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
Priority Claim to Incorrect Provisional Application Denied
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application no. 61/698,277 under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. § 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119 and 120 as follows: Application no. 61/698,277 refers to an application that was filed by someone other than the applicant, does not describe anything in the present application, and was filed more than 12 months prior to the present application. It is likely a typographical error.
Instructions for Claiming the Correct Provisional Application
This application appears to claim subject matter disclosed in Provisional Application No. 63/488,773 (the correct provisional application), filed March 7, 2023. If applicant desires to claim the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c), the instant application must contain, or be amended to contain, a specific reference to the prior-filed application in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.78. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet (ADS) in compliance with pre-AIA 37 C.F.R. § 1.76; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an ADS in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.76. For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. § 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications.
If the instant application is a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. § 111(a), the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. If the application is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.78(a)(4) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.78(d)(3) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. § 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). This time period is not extendable and a failure to submit the reference required by 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) and/or 120, where applicable, within this time period is considered a waiver of any benefit of such prior application(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c). A benefit claim filed after the required time period may be accepted if it is accompanied by a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.78(c)) or under 35 U.S.C. § 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.78(e)). The petition must be accompanied by (1) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. § 120 or 119(e) and by 37 C.F.R. § 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted), (2) the applicable petition fee under 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(m)(1) or (2), and (3) a statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 C.F.R. § 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. § 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
If the reference to the prior application was previously submitted within the time period set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.78 but was not included in the location in the application required by the rule (e.g., if the reference was submitted in an oath or declaration or the application transmittal letter), and the information concerning the benefit claim was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the first filing receipt, the petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.78 and the petition fee under 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(m)(1) or (2) are not required. Applicant is still required to submit the reference in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.78 by filing an ADS in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.76 with the reference (or, if the application was filed before September 16, 2012, by filing either an amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification or an ADS in compliance with pre-AIA 37 C.F.R. § 1.76). See MPEP § 211.02.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (paragraphs 2–3) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 C.F.R. § 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0008, “a right wipe” should be “swipe”
In paragraph 0012, the phrase “to make the easier to understand” should be either “it,” “them,” or “the graphical elements.”
In paragraph 0016, “Response information is them passed” (should be “then,” not “them”).
In paragraph 0017, the phrase “In another embodiments” has a disagreement between the plural and singular form. It should be changed to “in another embodiment” or “in other embodiments.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The Office objects to claims 4–8 and 10 for having the following informalities:
Claims 4–8 and 10 each refer to the “graphic object” of claim 1 as simply a “graphic.” While the Applicant is entitled to use any terminology he likes, the Applicant must use the terminology consistently. Therefore, all instances of “graphic” need to be updated to match the “graphic object” mentioned in claim 1, or vice versa.
Claim 6 is missing a few words. To illustrate, the reprint of claim 6 below includes underlines to show text that is missing, and double brackets [[ ]] to show text that should be deleted:
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the system monitors the speed of swiping or dragging against a minimum required speed in order to determine if the swipe or drag is acceptable or not, accelerating the graphic object off the screen if the swipe or drag is [[it]] acceptable or returning [[it]] the graphic object to its original position if the swipe or drag is not acceptable once the swipe or dragging gesture is completed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6–8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 6–8 and 10 lack antecedent basis for “the system.” No “system” was ever introduced in claim 1 or prior to the first recitation of “the system” in each claim.
To help illustrate the problem and the solution to the problem, the following example correction is shown for claim 7:
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: monitoring the direction of swiping against the allowed axes or allowed range of directions within pre-defined tolerances, and restricting the movement of the graphic to the different allowed directions.
Similar corrections should be provided for claims 6, 8, and 10.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
I. Love anticipates claims 1–3.
Claims 1–3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0221019 A1 (“Love”).
Claim 1
Love discloses:
A computer-implemented, including mobile devices, method of enabling participants in employment assessments to indicate their response to a question or statement
Starting with FIG. 1A, Love discloses a computing device 110 that executes a local application 111. Love ¶ 53. The computing device may be a desktop computer or a mobile device (among others), Love ¶ 43, and likewise, “the local application 111, which can be a mobile application, a web-based application, or another suitable application running on computing device 110.” Love ¶ 53.
As will be discussed below, the local application 111 enables users to provide “user-sourced data,” Love ¶ 54, in the same manner as described in claim 1. As shown in FIG. 5C, the user sourced data 503 may include a wide variety of topics, see Love ¶ 71, including “demograhic data 531,” which includes the user’s “employment status, occupation, education level, income level, etc.” Love ¶ 72.
That being said, it should be understood that the prior art did not need to disclose that the users of Love’s device are “participants in employment assessments” in order to reject the claim, because differences in the underlying human-understandable message conveyed by a claimed computer are not patentable. MPEP § 2111.05.
by swiping or dragging a graphic object rendered on the screen and containing any combination of text, video, shaded areas, or images, in either one or two directions along two or more axes,
“In many cases, the local application 111 can present one or more sliders, which can be used by the user to enter user-sourced data 503.” Love ¶ 75. Specifically, “[t]he display screen in FIG. 3 shows a two-dimensional slider 300, which allows a sliding element 301 to be manipulated within a two-dimensional grid associated with a first axis associated with a first label 310 and second axis associated with a second label 320.” Love ¶ 76.
with each combination of axis and direction representing a different response.
Continuing with the FIG. 3 example, “[t]he user can move slider element 301 within the grid of two-dimensional slider 300 to indicate how strongly the user cares about cost, and how strongly the user cares about speed.” Love ¶ 76.
Claim 2
Love discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein any number of allowed axes, with either one or both directions per axis can be incorporated to support any number of responses.
“Examples of sliders are shown in FIGS. 2-4. For example, FIG. 2 shows a portion of a display screen that can be provided by the local application 111. The display screen in FIG. 2 shows a single-dimensional slider 200,” Love ¶ 75, “FIG. 3 shows a two-dimensional slider 300, which allows a sliding element 301 to be manipulated within a two-dimensional grid associated with a first axis associated with a first label 310 and second axis associated with a second label 320,” Love ¶ 76, and “FIG. 4 shows a multi-dimensional slider 400, which allows five sliding elements 411-415 to be slid along five different sliding scales between a center 406 and ends 401-405, respectively, which are associated with labels 410, 420, 430, 440, and 450, respectively.” Love ¶ 77.
Claim 3
Love discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the swipe or drag can be accomplished by the participant with their finger, stylus, mouse, or other pointing device depending on the computer and capabilities of the monitor or screen in use.
“Input/output or I/O devices (including but not limited to keyboards, displays, pointing devices, etc.) may be coupled to the system either directly or through intervening I/O controllers.” Love ¶ 129.
II. Underwood anticipates claims 1 and 3–8.
Claim(s) 1 and 3–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0143738 A1 (“Underwood”).
Claim 1
Underwood discloses:
A computer-implemented, including mobile devices, method
As shown in FIG. 5, underwood discloses a method S100. Underwood ¶ 32. Method S100 is to be implemented by a computer, which “can be a mobile device such as a smart phone, but may alternatively be a tablet, a desktop computer, a gaming system, a TV-connected computing device, a wearable computing device, or any suitable computing device.” Underwood ¶ 25.
of enabling participants in employment assessments to indicate their response to a question or statement
Method S100 enables users to indicate commands that are responsive to incoming messages. Underwood ¶ 32. Underwood’s messages are not necessarily part of an “employment assessment.” However, differences between the non-functional content handled/processed by a claimed invention, as compared to the non-functional content handled/processed by a prior art device, are not patentable. See MPEP § 2112.02 (subsection III.) (citing In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) (“Where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art.”).
by swiping or dragging a graphic object rendered on the screen and containing any combination of text, video, shaded areas, or images,
Method S100 includes “detecting an initiated gesture for at least one message S120, tracking gesture-state S130, identifying action of gesture-state S140, and applying a message action on the message according to a final gesture-state S150.” Underwood ¶ 32.
Specifically, during S130, “a gesture recognition engine preferably updates gesture-state while a user is moving their finger on the screen . . . to allow gesture feedback as a user is performing a gesture.” Underwood ¶ 35. This includes “displaying a graphic representation of the current gesture-state,” preferably with a “text indication, color indication, graphics indication, graphic dimensional transformation, and/or any suitable visual cue for the current gesture-state.” Underwood ¶ 36.
In simpler terms, during step S130, the computer tracks the position of the user’s finger on an on-screen item, so that it can display the item being moved along with the user’s finger. See, e.g., Underwood FIGS. 2, 3, 9A, 12, and 13.
in either one or two directions along two or more axes,
“In a preferred embodiment, the method detects at least two classes of gestures each with a first and a second state (i.e., at least four different gestures). The first class of gestures may be characterized by swiping substantially to the left. The second class of gestures may be characterized by swiping substantially to the right.” Underwood ¶ 37. “A touch event starting at a point of a message view and moving substantially horizontally to the right a short distance and/or slowly is preferably a first state gesture as shown in FIGS. 7A and 7C. A touch event starting at a point of a message view and moving to substantially horizontally to the right a long distance and/or with high acceleration is preferably a second gesture as shown in FIGS. 7B and 7D.” Underwood ¶ 37.
with each combination of axis and direction representing a different response.
“Step S140, which includes identifying an action of the gesture-state, functions to map an action to the detected gesture. Each gesture preferably corresponds to an action to perform on a message.” Underwood ¶ 38.
Claim 3
Underwood discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the swipe or drag can be accomplished by the participant with their finger, stylus, mouse, or other pointing device depending on the computer and capabilities of the monitor or screen in use.
“On a touch screen the input mechanism is commonly a single finger, but may alternatively be multiple fingers or a stylus. In a vision-based system, the input mechanism can be a full hand, arm, controller object, or any suitable visually tracked object.” Underwood ¶ 37. Alternatively, “a cursor-positioning device (e.g., a mouse or trackpad), or any suitable input device” may be used. Underwood ¶ 25.
Claim 6
Underwood discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the system monitors the speed of swiping or dragging against a minimum required speed in order to determine if the swipe is acceptable or not,
“Step S130, which includes tracking gesture-state, functions to progressively track a gesture input. An input is preferably tracked while a gesture input is in-progress.” Underwood ¶ 35. “For both classes of gestures, the distance of the swipe, velocity, acceleration, and timing may be factored into determining if the action is a primary gesture or a secondary gesture.” Underwood ¶ 30. More specifically, as shown in FIG. 8, “[w]ith a single swiping gesture, the user can survey different action options, change his mind, and even engage different classes of ordered gesture-states.” Underwood ¶ 42. For example, as shown in the figure, there may be a first threshold 1A to set a minimum amount of motion needed to even begin the sliding motion, and a second threshold 1B needed to fully complete the gesture. Underwood ¶ 42.
“If at any point the user removes his finger, the gesture input is terminated and the action of the current gesture-state is preferably performed.” Underwood ¶ 42. This goes both ways: if the gesture is terminated above the relevant threshold, the gesture is performed, but if the gesture is terminated below the relevant threshold, that gesture is not performed.
accelerating the graphic off the screen is it acceptable
“When the swiping touch event is completed, the message item preferably animates off the screen in the direction of the view that corresponds to the action.” Underwood ¶ 29.
or returning it the its original position if is not acceptable once the swipe or dragging gesture is completed.
If the user does not pass the relevant gesture threshold for a message, “[t]he message slides to hide any indication of a gesture-state, and the current gesture-state is not mapped to any action.” Underwood ¶ 42.
Claim 7
Underwood discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the system monitors the direction of swiping against the allowed axes or allowed range of directions within pre-defined tolerances,
“A message can be selected for a gesture action by starting the touch gesture at the desired message and moving the touch point substantially perpendicular to the direction of scrolling (e.g., at an angle between 45° and 90° from the axis of vertical scrolling). Underwood ¶ 34.
and restricts the movement of the graphic to the different allowed directions.
“More preferably, only the displacement of a touch event along one axis is considered in assessing gesture-state (e.g., only the horizontal x-axis is considered).” Underwood ¶ 34.
Claim 8
Underwood discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the system monitors the distance, speed, and axis of swiping against pre-defined tolerances to determine whether the swipe indicates a valid response,
“Step S130, which includes tracking gesture-state, functions to progressively track a gesture input. An input is preferably tracked while a gesture input is in-progress.” Underwood ¶ 35. “For both classes of gestures, the distance of the swipe, velocity, acceleration, and timing may be factored into determining if the action is a primary gesture or a secondary gesture.” Underwood ¶ 30. More specifically, as shown in FIG. 8, “[w]ith a single swiping gesture, the user can survey different action options, change his mind, and even engage different classes of ordered gesture-states.” Underwood ¶ 42. For example, as shown in the figure, there may be a first threshold 1A to set a minimum amount of motion needed to even begin the sliding motion, and a second threshold 1B needed to fully complete the gesture. Underwood ¶ 42.
“If at any point the user removes his finger, the gesture input is terminated and the action of the current gesture-state is preferably performed.” Underwood ¶ 42. This goes both ways: if the gesture is terminated above the relevant threshold, the gesture is performed, but if the gesture is terminated below the relevant threshold, that gesture is not performed.
and then automatically finishes the swipe by moving the rendered graphic off the screen without further interaction from the participant if the response is valid,
“When the swiping touch event is completed, the message item preferably animates off the screen in the direction of the view that corresponds to the action.” Underwood ¶ 29.
or back to the original position if the swipe is not valid when the swiping or dragging gesture is completed by the test-taker.
If the user does not pass the relevant gesture threshold for a message, “[t]he message slides to hide any indication of a gesture-state, and the current gesture-state is not mapped to any action.” Underwood ¶ 42.
III. Rad discloses claims 1 and 4.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0074824 A1 (“Rad”).
Claim 1
Rad discloses:
A computer-implemented, including mobile devices, method
FIGS. 6–9 illustrate a method performed by a user 14 on a terminal 10. “[T]erminal 10 may be representative of a cellular telephone, an electronic notebook, a laptop, a personal digital assistant (PDA), or any other suitable device” to access matching server 20. Rad ¶ 34.
of enabling participants in employment assessments to indicate their response to a question or statement
The method shown in FIGS. 6–9 enables the users 14 of matching server 20 to respond to a survey that presents the users 14 with a series of content items (profile pictures of other users), and asks the users 14 to provide a response of approval or disapproval for each element in the survey. See generally Rad ¶¶ 95–96. To the extent the subject matter of this survey differs from an “employment assessment,” differences between the non-functional content handled/processed by a claimed invention, as compared to the non-functional content handled/processed by a prior art device, are not patentable. See MPEP § 2112.02 (subsection III.) (citing In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) (“Where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art.”).
by swiping or dragging a graphic object rendered on the screen and containing any combination of text, video, shaded areas, or images, in either one or two directions along two or more axes, with each combination of axis and direction representing a different response.
“FIGS. 7 and 8 are diagrams of embodiments of the display from FIG. 6 showing the effect of a left swipe gesture (FIG. 7) and the effect of a right swipe gesture (FIG. 8). In one embodiment, users 14 may navigate through the set of presented users by swiping through stack of cards 88. Users 14 may also express approval of a presented user by performing a right swipe gesture or express disapproval by performing a left swipe gesture. In some embodiments, user 14 performs a swiping gesture by moving a finger or other suitable object across a screen of terminal 10.” Rad ¶ 98.
Claim 4
Rad discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the rendered graphic to be swiped or dragged includes directional buttons or icons that indicate the allowed directions and axes for swiping or dragging and may also offer an alternative response modality by acting as clickable buttons, icons or text links representing some or all of the allowed response directions and where a click on such a button is equivalent to a swipe in the indicated direction and axis.
In addition to the swiping mechanism, “terminal 10 may display ‘like’ button 86 (represented by a green heart icon) and ‘dislike’ button (represented by a red ‘X’ icon),” Rad ¶ 96, respectively positioned on the left and right sides of the user interface, corresponding to the responses that correspond to left and right swipes. “Pressing like button 86 indicates to matching server 20 that user 14 approves of and is interested in communication with the presented user. Pressing dislike button 82 indicates that user 14 disapproves of and does not want to communicate with the presented user.” Rad ¶ 96.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Love as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0083103 A1 (“Basser”).
Claim 5
Love teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose a “back” button.
Basser, however, teaches a method for answering survey questions, wherein,
a ‘back’ button is included to allow a participant to replace a previous response with a new response.
“At each question page, the respondent may return to the previous question by clicking on the ‘back’ button 2604, and may move to the next question by clicking on the ‘next’ button 2606.” Basser ¶ 118.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Basser’s “back” button 2604 to Love’s existing survey interface so that respondents could return to previous questions to revise their answers. One would have been motivated to add a “back” button to Love’s existing survey interface based on an explicitly recognized need to “mitigate[] one or more of the aforementioned limitations,” Basser ¶ 8, which include “surveys that are inflexible.” Basser ¶ 6.
Claim 9
Love teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose a “back” button.
Basser, however, teaches a method for answering survey questions, wherein,
participants can go back to previous questions using an image or text link to revise their swipe or drag gesture, in order to review or change their answer.
“At each question page, the respondent may return to the previous question by clicking on the ‘back’ button 2604, and may move to the next question by clicking on the ‘next’ button 2606.” Basser ¶ 118.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Basser’s “back” button 2604 to Love’s existing survey interface so that respondents could return to previous questions to revise their answers. One would have been motivated to add a “back” button to Love’s existing survey interface based on an explicitly recognized need to “mitigate[] one or more of the aforementioned limitations,” Basser ¶ 8, which include “surveys that are inflexible.” Basser ¶ 6.
Claim 10
Love teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein the system saves valid responses in either an ephemeral or persistent storage medium for either real-time or post processing, and/or for determining the next question to present
The “user-sourced data 503” mentioned in the rejection of claim 1—that is, the data obtained from the surveys—is arranged in the “channel events 175” data structure shown in FIG. 5A and/or a user profile. See Love ¶¶ 61–62. These channel events 175 are “received and processed” by a server 120. Love ¶ 55.
Love does not say whether the user interface mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 automatically advances to the next question in the assessment by removing the currently rendered graphic and replacing it with a new graphic representing a new item (question).
Basser, however, teaches a method for answering survey questions,
wherein the system saves valid responses in either an ephemeral or persistent storage medium for either real-time or post processing, and/or for determining the next question to present
“Responses are submitted 112 by the individuals providing information to the system processor 102.” Basser ¶ 71. “Once the responses have been submitted 112 to the system processor 102, at step 208 the responses are processed.” Basser ¶ 74.
and advances to the next question in the assessment by removing the currently rendered graphic and replacing it with a new graphic representing a new item (question).
“At each question page, the respondent . . . move to the next question by clicking on the ‘next’ button 2606.” Basser ¶ 118.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Basser’s “back” button 2604 to Love’s existing survey interface so that respondents could advance to the next question. One would have been motivated to arrange Love’s existing survey interface to advance from question to question based on an explicitly recognized need to “mitigate[] one or more of the aforementioned limitations,” Basser ¶ 8, which include “surveys that are inflexible.” Basser ¶ 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151