DETAILED ACTION
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 in responsive to communication(s):
RCE with amendment filed on 6/10/2025.
Application filed on 9/30/2022 with effective filing date of 8/31/2021 based on PCT application PCT/CN2021/115662.
The status of the claims is summarized as below:
Claims 1-8, 11-14, 16-21 are pending.
Claims 1, 16, and 17 are independent claims.
In the amendment, claims 1-2, 5-6, 11, 13-14, 16-17, 20-21 are amended.
Claims 9-10 are cancelled; claim 15 was previously cancelled.
The claim objections to claim 13-14, 20-21 are respectfully withdrawn in light of the amendment filed on 6/10/2025.
The claims rejections to claims 1-14, 16-21 based on USC § 112(a) and USC § 112(b) are respectfully withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims filed on 6/10/2025.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the amendment made to claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 11, 9, 13-14, 16-17, 20-21 in the amendment filed on 6/10/2025.
The claim objections to claim 13-14, 20-21 are respectfully withdrawn in light of the amendment filed on 6/10/2025.
The claims rejections to claims 1-14, 16-21 based on USC § 112(a) and USC § 112(b) are respectfully withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims filed on 6/10/2025.
The examiner notes claims 13 and 20 include changes not shown by markings, i.e. claim 13 recites “… updating the option array according to the option data to be selected corresponding to the form item identifier …” (emphasis added). Claim 20 includes similar unmarked but amended limitation as claim 13. The examiner advises to include markings for all changes made to the claims in future filings according to 37 C.F.R. 1.121 (c).
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are directed to newly amended language which is now rejected in light of new ground of rejection with newly cited portion from previously cited art An.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 6, 8, 18 is/are objected to because of the following informalities (all emphasis added by examiner):
Per claim 6, claim 6 depends from claims 1-5, and recites “… moving the first option data from the first definition variable of the selection box component to a second definition variable of an option component using the component function … ”, where there is another “second definition variable” recited in claim 1 “wherein the second definition variable is used to store the selected option data”. It appears the “second definition variable” recited in claim 6 serves the same function as that is recited in claim 1, and appears to be the same second definition variable. For the purpose examination, within the context of the claim, the second definition variable from claim 6 is interpreted as the same second definition variable recited in claim 1.
Per claim 8, claim 8 depends from claims 1-7, and recites “… displaying, the option content in the second option data in a selection control of the new form item”, where there is no aforementioned option content in the second option data in all the ancestral claims. The limitation is interpreted as “… displaying, an option content in the second option data in a selection control of the new form item”.
Per claim 18, claim 18 depend from claim 17, and recites “… assign the option to a first definition variable of the selection box component, wherein the first definition variable is used to store the option data to be selected”, where there is already an aforementioned ”first definition variable” in claim 1 – “… wherein the third option data is stored in a first definition variable as an option data to be selected, wherein the first definition variable is used to store at least one option data to be selected”. The examiner interprets claim 18 similarly to the amended claim 2 for the purpose of the examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 of this title, 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) 1-8, 11, 13-14, 16-18, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Avidor et al. (US Pub 20160350839, hereinafter Avidor), in view of “The element select drop-down option removes the added option” by An, Kexin (April 30, 2021, NPL dated 3/24/2023 in file wrapper from IDS filed on 3/24/2023, also accessible through URL: https://blog.csdn.net/Angie0101/article/details/116296000, hereinafter An).
Per claim 1, Avidor teaches:
A method for data display, comprising:
generating an original form item (combo box with ascending/descending selector from Fig. 3A, also see Fig. 3B-3C), wherein the original form item comprises a selection control (combo box with arrow from Fig. 3A), the selection control is associated with an option list, and the option list comprises an option data to be selected; ([0053-0054] Fig. 3A-3C each shows an original form item, where Fig. 3B shows the form item with a selection control of a combo box, which is associated with an option list comprising of different option data; furthermore, Fig. 3A-3C illustrate the first combo box on the left include a list of unselected/to be selected option data);
displaying, in response to receiving a selection operation for a first option data in the option list, the first option data on a user page; ([0053-0054] Fig. 3C shows the user has selected an option data of “Price” in the first/left column, which is displayed as the first option data on a user page);
removing the first option data from the option list and updating the option list, wherein selected option data is not repeated in the selection control; and ([0053-0054] Fig. 3C shows after “Price” is selected in the first column, the option list for the combo box in the first as well as the second column was updated to remove “Price” from the option list, so that the item “Price” is not repeated in the list of unselected/to be selected option data);
displaying, in response to receiving a selection operation for a second option data in the option list, the second option data on the user page; ( [0053-0054] Fig. 3C shows after user selection of “Review Score” in the second column, it’s being displayed as the selected option).
Although Avidor shows option data being selected is removed from the option list and the option list is updated (Fig. 3C) after the user selection of a particular option data, where the option data being selected is not repeated in the selection control (Fig. 3C), Avidor does not explicitly teach replacing the first option data in the original form item and utilizing a first definition variable for storing option data to be selected, and a second definition variable for storing selected option data:
triggering a component function used to listen to the selection control of the original form item in response to receiving a replacement operation for the first option data, and receiving a third option data passed in, wherein the third option data is stored in a first definition variable as an option data to be selected, wherein the first definition variable is used to store at least one option data to be selected;
moving the third option data from the first definition variable to the a second definition variable using the component function, wherein the second definition variable is used to store the selected option data, and the third option data is stored as the selected option data;
displaying an option content in the third option data in the selection control of the original form item; and
moving the first option data from the second definition variable to the first definition variable using the component function, wherein the first option data is stored in the first definition variable as an option data to be selected.
However, An teaches an implementation for operating a list of selectable drop-down options (form item), that can be added and deleted, where after option for each row is selected (page 1 middle), the drop down options are dynamically updated to remove the selected option from the list:
triggering a component function used to listen to the selection control of the original form item in response to receiving a replacement operation for the first option data, and receiving a third option data passed in, (page 1 bottom: “@change” function (component function) is used to listen to any user operation on the list of selectable drop-down options, i.e. changing/replacing selected option, add/delete row; selected option for first row on page 5 differs(replaced) from selected option for first row on page 9; also see page 2/page6 code with @change) wherein the third option data is stored in a first definition variable as an option data to be selected, wherein the first definition variable is used to store at least one option data to be selected; (page 1 bottom: the list of selected goods ownership entities can be stored in an array of added options, while the options that have not been added (to be selected) can be filtered from an initial list of all entities, and assign to an variable (first definition variable); also see code from page 6-7 “ownerCompanyOpts”);
moving the third option data from the first definition variable to the a second definition variable using the component function, wherein the second definition variable is used to store the selected option data, and the third option data is stored as the selected option data; (page 1 bottom; algorithm stores the selected options in an array variable of added options (second definition variable), when a new option is selected, @change (component function) is triggered to evaluate the list of all entities to store selected options in one variable, and unselected options to another variable; also see code from page 6-7 “existIds” for storing already added options);
displaying an option content in the third option data in the selection control of the original form item; and (Page 9 shows the selected option on the first row has replaced the original option of the first row from page 5)
moving the first option data from the second definition variable to the first definition variable using the component function, wherein the first option data is stored in the first definition variable as an option data to be selected. (page 1 bottom; algorithm stores the selected options in an array variable of added options (second definition variable), when a new option is selected, @change (component function) is triggered to evaluate the list of all entities to store selected options in one variable (second definition variable), and unselected options to another variable (first definition variable), effectively moving the replaced first option data from the selected options array/second definition variable to the unselected options array/first definition variable via the @change function; also see code from page 6-7).
An and Avidor are analogous art because An also teaches methods of displaying selectable options with a selection control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Avidor and An before him/her, to modify the teachings of Avidor to include the teachings of An so that an alternative form of option selection is made available such that selected option in each selection control can be replaced, and the unselected option list dynamically updated with two variables storing selected and unselected options. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide an alternative way of presenting option selections, which would offer users with more choices for UI presentation, and better user experiences.
Per claim 2, Avidor-An teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the method further comprises:
obtaining an option array of a selection box component, wherein the option array comprises an option identifier and an option content; and (An: page 6-7: page 7 code segment shows “companyArr” array is used to hold a list of unselected option array; page 6 top code segment shows items/options in the array includes value (option identifier) and label (option content));
assigning the option array to the first definition variable of the selection box component. (An: page 6-7: page 7 code segment shows the option array called “companyArr” is assigned to the “ownerCompanyOpts” variable (first definition variable)).
Per claim 3, Avidor-An teach all the limitations of claim 2, and further teach:
wherein the generating the original form item comprises:
setting an attribute value of the selection box component to enable the option data to be selected in the option array to comprise both the option identifier and the option content; (An page 6-7: code segment shows selection box/control comprises of array called “ownerCompanyOpts”, which is set to be an array of “items” that comprises both of “value” (option identifier) and “label” (option content);
setting an initial value of the option identifier; and (An page 7: code segment shows selection control options are initialized in “getCompanyId” method that assigns initial value of option identifier for each option);
generating the original form item by rendering the user page according to the initial value of the option identifier, and displaying the option content in the selection control of the original form item. (An page 1 top figure shows a list of selection controls where top two controls shows selected option contents, and third selection control shows unselected option content).
Per claim 4, Avidor-An teach all the limitations of claim 3, and further teach:
wherein the displaying, in response to receiving the selection operation for the first option data in the option list, the first option data on the user page, comprises:
displaying the option content in the first option data in the selection control of the original form item. (An page 1 middle figure shows a list of selectable options for the third selection control current being opened/selected by the user).
Per claim 5, Avidor-An teach all the limitations of claim 4, and further teach:
wherein, the method further comprises:
triggering the component function used to listen to the selection control of the original form item and receiving the first option data passed in. (An page 1 bottom @change function is triggered when the user operates on the selection control of the form item; page 1 bottom, page 6-7: function “existOps” is called by the @change function, which shows option data being populated, and “existIds” being checked for current option data selected; page 9 shows third selection control receiving an option data selected by the user).
Per claim 6, Avidor-An teach all the limitations of claim 5, and further teach:
wherein the removing the first option data from the option list and updating the option list comprises:
moving the first option data from the first definition variable of the selection box component to a second definition variable of an option component using the component function, and updating the option list according to the first definition variable, wherein the second definition variable is used to store the option data being selected. (An page 1 bottom: user operations on selection control triggers the @change function which calls “existOps”; page 6-7 further shows code segments that stores selected options in “existIds” array, and unselected options in “ownerCompanyOpts”, where once an option is no longer selected, it is stored/moved to “ownerCompanyOpts” array (second definition variable), while “existOps” stores the newly selected option).
Per claim 7, Avidor-An teach all the limitations of claim 6, and further teach:
wherein the method further comprises:
adding, in response to receiving an adding instruction for a form item, new option data with an option identifier of null value in the option array; and (Avidor [0053-0054] Fig. 3C shows an user selection of an “And”(add) instruction to add a third combo box/form item, where the option data/option identifier is shown as “None”/null value in the option array);
displaying the new option data on the user page and generating a new form item. (Avidor [0053-0054] Fig. 3C shows the first two combo box with “Price” and “Review Score” as the option data displayed on the user page, and “None” as the new option data in a third combo box as the new from item).
Per claim 8, Avidor-An teach all the limitations of claim 7, and further teach:
wherein the displaying, in response to receiving the selection operation for the second option data in the option list, the second option data on the user page, comprises:
displaying, the option content in the second option data in a selection control of the new form item. (Avidor [0053-0054] Fig. 3C shows a second combo box displaying “Review Score” as the second option data in a selection control on the new form item added from Fig. 3B).
Per claim 11, Avidor-An teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the moving the first option data from the second definition variable to the first definition variable using the component function comprises:
storing the first option data into an indefinite array according to the option identifier in the first option data; (An page 6-7 include code segments that shows previously selected option is saved in “existIds” (indefinite array) of “item” which include option identifier of the selected option data);
determining a length of the indefinite array by traversing the second definition variable; and moving the first option data from the second definition variable to the first definition variable according to the length of the indefinite array. (An page 6-7 each element of the “existIds”(second definition variable) is traversed to determine if the selected options should be included in the array of “ownerCompanyOpts” (first definition variable), if an option is unselected, it is effectively moved from the second definition variable to the first definition variable based on the list/length of second definition variable).
Per claim 13, Avidor-An teach all the limitations of claim 2, and further teach:
wherein the method further comprises:
deleting, in response to receiving a deletion instruction for a form item, according to a form item identifier included in the deletion instruction, the option data in the option array corresponding to the form item identifier; (Avidor [0057-0058] user can reduce or increase the number of multivariate objects which are selected for ordering; Fig. 4 shows a “x” sign next to the selected filters of “Score” and “Popularity rank”);
updating the option array according to the option data to be selected; and (Avidor [0057-0058] Fig. 3A-3C shows each combo box is updated according to the previous selection made; user can add or reduce the number of object variants);
displaying the option array on the user page. (Avidor [0057-0058] Fig. 3A-3C shows each combo box is updated according to the previous selection made; user can add or reduce the number of object variants).
Per claim 14, Avidor-An teach all the limitations of claim 2, and further teach:
wherein the method further comprises:
generating a target sequence by sorting the option data selected in the option array; and (Avidor [0053-0054, 0063] Fig. 3C shows a list of option data selected in each combo box, where they are added to the ordered list of multivariate objects based on weights/ranking; also see Fig. 4 each tab is a selected option data in the option array);
outputting the target sequence to a terminal device. (Avidor [0063] the ordered list of multivariate objects are used as ranked filters for the web page; Fig. 3C shows an output of the target sequence of the selected option data; also see Fig. 4 each tab is a selected option data in the option array).
Per claim 16, claim 16 is a medium claim (Avidor [0035-0036] medium) that includes limitations that are substantially the same as claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
Per claim 17, claim 17 is a system claim comprising a processor (Avidor [0040] computer with processor) and a memory (Avidor [0040] computer with storage medium) that includes limitations that are substantially the same as claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
Per claim 18, 20-21, claims 18, 20-21 include limitations that are substantially the same as claims 2, 13-14 respectively, and are likewise rejected.
Claims 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Avidor, in view of An, and Legris (US Pub 20130104063, hereinafter Legris).
Per claim 12, Avidor-An teach all the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches:
wherein the method further comprises:
…
updating the option array according to the option data to be selected; and (An page 6-7: code segments show that the unselected options are updated dynamically upon any user option on the selection control based on the list of currently selected options);
displaying the option array on the user page. (An page 1 top figure shows the list of currently selected options (option array) in the list of selection controls).
However, Avidor-An do not explicitly teach the form item/combo box is movable by the user; Legris teaches:
moving, in response to receiving a movement instruction for a form item, according to a form item identifier included in the movement instruction, the option data to be selected in the option array corresponding to the form item identifier; ([0081-0082] Fig. 5a-5d teaches changing the order of filtering product characteristics, where “Final Price” is moved from the 3rd position to the 1st position, based on the position/form item identifier, to adjust ranking of product characteristics);
… .
Legris and Avidor-An are analogous art because Legris also teaches methods of specifying filtering options in a search web page. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Avidor-An and Legris before him/her, to modify the teachings of Avidor-An to include the teachings of Legris so that ranking of each option data can be adjusted by the user through GUI. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide intuitive ways for the users to adjust ranking/weights of each filtering option through GUI, such as drag and drop.
Per claim 19, claim 19 includes limitations that are substantially the same as claim 12, and is likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US Patents & Publications
US 8548973 B1
Kritt; Barry A. et al.
Method for filtering web search results, such as finding electronic files, involves receiving input from user indicating selected attribute value for filtering web search results based on selected attribute value for display to user
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support by shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections, See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHOEBE X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7794. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034. 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.
/PHOEBE X PAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/TUYETLIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179