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 .
Response to Amendment
This Non-Final Rejection is filed in response to the Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment filed 10/06/2025.
Claims 1, 8, and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-22 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Argument 1, Applicant argues in Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment filed 10/06/2025, on pg. 8-9 that prior art fails to teach the primary claim limitation of, “wherein a display size of one or more of the minutes in the hour is different than a display size of other minutes in the hour”.
Response to Argument 1, in light of the amendments, a newly found combination of prior art (U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20140310045 “Meltzer”, in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20070147178 “Masuda”, in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20150370469 “Leong”, in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20150205509 “Scriven”, and further in light of U.S. Patent NO. 7451098 “Ingman”) is applied to updated rejections.
However, the examiner notes that Meltzer lays the groundwork for a unified graphical interface for concurrently displaying a base form of all the date selection fields that may be augmented or substituted with further prior art related to time and date display. This is supported by Meltzer, para. [0071-0072], In response to receiving the request to create a new calendar event, the electronic calendar module(s) 305 may be configured to generate a calendar event control panel 310 for the selected calendar event… control panel 310 may include user interface elements comprising: a start date interface element, such as a text box and/or a calendar date selection interface element, configured to receive from the user a start date for the event; a start time interface element, such as a text box and/or drop down interface element (divided into 30 minute increments as a non-limiting example) and configured to receive from the user a start time for the event. Wherein it is noted that the BRI for a “GUI configured to concurrently display on a same screen from user selection”, encompasses how the control panel displays a base month selection section where a user may select any of the 12 months in a year, along with a month grid for the selection of days within a month, which also is a display of the days of the week within each moth, and a base hour and minute selector that allows for some granularity regarding the hour and minute selection for a time related to a calendar date.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, 12-14, 17-18, and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20140310045 “Meltzer”, in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20070147178 “Masuda”, in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20150370469 “Leong”, in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20150205509 “Scriven”, and further in light of U.S. Patent NO. 7451098 “Ingman”.
Claim 1:
Meltzer teaches a system configured for scheduling recurring tasks using an electronic device, the system comprising: a processor (i.e. para. [0034], Fig. 2, Such methods may be performed by any central processing unit (CPU) in any computing system); a memory coupled to the processor (i.e. para. [0042], the software modules may comprise software and/or scripts containing instructions that, when executed by a microprocessor on a server 210 and/or client 220, cause the microprocessor to accomplish the purpose of the module); and a scheduler coupled to the processor, wherein the scheduler is configured to: receive a user request from a user to schedule a recurring task (i.e. para. [0070], The electronic calendar module(s) 305 may be configured to transmit the generated electronic calendar 300 user interface to the client(s) 220 and may be further configured to receive from the user a request to create a new calendar event); render a Graphical User Interface (GUI) on a display screen of the electronic device in response to the receiving of the user request (i.e. para. [0071], In response to receiving the request to create a new calendar event, the electronic calendar module(s) 305 may be configured to generate a calendar event control panel 310 for the selected calendar event), the GUI configured to concurrently display on a same screen for user selection (i.e. para. [0072], “control panel 310 may include user interface elements comprising: a start date interface element, such as a text box and/or a calendar date selection interface element, configured to receive from the user a start date for the event; a start time interface element, such as a text box and/or drop down interface element (divided into 30 minute increments as a non-limiting example) and configured to receive from the user a start time for the event”, wherein it is noted that months, month date, weeks, and times for hour and minutes for a calendar date are all displayed concurrently on the control panel): (i.e. para. [0109], Fig. 13, it is noted that a user may select any square cell that represents the days from the 1st to 30th of April), (i.e. para. [0109], Fig. 13, “a certain number of a selected day of the week”, wherein it is noted that a user may select any square cell that represents the days of Monday to Friday of April),
receive a plurality of cell selections, each cell selection corresponding to a single independently selectable cell of a plurality of independently selectable cells, the plurality of independently selectable cells including the independently selectable month cells and the independently selectable date cells (i.e. wherein it is noted in Fig. 11 that a plurality of cell selections encompasses the currently selected tick selection corresponding to each of the independent selectable display sections for the current minute, hour, date, day, and month),
define a schedule for the recurring task using the plurality of cell selections (i.e. para. [0109], Modifications to these user interface elements within the recurrence definition area may cause the recurrence summary, as well as the recurrence preview calendar to be generated, updated and/or displayed), wherein the processor is configured to execute an application in the electronic device at a time corresponding to the schedule for the recurring task (i.e. para. [0111], “The data from the Reminders tab may be transmitted to the electronic calendar module(s) 305, which may then store the reminder in data storage 230 and send the reminder via the selected contact at the selected time prior to the calendar event”, wherein an Email and/or SMS application are accessed in order to send a combination of an Email and Alert, SMS and Alert, Email, SMS, or Alert). While Meltzer teaches concurrently displaying month, date, day, and time selection regions for scheduling a recurring tasks, Meltzer may not explicitly teach wherein the interface include
all months of a calendar year, each of the months an independently selectable and user-selectable month cell, all dates of a month, each of the dates an independently selectable and user-selectable date cell, all days of a week, each of the days an independently selectable and user-selectable weekday cell, All hours of a day, each of the hours an independently selectable and user-selectable hour cell, and
All minutes of an hour, each of the minutes an independently selectable and user-selectable minute cells, wherein a display size of one or more of the minutes in the hour is different than a display size of other minutes in the hour,
the plurality of cell selections corresponding to at least one of: two or more independently selectable month cells, or two or more independently selectable date cells.
However, Masuda teaches concurrently displaying
all months of a calendar year, each of the months an independently selectable and user-selectable month cell (i.e. para. [0087], Fig. 8, “when a cursor 517 is moved to a specific month in the calendar display area 513 of the year display screen 510, the specific month and the number of content files created in that specific month are displayed as a tool tip 518”, wherein is noted in Fig. 8, that all months are displayed and selectable), all dates of a month, each of the dates an independently selectable and user-selectable date cell (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 8, that all dates are displayed and selectable by a user cursor), all days of a week, each of the days an independently selectable and user-selectable weekday cell (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 8, that all days of a week are displayed and selectable by a user cursor)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the displayed interface includes all months of a calendar year, each of the months an independently selectable and user-selectable month cell, all dates of a month, each of the dates an independently selectable and user-selectable date cell, all days of a week, each of the days an independently selectable and user-selectable weekday cell, to Meltzer’s unified recurring scheduler GUI that takes user selection for a month, date, day and time, with how a calendar interface displays all months, days, dates as independent and user selectable cells, as taught by Masuda. One would have been motivated to combine Masuda with Meltzer and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in order to give a user a quicker and faster selection of a date when viewing a whole year of dates.
While Meltzer-Masuda teach a unified interface that takes a user input month, date, day, and time, Meltzer and Masuda may not explicitly teach displaying
All hours of a day, each of the hours an independently selectable and user-selectable hour cell, and
all minutes of an hour, each of the minutes an independently selectable and user-selectable minute cell, wherein a display size of one or more or more of the minutes in the hour is different than a display size of other minutes in the hour.
However, Leong further teaches concurrently displaying
All hours of a day, each of the hours an independently selectable and user-selectable hour cell (i.e. para. [0062], Fig. 6C-D “illustration 685 of FIG. 6C represents the segmentation of the closed track 610 when the user is operating the selection feature 600 to adjust the hour field in a twenty four hour or military format. The closed track 610 can be segmented into twenty four regions or segments 687”, wherein all hours in a day are independently selectable cells in a twenty four hour or military time setting),
All minutes of an hour, each of the minutes an independently selectable and user-selectable minute cell (i.e. para. [0061], Fig. 6C-D, “The selection feature 600 can enable a user to change or set a time by individually adjusting a selected value (as indicated by the underline 650), such as an hour, a minute, a second, and am or pm… The selection feature 600 can be segmented into different regions or segments according to the appropriate time or clock setting”, wherein all minutes in each hour are independently and user selectable between each hour of a selection feature in a twenty four hour or military time setting),
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the displayed interface includes a plurality of hours of a day, each of the hours an independently selectable and user-selectable hour cell, a plurality of minutes of an hour, each of the minutes an independently selectable and user-selectable minute cell, to Meltzer-Masuda’s unified recurring scheduler GUI that takes user selection for a month, date, day and time, with how a scheduling interface displays a plurality of independently selectable hours and minutes, as taught by Leong. One would have been motivated to combine Leong with Meltzer-Masuda and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in order to give a user a more granular selection of time in hours and minutes in addition to month, day, and date when scheduling an event.
While Meltzer-Masuda-Leong teach unified interface for concurrently displaying a month, date, day, and time selection region, Meltzer-Masuda-Leong may not explicitly teach
wherein a display size of one or more or more of the minutes in the hour is different than a display size of other minutes in the hour.
However, Scriven teaches
(i.e. para. [0024, 0040], Fig. 1, 6, “The dial 106 can represent other units of time, such as 24 hours, for example. The units of time can be represented in any time increments, such as one minute, five minutes, and/or 15 minutes. The display of the units of time can be dynamically adjusted based on user input and control… the dial 602 includes designations of hour increments, or other increments, such as increments of 15 minutes. Further, the dial 602 can be associated with an hour hand and a minute hand like a conventional clock”, wherein it is noted that a display size encompasses the size of a displayed minute increment. Wherein displayed label for 5 or 15 minute increments would be larger than individual minute increments which are not displayed as large, but would be each be selectable by an associated minute hand 610)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein a display size of one or more or more of the minutes in the hour is different than a display size of other minutes in the hour, to Meltzer-Masuda-Leong’s unified recurring scheduler GUI that takes user selection for a month, date, day and time, with wherein a display size of one or more or more of the minutes in the hour is different than a display size of other minutes in the hour, as taught by Scriven One would have been motivated to combine Scriven with Meltzer-Masuda-Leong and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in order to creates a display system calendar that distinguishes different time metrics within a small space such as a dial of a watch.
While Meltzer-Masuda-Leong-Scriven teach unified interface for concurrently displaying a month, date, day, and time selection region, Meltzer-Masuda-Leong-Scriven may not explicitly teach
the plurality of cell selections corresponding to at least one of: two or more independently selectable month cells, or two or more independently selectable date cells.
However, Ingman teaches
receive a plurality of cell selections (i.e. Col. 5, lines 8-10, “the user then uses the calendar to select which days the technicians will be assigned”, wherein it is noted in Fig. 3 that a plurality of days may be selected)
Ingman further teaches wherein
the plurality of cell selections corresponding to at least one of: two or more independently selectable month cells, or two or more independently selectable date cells (i.e. Col. 5, lines 19-21, “As FIG. 3 shows, if the user wishes to assign the multiple technicians to multiple days, the user simply selects all the desired days of assignment.”, wherein it is noted in Fig. 3 that a non-consecutive selection of days may be selected as a user has selected at least June 21 and June 30).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the plurality of cell selections corresponding to at least one of: two or more independently selectable month cells, or two or more independently selectable date cells, to Meltzer-Masuda-Leong-Scriven’s concurrent recurring scheduler GUI which lets users select a single day, with how two or more independently selectable month cells, or two or more independently selectable date cells may be selected for scheduling, as taught by. One would have been motivated to combine Ingman with Meltzer-Masuda-Leong-Scriven and would have had a reasonable expectation of success as the selection of multiple non-consecutive days would save user’s time as it simplifies the user input needed in order to create multiple scheduled events.
Claim 2:
Meltzer, Masuda, Leong, Scriven, and Ingman teach the system as claimed in claim 1.
While Meltzer teaches wherein the scheduler is further configured to:
receive command input from the user specifying the application to be executed as part of a command (i.e. para. [0111], “a contact selection user interface element, possibly a drop down including options to send the reminder of the calendar event to (e.g., Email and Alert, SMS and Alert, Email, SMS, Alert)”, wherein each of the drop down formats correspond to a combination of email and SMS applications to be executed);
and create a task function based on the defined schedule and the command, wherein the task function is to execute the command recurrently based on the schedule (i.e. para. [0110], “The recurrence definition area may also comprise a … an option to never end the recurrence. In some embodiments, this may be the default selection when the recurrence tab is selected”, wherein the scheduler will create a function of repeat the SMS/Email event as defined by default until instructed to end the recurrence).
Claim 4:
Meltzer, Masuda, Leong, Scriven, and Ingman teach the system as claimed in claim 1.
Meltzer further teaches wherein the scheduler is further configured to render the GUI such that a date selection region, a day selection region, and a month selection region are displayed non obtrusively with respect to each other in one of a vertically and horizontal alignment (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 13, that the repeat interval user interface’s selection of the 1st Friday of April are displayed within nonobtrusive vertical alignment of each other).
Claim 6:
Meltzer, Masuda, Leong, Scriven, and Ingman teach the system as claimed in claim 1.
Meltzer further teaches the GUI includes wherein each of a date selection region, a day selection region, and a month selection region have same breadth (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 13, that the breadth is equivalent to how the date, day, and month selection boxes have the same vertical height or second largest dimension of a plane or solid figure).
Claim 8:
Claim 8 is the method claim reciting similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 9:
Claim 9 is the method claim reciting similar limitations to claim 2 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 12:
Meltzer, Masuda, Leong, Scriven, and Ingman teach the method as claimed in claim 8.
Meltzer further teaches wherein the first view of the GUI further comprises a schedule description region that provides a written description of the schedule based upon the selection the plurality of cell selections(i.e. it is noted in Fig. 14 displays a written description of “Repeat Yearly on April 5Th and never end” which is based on the plurality of cell selections such as a first selection for the 1st, a second selection for Friday, and a third selection for the month of April).
Claim 13:
Meltzer, Masuda, Leong, Scriven, and Ingman teach the method as claimed in claim 8.
Meltzer further teaches comprising displaying a date selection region, a day selection region, and a month selection region non obtrusively with respect to each other in one of a vertically and horizontal alignment (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 13, that the repeat interval user interface’s selection of the 1st Friday of April are displayed within nonobtrusive vertical alignment of each other).
Claim 14:
Meltzer, Masuda, Leong, Scriven, and Ingman teach the method as claimed in claim 8.
Meltzer further teaches wherein the GUI further comprises a schedule period region, wherein the user specifies a start of a period and an end of the period, the period defining when the recurring task is scheduled (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 13, that a user has scheduled a start date of 04/05/2013 12:30PM and an end date of 04/05/2013 1:00 PM).
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is the method claim reciting similar limitations to claim 6 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 18:
Meltzer, Masuda, Leong, Scriven, and Ingman teach the method as claimed in claim 8.
Meltzer further teaches wherein the GUI further comprises an advanced region, wherein the user can specify the schedule for the recurring task by: (a) a number of days from the end of a month (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 12, that a user may select a number of days from the end of a mot3h by selecting the 29th day of each month which ensure that the repeated even will schedule 0-2 days from the end of each month); (b) a last weekday of the month (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 13, that a user may select a last weekday of the month by selecting the 4th Friday of April); (c) a specific day of a specific week (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 13, that a user may select a specific day of a specific week by selecting the 4th Friday of April); (d) or a nearest weekday to a specific day (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 13, that a user may select a nearest weekday to a specific day by selecting the 1st Friday of April which ensures that the Friday is a weekday nearest to a specific Saturday).
Claim 20:
Claim 20 is the medium claim reciting similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 21:
Meltzer, Masuda, Leong, Scriven, and Ingman teach the system as claimed in claim 1.
Masuda further teaches
wherein the plurality of cell selections includes at least one independently selectable month cell (i.e. para. [0087], Fig. 8, “when a cursor 517 is moved to a specific month in the calendar display area 513 of the year display screen 510, the specific month and the number of content files created in that specific month are displayed as a tool tip 518”, wherein is noted in Fig. 8, that all months are displayed and selectable.)
Leong further teaches
at least one independently selectable hour cell, and at least one independently selectable minute cell. (i.e. para. [0062], Fig. 6C-D, “illustration 685 of FIG. 6C represents the segmentation of the closed track 610 when the user is operating the selection feature 600 to adjust the hour field in a twenty four hour or military format).
Ingman further teaches
two or more independently selectable date cells (i.e. Col. 5, lines 19-21, “As FIG. 3 shows, if the user wishes to assign the multiple technicians to multiple days, the user simply selects all the desired days of assignment.”, wherein it is noted in Fig. 3 that a non-consecutive selection of days may be selected as a user has selected at least June 21 and June 30).
Claim 22:
Meltzer, Masuda, Leong, Scriven, and Ingman teach the system as claimed in claim 21.
Ingman further teaches wherein the schedule includes at least two non-consecutive days of a given week, and wherein the plurality of selections does not include the independently selectable weekday cells (i.e. Col. 5, lines 19-21, “As FIG. 3 shows, if the user wishes to assign the multiple technicians to multiple days, the user simply selects all the desired days of assignment.”, wherein it is noted in Fig. 3 that a non-consecutive selection of days may be selected as a user has selected at least June 21 and June 30).
Claim 3, 5, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20140310045 “Meltzer”, in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20070147178 “Masuda”, in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20150370469 “Leong”, in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20150205509 “Scriven”, and further in light of U.S. Patent NO. 7451098 “Ingman”, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20030131098 “Huntington”.
Claim 3:
Meltzer, Masuda, Leong, Scriven, and Ingman teach the system as claimed in claim 1.
While Meltzer, Masuda, Leong, Scriven, and Ingman teach concurrently displaying time selections on a GUI, Meltzer, Masuda, Leong, Scriven, and Ingman may not explicitly teach wherein the GUI is also configured to concurrently display: a plurality of seconds of a minute in a selectable second cell; a plurality of years in a selectable year cell.
However, Huntington teaches
a plurality of seconds of a minute in a selectable second cell; a plurality of years in a selectable year cell (i.e. para. [0128-0130], Fig. 8, “selection start box 818 or selection end box 820, a number of widgets or devices may be included. For example text boxes, such as 824, may provide display or user entry of time specifications, such as the year month, date, day, am/pm selection, hour, minute, second, millisecond, microsecond, and other time specification… The time window length area may optionally be editable by a user, and may have fields of days, hours, minutes, and seconds”, wherein a plurality of seconds may be concurrently displayed by the second selection window along with a plurality of years may be displayed after a user actuates an up or down selection of the respective second and year selection boxes).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add concurrently displaying a plurality of seconds of a minute in a selectable second cell; a plurality of years in a selectable year cell, to Meltzer-Masuda-Leong-Scriven-Ingman’s unified time selection region, with how a plurality of seconds and years are concurrently displayed in selection boxes, as taught by Huntington. One would have been motivated to combine Huntington with Meltzer-Masuda-Leong-Scriven-Ingman and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide further granularity to a user creating a scheduled event.
Claim 5:
Meltzer, Masuda, Leong, Scriven, and Ingman the system as claimed in claim 1.
Meltzer, Masuda, Leong, Scriven, and Ingman may not explicitly teach
wherein a length of a time selection region of the GUI is equal to a sum of lengths of the date selection region, the day selection region, and a month selection region.
However, Huntington teaches
wherein a length of a time selection region of the GUI is equal to a sum of lengths of the date selection region, the day selection region, and a month selection region (i.e. it is noted in Fig. 8 that the length of the Hour minute and second time selection regions is equal to the date, day, and month, selection regions).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wherein a length of a time selection region of the GUI is equal to a sum of lengths of the date selection region, the day selection region, and a month selection region, to Meltzer-Masuda-Leong-Scriven-Ingman’s unified time selection region, with wherein a length of a time selection region of the GUI is equal to a sum of lengths of the date selection region, the day selection region, and a month selection region, as taught by Huntington. One would have been motivated to combine Huntington with Meltzer-Masuda-Leong-Scriven-Ingman and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a simplified user interface that allows a user to more easily ascertain desired scheduling information.
Claim 10:
Claim 10 is the method claim reciting similar limitations to claim 3 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 is the method claim reciting similar limitations to claim 5 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20140310045 “Meltzer”, in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20070147178 “Masuda”, in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20150370469 “Leong”, in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20150205509 “Scriven”, and further in light of U.S. Patent NO. 7451098 “Ingman”, as applied to claim 1 and 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20140288989 “Goeppinger”.
Claim 7:
Meltzer, Masuda, Leong, Scriven, and Ingman teach the system as claimed in claim 1,
Meltzer, Masuda, Leong, Scriven, and Ingman may not explicitly teach
wherein the scheduler is configured to define schedule for the recurring task using a CRON expression.
However, Goeppinger teaches
wherein the scheduler is configured to define schedule for the recurring task using a CRON expression (i.e. para. [0088], Scheduling a step as a job with the job scheduling module can involve specifying one or more cron expressions for the job to the job scheduling module. A cron expression can be specified to the job scheduling module according to a cron-link syntax).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the scheduler is configured to define schedule for the recurring task using a CRON expression to Meltzer-Masuda-Leong-Scriven-Ingman’s unified time selection region, with wherein the scheduler is configured to define schedule for the recurring task using a CRON expression as taught by Goeppinger. One would have been motivated to combine Goeppinger with Meltzer-Masuda-Leong-Scriven-Ingman and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a more convenient way for systems to automate scheduled jobs.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 is the method claim reciting similar limitations to claim 7 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20140310045 “Meltzer”, in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20070147178 “Masuda”, in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20150370469 “Leong”, in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20150205509 “Scriven”, and further in light of U.S. Patent NO. 7451098 “Ingman”, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent NO. 5896491 “Englefield”.
Claim 11:
Meltzer, Masuda, Leong, Scriven, and Ingman teach the method as claimed in claim 8.
Meltzer, Masuda, Leong, Scriven, and Ingman may not explicitly teach
wherein the GUI comprises one or more selection regions each comprises a wildcard cell, wherein selection of the wildcard cell specifies selection of all the cells in the corresponding one or more selection regions.
However, Englefield teaches
wherein the GUI comprises one or more selection regions each comprises a wildcard cell, wherein selection of the wildcard cell specifies selection of all the cells in the corresponding one or more selection regions (i.e. Col. 15 lines 50-53, “he selecting of a row or column title can be deemed equivalent to selecting all values in that row or column”, wherein the wildcard cell is equivalent to a row or column title).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the GUI comprises one or more selection regions each comprises a wildcard cell, wherein selection of the wildcard cell specifies selection of all the cells in the corresponding one or more selection regions, to Meltzer-Masuda-Leong-Scriven-Ingman’s column and row titles, with how selection of a column or row title results in the selection of an entire column or row as taught by Englefield. One would have been motivated to combine Englefield with Meltzer-Masuda-Leong-Scriven-Ingman and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a more convenient way for users to a range of values.
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20140310045 “Meltzer”, in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20070147178 “Masuda”, in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20150370469 “Leong”, in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20150205509 “Scriven”, and further in light of U.S. Patent NO. 7451098 “Ingman”, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20070180392 “Russo”.
Claim 15:
Meltzer, Masuda, Leong, Scriven, and Ingman teach the method as claimed in claim 8.
Evans further teaches wherein a time selection region of the GUI comprises a minute selection region, wherein the minute selection region comprises the independently selectable minute cells corresponding to the plurality of minutes (i.e. it is noted at Fig. 11 that the clock processor may select each independently selectable minute tick mark within the standard clock interface).
Meltzer, Masuda, Leong, Scriven, and Ingman may not explicitly teach
wherein one or more frequently used independently selectable minute cells have a first selectable area that is greater than a second selectable area of other independently selectable minute cells present in the plurality of independently selectable minute cells.
However, Russo teaches
wherein one or more frequently used independently selectable (i.e. para. [0031], Fig 3, “as the user in the above example continues to select option B 206 more often than the other available options, the appearance of the menu 200 will adjust to provide a greater area in which option B may be chosen”, wherein a more frequently used option B has a larger selectable area than other options A, C, and D).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein one or more frequently used independently selectable minute cells have a first selectable area that is greater than a second selectable area of other independently selectable minute cells present in the plurality of independently selectable minute cells, Meltzer-Masuda-Leong-Scriven-Ingman’s minute selection region, with how frequently selected user options are displayed in a larger area as taught by Russo. One would have been motivated to combine the display of more frequently used and independently selectable cell options of Russo with Meltzer-Masuda-Leong-Scriven-Ingman which teach independently selectable minute cells and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a more convenient way for users to select their commonly selected options.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 DAVID H TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7433. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Cesar Paula can be reached at (571) 272-4128. 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.
/D.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2145
/CESAR B PAULA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2145