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.
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 1,7, 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.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “…an access mechanism…a control element…an access mechanism…a validation control element…a conformation mechanism…” in claims 7-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 7 and 14 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.
Claim limitation “…an access mechanism for facilitating access to the electronic assessment…a control element configured for facilitating registration of the third party…an access mechanism…a validation control element…a conformation mechanism for confirming creating of the second tenant instance…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. At most, in paras 0205 and 0207 of the specification describes “a data storage device 1118…stored one or more modules 1122…the modules 1122 include an artifact request module 110, a process request link module 115, an autocompletion assessment module 120, an ingest module 125, an identify answers module 130, a populate assessment module 135, a process invitation link module 140, and/or a claim profile module 145 as described herein... There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform facilitation of the electronic assessment via a data exchange computing platform. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term “facilitating” refers to assisting or enabling some event or action and can be performed in many ways in hardware, software of a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structures perform(s) the claimed function.” Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of facilitating access to an electronic assessment, registration of third party with data exchange services, or validating the activation associated with third party. The specification does not describe with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3- 7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diestler et al, hereinafter (“Diestler”), US PG Publication 20160255089 A1, in view of Larson et al, hereinafter (“Larson”), US PG Publication 20200366671 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 14, Diestler teaches a method comprising: [Diestler ¶¶0060 0063 and 0064-0066 Figs. 1 and 3 shows system 100 and user X on client device 102 with user interface 1140 communicates with a platform 104 over network 110; where platform 104 gathers and stores metrics in databases facilitated by a third party analytics ID aggregator (IA) 116 coupled to content access manager 118 of collaboration platform 104.]
sending an electronic notification on behalf of a first party to a third party requesting completion of an electronic assessment, wherein: [Diestler ¶¶0038 0060 and 0064-0066 FIGS. 3-7 and 9 shows a User X may be associated with organization A sends request to register with collaboration platform 104 (which stores metrics in third party analytics data stores) via network 110 using user interface 114 or identity aggregator (IA) 116 web portal/device application calling a “Register User” API of IA 116 to forward the data in the request provided by User X.]
the electronic notification comprises an access mechanism for facilitating access to the electronic assessment and is sent via a data exchange computing platform, [See Diestler ¶¶0038 0060 and 0064-0066 FIGS. 3-7 and 9 … register with collaboration platform 104 (which stores metrics in third party analytics data stores) via network 110 using user interface 114 or identity aggregator (IA) 116 web portal/device application calling a “Register User” API of IA 116 to forward the data in the request provided by User X.]
the data exchange computing platform provides a data exchange service that facilitates exchange of data between a plurality of tenants of the data exchange computing platform, [Diestler ¶0006 plurality of organizations and/or one or more external identities of the individual among one or more external content services. ¶0046 Identity aggregator 116 may also include an API for passing external security tokens and exchanging user data with external identity servers 106, 108] and
the first party is a first tenant of the plurality of tenants and has a first tenant instance on the data exchange computing platform; [Diestler ¶¶0065-0069 Fig. 3 shows method of registering an individual, a new member, to the collaboration system 100. At step 302B, IA 116 may set up the secure tunnel between client device 102 and the login API for identity server 106-1 via the collaboration platform 104]
receiving a first indication of an activation of the access mechanism; [Diestler ¶¶0065-0069 Fig. 3 IA 116 may set up the secure tunnel between client device 102 and the login API for identity server 106-1 via the collaboration platform 104. ¶¶0070-0071 0087 platform 104 may create an internal user identity when a user first registers with system 100. IA 116 allows a member to map multiple organizational/external identities together (via the internal user identifier) and self-identify as the same person through a one-time authentication to each individual identity.]
responsive to receiving the first indication, providing a graphical user interface for display, wherein the graphical user interface comprises a control element configured for facilitating registration of the third party with the data exchange service; [Diestler ¶¶0097 Application 112 may navigate to a “New Community Create Form” (e.g., such as shown in FIG. 8A) that provides a Wizard-like GUI to user interface 114 on client device 102. User X, via user interface 114, may fill out the requested information (and, in some examples, additional optional information) in the form, and may select a final ‘Finish’ button to create new Community Y. ]
receiving a second indication of an activation of the control element; [Diestler ¶0088 Subsequently a second external user identity (e.g., john.doe@org.com) was created after User X's employer signed up to use platform 104. User X may log in to platform 104 using the second external user identity (john.doe@org.com) to aggregate his separate accounts into one account.] and
responsive to receiving the second indication: generating a second tenant instance on the data exchange computing platform for the third party to facilitate the third party being a second tenant of the plurality of tenants; [Diestler ¶0088 User X may log in to platform 104 using the second external user identity (john.doe@org.com) to aggregate his separate accounts into one account.] and
Diestler teaches electronic assessment [Diestler ¶0006 electronic collaboration]; however, Diestler fails to explicitly teach but Larson teaches providing access to autocompletion assessment software through the data exchange service, wherein the autocompletion assessment software is configured for automatically completing the electronic assessment for the third party so that the electronic assessment can be submitted to the first party through the data exchange computing platform. [Larson ¶¶0027 0030-0031 0038 0068 0074 Fig. 1 shows an arrangement 100 suitable for practicing various embodiments of the present disclosure: includes a client system 105A and 105B (collectively referred to as a “client systems 105” or “client system 105”), service provider platform (SPP) 120, identity verification service (IVS) 140, and network 101; platform-specific implementation by client system 105A/105B interact with the service provider platform (SPP) 120, and/or a platform of a third-party system/platform. IVS servers 145 (or application servers) are configured to serve one or more instructions or source code documents to client systems 105, which may then be executed within a client application 110 via a suitable Application Programming Interface (API), middleware, software glue, etc., or the IVS component 113 is a plug-in configured to allow the client application 110 to render user interface objects 115 (e.g., graphical user interfaces (GUIs)) for interacting with IVS 140; submitting web resource or URL of identity access certificates via a web form, including identity data (e.g., for autocompletion of web forms).]
Diestler teaches all the features of claims 1, 7, and 14 not providing access to autocompletion assessment software through the data exchange service, wherein the autocompletion assessment software is configured for automatically completing the electronic assessment for the third party so that the electronic assessment can be submitted to the first party through the data exchange computing platform. Larson teaches an Identity verification and management system. Because both Diestler and Larson teach identity registration and authentications services it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use the third-party collaboration as taught by Diestler enabling cross-organization authoring of content and cross-organization searching of content, while providing access controls to content owners and their organizations with third party solution allowing for autocomplete of web forms [Larson ¶0074].
Regarding claims 3, 9, and 16, the combination of Diestler and Larson teach claim 1 as described above.
Diestler teaches further comprising receiving, via the data exchange computing platform, a request that involves requesting completion of the electronic assessment by the third party, wherein the request is submitted by the first party through the data exchange service and identifies the electronic assessment and the third party [Diestler ¶¶0006 0021 0060 0065-0066 Platform 104 gathers and stores third party analytics; identity aggregator is configured to receive an electronic request for access to the electronic collaboration content data from a client device of an individual over a communication network].
Regarding claims 4, 10, and 17, the combination of Diestler and Larson teach claim 1 as described above.
Diestler teaches wherein the graphical user interface further comprises a validation control element and the method further comprises, prior to generating the second tenant instance on the data exchange computing platform: receiving, via the validation control element, input [Diestler ¶0097 CAM 118 creates new community based on request from client device 102 that include the internal security token T4 where at the Home page” may include one or more links to web pages to add content or manage User X's settings, etc. to navigate “New Community Create Form”]; and validating, based on the input, that the activation of the access mechanism is associated with the third party [Diestler ¶0097 a Wizard-like GUI to user interface 114 on client device 102. User X, via user interface 114, may fill out the requested information (and, in some examples, additional optional information) in the form, and may select a final ‘Finish’ button to create new Community Y. Application 112 running, for example, on a web browser of client device 102, may call CAM 118 to create Community Y, and may provide to CAM 118 all information input by User X into the new community creation form. ].
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 18, the combination of Diestler and Larson teach claim 1 as described above.
Diestler teaches further comprising: sending a second electronic notification comprising a conformation mechanism for confirming creation of the second tenant instance for the third party [See Diestler ¶¶0022 and 0039-0040 collaboration platform creates one or more virtual communities by members; different access privileges creation across organizations. ¶¶0038 0041 0060 0064-0066 and FIGS. 3-7 and 9 shows a User X may be associated with organization A sends request; calling a “Register User” API of IA 116 to forward the data in the request provided by User X. ¶0105 CAM 118 confirms whether the requested operation may be performed by User X, by querying database(s) 120 (e.g., a collections database) for Community Y. Examiner interprets that an API instance is instantiated/created each time requested as such is analogous to sending a second electronic notification comprising a conformation mechanism for confirming creation of the second tenant instance for the third party]; and receiving a third indication of an activation of the conformation mechanism, wherein the second tenant instance is generated based on receiving the third indication [Diestler ¶0060 platform 104 may keep track of member logins and an active versus inactive rate for an organization. Examiner interprets that the many member logins to occur in the system 100 See Diestler ¶¶0022 0038 0041 0060 0064-0066 and FIGS. 3-7 and 9].
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 19, the combination of Diestler and Larson teach claim 1 as described above.
Diestler teaches further comprising: receiving, via the data exchange computing platform, a request from the first party for an artifact from the third party, wherein the request is submitted by the first party through the first tenant instance [Diestler ¶0051 CAM 118 enables organization and individuals to create/manage networked communication as a mechanism to import/create/share collaboration artifacts. ¶¶0065 and 0068 a new member, member of Organization A, of system 100 (i.e., User X on client device 102) may request creation of an account via a web portal; the request may specify organization identity server 106-1 of Organization A. At step 302B, IA 116 may set up the secure tunnel between client device 102 and the login API for identity server 106-1. (Indicated by the lighter gray arrow under step 302B). ];
responsive to receiving the request:
sending a second electronic notification to the third party, wherein the second electronic notification identifies the request [See Diestler ¶¶0038 0041 0060 0064-0066 0105 and FIGS. 3-7 and 9. Examiner interprets that an API instance is instantiated/created each time requested as such is analogous to sending a second electronic notification; an iterative process]; and
providing access to the request to the third party through the second tenant instance [Diestler ¶0056 Access to newly created content within Community Y may be managed, via platform 104, by the (new content) authors and administrator(s) 206 of Community Y. Member(s) 204 and administrator(s) 206 may share content that has been imported into or created within the community across those organizations and/or public sources for which they have write permissions.];
receiving the artifact uploaded into the data exchange computing platform by the third party through the second tenant instance [Diestler ¶0051 import]; and
responsive to receiving the artifact: sending a third electronic notification to the first party, wherein the third electronic notification identifies the artifact is available through the data exchange service [Diestler ¶0054 Collaboration platform 104 may, based on the individual's access permissions, allow members of a community to import content from the external databases of their parent organizations as well as publically-available content.]; and
providing access to the artifact to the first party through the first tenant instance [See Diestler ¶0056 Access to newly created content within Community Y may be managed, via platform 104, by the (new content) authors and administrator(s) 206 of Community Y. Member(s) 204 and administrator(s) 206 may share content that has been imported into or created within the community across those organizations and/or public sources for which they have write permissions.].
Regarding claims 13 and 20, the combination of Diestler and Larson teach claim 7 as described above.
Diestler teaches wherein the autocompletion assessment software is configured to automatically identify answers to a set of questions based on previous answers to previous questions provided by the third party in a previous assessment completed by the third party [See Diestler ¶0074 The identity verification indicators may be Boolean indicators (e.g., yes/no, true/false, or the like), codes or data indicating or including identity data (e.g., for autocompletion of web forms), or include code or data for accessing identity data (e.g., the one-time use authorization codes mentioned previously). ].
Claim(s) 2, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diestler et al, hereinafter (“Diestler”), US PG Publication 20160255089 A1, in view of Larson et al, hereinafter (“Larson”), US PG Publication 20200366671 A1, in view of Rodriguez et al, hereinafter (“Rodriguez”), US PG 20200090197 A1.
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 15, the combination of Diestler and Larson teach claim 1 as described above.
Diestler teaches the electronic assessment comprises a set of questions [Diestler ¶¶0025 content include electronic questions, electronic answers…]; however, Diestler fails to explicitly teach but Rodriguez teaches wherein the electronic assessment comprises a set of questions and the autocompletion assessment software is configured for automatically completing the electronic assessment for the third party by: comparing each question of the set of questions to each previous question of a set of previous questions found in an answer library, wherein the answer library comprises a corresponding previous answer for each previous question of the set of previous questions provided by the third party for a previous electronic assessment completed by the third party [Rodriguez ¶¶0066-0067 Fig. 7 shows components of a question bank mapping GUI for system. Mapping process displays possible actions available to proposed matches; system allows a question and answer to be matched to its corresponding imported question.]; identifying, based on comparing each question of the set of questions to each previous question of the set of previous questions, an answer to at least one question of the set of questions, wherein the answer comprises the corresponding previous answer for a previous question of the set of previous questions [Rodriguez ¶0083 “the system receives an ad-hoc spreadsheet questionnaire that closely matches two previously-completed standardized questionnaires… the system imported the questionnaire and compared it against existing standardized questionnaires that were previously answered and may use answers from the system's question bank to respond to the ad-hoc questionnaire. The question bank auto-mapping functionality (described with reference to FIG. 7 and FIGS. 11-13) within the system can pre-populate the answers using the closest matches, while ignoring answers to questions that do not meet a minimum standard of correlation. ”]; and populating the answer to the at least one question in the electronic assessment as part of generating a completed version of the electronic assessment [Rodriguez ¶0083 “…within the system can pre-populate the answers using the closest matches, while ignoring answers to questions that do not meet a minimum standard of correlation… When the user completes the questionnaire, they have the ability to share the response back to the potential customer via the system or export the questionnaire into a spreadsheet format. Any of the responses that the user shares in a completed questionnaire, that were not previously stored in the question bank, will be delivered as potential alternate responses in future questionnaire scenarios.”].
Diestler teaches all the features of claims 2, 8, and 15 not providing access to wherein the electronic assessment comprises a set of questions and the autocompletion assessment software is configured for automatically completing the electronic assessment for the third party by: comparing each question of the set of questions to each previous question of a set of previous questions found in an answer library, wherein the answer library comprises a corresponding previous answer for each previous question of the set of previous questions provided by the third party for a previous electronic assessment completed by the third party; identifying, based on comparing each question of the set of questions to each previous question of the set of previous questions, an answer to at least one question of the set of questions, wherein the answer comprises the corresponding previous answer for a previous question of the set of previous questions; and populating the answer to the at least one question in the electronic assessment as part of generating a completed version of the electronic assessment. Rodriguez teaches systems and methods for proactively responding to vendor security assessments. Because Diestler and Rodriguez are directed to requesting and completing an assessment questionnaire it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try was made to use the third-party vendor solution as taught by Rodriguez suggesting pre-populating or auto-populating responses to ad-hoc questionnaire [Rodriguez ¶¶0028-0030].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bowers 20180129989 A1 teaches Systems and methods for providing vendor management, risk assessment, due diligence, reporting, and custom profiles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAKINAH WHITE-TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)270-0682. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:45a-6:45p.
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 at 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