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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority to 18 March 2021 under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 & 3-6 were previously pending in this application. The amendment filed 20 February 2026 has been entered and the following has occurred: Claims 1 & 5-6 have been amended. Claims 7-15 have been added.
Claims 1 & 3-15 remain pending in the application.
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 & 3-15 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 claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claim 5), machine (claims 1, 3-4, & 7-15), and manufacture (claim 6) which recite steps of:
refer to patient information including a log of an answer of a user to a medical questionnaire transmitted in the past and living hours;
specify a tendency of answers of the user based on the log of the answer of the user;
determine a date of transmission according to requested hours and the living hours;
determine an amount of medical questionnaires to be transmitted according to time that can be taken to answer the medical questionnaires to be transmitted and based on the specified tendency such that the amount is less than an amount of a previous medical questionnaire that was not answered by the user;
divide the medical questionnaires to be transmitted into a plurality of divided medical questionnaires corresponding to the determined amount of medical questionnaires;
transmit the plurality of divided medical questionnaires to the suer over a plurality of times according to the date of transmission;
receive an answer of the user to the transmitted plurality of divided medical questionnaires;
store the answer in a storage; and
output the answer stored in the storage together with the patient information on a display device.
These steps of referring to patient information, specifying a tendency of a user, determining a date and an amount of medical questionnaires to be transmitted for a user, dividing the medical questionnaires to be transmitted, transmitting the plurality of divided medical questionnaires to the user based on the date and the amount of transmission, and receiving an answer of the user to the transmitted medical questionnaire, storing the answer, and output the answer stored in the storage together with the patient information on a display device, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of the limitation in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the referring to patient information, specifying a tendency of a user, and determining a date and amount of transmission of a medical questionnaire for a user language, determining a date and amount of transmission of a medical questionnaire in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of a human or doctor determining when to send a medical questionnaire to a user and how much information or how many questions to populate into the questionnaire based on previous interactions with surveys/responses. Similarly, the limitation of transmitting the questionnaire, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, such as a doctor or human sending a questionnaire to a user but for the recitation of generic computer components, such as electronic transmission of said questionnaire. For example, but for the receiving an answer to the transmitted medical questionnaire and storing the answer in storage language, receiving an answer and storing the answer in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of a doctor or human receiving a response to a provided questionnaire and either remembering the response in their mind or storing said answers to said questionnaire either in physical media, i.e. notebook, or digital media, i.e. spreadsheet, electronic database, etc. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
These steps of referring to patient information, specifying a tendency of a user, determining a date and an amount of medical questionnaires to be transmitted for a user, dividing the medical questionnaires to be transmitted, transmitting the plurality of divided medical questionnaires to the user based on the date and the amount of transmission, and receiving an answer of the user to the transmitted medical questionnaire, storing the answer, and output the answer stored in the storage together with the patient information on a display device, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. For instance, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) describes various methods of organizing human activity, including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). For instance, the steps recited above, under broadest reasonable interpretation, include managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, such as by managing the typical behavior of a user regarding receiving a medical questionnaire, and answering said medical questionnaire. Furthermore, at least by way of medical information or questionnaires or a user’s answers to said questionnaire constituting “human activity” under broadest reasonable interpretation, the system is effectively organizing or managing said “human activity” by receiving and storing an answer of the user to the transmitted medical questionnaire.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 3-4 & 7-15, reciting particular aspects of how dividing the questionnaire to be transmitted into a number of items corresponding to an amount and date of transmission, determining the date or amount of transmission based on behaviors of the user, and/or determining the date and amount of transmission according to a profile of each user in view of the user performing a previous questionnaire, a game, or receiving/determining a profiling by a healthcare professional based on various tests, games, or other media may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of a collection device, processing circuitry, a storage, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, and a computer, amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see Applicant’s specification [0017] for a collection device; [0022] for processing circuitry; [0020] for a storage; [0020] for a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium; and [0017] for a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of transmitting a medical questionnaire to a user based on a date and amount of transmission, receiving an answer of the user to the transmitted medical questionnaire and/or patient information, referring to the patient information, transmitting the divided medical questionnaires according to the date of transmission amounts, and outputting the answer to mere data gathering; recitation of determining a date and amount of questions to be transmitted according to a user, dividing the medical questionnaires to be transmitted, determining the date of transmission according to requested hours and the living hours, determining the amount of medical questionnaires to be transmitted according to time that can be taken to answer the medical questionnaires to be submitted amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated; recitation of storing the received answer in a storage, outputting the answer in the storage together with the patient information on a display device amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g));
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as recitation of the questionnaire being applied to the medical field or being a medical questionnaire, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 3-4 & 7-15, which recite limitations relating to a collection device and/or processing circuitry, additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see Applicant’s specification [0017] for a collection device; [0022] for processing circuitry, see MPEP 2106.05(f); claim 14 which recite limitations to transmitting the plurality of divided medical questionnaires via at least one of a short message service (SMS) and a social networking service (SNS); claims 3-4, 8, & 12-15, which recite limitations relating to dividing the medical questionnaire to be transmitted by the number of items corresponding to the amount, determining the date or amount of transmission according to a log of behaviors of the user, determining the date or amount of transmission according to a profile of a user that is generated using behaviors of a user from an advance questionnaire, a game, and/or a log of profiling by a healthcare professional, additional limitations which add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea by selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated; claims 7-8, 12-13, & 15, which recite limitations relating to calculating the time that can be taken to answer the medical questionnaires to be transmitted by excluding a sleep time from the living, which amounts to insignificant application; claims 3-4, 9-10, & 14, which recite limitations relating to recitation of the questionnaire being applied to the medical field or a medical questionnaire or recitation of profiling by a healthcare professional, specifying the user profile as certain psychological domains, the transmission being short message service (SMS) and a social networking service (SNS), additional limitations which generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use). Looking at the limitations 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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as transmitting a medical questionnaire to a user based on a date and amount of transmission, receiving an answer of the user to the transmitted medical questionnaire and/or patient information, referring to the patient information, and transmitting the divided medical questionnaires according to the date of transmission, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); determining a date and amount of a transmission of a medical questionnaire according to a user, dividing the medical questionnaires to be transmitted by a number of items corresponding to the amount of medical questionnaires to be transmitted, determining the date of transmission according to requested hours and the living hours, determining the amount of medical questionnaires to be transmitted according to time that can be taken to answer the medical questionnaires to be submitted, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii); maintaining records of a user regarding date and amount of transmission of a medical questionnaire, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii), storing the received answer in a storage, storing computerized instructions in a storage medium for performance of the steps recited, storing parameters related to a user, storing one or more electronic questionnaires, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv); determining a date of and an amount of transmission of a medical questionnaire according to a user, which under BRI includes determination based on scanning or parsing of a digital or physical user medical record, e.g., electronic scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(v); receiving an answer or response of the user to the transmitted medical questionnaire, which under BRI includes selection of an answer by button means, e.g., a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 3-4 & 7-15, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, e.g., claims 14, which recite limitations relating to transmit the plurality of divided medical questionnaires via at least one of a short message service (SMS) and a social networking service (SNS), e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec; claims 3-4, 12-13 & 15, which recite limitations relating to dividing the medical questionnaire to be transmitted by the number of items corresponding to the amount, determining the date or amount of transmission according to a log of behaviors of the user, determining the date or amount of transmission according to a profile of a user that is generated using behaviors of a user from an advance questionnaire, a game, and/or a log of profiling by a healthcare professional, performing calculations, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii); claims 3-4 & 12-13, which recite limitations regarding electronic upkeep or maintenance of records in terms of medical questionnaire(s) to be transmitted to a user and/or keeping record of the parameters of the questionnaire, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii); claims 3-4 & 7-15, which recite limitations relating to storing computerized instructions in a storage medium for performance of the steps recited, storing parameters related to a user, storing one or more electronic questionnaires, storing instructions for transmitting questionnaires, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv); claims 3-4 & 12-15, determining a date of and an amount of transmission and dividing of a medical questionnaire into multiple items according to a user, which under BRI, includes determination based on scanning or parsing of a digital or physical user medical record e.g., electronic scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(v)). Looking at the limitations 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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, & 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Moturu et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0000422), hereinafter “Moturu”, in view of Moturu et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0213007), hereinafter “Moturu ‘3007”.
Claim 1 –
Regarding Claim 1, Moturu discloses a collection device (See Moturu Par [0139] which discloses one or more mobile computing devices, cardiovascular devices (e.g., monitoring devices, therapy devices), smart appliance devices and/or other non-generalized computing systems being used to collect a log of use dataset and a survey dataset, a cardiovascular device can collect a supplementary dataset, a remote server can receive the datasets from the corresponding devices) comprising:
processing circuitry configured to (See Moturu Par [0139]-[0140] for processing devices):
refer to patient information including a log of an answer of a user to a medical questionnaire transmitted in the past and living hours (See Moturu Par [0028]-[0029] which discloses outputting a temporal indicator indicating when digital communications occurred for a patient, and various datasets being collected for the patient, i.e. patient information including a log of answers of the user, such that a supplementary dataset and/or survey dataset can correspond to a same or overlapping time period to the outputted temporal indicators received);
specify a tendency of answers of the user based on the log of the answer of the user (See Moturu Par [0028]-[0029] which discloses outputting a temporal indicator indicating when digital communications occurred for a patient, and various datasets being collected for the patient, i.e. patient information including a log of answers of the user, such that a supplementary dataset and/or survey dataset can correspond to a same or overlapping time period to the outputted temporal indicators received);
determine a date of transmission according to requested hours and the living hours (See Moturu Par [0028]-[0029] which discloses outputting a temporal indicator indicating when digital communications occurred for a patient, and various datasets being collected for the patient, i.e. patient information including a log of answers of the user, such that a supplementary dataset and/or survey dataset can correspond to a same or overlapping time period to the outputted temporal indicators received; See Moturu Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses tracking of variations and periods of activity/inactivity throughout a day, including extended periods of when the individual is hyperactive on the device or not asleep, etc.);
determine an amount of medical questionnaires to be transmitted according to time that can be taken to answer the medical questionnaires to be transmitted and based on the specified tendency such that the amount is less than an amount of a previous medical questionnaire that was not answered by the user (See Moturu Par [0056] which discloses temporal features including frequency of digital communications, i.e. surveys, to be provided or have been provided to the user; See Moturu Par [0073] which discloses utilizing the survey dataset and digital communication behaviors of a user to determine a number of questions, portions, or responses that need to be provided to the user, i.e. the statistical approaches/feature selection approaches can be used to entirely omit collection of portions of the data (e.g., responses to specific surveys or portions of surveys can render responses to other portions of surveys or other surveys redundant), and therefore constitutes determining an optimal amount of responses/surveys to be transmitted);
divide the medical questionnaires to be transmitted into a plurality of divided medical questionnaires corresponding to the determined amount of medical questionnaires (See Moturu Par [0073] which discloses utilizing the survey dataset and digital communication behaviors of a user to determine a number of questions, portions, or responses that need to be provided to the user, i.e. the statistical approaches/feature selection approaches can be used to entirely omit collection of portions of the data (e.g., responses to specific surveys or portions of surveys can render responses to other portions of surveys or other surveys redundant) reduce questions from provided surveys to a subset of effective questions, i.e. dividing the medical questionnaires, to select a subset of features or questions having high efficacy from the data collected, and therefore constitutes dividing or reducing the number of surveys to be transmitted);
transmit the plurality of divided medical questionnaires to the user over a plurality of times according to the date of transmission (See Moturu Par [0028] which discloses recording communication parameters including communication times, durations, etc., of each inbound or outbound communication and uploading the data for the system to analyze the data to determine how and with what frequency the patient interacts with and communicates with other individuals through phone calls, e-mail, instant messaging, an online social network, and any other suitable mode of communication; See Moturu Par [0043] which discloses that a survey and/or generating a survey dataset can be performed at any suitable time in the process timeline, and furthermore, Moturu Par [0134] specifically states that updating one or more of the predictive models can include using an additional supplementary data or additional survey data, such as in a time period subsequent to generating the initial predictive model (which occurs after the initial survey is provided), such that the additional survey data would be collected from an additional survey provided to the user at a time period subsequent to the initial survey, and would still be based on the communication parameters defined by Moturu Par [0028] discussed above; Therefore, it is understood by Examiner that Moturu Par [0043] & [0134] thereby effectively discloses providing a supplementary or additional survey to the user, however if this is not the case, see Moturu ‘3007 Par [0054] & Fig. 2 which generally disclose the use of a “2nd survey” and “2nd survey dataset” to update a user-tailored communication plan for future communications/surveys to be delivered to a user);
receive an answer of the user to the transmitted plurality of divided medical questionnaires (See Moturu Par [0046] which discloses receiving survey responses by user input at an electronic device or automatically detected from user activity);
store the answer in a storage (See Moturu Par [0047] which discloses transmitting the survey dataset from the user input device to the computing system and storing in one or more data storage modules or memories); and
output the answer stored in the storage together with the patient information on a display device (See Moturu Par [0047] which discloses transmitting the survey dataset from the user input device to the computing system and storing in one or more data storage modules or memories; See Moturu Par [0019] & [0025] which discloses actively collected data including responses to digital surveys, such that a patient’s survey datasets can be generated and stored by the system; See Moturu Par [0028]-[0029] which discloses outputting a temporal indicator indicating when digital communications occurred for a patient, and various datasets being collected for the patient, i.e. patient information including a log of answers of the user, such that a supplementary dataset and/or survey dataset can correspond to a same or overlapping time period to the outputted temporal indicators received; See Moturu Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses tracking of variations and periods of activity/inactivity throughout a day, including extended periods of when the individual is hyperactive on the device or not asleep, etc.).
While Moturu generally discloses receiving requested hours of the user, outputting the answer stored in the storage together with patient information including a log of an answer of the user to a medical questionnaire transmitted in the past on a display device and optimizing delivery/transmission time of a questionnaire based on said requested hours of a user, Moturu is generally silent on logging/receiving living hours of the user as they relate to the interpretation generally provided at Applicant’s Specification [0021]. Therefore, Moturu is generally silent on the bolded portions of the limitations below:
refer to patient information including a log of an answer of a user to a medical questionnaire transmitted in the past and living hours.
determine a date of transmission according to requested hours and the living hours.
However, Moturu ‘3007 discloses refer to patient information including a log of an answer of a user to a medical questionnaire transmitted in the past and living hours (“living hours” in view of Applicant’s Specification [0021] is understood to constitute when the user performs certain activities, such as the example provided in Applicant’s Specification regarding a wake-up time and a time of sleep, therefore see Moturu ‘3007 Par [0017] which discloses extraction of insights into a user-provider relationship and associated communications due to natural conditions, including how a user digital communication behavior is affected by daily activities, interactions with family and friends, etc.; See Moturu ‘3007 Par [0025] which discloses communications from the log of use are preferably associated with one or more time periods, such that the time log can be specific to a user on a second, minute, hour, or daily basis (e.g. a time period associated with a user’s daily activity); See Moturu ‘3007 Par [0026]-[0027] which discloses recording start times and end times of various communications and/or activities performed/associated with the user, including a call start and/or end time, times of sent and/or received messages, etc.; See Moturu ‘3007 Par [0029] which discloses flagging certain time periods as time periods where the user has picked up and/or placed the mobile device down, and when a user device is in use to determine when/whether the user is awake at certain times (i.e. between a wake-up time and a time of sleep), in line with the interpretation of “living hours” suggested at Applicant’s Specification [0021]) and determine the date of transmission according to requested hours and the living hours (See Moturu ‘3007 Par [0013] which discloses determining and generating a communication plan personalized to the user and their behaviors over time, such that communications can be tailored to the user; See Moturu ‘3007 Par [0041] which disclose guiding communication provision in relation to users and/or associated locations/states of the user, including delivering an appropriately timed automated communication to the user for re-engaging a user, at a location or in a state where the user is historically receptive to receiving digital healthcare-related communications; See Moturu ‘3007 Par [0044] which discloses one or more communication schedules associated with communications/surveys to be provided to a user, including a scheduling time, e.g. a target time for transmitting automated communications, a time period associated with frequency device activity, time periods associated with high frequency of digital communications, based on those aspects described in Moturu ‘3007 Par [0025]-[0029] regarding certain time periods as time periods where the user has picked up and/or placed the mobile device down, and when a user device is in use to determine when/whether the user is awake at certain times (i.e. between a wake-up time and a time of sleep), in line with the interpretation of “living hours” as suggested at Applicant’s Specification [0021]; See Moturu ‘3007 Par [0048] which discloses determining a communication plan according to various features, including time-based features, such that a feature selection model can include applying a feature selection rule to filter, rank, and/or otherwise select features for use in determining communication plans). The disclosure of Moturu ‘3007 is directly applicable to the disclosure of Moturu, because the disclosures share limitations and capabilities, such as both being directed towards optimizing digital communications to be delivered to a user, and the optimization being based on varying user digital communication preferences, behaviors, and insights.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Moturu, which already discloses receiving requested hours of a user and optimizing delivery/transmission time of a questionnaire based on the requested hours further include additionally receiving living hours of a user and optimizing the delivery/transmission time of the questionnaire based on said living hours of the user as well, as disclosed by Moturu ‘3007, because by including more features in optimizing delivery/transmission time of the questionnaire, the personalization of said delivery/transmission time for a particular user can be enhanced (See Moturu ‘3007 Par [0048]).
Claim 3 –
Regarding Claim 3, Moturu and Moturu ‘3007 disclose the collection device according to claim 1 in its entirety. Moturu further discloses a collection device, wherein:
the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine the date of transmission or the amount of medical questionnaires to be transmitted according to a log of behaviors of the user (See Moturu Par [0025] which discloses receiving a log of use dataset associated with patient digital communication behavior at a mobile computing device, wherein the log of use dataset is associated with a time period, and the dataset could be a survey dataset based on a patient response to a survey, wherein the survey dataset is associated with the time period; See Moturu Par [0042]-[0043] which discloses portions of a dataset, i.e. survey dataset, being delivered at varying time points, time windows, time periods, etc., and this time(s) being based on digital communication activity/behaviors; See Moturu Par [0056] which discloses temporal features including frequency of digital communications, i.e. surveys, to be provided or have been provided to the user, and Moturu Par [0056] further describes that temporal features associated with digital communication behavior of the patient can be used in any suitable manner for generating a cardiovascular health metric; See Moturu Par [0073] which discloses utilizing the survey dataset and digital communication behaviors of a user to determine a number of questions, portions, or responses that need to be provided to the user, i.e. the statistical approaches/feature selection approaches can be used to entirely omit collection of portions of the data (e.g., responses to specific surveys or portions of surveys can render responses to other portions of surveys or other surveys redundant), and therefore constitutes determining an optimal amount of responses/surveys to be transmitted).
Claim 4 –
Regarding Claim 4, Moturu and Moturu ‘3007 disclose the collection device according to claim 1 in its entirety. Moturu further discloses a collection device, wherein:
the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine the date of transmission and the amount of medical questionnaires to be transmitted according to a profile of each user that is specified using at least any one of an advance questionnaire, a game and a log of profiling by a healthcare professional (See Moturu Par [0046] which discloses the use of a multimedia game for collecting response data or behavior; See Moturu Par [0025] which discloses receiving a log of use dataset associated with patient digital communication behavior at a mobile computing device, wherein the log of use dataset is associated with a time period, and the dataset could be a survey dataset based on a patient response to a survey, wherein the survey dataset is associated with the time period; See Moturu Par [0073] which discloses utilizing the survey dataset and digital communication behaviors of a user to determine a number of questions, portions, or responses that need to be provided to the user, i.e. the statistical approaches/feature selection approaches can be used to entirely omit collection of portions of the data (e.g., responses to specific surveys or portions of surveys can render responses to other portions of surveys or other surveys redundant), and therefore constitutes determining an optimal amount of responses/surveys to be transmitted; See Moturu Par [0030] & [0064] which discloses the use of digital communication behavior profiles of patients with known cardiovascular conditions, composite patient profiles, manually curated patient profiles, automatically generated patient profiles, and/or any suitable reference patient profiles, such that these can be generated by interactions/communications between a health professional and the patient or communications as described in Moturu Par [0030] specifically).
Claim 5 –
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites substantially similar aspects of claim 1 but recited for a collection method instead of a system. Moturu and Moturu ‘3007 render obvious the entirety of claim 1. Additionally, Moturu Par [0139]-[0140] discloses processing devices and computer-readable medium storing instructions for performing various methods/processes. Therefore Moturu and Moturu ‘3007 read on said collection method embodiments of Claim 5 in their entirety for the same or substantially similar reasons to claim 1, but applied to a method/process.
Claim 6 –
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites substantially similar aspects of claim 1 but recited for a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing therein a collection program that cause a computer to execute a process instead of a system. Moturu and Moturu ‘3007 render obvious the entirety of claim 1. Additionally, Moturu Par [0139]-[0140] discloses processing devices and computer-readable medium storing instructions. Therefore Moturu and Moturu ‘3007 read on said non-transitory computer-readable recording medium embodiments of Claim 6 in their entirety for the same or substantially similar reasons to claim 1 but applied to a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Claim 7 –
Regarding Claim 7, Moturu and Moturu ’3007 disclose the collection device according to claim 1 in its entirety. Moturu and Moturu ’3007 further discloses a collection device, wherein:
the processing circuitry is further configured to calculate the time that can be taken to answer the medical questionnaires to be transmitted by excluding a sleep time from the living hours (See Moturu Par [0064] which discloses generation of a user profile based on at least one of the log use dataset, supplementary dataset, and survey dataset; See Moturu Par [0028]-[0029] which discloses outputting a temporal indicator indicating when digital communications occurred for a patient, and various datasets being collected for the patient, i.e. patient information including a log of answers of the user, such that a supplementary dataset and/or survey dataset can correspond to a same or overlapping time period to the outputted temporal indicators received; See Moturu Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses tracking of variations and periods of activity/inactivity throughout a day, including extended periods of when the individual is hyperactive on the device or not asleep (i.e. sleep time), etc.; See Moturu ‘3007 Par [0013] which discloses determining and generating a communication plan personalized to the user and their behaviors over time, such that communications can be tailored to the user; See Moturu ‘3007 Par [0041] which disclose guiding communication provision in relation to users and/or associated locations/states of the user, including delivering an appropriately timed automated communication to the user for re-engaging a user, at a location or in a state where the user is historically receptive to receiving digital healthcare-related communications; See Moturu ‘3007 Par [0044] which discloses one or more communication schedules associated with communications/surveys to be provided to a user, including a scheduling time, e.g. a target time for transmitting automated communications, a time period associated with frequency device activity, time periods associated with high frequency of digital communications, based on those aspects described in Moturu ‘3007 Par [0025]-[0029] regarding certain time periods as time periods where the user has picked up and/or placed the mobile device down, and when a user device is in use to determine when/whether the user is awake at certain times (i.e. between a wake-up time and a time of sleep), in line with the interpretation of “living hours” as suggested at Applicant’s Specification [0021]; See Moturu ‘3007 Par [0048] which discloses determining a communication plan according to various features, including time-based features, such that a feature selection model can include applying a feature selection rule to filter, rank, and/or otherwise select features for use in determining communication plans).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Moturu, which already discloses receiving requested hours of a user and optimizing delivery/transmission time of a questionnaire based on the requested hours further include additionally receiving living hours of a user and optimizing the delivery/transmission time of the questionnaire based on said living hours of the user as well, as disclosed by Moturu ‘3007, because by including more features in optimizing delivery/transmission time of the questionnaire, the personalization of said delivery/transmission time for a particular user can be enhanced (See Moturu ‘3007 Par [0048]).
Claim 14 –
Regarding Claim 14, Moturu and Moturu ‘3007 disclose the collection device according to claim 1 in its entirety. Moturu further discloses a collection device, wherein:
the processing circuitry is further configured to:
transmit the plurality of divided medical questionnaires via at least one of a short message service (SMS) and a social networking service (SNS) (See Moturu Par [0028] & [0030] which discloses the use of text messaging and social network usage, such as to take advantage of such patient digital communication datasets to better improve the understanding of correlations between patient digital communication behavior and cardiovascular health).
Claim 15 –
Regarding Claim 15, Moturu and Moturu ‘3007 disclose the collection device according to claim 1 in its entirety. Moturu and Moturu ‘3007 further discloses a collection device, wherein:
the processing circuitry is further configured to:
calculate the time that can be taken to answer the medical questionnaires to be transmitted by subtracting a wake-up time and a sleep time from the requested hours (See Moturu Par [0064] which discloses generation of a user profile based on at least one of the log use dataset, supplementary dataset, and survey dataset; See Moturu Par [0028]-[0029] which discloses outputting a temporal indicator indicating when digital communications occurred for a patient, and various datasets being collected for the patient, i.e. patient information including a log of answers of the user, such that a supplementary dataset and/or survey dataset can correspond to a same or overlapping time period to the outputted temporal indicators received; See Moturu Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses tracking of variations and periods of activity/inactivity throughout a day, including extended periods of when the individual is hyperactive on the device or not asleep (i.e. sleep time), etc.; See Moturu ‘3007 Par [0013] which discloses determining and generating a communication plan personalized to the user and their behaviors over time, such that communications can be tailored to the user; See Moturu ‘3007 Par [0041] which disclose guiding communication provision in relation to users and/or associated locations/states of the user, including delivering an appropriately timed automated communication to the user for re-engaging a user, at a location or in a state where the user is historically receptive to receiving digital healthcare-related communications; See Moturu ‘3007 Par [0044] which discloses one or more communication schedules associated with communications/surveys to be provided to a user, including a scheduling time, e.g. a target time for transmitting automated communications, a time period associated with frequency device activity, time periods associated with high frequency of digital communications, based on those aspects described in Moturu ‘3007 Par [0025]-[0029] regarding certain time periods as time periods where the user has picked up and/or placed the mobile device down, and when a user device is in use to determine when/whether the user is awake at certain times (i.e. between a wake-up time and a time of sleep), in line with the interpretation of “living hours” as suggested at Applicant’s Specification [0021] and while not “subtracting sleep” per se, ; See Moturu ‘3007 Par [0048] which discloses determining a communication plan according to various features, including time-based features, such that a feature selection model can include applying a feature selection rule to filter, rank, and/or otherwise select features for use in determining communication plans).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Moturu, which already discloses receiving requested hours of a user and optimizing delivery/transmission time of a questionnaire based on the requested hours further include additionally receiving living hours of a user and optimizing the delivery/transmission time of the questionnaire based on said living hours of the user as well, as disclosed by Moturu ‘3007, because by including more features in optimizing delivery/transmission time of the questionnaire, the personalization of said delivery/transmission time for a particular user can be enhanced (See Moturu ‘3007 Par [0048])
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Moturu, in view of Moturu ‘3007, further in view of Jain et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,763,919), hereinafter “Jain”.
Claim 8 –
Regarding Claim 8, Moturu and Moturu ‘3007 discloses the collection device according to claim 1 in its entirety. Moturu and Moturu ‘3007 further discloses a collection device, wherein:
the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine the date of transmission and the amount of medical questionnaires to be transmitted according to the specified user profile (See Moturu Par [0064] which discloses generation of a user profile based on at least one of the log use dataset, supplementary dataset, and survey dataset; See Moturu Par [0028]-[0029] which discloses outputting a temporal indicator indicating when digital communications occurred for a patient, and various datasets being collected for the patient, i.e. patient information including a log of answers of the user, such that a supplementary dataset and/or survey dataset can correspond to a same or overlapping time period to the outputted temporal indicators received; See Moturu Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses tracking of variations and periods of activity/inactivity throughout a day, including extended periods of when the individual is hyperactive on the device or not asleep, etc.; See Moturu ‘3007 Par [0026] which discloses when a mobile device is in an active state (e.g. in use, in an on-state, in a sleep state), such as to determine and record communication parameters, such as logging digital communications into a log of use for a time period, e.g. until the user fails to respond for a threshold amount of time, however Moturu and Moturu ‘3007).
However, Jain discloses specifying a user profile of the user based on a result of a multimedia game played by the user (See Jain Col. 9, ll. 28-45 which discloses sampling data about a subject’s current behaviors and experiences (i.e. user profile of the user) in real-time, in real-world settings, and may collect data for determining said current behaviors or experiences such as by performance in a mobile-device-based game (e.g. a video game)). The disclosure of Jain is directly applicable to the combined disclosure of Moturu and Moturu ‘3007, because the disclosures share limitations and capabilities, such as being directed towards determining and managing engagement of one or more users through surveys.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Moturu and Moturu ‘3007, which already discloses generating a user profile based on at least one of the log use dataset, supplementary dataset, and survey dataset, to further include specifying a user profile of the user based on a result of a multimedia game played by the user, as disclosed by Jain, because this allows for user behavior through alternative or other means, such as performance in mobile-device-based game (See Jain Col. 9, ll. 28-45).
Claim 9 –
Regarding Claim 9, Moturu, Moturu ‘3007, and Jain disclose the collection device according to claim 8 in its entirety. Moturu further discloses a collection device, wherein:
the user profile is specified as an instinct active type (“instinct active” is not a well-known term of art, and is not further specified in Applicant’s Specification beyond stating that it is determined based on various aspects of a user, such as their sociability, communication, logical thinking, gambling, the level of happiness, stress tolerance, etc., therefore this is understood to merely represent an optimization with prior art conditions or through routine experimentation, such as by analyzing various aspects of a user and merely applying an arbitrary label to said user, therefore see Moturu Par [0064] which discloses generation of a user profile, that which could be labeled an instinct active type upon).
Claim 10 –
Regarding Claim 10, Moturu, Moturu ‘3007, and Jain disclose the collection device according to claim 8 in its entirety. Jain further discloses a collection device, wherein:
the user profile is specified based on a level of logical thinking and a level of stress tolerance of the user determined from the result of the multimedia game (See Jain Col. 9, ll. 28-45 which discloses sampling data about a subject’s current behaviors and experiences (i.e. user profile of the user) in real-time, in real-world settings, and may collect data for determining said current behaviors or experiences such as by performance in a mobile-device-based game (e.g. a video game); While not “stress tolerance” per se, see Jain Col. 19, ll. 36, Col. 20, ll. 5 and Col. 31, ll. 50 – Col. 32, ll. 34 which discloses the use of a stress scale in relation to user’s collected measures; See Jain Col. 10, ll. 5-32 which discloses the data retrieved through EMAs provided by the modules helps in assessing the daily routine of individuals and their thinking patterns, i.e. logical thinking).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Moturu, Moturu ‘3007, and Jain, which already discloses generating a user profile based on at least one of the log use dataset, supplementary dataset, and survey dataset, to further include the user profile including a level of logical thinking and a level of stress tolerance of the user as disclosed by Jain, because this allows for assessing the daily routines and typical behaviors/conditions of a user (See Jain Col. 10, ll. 5-32).
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Moturu in view of Moturu ‘3007, in view of Jain, further in view of Wilf et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0242707), hereainfter “Wilf”.
Claim 11 –
Regarding Claim 11, Moturu, Moturu ‘3007, and Jain disclose the collection device according to claim 8 in its entirety. Jain further discloses a collection device, wherein:
the user profile is specified based on a level of happiness and a gambling tendency of the user determined from the result of the multimedia game (See Jain Col. 9, ll. 28-45 which discloses sampling data about a subject’s current behaviors and experiences (i.e. user profile of the user) in real-time, in real-world settings, and may collect data for determining said current behaviors or experiences such as by performance in a mobile-device-based game (e.g. a video game); See Jain Col. 59, ll. 38-54 which discloses scoring outcomes of a module, such as that described in Jain Col. 9, ll. 28-45 as a video game, and said system may determine further analyses for emotion scales, including happiness/positivity; See ).
While Jain generally discloses sampling data about a subject’s current behaviors and experiences such as level of happiness from a video game and determining a user profile representing said subject/user, Jain is relatively silent on identifying a gambling tendency of the user per se.
However, Wilf discloses a gambling tendency of the user determined from the result of the multimedia game (See Wilf Par [0039], [0045]-[0046], [0047], & [0051] which discloses determining personality traits of a user based on person to person interaction or machine-person interaction using one or more interaction techniques, including exhibiting a certain online/real-world behavior such as gambling). The disclosure of Wilf is directly applicable to the combined disclosure of Moturu, Moturu ‘3007, and Jain, because the disclosures share limitations and capabilities, such as being directed towards analyzing one or more people’s personalities for optimizing interactions with said one or more people.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Moturu, Moturu ‘3007, and Jain, which already discloses sampling data about a subject’s current behaviors and experiences such as level of happiness from a video game and determining a user profile representing said subject/user, to further specifically include identifying a gambling tendency of the user, as disclosed by Wilf, because this allows for insights into said user for optimizing user interactions based on said gambling tendencies and preferred personality characteristics/tendencies (See Wilf Par [0045]-[0047]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Moturu, in view of Moturu ‘3007, in view of Jain, further in view of Champaneria et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0019160), hereinafter “Champaneria”.
Claim 12 –
Regarding Claim 12, Moturu, Moturu ‘3007, and Jain disclose the collection device according to claim 8 in its entirety. Moturu further discloses:
the processing circuitry is further configured to:
set the amount of medical questionnaires to be transmitted at a single time to be smaller and a number of times of transmission to be larger when the specified user profile is a type of user who is a short-term concentration type (See Moturu Par [0056] which discloses temporal features including frequency of digital communications, i.e. surveys, to be provided or have been provided to the user; See Moturu Par [0073] which discloses utilizing the survey dataset and digital communication behaviors of a user to determine a number of questions, portions, or responses that need to be provided to the user, i.e. the statistical approaches/feature selection approaches can be used to entirely omit collection of portions of the data (e.g., responses to specific surveys or portions of surveys can render responses to other portions of surveys or other surveys redundant), and therefore constitutes determining an optimal amount of responses/surveys to be transmitted, albeit not based on when the specified user profile is a type of user who is a short-term concentration type).
Therefore, while Moturu, Moturu ‘3007, and Jain discloses determining an optimal amount of responses/surveys to be transmitted, Moturu, Moturu ‘3007, and Jain does not disclose said optimization being based on when the specified user profile is a type of user who is a short-term concentration type.
However, Champaneria discloses set the amount of medical questionnaires to be transmitted at a single time to be smaller and a number of times of transmission to be larger when the specified user profile is a type of user who is a short-term concentration type (See Champaneria Par [0258] which discloses for a questionnaire or survey more vital skills may have more questions associated with them, in order to ensure that the candidate can fully characterize any or all relevant experience that they may have with the skill, i.e. understood to constitute “short-term concentration type”, whereas less vital skills lower in the priority order may have fewer questions associated with them, in order to ensure that the candidate does not get bored or frustrated with the questionnaire and devotes an adequate amount of time to each response, i.e. “user who is easily bored”). The disclosure of Champaneria is directly applicable to the combined disclosure of Moturu, Moturu ‘3007, Jain, because the disclosures share limitations and capabilities, such as being directed towards providing questionnaires and/or intake surveys for one or more users.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Moturu, Moturu ‘3007, and Jain which already discloses determining an optimal amount of responses/surveys to be transmitted to further include said optimization being based on when the specified user profile is a type of user who is a short-term concentration type, because this allows for determining that the user can apply more focus and/or effort to be applied to the questions provided to the user (See Champaneria Par [0258]).
Claim 13 –
Regarding Claim 13, Moturu, Moturu ‘3007, and Jain disclose the collection device according to claim 8 in its entirety. Moturu and Champaneria further discloses a collection device, wherein:
the processing circuitry is further configured to:
set the amount of medical questionnaires to be transmitted at a single time to be smaller and a number of times of transmission to be larger when the specified user profile is a type of user who is easily bored (See Moturu Par [0056] which discloses temporal features including frequency of digital communications, i.e. surveys, to be provided or have been provided to the user; See Moturu Par [0073] which discloses utilizing the survey dataset and digital communication behaviors of a user to determine a number of questions, portions, or responses that need to be provided to the user, i.e. the statistical approaches/feature selection approaches can be used to entirely omit collection of portions of the data (e.g., responses to specific surveys or portions of surveys can render responses to other portions of surveys or other surveys redundant), and therefore constitutes determining an optimal amount of responses/surveys to be transmitted, albeit not based on when the specified user profile is a type of user who is a short-term concentration type; See Champaneria Par [0258] which discloses for a questionnaire or survey more vital skills may have more questions associated with them, in order to ensure that the candidate can fully characterize any or all relevant experience that they may have with the skill, i.e. understood to constitute “short-term concentration type”, whereas less vital skills lower in the priority order may have fewer questions associated with them, in order to ensure that the candidate does not get bored or frustrated with the questionnaire and devotes an adequate amount of time to each response, i.e. “user who is easily bored”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Moturu, Moturu ‘3007, and Jain which already discloses determining an optimal amount of responses/surveys to be transmitted to further include said optimization being based on when the specified user profile is a type of user who is easily bored, because this allows for determining that the user cannot or should not be expected to apply more focus and/or effort to be applied to the questions provided to the user or ensuring that the candidate does not get bored or frustrated and devotes an adequate amount of time to each response (See Champaneria Par [0258]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1 & 3-15, Applicant argues on p. 8-9 of Arguments/Remarks that the claims recite a specific technical feedback loop analogous to automated flow control or congestion control in network systems. More specifically, Applicant argues that the claims are directed to solving at technical problem of detecting a failure state and dividing the data into a plurality of divided medical questionnaires to be transmitted over a plurality of times to overcome a technical bottleneck-user terminal inactivity or session abandonment. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. While Examiner concedes that this problem may indeed be solved by the instant set of claims, this problem/solution does not necessarily reflect a technological problem/solution, as defined by the Alice/Mayo framework. That is, the abstraction of separating questionnaires due to terminal inactivity or session abandonment, e.g. due to user fatigue, forgetfulness, or inconvenient timing, is not a problem of the associated technology implementing said abstraction. Rather, this represents an abstract problem regarding human activity. For instance, improving efforts of collecting answers in view of a person/user being tired, uninterested, or performing other activities relates to managing personal behavior of said user. While these improvements to the abstraction may be implemented by computer technology, such as mere optimization of otherwise manual processes (See MPEP 2106.05)(a)(I)), this does not represent an improvement to the computer technology itself. Even further, MPEP 2106.05(a) specifically mentions that “the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”. Furthermore, while Applicant argues that this is analogous to automated flow control or congestion control in network systems. Therefore, improving said aspects of collecting valid answers due to user fatigue, forgetfulness, or inconvenient timing represents improvements to the abstraction at-hand instead of improvements to the technology that applies said abstraction. As such, the claims do not recite an improvement to computer technology. Therefore, pending claims 1 & 3-15 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-6, Applicant argues on p. 11-12 that the newly proposed amendments to independent claims 1, 5, & 6 overcome previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections made in view of Moturu, further in view of Moturu ‘3007. Examiner agrees with Applicant’s arguments. It was agreed in a previous interview that the proposed amendment overcomes previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, at least by the newly amended limitations found in the independent claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Moturu in view of Moturu ‘3007. This new ground of rejection relies on Moturu ‘3007 to read on the limitations reciting “living hours” such as outputting… on a display device…” and/or “determining the date of transmission according to… the living hours” and further discloses subdivision of a medical questionnaire into a plurality of divided parts for transmission across a plurality of times. As such, pending claims 1 & 3-15 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1 & 3-15, Applicant argues on p. 12 of Arguments/Remarks that because independent claims 1, 5, & 6 are purportedly allowable over the prior art, dependent claims are also patentable at least by virtue of dependency. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. As discussed above, independent claims 1, 5, & 6 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 under a new ground of rejection. As such, Applicant’s arguments regarding independent claims 1, 5, & 6 being allowable over the prior art are rendered moot by the new ground of rejection. As such, dependent claims are not patentable over the prior art and pending claims 1 & 3-6 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Piliouras et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0150107) discloses systems for providing enhanced survey participation and engagement;
Drennan et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0077032) discloses a system for producing a profile for one or more end users and matching said profile to reference profiles to determine optimal questions and answers in a questionnaire.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER J RASNIC whose telephone number is 571-270-5801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5:30pm.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached on (571) 270-1360. 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.
/H.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights