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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 12/19/2022. Claims 1-9 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 5-9 are independent claims.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation of the claim 7 such as “and cause a computer to function as” should be removed for clarity like the other similar independent claim 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1 and 6-9 are corresponding to one of four statutory categories including method, system, and method respectively under step 1. The claims 1, 8 and 9 similarly recite “a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing executable instructions which when executed by one or more processors of a computer, causes the computer to: edit first structure information designating a display structure of an application having a plurality of functions and a function to be used from the plurality of functions, and first content information to be used on the display structure of the application designated on a basis of the first structure information; distribute the first structure information and the first content information to a first terminal on which the application is operated, and distribute a second structure information specifying a display structure of the application and a function to be used from the plurality of functions and second content information displayed on a display structure of the application specified on a basis of the second structure information to a second terminal on which the application is operated; and carry out notification processing of notifying the first terminal of notification content information, in response to reception of a test notification request together with the notification content information from an outside”.
Claim 6 recites “a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing executable instructions which when executed by one or more processors of a computer, causes the computer to: store a display structure of an application having a plurality of functions, select and execute a function to be used from the plurality of functions on a basis of received structure information, use a content used on the display structure of the application designated on a basis of the structure information on a basis of received content information upon reception of a notification, request and acquire structure information and content information of an application associated with the notification from an outside; and execute the application associated with the notification on a basis of the structure information and the content information acquired”.
Claim 7 recites “a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing executable instructions which when executed by one or more processors of a computer, causes the computer to: store a display structure of an application having a plurality of functions, select and execute a function to be used from the plurality of functions on a basis of received structure information, use a content used on the display structure of the application designated on a basis of the structure information on a basis of received content information, and cause a computer to function as: at the time of first startup, request and acquire structure information and content information of an application, as well as latest notification content information from the outside; and after the notification content information is subjected to display processing, execute the application on a basis of the structure information and the content information acquired”.
The limitation of the claims 1, 8 and 9 of “edit first structure information designating a display structure of an application having a plurality of functions and a function to be used from the plurality of functions, and first content information to be used on the display structure of the application designated on a basis of the first structure information” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “editing information (changing/modifying value)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may write first structure information designating a display structure of an application having a plurality of functions and a function to be used from the plurality of functions, and first content information to be used on the display structure of the application designated on a basis of the first structure information with a pen and paper or in a human mind. Since the par 15 of the spec describes “a structure on display (hereinafter may also be referred to as a "display structure") including a layout, coloring, arrangement of functions, and the like is designated”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 6 and 7 of “select … a function to be used from the plurality of functions on a basis of received structure information” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “selecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may select a function to be used from the plurality of functions on a basis of received structure information with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 8 and 9 recite additional elements such as “execute a function to be used from the plurality of functions on a basis of received structure information”
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 8 and 9 recite additional elements such as “distribute the first structure information and the first content information to a first terminal on which the application is operated”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data outputting under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 8 and 9 recite additional elements such as “distribute a second structure information specifying a display structure of the application and a function to be used from the plurality of functions and second content information displayed on a display structure of the application specified on a basis of the second structure information to a second terminal on which the application is operated”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data outputting under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 8 and 9 recite additional elements such as “carry out notification processing of notifying the first terminal of notification content information, in response to reception of a test notification request together with the notification content information from an outside”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data outputting under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 9 recites additional elements such as “a first terminal configured to execute an application having a plurality of functions; a second terminal configured to execute the application and an information processing device comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 6 and 7 recite additional elements such as “store a display structure of an application having a plurality of functions”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data storing under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 6 and 7 recite additional elements such as “use a content used on the display structure of the application designated on a basis of the structure information on a basis of received content information upon reception of a notification”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data outputting under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 6 and 7 recite additional elements such as “request and acquire structure information and content information of an application associated with the notification from an outside”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 6 and 7 recite additional elements such as “after the notification content information is subjected to display processing: execute the application associated with the notification on a basis of the structure information and the content information acquired”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claim 2 of “in response to reception of a reflection request from the outside, reflect the edited first structure information and the edited first content information in the second structure information and the second content information” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “reflecting the editing (writing information with the changes)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may reflect the edited first structure information and the edited first content information in the second structure information and the second content information with a pen and paper or in a human mind. Since the par 15 of the spec describes “a structure on display (hereinafter may also be referred to as a "display structure") including a layout, coloring, arrangement of functions, and the like is designated”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 2 recites additional elements such as “wherein notification processing is carried out by notifying at least the second terminal registered in advance of the notification content information, in response to reception of an actual notification request from the outside”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 3 recites additional elements such as “wherein the notification content information includes a link to the first structure information and/or the first content information”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 4 recites additional elements such as “wherein notification processing is carried out by notifying at least the second terminal registered in advance of the notification content information upon reception of the actual notification request together with the notification content information from the outside”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-4 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-4 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US PGPub 20090164921), in view of McKee (US Patent 7469272).
As per Claim 1, Wagner teaches of a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing executable instructions which when executed by one or more processors of a computer, causes the computer to: edit first structure information designating a display structure of an application having a plurality of functions and a function to be used from the plurality of functions, and first content information to be used on the display structure of the application designated on a basis of the first structure information; (Fig. 4 and par 60-61, FIG. 4 is a screen shot 400 illustrating a table layout editing view according to an example embodiment. As shown in the example of FIG. 4, a user may specify the layout of an HTML table that may be included in a text element. After the selection, the user may generate the corresponding HTML source code via the button "Generate Source Code" 402. For example, general attributes 406 may include alignment, border (in pixels), background color, cell padding, cell spacing, or width (in %), [layout or structure editing] as shown in FIG. 4.)
distribute the first structure information and the first content information to a first terminal on which the application is operated, and (Par 66, “FIG. 8 is a flow diagram 800 illustrating a flow of layout [structure] specification and content specification associated with a personalized data item table according to an example embodiment. Par 68, FIG. 9 is a block diagram illustrating relationships among layout specification, content specification, and table preview associated with a personalized data item table according to an example embodiment. As shown in FIG. 9, the table preview 812 may generate a test view [second terminal], or preview 906 [a first terminal] of the data item table, e.g., a product table, so that a user may determine whether further modifications may need to be made, for example, before using the data item table or product table for a communication item.” Thus, the first terminal in Fig. 9 displays the layout [structure] of the data items [contents] such as product Id and description as they are distributed.)
distribute a second structure information specifying a display structure of the application and a function to be used from the plurality of functions and second content information displayed on a display structure of the application specified on a basis of the second structure information to a second terminal on which the application is operated; and (Fig. 6 and Par 64-65, “FIG. 6 is a screen shot 600 illustrating an example test view [a second terminal for testing the updates of the application layout/structure] associated with a table layout according to an example embodiment. In the example of FIG. 5, a dynamically generated preview of a product table is shown as a popup. Thus, after every change, a user may obtain a preview to determine how the table will appear in a sent message, i.e., the user may determine how the formatting attributes will appear with the described content. As shown in the example preview 602 of FIG. 6, headers 604 may include product ID, description, category ID, and category description 1.” “FIG. 7 is a screen shot 700 illustrating a test message 700 according to an example embodiment. According to an example embodiment, a user may preview a product table to verify the layout of a defined product table, as discussed previously.“ Thus, the examiner interprets that the contents as product ID, description and etc. the displaying layout of those contents such as width, spacing and heights can be structural information to be transmitted to the second terminal (test view in Fig. 6) for testing)
Wagner does not specifically teach, however McKee teaches to carry out notification processing of notifying the first terminal of notification content information, in response to reception of a test notification request together with the notification content information from an outside. (Col 5, lines 10-15, The test notifications of the present invention are used to determine if actual notifications would be delivered under present conditions. In other words, the test notifications are intended to provide an indication of whether a user is currently available for receiving notifications. Col 14, lines 53-57, FIGS. 11-14 are directed to the evaluation of test notifications. As will be described in more detail below, in accordance with one aspect of the present invention the test notifications can be utilized by any program to obtain information [notification content information] about the current state of a user context. Col 2, lines 46-58, “The user context system brokers and serializes the delivery of notifications from multiple sources”. Claim 1, “receiving a test notification, the test notification comprising elements that correspond an actual notification for potential output outputting to a user on a computer, the test notification for determining how the actual notification would be output by the user's computer given a current context of the computer and pre-determined user-defined rules without outputting the actual notification,” It’s obvious that the test notification and the notification content information can come from an outside.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add to carry out notification processing of notifying the first terminal of notification content information, in response to reception of a test notification request together with the notification content information from an outside, as conceptually seen from the teaching of McKee, into that of Wagner because this modification can help test the application with the content information and the structure information to see if the changes made via a terminal or GUI is being reflected correctly with the test notification.
As per Claim 5, Wagner teaches of a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing executable instructions which when executed by one or more processors of a computer, causes the computer to: store structure information designating a display structure of an application having a plurality of functions and a function to be used from the plurality of functions, content information to be used on the display structure of the application designated on a basis of the structure information, and (Par 24, generating a test view associated with the personalized data item table, the test view including a graphical representation of the data item attribute information displayed in accordance with the table layout information. For example, the test view may include a view of a designed table that is shown based on background colors, borders, and fonts specified in the table layout information, and may include a view of the data item attribute information formatted in accordance with the table layout information. For example, the test view may include a view indicating that a product ID and product description may be included in the table at execution time, the test view including the attributes displayed in the font colors, borders, and other layout information as obtained by the test view generator 112. Par 61, As discussed previously, attributes may be obtained, for example, from a user. For example, general attributes 406 [structural information about structurally displaying the data] may include alignment, border (in pixels), background color, cell padding, cell spacing, or width (in %), as shown in FIG. 4.)
distribute the structure information and the content information to a terminal on which the application is operated in a case where the terminal on which the application is operated starts the application for a first time; and (Par 66, “FIG. 8 is a flow diagram 800 illustrating a flow of layout [structure] specification and content specification associated with a personalized data item table according to an example embodiment. Par 68, FIG. 9 is a block diagram illustrating relationships among layout specification, content specification, and table preview associated with a personalized data item table according to an example embodiment. As shown in FIG. 9, the table preview 812 may generate a test view [second terminal], or preview 906 [a terminal starting an application for the first time] of the data item table, e.g., a product table, so that a user may determine whether further modifications may need to be made, for example, before using the data item table or product table for a communication item.” Thus, the first terminal in Fig. 9 displays the layout [structure] of the data items [contents] such as product Id and description as they are distributed)
Wagner does not specifically teach, however McKee teaches of notification content information notified to the application in the past; carry out notification processing of notifying the terminal of the notification content information. (Col 5, lines 10-15, The test notifications of the present invention are used to determine if actual notifications would be delivered under present conditions. In other words, the test notifications are intended to provide an indication of whether a user is currently available for receiving notifications. Col 14, lines 53-57, FIGS. 11-14 are directed to the evaluation of test notifications. As will be described in more detail below, in accordance with one aspect of the present invention the test notifications can be utilized by any program to obtain information [notification content information] about the current state of a user context. Col 2, lines 46-58, “The user context system brokers and serializes the delivery of notifications from multiple sources”. Claim 1, “receiving a test notification, the test notification comprising elements that correspond an actual notification for potential output outputting to a user on a computer, the test notification for determining how the actual notification would be output by the user's computer given a current context of the computer and pre-determined user-defined rules without outputting the actual notification,” It’s obvious that the notification is notified to the application as part of testing in the past.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add notification content information notified to the application in the past; carry out notification processing of notifying the terminal of the notification content information, as conceptually seen from the teaching of McKee, into that of Wagner because this modification can help test the application with the content information and the structure information to see if the changes made via a terminal or GUI is being reflected correctly with the test notification.
As per Claim 6. Wagner teaches of a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing executable instructions which when executed by one or more processors of a computer, causes the computer to: store a display structure of an application having a plurality of functions, select and execute a function to be used from the plurality of functions on a basis of received structure information, use a content used on the display structure of the application designated on a basis of the structure information on a basis of received content information, (Par 24, generating a test view associated with the personalized data item table, the test view including a graphical representation of the data item attribute information displayed in accordance with the table layout information. For example, the test view may include a view of a designed table that is shown based on background colors, borders, and fonts specified in the table layout information, and may include a view of the data item attribute information formatted in accordance with the table layout information. For example, the test view may include a view indicating that a product ID and product description may be included in the table at execution time, the test view including the attributes displayed in the font colors, borders, and other layout information as obtained by the test view generator 112. Par 61, As discussed previously, attributes may be obtained, for example, from a user. For example, general attributes 406 [structural information about structurally displaying the data] may include alignment, border (in pixels), background color, cell padding, cell spacing, or width (in %), as shown in FIG. 4.)
Wagner does not specifically teach, however McKee teaches to upon reception of a notification, request and acquire structure information and content information of an application associated with the notification from an outside; and execute the application associated with the notification on a basis of the structure information and the content information acquired. (Col 5, lines 10-15, The test notifications of the present invention are used to determine if actual notifications would be delivered under present conditions. In other words, the test notifications are intended to provide an indication of whether a user is currently available for receiving notifications. Col 14, lines 53-57, FIGS. 11-14 are directed to the evaluation of test notifications. As will be described in more detail below, in accordance with one aspect of the present invention the test notifications can be utilized by any program to obtain information [notification content information] about the current state of a user context. Col 2, lines 46-58, “The user context system brokers and serializes the delivery of notifications from multiple sources”. Claim 1, “receiving a test notification, the test notification comprising elements that correspond an actual notification for potential output outputting to a user on a computer, the test notification for determining how the actual notification would be output by the user's computer given a current context of the computer and pre-determined user-defined rules without outputting the actual notification,” It’s obvious that the test notification and the notification content information can come from an outside and used to execute the application with in order to test the application.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add upon reception of a notification, request and acquire structure information and content information of an application associated with the notification from an outside; and execute the application associated with the notification on a basis of the structure information and the content information acquired, as conceptually seen from the teaching of McKee, into that of Wagner because this modification can help test the application with the content information and the structure information to see if the changes made via a terminal or GUI is being reflected correctly with the test notification.
As per Claim 7, Wagner teaches of a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing executable instructions which when executed by one or more processors of a computer, causes the computer to: store a display structure of an application having a plurality of functions, select and execute a function to be used from the plurality of functions on a basis of received structure information, use a content used on the display structure of the application designated on a basis of the structure information on a basis of received content information, and cause a computer to function as: (Fig. 4 and par 60-61, FIG. 4 is a screen shot 400 illustrating a table layout editing view according to an example embodiment. As shown in the example of FIG. 4, a user may specify the layout of an HTML table that may be included in a text element. After the selection, the user may generate the corresponding HTML source code via the button "Generate Source Code" 402. For example, general attributes 406 may include alignment, border (in pixels), background color, cell padding, cell spacing, or width (in %), [layout or structure editing] as shown in FIG. 4.)
Wagner does not specifically teach, however McKee teaches at the time of first startup, request and acquire structure information and content information of an application, as well as latest notification content information from the outside; and after the notification content information is subjected to display processing, execute the application on a basis of the structure information and the content information acquired. (Col 5, lines 10-15, The test notifications of the present invention are used to determine if actual notifications would be delivered under present conditions. In other words, the test notifications are intended to provide an indication of whether a user is currently available for receiving notifications. Col 14, lines 53-57, FIGS. 11-14 are directed to the evaluation of test notifications. As will be described in more detail below, in accordance with one aspect of the present invention the test notifications can be utilized by any program to obtain information [notification content information] about the current state of a user context. Col 2, lines 46-58, “The user context system brokers and serializes the delivery of notifications from multiple sources”. Claim 1, “receiving a test notification, the test notification comprising elements that correspond an actual notification for potential output outputting to a user on a computer, the test notification for determining how the actual notification would be output by the user's computer given a current context of the computer and pre-determined user-defined rules without outputting the actual notification,” It’s obvious that the test notification and the notification content information can come from an outside and used to execute the application with the content information and structural information in order to test the application.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add at the time of first startup, request and acquire structure information and content information of an application, as well as latest notification content information from the outside; and after the notification content information is subjected to display processing, execute the application on a basis of the structure information and the content information acquired, as conceptually seen from the teaching of McKee, into that of Wagner because this modification can help test the application with the content information and the structure information to see if the changes made via a terminal or GUI is being reflected correctly with the test notification.
Re Claim 8, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 8 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Re Claim 9, it is another system claim, containing similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Wagner further teaches of the following claim limitations, not specifically cited in the claim 1: a first terminal configured to execute an application having a plurality of functions; (Par 18, FIG. 9 is a block diagram illustrating relationships among layout specification, content specification, and table preview [a first terminal] associated with a personalized data item table according to an example embodiment. Par 79, To provide for interaction with a user, implementations may be implemented on a computer having a display device, e.g., a cathode ray tube (CRT) or liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor, for displaying information to the user and a keyboard and a pointing device, e.g., a mouse or a trackball, by which the user can provide input to the computer.)
a second terminal configured to execute the application and (Par 29, the test view generator 112 may be configured to generate the test view associated with the personalized data item table, the test view [2nd terminal] including a graphical representation of the data item attribute information displayed in accordance with the table layout information, based on retrieving and processing the table layout information and the data item attribute information.)
an information processing device comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Par 8, According to yet another aspect, a computer program product may be tangibly embodied on a computer-readable medium, and may be configured to cause a data processing apparatus [information processing device] to obtain table layout information associated with a personalized data item table from a first data source,)
8. Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US PGPub 20090164921), in view of McKee (US Patent 7469272), and further in view of Mitsuya (US PGPub 20140075472).
As per Claim 2, Wagner teaches of the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 1 further causing the computer to: in response to reception of a reflection request from the outside, reflect the edited first structure information and the edited first content information in the second structure information and the second content information, (Par 32 and 50, According to an example embodiment, the personalized table manager 102 may include a test view update generator 120 configured to generate an updated test view associated with the personalized data item table, the updated test view including a graphical representation of the data item attribute information displayed in accordance with the updated table layout information. For example, the table layout update manager 118 may obtain updated table layout information via a table layout user interface application, as discussed previously. Par 51, According to an example embodiment, the method may further include obtaining updated data item attribute information [reflecting the updates] via a data item attribute user interface application, and generating an updated test view associated with the personalized table, the updated test view including a graphical representation of the updated data item attribute information displayed in accordance with the table layout information. For example, the data item attribute information update manager 122 may obtain updated data item attribute information via a data item attribute user interface application, as discussed previously. For example, the test view update generator 120 may generate an updated test view associated with the personalized data item table, the updated test view including a graphical representation of the data item attribute information displayed in accordance with the updated information, as discussed previously.)
Neither Wagner nor McKee specifically teaches, however Mitsuya teaches of wherein notification processing is carried out by notifying at least the second terminal registered in advance of the notification content information, in response to reception of an actual notification request from the outside. (Par 10 and 341, The above receiver may further include: a registration request transmission unit configured to transmit to an application management server, a registration request for registering reception of the notification data, par 11, a registration request reception unit configured to receive from the terminal device, a registration request for registering transmission of notification data, and update the terminal management table storage unit based on the registration request; Par 327, The registration request reception unit 905 receives from an external device (the receiver 4 or the terminal device 808), a registration request for registering transmission of the notification data Based on the registration request, the registration request reception unit 905 updates the terminal management table storage unit 904 in Fig. 23. Par 330, As shown in FIG. 23, the terminal management table is data [content information] in table format and includes items of: an application ID; a terminal device ID (terminal device identification data); an address; a notification transmission flag; and a user attribute.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add that notification processing is carried out by notifying at least the second terminal registered in advance of the notification content information, in response to reception of an actual notification request from the outside, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Mitsuya, into that of Wagner and McKee because this modification can help change the application with the updated content information and the updated structure information via a terminal or GUI with the actual notifications.
As per Claim 4, neither Wagner nor McKee specifically teaches, however Mitsuya teaches of the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 1, wherein notification processing is carried out by notifying at least the second terminal registered in advance of the notification content information upon reception of the actual notification request together with the notification content information from the outside. (Par 10-11 and 341, The above receiver may further include: a registration request transmission unit configured to transmit to an application management server, a registration request for registering reception of the notification data, a registration request reception unit configured to receive from the terminal device, a registration request for registering transmission of notification data, and update the terminal management table storage unit based on the registration request; Par 327, The registration request reception unit 905 receives from an external device (the receiver 4 or the terminal device 808), a registration request for registering transmission of the notification data Based on the registration request, the registration request reception unit 905 updates the terminal management table storage unit 904 in Fig. 23. Par 330, As shown in FIG. 23, the terminal management table is data [content information] in table format and includes items of: an application ID; a terminal device ID (terminal device identification data); an address; a notification transmission flag; and a user attribute.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add that notification processing is carried out by notifying at least the second terminal registered in advance of the notification content information, in response to reception of an actual notification request from the outside, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Mitsuya, into that of Wagner and McKee because this modification can help change the application with the updated content information and the updated structure information via a terminal or GUI with the actual notifications.
9. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US PGPub 20090164921), in view of McKee (US Patent 7469272), and further in view of Orenstein (US PGPub 20140207603).
As per Claim 3, neither Wagner nor McKee specifically teaches, however Orenstein teaches of the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the notification content information includes a link to the first structure information and/or the first content information. (Par 91 and 200, In the next step, a non-system user performs an action on the received notification, to allow him to experience the notification personalization. For example, clicking on a link in the notification to view the digital content on a web site, or clicking on a link to download the needed application and become a system user.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add that the notification content information includes a link to the first structure information and/or the first content information, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Orenstein, into that of Wagner and McKee because this modification can help access the content information and/or the structure information via a link provided in the notifications.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE UK JEON whose telephone number is (571)270-3649. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/JAE U JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193