comprising a form.).
wherein at least a first section in the [updated] document includes auto-filled content suggested according to context information associated with the [updated] document, (D1, 0026-0031, 0051, figure 2A-2E, 9 discloses searching/identifying a target entity (e.g., data sets) based user entered fields (e.g., intent) as shown the figures, and based on receiving user selections via selection of the prompt (e.g., commit selection) in the first user interface to create the [updated] document to present updated document as shown in the interface as shown in figure 2C, wherein at least a first section in the [updated] document (e.g. at least portion of column B and column C of the spreadsheet) includes auto-filled content suggested according to context information associated with the [updated] document.).
receiving an edit operation to the [updated] document within the second user interface; and presenting, in at least the second section in the [updated] document [content]…, (D1, 0026-0031, 0051, figure 2A-2E, additionally shows/discloses receiving any number of edits operation (e.g. adding additional entries to spreadsheet) to the [updated] document within the second/updated user interface; and presenting, in at least a second section in the [updated] document, additional content suggested in response to the edit operation (e.g. see figure 2c-2d).
D1 discloses generating an updated document; however, D1 fail to expressly disclose –creating a new document … to create the new document.
However, D4 (0020, 0040, 0046, figure 2, 11) shows/discloses first interface including mechanisms for creating a new document/child sheet … make edits/selections in the first interface to create the new document/sheet to be populated with various data from other sources/sheets as well as via user input.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D4 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of generating new documents/sheets with populated data or to be populated with various data as disclosed by D4.
As noted above, the spreadsheet of D1 can fairly/arguably be construed as form; nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, D3 (0023, 0039) explicitly discloses generating new documents that are forms.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D3 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results intelligently generating new content/documents/forms to induce better response rates from users in survey as disclosed by D3.
D1/D4/D3 discloses editing document, generating new/updated document; however, D1/D4/D3 fails to expressly disclose – receiving edit operation to the auto-filled content of the first section of [the document].
D5 (0046-0047, 0051) discloses auto-filling document fields/sections, and a receiving edit operation to the auto-filled content/value of the first section/fields of the document, and in response to edits/correction, retraining the model to suggest/auto-fill correctly in subsequent documents/forms/fields.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D5 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of manually correcting auto-fill errors, and retraining model to correctly fill fields/sections of subsequent documents/sections/fields as disclosed by D5 (abstract, 0051).
As noted above, D1/D4/D3/D5 disclose new document; however, D1/D4/D3/D5 fails to expressly disclose – in response to receiving the edit operation to the auto-filled content, i) automatically updating the content information associated with the new document, and ii) automatically generating additional auto-filled content in at least second section in the new document based on the updated context information,… [presenting] the additional auto-filled content generated in response to the edit operation.
D6 (5A-6 and accompanying text) shows/discloses in response to receiving the edit operation to the auto-filled content (e.g. correcting one or more portions of aufofilled fields of a form), i) automatically updating the context information (e.g. classification information) associated with the form/fields , and ii) automatically generating additional auto-filled content in at least second section in the form based on the updated context information based on at least refreshing to the form as shown in figures 5G-5J,… presenting/inserted the additional auto-filled content generated in response to the edit operation. Additionally, the examiner further notes that Shipping form 562, Guest registration form 582, Hotel payment form 592 as shown in figure 5A-5V can fairly be construed as different sections of a “new document”, where in response to receiving the edit operation to the auto-filled content in the shipping form section of the new document as shown in figure 5G-5J, i) automatically updating the content information associated with the new document (e.g. classification of fields), and ii) automatically generating additional auto-filled content in at least second section (e.g. Shipping form 562, Guest registration form 582, Hotel payment form 592 ) in the new document based on the updated context information,… presenting the additional auto-filled content generated in response to the edit operation.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D6 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of manually correcting auto-fill errors, updating system of D6 to correctly fill fields/sections of subsequent sections of document as disclosed by D6.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the [updated] document is a form, and the form includes at least one of: survey, training, workshop, registration, voting, test and homework, (D1, 0026-0031, 0051, figure 2A-2E, clearly shows spreadsheet having various which can be fairly construed as survey, training, workshop, registration, voting, test and homework).
D1 discloses generating an updated document; however, D1 fail to expressly disclose –creating a new document … to create the new document.
However, D4 (0020, 0040, 0046, figure 2, 11) shows/discloses first interface for creating a new document/child sheet … make edits/selections in the first interface to create the new document/sheet to be populated with various data from other sources/sheets as well as via user input.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D4 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results generating new documents/sheets with populated data or to be populated with various data as disclosed by D4.
As noted above, the spreadsheet of D1 can fairly/arguably be construed as form; nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, D3 (0023, 0039) explicitly discloses generating new documents that are forms.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D3 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results intelligently generating content/documents/forms to induce better response rates from users in survey as disclosed by D3.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the [updated] document is associated with the target entity and the intent of the user, (D1, 0026-0031, 0051, figure 2A-2E, discloses wherein the updated document is associated/related with the target entity (e.g., spreadsheets include content matched/collected/retrieved from external resources based on fields of spreadsheet) and the intent of the user (e.g., entered user data)).
D1 discloses generating an updated document; however, D1 fail to expressly disclose –creating a new document … to create the new document.
However, D4 (0020, 0040, 0046, figure 2, 11) shows/discloses first interface for creating a new document/child sheet … make edits/selections in the first interface to create the new document/sheet to be populated with various data from other sources/sheets as well via user input.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D4 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results generating new documents/sheets with populated data or to be populated with various data as disclosed by D4.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the first section comprises at least one of: a title section, a title description section, and one or more interaction sections, and each interaction section comprises a question item and an option item, (D1, 0026- 0031, 0051, figure 2A-2E , 9 discloses document being a spreadsheet/form related to various data including plurality rows/columns of textual data, and as such clearly discloses a title section, a title description section, and one or more interaction sections, and each interaction section comprises a question item and an option item. The examiner notes that “a title section, a title description section, and one or more interaction sections, and each interaction section comprises a question item and an option item” are merely non-functional descriptive material (e.g., displayed textual content) and are properly given little to no patentable weight.).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses
wherein receiving the edit operation within the second user interface includes receiving a modification operation of the content of the first section of the [updated] document, (D1, 0026- 0031, 0051, figure 2A-2E, and 9 discloses user being able edit any portion of spreadsheet including receiving the edit operation within the second user interface includes receiving a modification/inputs operation of the content/cells of the first section (e.g., column C portion as shown in figure 2C includes user input).).
and wherein presenting the content includes presenting, in the second section, the content suggested in response to the modification operation, (D1, 0026- 0031, 0051, figure 2A-2E, 9 discloses based on user edits of column c portion, presenting, in the second section as shown in figure 2D (column C other portions), the content suggested in response to the modification operation).
D1 discloses generating an updated document; however, D1 fail to expressly disclose –a new document.
However, D4 (0020, 0040, 0046, figure 2, 11) shows/discloses first interface for creating a new document/child sheet … make edits/selections in the first interface to create the new document/sheet to be populated with various data from other sources/sheets as well as via user input.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D4 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results generating new documents/sheets with populated data or to be populated with various data as disclosed by D4.
D1/D4/D3 discloses editing document, generating new/updated document; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose – [a modification operation of] the auto-filled content of the first section of [the document].
D5 (0046-0047, 0051) discloses auto-filling document fields/sections, and a receiving edit operation to the auto-filled content/value of the first section/fields of the document, and in response to edits/correction, retraining the model to suggest/auto-fill correct in subsequent documents/forms/fields.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D5 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of manually correcting auto-fill errors, and retraining model to correctly fill fields/sections of subsequent documents/sections/fields as disclosed by D5 (abstract, 0051).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein receiving the edit operation within the second user interface includes receiving a content input in a third section in the [updated] document, (D1, 0026- 0031, 0051, figure 2A-2E, and 9 discloses user being able edit any portion of spreadsheet including a third section.).
and wherein presenting the content includes presenting, in the second section, the content suggested in response to the content input, (D1, 0026- 0031, 0051, figure 2A-2E, 9 discloses user being able edit any portion of spreadsheet including a third section and providing suggestions in other sections including a second section.).
D1 discloses generating an updated document; however, D1 fail to expressly disclose –creating a new document … to create the new document.
However, D4 (0020, 0040, 0046, figure 2, 11) shows/discloses first interface for creating a new document/child sheet … make edits/selections in the first interface to create the new document/sheet to be populated with various data from other sources/sheets as well via user input.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D4 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results generating new documents/sheets with populated data or to be populated with various data as disclosed by D4.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses
wherein receiving the edit operation within the second user interface includes receiving a content input in a question item in an interaction section in the [updated] document and/or an incomplete content input in an option item in the interaction section, and wherein presenting the content includes presenting complete content in the option item, the complete content being suggested in response to the content input in the question item and/or the incomplete content input in the option item, (D1, 0026- 0031, 0051, figure 2A-2E, 9 discloses user being able edit any portion of spreadsheet including receiving the edit operation within the second user interface includes receiving a content input in a question item (e.g. input into Column B, C etc.) in an interaction section in the [updated] document and/or an incomplete content input in an option item in the interaction section (e.g. user input into Column A, B, C etc.), and wherein presenting the content includes presenting complete content in the option item (e.g. display suggested content in columns B, C etc.), the complete content being suggested in response to the content input in the question item and/or the incomplete content input in the option item (e.g. suggested data display on Column B, C).).
D1 discloses generating an updated document; however, D1 fail to expressly disclose –creating a new document … to create the new document.
However, D4 (0020, 0040, 0046, figure 2, 11) shows/discloses first interface for creating a new document/child sheet … make edits/selections in the first interface to create the new document/sheet to be populated with various data from other sources/sheets as well via user input.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D4 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results generating new documents/sheets with populated data or to be populated with various data as disclosed by D4.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein receiving the edit operation within the second user interface includes receiving a content input in the [updated] document, and further comprising presenting a modification suggestion for the content input, (D1, 0026- 0031, 0051, figure 2A-2E, 9 discloses user being able edit any portion of spreadsheet and providing suggestions in other sections to modify content of a particular column/row.).
D1 discloses generating an updated document; however, D1 fail to expressly disclose –creating a new document … to create the new document.
However, D4 (0020, 0040, 0046, figure 2, 11) shows/discloses first interface for creating a new document/child sheet … make edits/selections in the first interface to create the new document/sheet to be populated with various data from other sources/sheets as well via user input.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D4 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results generating new documents/sheets with populated data or to be populated with various data as disclosed by D4.
As per claims 9-10, and 16-20:
Claim 9-10, and 16-20 are apparatus claims corresponding to method claims 1, 4-8 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 9-10, 16-20 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claims 1, and 4-8.
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the [updated] document is created based on the intent of the user, (D1, 0026- 0031, 0051, figure 2A-2E, 9 discloses user being able edit any portion of spreadsheet and providing suggestions/edit in other sections to update the document.).
D1 discloses generating an updated document; however, D1 fail to expressly disclose –creating a new document … to create the new document.
However, D4 (0020, 0040, 0046, figure 2, 11) shows/discloses first interface for creating a new document/child sheet … make edits/selections in the first interface to create the new document/sheet to be populated with various data from other sources/sheets as well via user input.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D4 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results generating new documents/sheets with populated data or to be populated with various data as disclosed by D4.
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 10 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the instructions further cause the processing circuitry to distribute the edited document to a target audience, (D1, 0026- 0031, 0051, figure 2A-2E, 9 discloses user being able edit any portion of spreadsheet and providing suggestions/edit in other sections to update the document and distribute, show, or display the document any user including a target audience. Additionally, see D3 (0024, 0061-0062) discloses processing circuitry to distribute the edited document to a target audience).
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 further incorporated, D1 discloses
wherein to distribute the edited document, the instructions further cause the processing circuitry… distributing the edited document, (D1, 0026- 0031, 0051, figure 2A-2E, 9 discloses user being able edit any portion of spreadsheet and providing suggestions/edit in other sections to update the document and distribute/display the document to any number of users/target audience.).
D1 fails to expressly disclose - to determine an approach for distributing the edited document.
D3 (0024, 0061-0062) that the system of D3 to determine an approach for distributing edited survey forms when not enough of responses are received in a previous round of survey.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D3 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results intelligently generating content/documents/forms and to providing to plurality of users in order to induce better response rates for surveys as disclosed by D3 (0024).
As per claim 14:
The rejection of claim 12 further incorporated.
D1 fails to expressly disclose - wherein the instructions further cause the processing circuitry to collect responses to the edited document from the target audience.
D3 (0024, 0061-0062) discloses collecting responses to the edited document/survey form from the target audience.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D3 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results intelligently generating content/documents/forms and to providing to plurality of users in order to induce better response rates for surveys as disclosed by D3 (0024).
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
and wherein the data analysis includes evaluating content of the edited document for enhancing content suggestions in future documents, (D1, 0055 discloses wherein the data analysis includes evaluating (e.g., via feedback loop) content of the edited document for enhancing/learning content suggestions in future documents).
D1 fails to expressly disclose - wherein to collect the responses, the instructions further cause the processing circuitry to perform data analysis on the responses.
D3 (0024, 0061-0063) discloses collecting the responses, the instructions further cause the processing circuitry to perform data analysis on the responses (e.g., determine if sufficient data is collected), and wherein the data analysis includes evaluating content of the edited document for enhancing content suggestions in future documents
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D3 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results intelligently generating content/documents/forms and to providing to plurality of users in order to induce better response rates for surveys as disclosed by D3 (0024).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 09/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in view of new/modified grounds of rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA A AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3181. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young, can be reached on 571-270-3180. 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. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/MUSTAFA A AMIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194