DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 26 June 2026 (hereinafter “Reply”).
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 9-14 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the Reply is acknowledged. Claims 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 4, 6, and 8 be found allowable, corresponding claims 19, 18, and 20, will be objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 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 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)(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.
Claims 1-7 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wittstock et al., US 2024/0403008 A1, as supported by the corresponding disclosure of Prov. App. No. 63/470,411.
Regarding claim 1, Wittstock discloses a computer-implemented method for providing a device-agnostic environment with real-time rendering during instrument construction, the computer-implemented method comprising:
Via a processor of a user device, causing a graphical user interface of the user device to output a construction interface operable to edit contents of an instrument. Wittstock teaches a client device that displays a user interface design portal. The user interface design portal comprises a graphical user interface for designing an application user interface (UI). Wittstock fig. 4 (portal 400).
Via the processor, causing the graphical user interface to output a rendered view of the instrument. Wittstock teaches displaying a rendered view in a simulation panel of the graphical user interface. Wittstock fig. 4 (simulation panel 440).
Wherein: the rendered view is generated via a simulated rendering environment, operating on the user device, of a base device such that the simulated rendering environment interprets data of the instrument and generates the rendered view as if the instrument were natively displayed on the base device and while being agnostic to display characteristics of the user device. Wittstock teaches the simulation panel simulates how the application UI that is currently being designed will be rendered in a user computing device. Wittstock ¶ 96.
[Wherein:] the simulated rendering environment is configured to update the rendered view in real-time in response to adjustment to the construction interface. Wittstock teaches real-time updating of the rendered view in the simulation panel in response to user interaction (e.g., drag-and-drop placement/arrangement of UI objects). Wittstock ¶¶ 89-90, 97.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Wittstock discloses wherein the construction interface includes interactive elements, and wherein interacting with the interactive elements of the construction interface causes real-time changes to the rendered view of the instrument. Wittstock teaches real-time updating of the rendered view in the simulation panel in response to user interaction with the other panels (e.g., drag-and-drop placement/arrangement of UI objects). Wittstock ¶¶ 87-97.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Wittstock discloses wherein the construction interface includes interactive elements, and wherein interacting with the interactive elements of the construction interface edits contents of the instrument. Wittstock teaches real-time editing of the rendered view in the simulation panel in response to user interaction with the other panels (e.g., drag-and-drop placement/arrangement of UI objects). Wittstock ¶¶ 87-97.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Wittstock discloses wherein the instrument comprises a plurality of parts, and the rendered view comprises at least one of the plurality of parts. Wittstock fig. 4 (simulation panel 440).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Wittstock discloses wherein the base device is a mobile device. Wittstock teaches the simulation panel rendering a simulation of a user computing device. Wittstock ¶ 97. The user computing device may be a mobile device (e.g., smart phone). Id. ¶ 25.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Wittstock discloses wherein the graphical user interface of the user device is a web interface. Wittstock teaches the user interface design portal may be a web browser interface. Wittstock ¶ 84.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Wittstock discloses wherein the instrument includes one or more of an electronic clinical outcome assessment (eCOA), a Participant Questionnaire, or Visit Questionnaire. Wittstock teaches providing tools to construct a form (e.g. a survey form). Wittstock ¶ 93.
Regarding claim 15, Wittstock discloses a computer-implemented method for providing a device-agnostic environment for displaying instruments, the computer-implemented method comprising:
Via a processor of a user device, obtaining data of an instrument. Wittstock teaches a client device displaying a user interface design portal for receiving user input to design an application user interface (UI). Wittstock ¶ 87.
Via the processor, executing a simulated rendering environment that simulates a native display of a base device while being agnostic to display characteristics of the user device; via the processor, causing a graphical user interface of the user device to output, using the simulated rendering environment, a rendered view of the instrument based on the obtained data, such that the instrument is displayed as if the instrument were natively displayed on the base device. Wittstock teaches that the user interface design portal comprises a graphical user interface. Wittstock fig. 4 (portal 400). Wittstock teaches displaying a rendered view in a simulation panel of the graphical user interface. Id. fig. 4 (simulation panel 440). The simulation panel simulates how the application UI that is currently being designed will be rendered in a user computing device. Id. ¶ 96.
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claim 15, Wittstock discloses wherein: the graphical user interface includes interactive elements; and the interactive elements of the graphical user interface are operable to cause changes to the rendered view of the instrument. Wittstock teaches real-time updating of the rendered view in the simulation panel in response to user interaction with the other panels (e.g., drag-and-drop placement/arrangement of UI objects). Wittstock ¶¶ 87-97.
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claim 15, Wittstock discloses: receiving, via the processor and by the graphical user interface, user input into the rendered view of the instrument; and via the processor, transmitting the user input to a remote system. Wittstock teaches the portal may be a web browser interface that is part of a SaaS platform provided by a server. Wittstock ¶ 84.
Regarding claim 18, which depends on claim 1, Wittstock discloses wherein the graphical user interface of the user device is a web interface. Wittstock teaches the user interface design portal may be a web browser interface. Wittstock ¶ 84.
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 1, Wittstock discloses wherein the instrument comprises a plurality of parts, and the rendered view comprises at least one of the plurality of parts. Wittstock fig. 4 (simulation panel 440).
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 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wittstock et al., US 2024/0403008 A1, as supported by the corresponding disclosure of Prov. App. No. 63/470,411, in view of Straub, US 2019/0236825 A1.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 1, Wittstock does not disclose, but Straub discloses: capturing at least one screenshot of the rendered view of the instrument during instrument construction; and providing the at least one screenshot for representing a view of the instrument as if the instrument were natively displayed on the base device. Straub teaches generating screenshots in order to represent how a screen will appear on a native device. Straub fig. 26, ¶¶ 270-275.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wittstock’s process of providing a user interface design portal with Straub’s process of generating screenshots. Such a modification would allow a user to quickly render screenshots that show exactly how a screen will look on a native device. See Straub ¶¶ 260, 279.
Regarding claim 20, which depends on claim 1, Wittstock does not disclose, but Straub discloses: capturing at least one screenshot of the rendered view of the instrument during instrument construction; and providing the at least one screenshot for representing a view of the instrument as if the instrument were natively displayed on the base device. Straub teaches generating screenshots in order to represent how a screen will appear on a native device. Straub fig. 26, ¶¶ 270-275.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wittstock’s process of providing a user interface design portal with Straub’s process of generating screenshots. Such a modification would allow a user to quickly render screenshots that show exactly how a screen will look on a native device. See Straub ¶¶ 260, 279.
Conclusion
Although particular portions of the prior art may have been cited in support of the rejections, the specified citations are merely representative of the teachings. Other passages and figures in the cited prior art may apply. Accordingly, Applicant should consider the entirety of the cited prior art for potentially teaching all or part of the claims.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Seven et al., US 2013/0205277 A1, describes a process for cross-platform development of software.
Kolesov et al., US 2019/0087398 A1, describes a process for generating an electronic form, including updating a preview in real-time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Asher D Kells whose telephone number is (571)270-7729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 8 a.m. - 4 p.m..
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
Asher D. Kells
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/Asher D Kells/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights