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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment, filed on 3/12/2026, has been entered and acknowledged by the Examiner. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Karpistsenko (US Pub. 2014/0156806) in view of Hill (CN 105474166 A), and further in view of Dew (US Pub. 2018/0301222).
Regarding claim 1, Karpistsenko discloses a system for orchestrating structured data exchange between computer devices and generating dynamic user interfaces comprising:
an interconnect platform including: a data store including a user profile (Fig. 4, ¶ [0132], user’s profile), a submissions database, and a certification database (¶ [0024], passing certification test), platform generation and service circuits (Fig. 4), processor hardware and memory hardware configured to implement: a programming interface configured to provide access to the platform generation and service circuits, and a first communications interface configured to provide access to the programming interface (Figs 3-4; interface providing accessing); and
a user device including: a display, a second communications interface configured to be operatively coupled to the first communications interface via a network (Fig. 1), and
processor hardware and memory hardware configured to implement a platform access circuits configured to access the programming interface via the second communications interface, the network, and the first communications interface, wherein the platform generation and service circuits (Figs. 3-4) are configured to:
access a plurality of formatted data objects stored in the user profile (¶ [0177], various formats from profiles),
save the plurality formatted data objects to the submissions database (¶ [0042], may store and exchange data),
determine whether each of the plurality of formatted data objects complies with standards stored in a certification standards database (¶ [0224], checking for standard formats),
in response to determining that each of the plurality of formatted data objects complies with the standards, transform a user interface element at a user interface to provide a positive indication (¶ [0224], passing a standard test), and
in response to determining that at least one of the plurality of formatted data objects does not comply with the standards, transform the user interface element to provide a negative indication (¶ [0224], whether meeting a threshold).
Hill further discloses compliance with the standards (p. 261, Fig. 113, PERCOs compliance to certain standard).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hill into Karpistsenko to check for various standards as defined in a PERCOs environment.
While Hill and Karpistsenko do not explicitly disclose, Dew disclose generate a positive/negative visual indication (¶ [0098]; offers visual cues as to compliance or failure to comply with data entry elements). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dew into Hill and Karpistsenko to profile quality measurement tool for data compliance.
Regarding claim 2, Karpistsenko in view of Hill and Dew disclose the system of claim 1 wherein the platform generation and service circuits are configured to: generate a second user interface element selectable by a first user (Hill, p. 7, further input information (e.g., resource metadata information, user profile information and the original social legislation or other consideration);
in response to the first user selecting the second user interface element, receive a raw data object uploaded by the first user (p. 7, raw data; K. ¶ [0118] raw data); and
save the raw data object to the user profile (Hill, p. 7).
Regarding claim 3, Karpistsenko in view of Hill and Dew disclose the system of claim 2, wherein the user platform generation and service circuits are configured to: determine whether the raw data object is in a file format compatible with the platform generation and service circuits (¶ [0180]; raw data has been structured into one or more format); and
in response to determining that the file format is not compatible with the platform generation and service circuits, reformat the raw data object and add the reformatted raw data object to the plurality of formatted data objects (¶ [0180]).
Regarding claim 4, Karpistsenko in view of Hill and Dew disclose the system of claim 3, wherein the user platform generation and service circuits are configured to: in response to determining that the file format is compatible with the platform generation and service circuits, add the raw data object to the plurality of formatted data objects (¶ [0180]).
Regarding claim 5, Karpistsenko in view of Hill and Dew disclose the system of claim 4, wherein the platform generation and service circuits are configured to transform the second user interface element to display a preview of one of the plurality of formatted data objects (¶¶ [00235]-[0245]).
Regarding claim 6, Karpistsenko in view of Hill and Dew disclose the system of claim 5, wherein the platform generation and service circuits are configured to: transform the user interface to display a third user interface element selectable by the first user (¶¶ [0072]-0073]); and
in response to the first user selecting third user interface element, save the plurality of formatted data objects as submitted data objects in the submissions database (¶¶ [0072]-0073]; such as a collaborative function).
Regarding claim 7, Karpistsenko in view of Hill and Dew disclose the system of claim 6, wherein the platform generation and service circuits are configured to: transform the user interface to display a fourth user interface element selectable by a second user (¶¶ [0072]-0073]); and
in response to the second user selecting the fourth user interface element: transform the user interface to display one of the submitted data objects, transform the user interface to display a fifth user interface element and a sixth user interface element, the fifth user interface element and the sixth user interface element each selectable by the second user (¶¶ [0072]-0073]), in response to the second user selecting the fifth user interface element, associate a first data marker with the submitted data object, and in response to the second user selecting the sixth user interface element, associate a second data marker with the submitted data object (¶¶ [0072]-0073]; Hill also discloses data marker).
Regarding claim 8, Karpistsenko in view of Hill and Dew disclose the system of claim 7, wherein the platform generation and service circuits are configured to: transform the user interface to display a seventh user interface element selectable by the second user (¶¶ [0072]-0073]); and
in response to the second user selecting the seventh user interface element: determine whether each of the submitted data objects has an associated data marker (¶¶ [0072]-0073]),
in response to determining that each of the submitted data objects has the associated data marker, save the submitted data objects and the associated data markers as submitted grades in the submissions database (¶¶ [0072]-0073]), and
in response to determining that at least one of the submitted data objects does not have the associated data marker, generate an error message and output the error message to the user interface ((¶¶ [0072]-0073], collaboration functionalities; Hill, p. 285).
Regarding claim 9, Karpistsenko in view of Hill and Dew disclose the system of claim 8, wherein the platform generation and service circuits are configured to: load the submitted grades from the submissions database (p. 285, PERCos environment can assist the user by checking for errors and inconsistencies);
determine whether each of the submitted grades is associated with the first data marker or the second data marker (p. 285);
in response to determining that one of the submitted grades is associated with the second data marker, generate a second error message and output the second error message to the user interface (p. 285); and
in response to determining that each of the submitted grades is associated with the first data marker, add an entry to the certification database (p. 285).
Regarding claim 10, Karpistsenko in view of Hill and Dew disclose the system of claim 9, wherein the platform generation and service circuits are configured to: generate an eighth user interface element (¶¶ [0072]-0073], collaboration functionalities);
determine whether the entry is present in the certification database (¶ [0224]);
in response to determining that the entry is not present in the certification database, transform the eighth user interface element to display a negative indication (¶ [0224]); and
in response to determining that the entry is present in the certification database: transform the eighth user interface element to display a positive indication, generate a ninth user interface element selectable by the first user (¶¶ [0072]-0073], collaboration functionalities), and
in response to the first user selecting the eighth user interface element, generate a certificate corresponding to the entry and output the certificate to the user interface (¶¶ [0072]-0073], collaboration functionalities; ¶ [0224]).
Regarding claims 11-20, see discussion of claims 1-10 above for the same reason of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUANKHANH D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3047. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, 10:00am-18:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached on 571-270-5626. 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 either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 or 571-272-1000.
/TUANKHANH D PHAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2154