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 .
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Examiner Note
Examiner initiated an interview on January 28, 2026, with Applicant to discuss potential allowability through examiner’s amendment by further incorporating and further clarifying invention with dependent claims 2, 9, and 15 and terminal disclaimer for US Patent 12,153,704 B2. However, no further communication received after a few additional voice mails. Examiner decided to proceed with Non-Final office action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,153,704 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions present similar scope on a computing platform for facilitating data exchange among computing environments, in particular an electronic assessment comprising a set of questions, a set of previous questions answered, and corresponding correct token representations of a first answer, a first question and a confidence measure to be displayed on a graphical user interface.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2024 and 10/25/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6-8, and 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7: intention use term – “being.” Limitation should positively recite.
Claim 6, line 10: intention use term – “being.” Limitation should positively recite.
Claim 7, line 10: intention use term – “being.” Limitation should positively recite.
Claim 8, line 13: intention use term – “being.” Limitation should positively recite.
Claim 12, line 10: intention use term – “being.” Limitation should positively recite.
Claim 13, line 10: intention use term – “being.” Limitation should positively recite.
Claim 14, line 10: intention use term – “being.” Limitation should positively recite.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art, as previously recited in 17/881,076, Fox et al 20210174016 A1, Axelrod 20190266634 A1 was submitted in 10/25/2025 IDS, and Siva Kumaran et al 20190371303 A1 was submitted in 10/25/2025 IDS identifying, based on an answer library generated for the entity, a first answer to a first question in the set of questions, wherein [Fox et al 20210174016A1, ¶0078: the question-answer document can be accessed directly from the document data 150 or other location in the network 115; store the question-answer document in the document data 150. ¶0208: Fig. 21 in table 2100 shows examples of different dialog acts defined for answers in question-answer documents. Axelrod 20190266634 A1, ¶¶0029-0030 and 0047-0048: exemplary database server 206 can be queried or searched for stored previously asked questions and corresponding answers, user information, etc. There may be one table for every question that has been previously asked, another table for posts (e.g., answers) to each question, and other tables for users and experts. Examiner interprets that previously asked questions and corresponding answers is analogous to having or including at least, a first answer and a first question pair is a set of questions]; the answer library comprises a set of previous questions answered by the entity for at least one previous electronic assessment [Siva Kumaran et al 20190371303 A1,0019: corpus of data 110 stored locally; crawled web pages for questions and answers].
However, none of Fox, Axelrod, and Siva Kumaran teach or suggests, alone or in combination, the particular combination of steps or elements as recited in the independent claims, claims 1, 8, and 14. For example, none of the cited prior art teaches or suggest generating, based on a level of similarity between a second token representation for the first previous question and a corresponding first token representation for the first question, a first confidence measure, wherein the first confidence measure identifies a confidence in the first answer being correct for the first question; providing a graphical user interface for display, wherein the graphical user interface comprises the first answer to the first question and the first confidence measure; receiving, via the graphical user interface, an indication that the first answer is correct for the first question; and responsive to receiving the indication, populating the electronic assessment with the first answer for the first question, in view of other limitations of claims 1, 8, and 14.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
The closest prior art made of record are:
Burningham 20160370954 A1 teaches distributing a survey created for a first distribution channel across multiple distribution channels. More specifically, one or more embodiments of the present disclosure relate to providing a user with the ability to create a survey for one distribution channel and automatically provide the survey across multiple distribution channels. Further, one or more embodiments of the present disclosure improves survey administration by collecting responses to the survey from across the various distribution channels, compiling the responses, and providing the overall results of the survey to the user.
Gordon III 11094014 B1 teaches systems and methods for offering and purchasing tokenized securities on a blockchain platform meeting current and future federal, state, and offering and holding entity rules and regulations. Tokenized securities purchased during or after the tokenized securities offering are tradable on a secondary market. The server computer of the tokenized securities provides an automated transfer capability for tokenized securities holders.
Madgy WO 2014000764 A1 teaches a system and method for automatic generation of a reference utility (Abstract, 14, lines 28-31 to p. 15, lines 1-9; p. 16 lines 17-25; p.15, lines 11-20).
Kopikare 20190318370 A1 teaches customizing an electronic survey using social networking information. One or more embodiments of a survey system receive social networking information associated with a respondent from a third-party social networking system in connection with a request to provide a survey to a client device of the respondent. One or more embodiments of the survey system use the social networking information to determine a plurality of survey questions for the electronic survey. Additionally, one or more embodiments of the survey generate a customized electronic survey to include the plurality of survey questions and then provide the customized survey to the respondent's client device. (¶¶0050 0065 0070-71 0087 0130-0133).
Sunkavally et al 20210036850 teaches techniques are provided for access controls for question delegation environments. One method comprises obtaining a security policy for a question obtained from a user; monitoring responses to the question; and enforcing, by a third party portal processing system, access controls within the security policy for data associated with the question and/or the responses to the question, wherein the access controls comprise one or more restrictions with respect to a time duration to access the data and/or a number of people that may access the data. The third party portal processing system evaluates whether the time duration to access the data has expired before providing access to the data and/or whether the number of people that may access the data has been exceeded before providing access to the data. A client-side encryption of the data is optionally performed by a provider of the data. (Figs. 1 and 2 shows customer 110 submit review to intermediate portal 120 to a TTP 200 0022-¶0040; alert 0049; ¶¶0040-0042).
Berg et 20200120098 A1 teaches a method for multi-tenant authorization includes receiving, from a user account of a multi-tenant computer system, a request for a resource of the multi-tenant computer system. The method further includes determining whether the resource corresponds to a local resource that is local to the user account or to a nonlocal resource that is not local to the user account. The method further includes identifying, by a processing device, a local access control policy of the user account, corresponding to the local resource, or a visiting access control policy of the user account, corresponding to the nonlocal resource. The method further includes determining that the identified access control policy of the user account comprises an access permission corresponding to the resource. The method further includes controlling access to the resource of the multi-tenant computer system based on the access permission. (¶¶0032 and 0109).
Robinson 10572778 B1 teaches systems and methods for assessing and maintaining the quality, validity, and/or accuracy of digital participant input are provided. Methods may include capturing session data via a computing device, building a set of metrics based on the session data, deriving a set of characteristic scores, generating a set of classifications based on the set of characteristic scores, and displaying the set of classifications on a user interface (“UP”) that is associated with a session administrator. The set of classifications may include a flag for rejecting a session and/or a participant when the set of characteristic scores includes a score that is outside a predetermined threshold. ("forming correlated sets of questions and answers and comparing the participant's sets to the sets of others" col 5, lines 8-19; recording positioning and content of question and answer fields col 4, lines 28-36 3).
Fox 20210174016 A1 teaches systems and methods to enable generation of high-quality summaries of documents that have questions and answers. To help summarize such documents, parsing methods are disclosed that account for different document formats. Methods are disclosed to anonymize personal and identifying information present in the documents. An ontology is defined to categorize dialog acts for the questions and answers present. Classifiers are disclosed based on this ontology. Methods are also disclosed to transform a question-answer pair to a canonical form. Based on the dialog acts for the question and answer combination, transformation methods were developed that build upon each of traditional NLP, and deep learning, techniques. (¶0038-0040; Figs. 12-13 0016-0017 0098-0099; 0094-0096 Fig. 10; 0189 and 0193).
Schulze et al 20200293637 A1 teaches an indication is received through a user interface of an intention of a potential rider to use an autonomous vehicle. In response to the receipt of the indication, a hailing request is sent by a signaling mode to at least one autonomous vehicle that can receive the hailing request directly in accordance with the signaling mode. (¶¶0017 and 0069).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,153,704 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because inventions describe a computer facilitation data exchange among computing environments providing access to autocompletion assessment software.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2024 and 10/25/2024 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1,7, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 18: intention use term – “being.” Limitation should positively recite.
Claim 1, line 23: intention use term – “can.” Limitation should positively recite.
Claim 7, line 23: intention use term – “being.” Limitation should positively recite.
Claim 7, line 28: intention use term – “can.” Limitation should positively recite.
Claim 14, line 20: intention use term – “being.” Limitation should positively recite.
Claim 14, line 25: intention use term – “can.” Limitation should positively recite.
Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAKINAH W TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)270-0682. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:45-3:45, 8:45-10:45.
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, CATHERINE THIAW can be reached on 571-270-1138. 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.
SAKINAH WHITE-TAYLOR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2407
/Sakinah White-Taylor/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407