DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Amendments and response received 05/01/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-13 are currently pending in this application. Claims 1-4 and 6-13 have been amended and claims 14-21 canceled. Amendments and response are addressed hereinbelow.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 7 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
In light of the amendment to the claimed subject matter incorporating the identifying, classifying and matching particular sections and text within a survey to a template, utilizing the classification to generate a data file specifying a mapping between the image data, the textual content and a supplied answer and outputting the data file, the examiner hereby withdraws the previous grounds 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, 2, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama Akiko (JP 2006277539 A) in view of Akshay Vashist et al (US 20220253729 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Akiko discloses a computer implemented method of extracting data from surveys (¶ [2]), the method comprising:
obtaining completed surveys, each comprising image data of a completed survey, the image data visually representing information for one or more answers of the completed survey (¶ [12]) comprising answers to preconfigured questions (¶ [3] questionnaire being a survey having preconfigured questions in which answers are entered);
processing the image data to determine a preconfigured survey that corresponds to the completed survey, the preconfigured survey specifying a survey structure for one or more question sections and one or more answer sections (¶ [10-13]);
identifying, based on the survey structure specified by the preconfigured survey, one or more portions of the image data corresponding to predicted answer sections (¶ [61]).
Akiko fails to explicitly disclose the image data of the completed survey is for a clinical trial.
Vashist et al, in the same field of endeavor of extracting elements from a plurality of sources to build a knowledge database (Abstract), teaches the image data of the completed survey is for a clinical trial (¶ [18]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the method of extracting data from surveys as disclosed by Akiko comprising obtaining completed surveys, each comprising image data of a completed survey, the image data visually representing information for one or more answers of the completed survey comprising answers to preconfigured questions to utilize the teachings of Vashist et al which teaches the image data of the completed survey is for a clinical trial to improve efficiency of retrieval and accuracy of storage for a vast amount of collected information.
Akiko fails to explicitly disclose identifying textual content associated with the one or more predicted answer sections within the image data, applying a machine learning model to the one or more portions identified as predicted answer sections to classify the textual content as corresponding to at least one answer included in the one or more answers.
Vashist et al teaches identifying textual content associated with the one or more predicted answer sections within the image data (¶ [52] locating unstructured text which forms basis for answering certain queries), applying a machine learning model to the one or more portions identified as predicted answer sections to classify the textual content as corresponding to at least one answer included in the one or more answers (¶ [23] and ¶ [92-93]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the method of extracting data from surveys as disclosed by Akiko comprising obtaining completed surveys, each comprising image data of a completed survey, the image data visually representing information for one or more answers of the completed survey comprising answers to preconfigured questions to utilize the teachings of Vashist et al which teaches identifying textual content associated with the one or more predicted answer sections within the image data, applying a machine learning model to the one or more portions identified as predicted answer sections to classify the textual content as corresponding to at least one answer included in the one or more answers to improve the reliability and accuracy of information extraction.
Akiko fails to explicitly disclose based on classifying the textual content, generating a data file for the clinical trial that specifies a mapping between information (i) representing the image data, (ii) the textual content, and (iii) at least one answer; and providing the data file for output.
Vashist et al teaches based on classifying the textual content, generating a data file for the clinical trial that specifies a mapping between information (i) representing the image data, (ii) the textual content, and (iii) at least one answer; and providing the data file for output (¶ [58] and ¶ [91-93]; wherein extracted data results are aggregated into a file for display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the method of extracting data from surveys as disclosed by Akiko comprising obtaining completed surveys, each comprising image data of a completed survey, the image data visually representing information for one or more answers of the completed survey comprising answers to preconfigured questions to utilize the teachings of Vashist et al which teaches based on classifying the textual content, generating a data file for the clinical trial that specifies a mapping between information (i) representing the image data, (ii) the textual content, and (iii) at least one answer; and providing the data file for output).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the method of extracting data from surveys as disclosed by Akiko comprising obtaining completed surveys, each comprising image data of a completed survey, the image data visually representing information for one or more answers of the completed survey comprising answers to preconfigured questions to utilize the teachings of Vashist et al which teaches based on classifying the textual content, generating a data file for the clinical trial that specifies a mapping between information (i) representing the image data, (ii) the textual content, and (iii) at least one answer; and providing the data file for output to enable rendering and interaction with a user.
Regarding claim 2, Akiko discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein generating the data file comprises matching the textual content classified as corresponding to answers to the preconfigured questions (¶ [12-13] mapping of answer data to questionnaire based on questionnaire ID; see rejection of claim 1 wherein the content is textual content).
Regarding claim 7, Akiko discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein obtaining completed surveys comprises obtaining the image data of each of the completed surveys for the clinical trial (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Akiko discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, further comprising obtaining from a user an indication from a list of preconfigured surveys of the preconfigured survey determined to correspond to the completed survey (¶ [72-74]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiko in view of Vashist et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lance Parker et al (US 20020052774 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Akiko discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Akiko fails to explicitly disclose identifying one or more portions of the image data corresponding to preconfigured questions.
Parker et al, in the same field of endeavor of formulating questions, obtaining responses and analyzing the responses mathematically to obtain desired information (¶ [30]), teaches identifying one or more portions of the image data corresponding to preconfigured questions (¶ [80-83]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the method of extracting data from surveys as disclosed by Akiko comprising obtaining completed surveys, each comprising image data of a completed survey, the image data visually representing information for one or more answers of the completed survey comprising answers to preconfigured questions to utilize the teachings of Parker et al which teaches identifying one or more portions of the image data corresponding to preconfigured questions to conduct surveys more quickly and efficiently than conventional manual methods.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 9 and 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JAMARES Q WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571) 270-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/JAMARES Q WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
July 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights