DETAILED ACTION
This office action addresses Applicant’s response filed on 18 March 2026. Claims 1-17 and 20-22 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kundert (US 2004/0243375) in view of Root (US 10,114,805), Lorensson (US 2017/0346828), Raines (US 2007/0226555), Kukal (US 10,678,978), Jain (US 9,645,715), and Bergsrud (US 2018/0342910)
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Kundert discloses a computing device, comprising: at least one processor configured to (¶3):
retrieve, from a memory, an interactive datasheet for a product and instruct a display to display a first view of the interactive datasheet for the product, wherein the first view of the interactive datasheet includes a first section and a second section, the second section includes a user interface element for a user to supply a characteristic of a circuit design that incorporates the product (Fig. 8; ¶¶277, 279-281);
produce a second view of the interactive datasheet in response to receiving an input, wherein the second view of the interactive datasheet includes the first section of the first view and a third section and instruct the display to replace the first view of the interactive datasheet with the second view of the interactive datasheet (¶¶281, 283, 284); and
in response to receiving the user-supplied characteristic of the circuit design, recalculating an equation of an equation-based model of the product and update the performance characteristic based on the recalculated equation and update the performance characteristic based on the recalculated equation (¶¶280-282).
If Kundert is found to be unclear regarding producing a second view of the interactive datasheet in response to receiving an input, wherein the second view of the interactive datasheet includes the first section of the first view and a third section and instruct the display to replace the first view of the interactive datasheet with the second view of the interactive datasheet, Root provides further explicit disclosure of the same (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 2-9). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kundert and Root, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of updating views to display information requested by the user. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Kundert discloses an interactive datasheet that displays user-modifiable sections. Persons having ordinary skill in the art, reading Kundert, would understand from Kundert’s disclosure that when the user inputs modifications, the view of the interactive datasheet would be replaced so that the displayed sections are changed according to the user input. Furthermore, this is known basic functionality for page/document display as taught by Root: the user is able to change the displayed section, and the page view is changed to reflect the changed section. The teachings of Root are directly applicable to Kundert in the same way, so that Kundert would similarly replace the view of the interactive datasheet to include changed sections, to properly display sections indicated by the user.
If Kundert and/or Root are further found to be unclear regarding producing a second view and replacing the first view with the second view, Lorensson provides further explicit disclosure of the same (¶¶22, 107). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kundert, Root, and Lorensson, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of updating views to reflect changes. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Kundert discloses an interactive datasheet that displays user-modifiable sections. Persons having ordinary skill in the art, reading Kundert, would understand from Kundert’s disclosure that when the user inputs modifications, the view of the interactive datasheet would be replaced so that the displayed sections are changed according to the user input. Furthermore, this is known basic functionality for page/document display as taught by Lorensson: when a section of the page is changed, the view of the page is replaced to reflect the change. The teachings of Root and Lorensson are directly applicable to Kundert in the same way, so that Kundert would similarly replace the view of the interactive datasheet, to reflect desired changes by the user.
Kundert does not appear to explicitly disclose that the third section includes a display of a pinout of the product; Raines (¶52) and Kukal (Figs. 3A, 4K) disclose these limitations. Kundert does not appear to explicitly disclose in response to detection of an interaction by the user with a pin of the pinout, instruct the display to present a performance characteristic associated with the pin; Kukal discloses these limitations (col. 10, lines 17-24; col. 11, lines 34-41). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kundert, Root, Lorensson, Raine, and Kukal, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, or the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, to achieve the predictable results of displaying information for a user-selected pin. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Kundert discloses a datasheet that displays simulated performance characteristics based on user-entered design characteristics. Raines and Kukal teach that the datasheet includes a pinout for displaying the performance characteristics, which Kukal further discloses are displayed in response to a user selecting a pin of the pinout. The teachings of Raines and Kukal are directly applicable to Kundert in the same way, so that Kundert would similarly use a pinout to display performance characteristics for user-selected pins.
If Kundert is found to be unclear regarding the user interface element for a user to supply a characteristic of a circuit design that incorporates the product and in response to receiving the user-supplied characteristic of the circuit design, recalculating an equation of an equation-based model of the product and update the performance characteristic based on the recalculated equation and update the performance characteristic based on the recalculated equation, Jain discloses the same (col. 8, lines 1-19; col. 8, line 66 to col. 9, line 9; col. 9, line 66 to col. 10, line 4). Kundert does not appear to explicitly disclose that the recalculating is automatic; Jain also discloses this limitation (col. 1, lines 43-60; col. 7, lines 60-67).
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kundert, Root, Lorensson, Raine, Kukal, and Jain, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of keeping displayed performance characteristics up-to-date in accordance with user-specified design parameters. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Kundert discloses a datasheet that displays simulated performance characteristics based on user-entered design characteristics. Similarly, Jain teaches updating displayed pin performance characteristics based on user-entered design characteristics. As discussed above, Raines and Kukal teach that the datasheet includes a pinout for displaying the performance characteristics of selected pins. The teachings of Jain are directly applicable to Kundert, Raines, and Kukal, so that the displayed pin performance characteristics would similarly be updated based on the user-entered design characteristics.
If Kundert and/or Jain are found to be unclear regarding in response to receiving the user-supplied characteristic of the circuit design, automatically recalculating an equation of an equation-based model of the product and updating the performance characteristic based on the recalculated equation and update the performance characteristic based on the recalculated equation, Bergsrud discloses the same (Figs. 4 and 12A-C; ¶56). Kundert also does not appear to explicitly disclose instruct the display to present a warning or error message when the updated performance characteristic falls outside a design limit of the product; Bergsrud discloses these limitations (Fig. 2, Step 5C).
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kundert, Root, Lorensson, Raine, Kukal, Jain, and Bergsrud because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of streamlining the user experience in determining system performance. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Kundert discloses a datasheet that displays simulated performance characteristics based on user-entered design characteristics, and Jain teaches automatically updating performance characteristics in response to user-entered design characteristics. Bergsrud similarly teaches automatically updating performance characteristics in response to user-entered design characteristics and displaying warnings if performance is outside of designated limits. The teachings of Bergsrud are directly applicable to Kundert and Jain in the same way, so that Kundert would similarly update performance characteristics and display warnings automatically, in order to streamline the user experience.
Regarding claim 2, Kundert discloses in response to receiving an adjusted first characteristic of the product, adjust at least one second characteristic of the product based on a change in value of the adjusted first characteristic; produce an updated interactive datasheet for the product including the adjusted first and second characteristics; and instruct the display to update the second view of the interactive datasheet for the product based on the updated interactive datasheet for the product (¶¶279, 281). Kundert does not appear to explicitly disclose that the adjustment is automatic; Bergsrud discloses these limitations (Figs. 4 and 12A-C; ¶56). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Kundert discloses wherein the processor is further configured to instruct the display to display a warning or error message based on the updated interactive datasheet (Fig. 8, section 290).
Regarding claim 6, Kundert discloses that the first section depicts a simplified schematic, features and description, pinout and package options, performance characteristics, ratings and electrical characteristics, applicant and implementation information, a functional block diagram, or a printed circuit board (PCB) design (Fig. 8, sections 270 or 275).
Regarding claim 8, Kundert discloses receive, from a user, performance tolerances; and adjust the second view of the interactive datasheet based on the performance tolerances (Fig. 8; ¶281).
Regarding claim 9, Kundert does not appear to explicitly disclose in response to receiving an action by a user on a pinout of the second view, display a characteristic of the pinout. Raines discloses that the datasheet includes a pinout (¶52), and Kukal teaches that in response to receiving an action by a user on a pinout of the second view, display a characteristic of the pinout (col. 10, lines 17-24; col. 11, lines 34-41). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Kundert discloses run a simulation auto validation report on the interactive datasheet (¶278).
Regarding claim 11, Kundert discloses that the processor is further configured to: receive an indication of an available message; and instruct the display to display the indication of the available message (Fig. 8, section 290).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Kundert discloses the display and memory (claim 29; Fig. 8).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kundert in view of Root, Lorensson, Raine, Kukal, Jain, Bergsrud, and Ford (US 2015/0113487).
Regarding claim 3, Kundert does not appear to explicitly disclose that the processor is further configured to store, in the memory, the updated interactive datasheet for the product as a portable document format (pdf) file; Ford discloses these limitations (¶35). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kundert, Root, Lorensson, Raine, Kukal, Jain, Bergsrud, and Ford, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of storing updated information in convenient computer-readable formats. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Kundert discloses an updated interactive datasheet, which Ford teaches can be stored in conventional computer-readable formats such as pdf. The teachings of Ford are directly applicable to Kundert in the same way, so that Kundert’s updated datasheet would similarly be stored in pdf to allow convenient retrieval of updated information.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kundert in view of Root, Lorensson, Raine, Kukal, Jain, Bergsrud, and Chang (US 2009/0210503).
Regarding claim 4, Kundert does not appear to explicitly disclose retrieve, from the memory, a list of frequently asked questions and corresponding answers, based on the updated interactive datasheet; and instruct the display to display the list of frequently asked questions and corresponding answers; Chang discloses these limitations (Fig. 11; ¶88). Furthermore, the FAQs are merely nonfunctional descriptive material that have no patentable weight.
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kundert, Root, Lorensson, Raine, Kukal, Jain, Bergsrud, and Chang, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of displaying helpful information to a user. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Kundert discloses a datasheet. Chang teaches that the datasheet should include an FAQ. The teachings of Chang are directly applicable to Kundert in the same way, so that Kundert’s datasheet would similarly include an FAQ to provide more helpful information to a user.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kundert in view of Root, Lorensson, Raine, Kukal, Jain, Bergsrud, and Nizam (US 2017/0279253).
Regarding claim 7, Kundert discloses that the adjusted first characteristic is a physical characteristic of a component of the product (Fig. 8 parameters), but does not appear to explicitly disclose that the processor is further configured to, in response to receiving an indication from a user, order the product including the adjusted first characteristic; Nizam discloses these limitations (Fig. 4B, 404 ‘buy now’). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kundert, Root, Lorensson, Raine, Kukal, Jain, Bergsrud, and Nizam, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of allowing users to conveniently buy specified products. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Kundert discloses an interactive datasheet having various parameters. Nizam teaches that the datasheet should allow users to buy the products having the parameters. The teachings of Nizam are directly applicable to Kundert in the same way, so that Kundert’s datasheet would similarly allow users to conveniently buy the specified products.
Claim(s) 14, 15, 17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kundert in view of Root, Lorensson, Raine, Kukal, Jain, Bergsrud, Lotan (US 2015/0216448) and Chitakara (US 2014/01255841).
Regarding claims 14 and 21, Kundert discloses the first input, as discussed above with regard to claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose that the at least one processor is configured to receive a second input from a user, in response to determining that the user is a new user based on the second input, perform a new user procedure, and in response to determining that the user is a returning user based on the second input, perform a returning user procedure. Lotan discloses these limitations (Fig. 2, block 210 branching to blocks 220-240 if new user and to block 250 if returning user). If Lotan is found to be unclear regarding the second input and determining that the user is a new/returning user based on the second input, Chitakara also discloses these limitations (Fig. 3, block 315 and corresponding ¶¶41-43).
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application combine the teachings of Kundert, Root, Lorensson, Raine, Kukal, Jain, Bergsrud, Lotan, and Chitakara, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of configuring a user experience to accommodate new and returning users. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Kundert discloses a computer displaying an interactive datasheet. Lotan and Chitakara teach that computing devices displaying interactive elements should tailor the user experience/interface to whether the user is a new or returning user. The teachings of Lotan and Chitakara are directly applicable to Kundert in the same way, so that Kundert’s display of interactive datasheets would include configuring the user experience based on whether the user is a new or returning user.
Regarding claim 15, Kundert does not appear to explicitly disclose that to perform the new user procedure, the at least one processor is configured to perform a tutorial. Lotan discloses these limitations (Fig. 2, block 230). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 14.
Regarding claim 17, Kundert discloses the interactive datasheet, as discussed above with regard to claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose that to perform the returning user procedure, the at least one processor is configured to open a default landing structure. Lotan discloses these limitations (Fig. 2, block 250). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 14.
Claims 16 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kundert in view of Root, Lorensson, Raine, Kukal, Jain, Bergsrud, Lotan, Chitakara, and Mirra (US 2013/0332387).
Regarding claim 16, Kundert does not appear to explicitly disclose that to perform the returning user procedure, the at least one processor is configured to return to a previously saved version of the interactive datasheet. Mirra discloses these limitations (¶119). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kundert, Root, Lorensson, Raine, Kukal, Jain, Bergsrud, Lotan, Chitakara, and Mirra, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of allowing users to resume where they previously left off. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Kundert discloses a computer displaying an interactive datasheet. Lotan and Chitakara teach that computing devices displaying interactive elements should tailor the user experience/interface to whether the user is a new or returning user, and Mirra teaches that the user experience for a returning user should be returning to the user’s saved view from a prior session. The teachings of Lotan, Chitakara, and Mirra are directly applicable to Kundert in the same way, so that Kundert’s display of interactive datasheets would include configuring the user experience based on whether the user is a new or returning user, so that returning users could continue from where they left off in a prior session.
Regarding claim 22, Kundert does not appear to explicitly disclose that performing the new user procedure comprises performing a tutorial, and that performing the returning user procedure comprises returning to a previously saved version of the interactive datasheet. Lotan teaches that performing the new user procedure comprises performing a tutorial (Fig. 2, block 230); Mirra teaches that performing the returning user procedure comprises returning to a previously saved version of the interactive datasheet (¶119). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Applicant asserts that the prior art fails to teach newly-added limitations, which are addressed above using newly-cited prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIC LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3090. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 07:30-17:00 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, Jack Chiang can be reached at 571-272-7483. 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.
19 August 2026
/ARIC LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2851
/JACK CHIANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights