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 . This Office Action is responsive to the communications filed on 21 October 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,124,862.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,124,862 are directed to the same overall invention: a computer-implemented framework for generating customized user interfaces to address data deficiencies, capturing user input over a network, and updating backend event data stores. A comparison of claims 1-20 of the instant application and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,124,862 reveals that claims 1-20 of the instant application represents a stylistic and architectural reorganization of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,124,862 (e.g. reframing certain method steps as active generation clauses, converting method features into system claims, or streamlining preliminary data ingestion steps).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these variations are mere matters of claim drafting and design choice that do not impart patentable distinctiveness. Side by side comparisons of claim 1-20 of the instant application and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,124,862 reveal that the co-pending application and the instant application are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant Application 19/733,881
U.S. Patent No. 12,124,862
Mapping Analysis & Differences
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
Identical. Both establish a computer-implemented method statutory class.
receiving, by a computer system, event data associated with an event;
(Implicit / Omitted as an explicit step)
Scope Shift: Set B removes the explicit initial step of receiving raw event data from Claim 1, jumping directly to the processing/deficiency determination stage, while still relying on the underlying data.
determining, by the computer system, one or more deficiencies in the event data associated with a first user,
determining, by a computer system, one or more deficiencies in user event data associated with a user,
Direct Match: Highly similar language. Set B streamlines "event data associated with a first user" to "user event data associated with a user".
wherein the one or more deficiencies correspond to a first subset of the event data associated with the first user,
wherein the one or more deficiencies correspond to a first subset of the user event data,
Direct Match: Restates the partitioning of the event data into a deficient subset.
wherein a second subset of the event data includes non-deficient event data associated with the first user;
wherein a second subset of the user event data includes non-deficient user event data associated with the user;
Direct Match: Defines the complementary non-deficient subset of data.
generating, by the computer system, a customized user interface operable to capture recorded data related to the event,
generating, by the computer system, a customized user interface by:
Restructured: Set B changes the phrasing slightly and uses a sub-bullet structure (colon and indented steps) to define the UI generation process.
wherein generating the customized user interface includes generating one or more input prompts configured to capture data responsive to the one or more deficiencies in the event data associated with the first user, and
generating and including in the customized user interface one or more input prompts configured to capture data responsive to the one or more deficiencies in the user event data associated with the user; and
Direct Match: Recasts the prompt generation as a positive inclusion step inside the UI generation block.
wherein the customized user interface excludes input prompts configured to capture the second subset of event data;
excluding, from the customized user interface, input prompts configured to capture the second subset of the user event data;
Structural Shift: Converted from a "wherein" clause describing an exclusion property into an active step (excluding, from the customized user interface...).
providing, by the computer system and via a network, the customized user interface to a client device;
providing, by the computer system and via a network, the customized user interface to a client device;
Identical. Network transmission of the UI to the client device.
receiving, by the computer system and via the network, input data entered into the one or more input prompts of the customized user interface; and
receiving, by the computer system and via the network, input data entered into the one or more input prompts of the customized user interface; and
Identical. Capturing the user's filled-in response data back over the network.
updating, by the computer system, the event data based at least in part on the input data.
updating, by the computer system, the user event data based on the input data.
Direct Match: Final data persistence step (dropping the phrase "at least in part on" for tighter phrasing).
Claims 2-3
Claims 2-3
Direct Match.
Claim 4
Claim 4
Structural Shift: (Claiming same subject matter)
Claim 5
Claim 8
System-Method Cross-Mapping
Claim 6
Claim 4
Structural Shift: (Claiming same subject matter)
Claims 7-10
Claims 8-11
Direct Match
Claims 11-13
Claims 12-14
Direct Match
Claims 14-15
Claims 15-20
Direct Match
Therefore, 1-20 of the instant application are unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,124,862 under obviousness-type double patenting.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,769,359, "Dynamic determination of missing fields." Describes dynamically assessing fields to determine which are missing and require data, and a wizard that presents a UI with fields for the user to fill.
US 10,657,320, "Automatic dynamic generation of electronic forms." Discloses prefilled fields based on stored data, with rules that display them as read-only. That is close to the "exclude non-deficient data" limitation.
US 6,314,415, "Automated forms publishing system." Expert-system rules add or remove prompts from the display as the user enters data.
US 7,062,502. The system verifies that required fields are populated and prompts the user to fix any missing data.
US 10,872,636, "Systems and methods for incident recording" Describes a UI with controls to start and stop recording, prompts to elicit user responses, and gathering supplemental information to make incident reports complete. It does not obviously teach the layout of prompts between the controls, so claim 8 may turn on that limitation.
US 8,332,765, "Problem reporting system based on user interface interactions." A GUI showing a start/pause/resume button and a separate stop button for a recording session.
US 2017/0286389: Directs the user to the next field based on the data entered into a prior field.
US 11,580,440, "Dynamic form with machine learning." Discusses pre-existing user data and rendering later form blocks from earlier responses, but check its priority date first.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRIN HOPE whose telephone number is (571)270-5079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thr - 6:45-4:15, Fri - 6:45-3:15, Alt. Fri Off.
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, Stephen S Hong can be reached at (571)272-4124. 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.
DARRIN HOPE
Examiner
Art Unit 2178
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights