DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 10 and 14-20 are pending in the current application.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 7/16/25, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cooper et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0103750 A1) [0051] lines 11-16, [0061] lines 1-4, [0062] lines 1-13 and [0064] lines 1-15 which shows a separate program, for notification in response to event, being downloaded and installed, viewed as a type of third program, where this program is able in response to an event determine being able to register by a clock a time interval for the event, where it is able to determine based on detection of event and length of time interval associated with the event if that information matches an associated alert rule with notification the associated/matched notification is sent out, and as this information is compared with already set information, it is viewed that the notification is a predetermined notification, where the teachings of Iyigun [0012] lines 1-5, [0072] lines 1-5 and [0097] lines 1-12 which shows the specifics of the computer with the functionality to enter hibernation instead of a complete shut down in response to a shutdown operation as thus be able to be more quickly ready for user after a startup command is later received thus viewed as a type of high speed start up function as it allows for the speeding up activation of the information processing apparatus after a shutdown operation is performed when the computer in this hibernation configuration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 19 lines 6-8 recite “the control method further comprises: executing, by the one or more processors using the third program, a process of rebooting the information processing apparatus…” however it is unclear where this support comes from as in the parent claim it has the rebooting being performed by the control using the second program that is different from the third program and while the separate programs can be seen in the specifications the specifics of separate programs that each have the ability to perform the reboot of the information processing apparatus does not appear to be reflected in the claims could it have been the third program to trigger the execution of reboot or for the second program to execute the reboot appropriate clarification is required.
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 (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.
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.
Claims 1, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernardini et al. (Pub. No. US 2009/0077367 A1), in view of Cooper et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0103750 A1) in view of Liao et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0350588 A1), and further in view of Iyigun et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0144177 A1).
As to claims 1, 17 and 18, Bernardini discloses a control method of an information processing apparatus, the control method comprising: installing, by the one or more processors using a second program, a first program to which an update is not applied even in a case where the shutdown operation is performed while the high-speed start-up function is enabled and an update is applied in a case where an operation of rebooting the information processing apparatus is performed while the high-speed start-up function is enabled or in a case where the shutdown operation is performed while the high-speed start-up function is disabled, wherein the second program is different from the first program (Bernardini [0009] lines 1-13 and [0010] lines 1-8, [0017] lines 1-2, [0019] lines 2-9 and [0021] lines 1-5; which shows the installation of software, viewed as a type of first program, but that to complete the installation of the software update the software must be restarted/shutdown to complete in installation of the update, which in the case when a high speed start up function is enabled the specifics of which are seen disclosed in Iyigun below would prevent the shutdown from happening and go into hibernation instead, where if the computer does attempt to go into hibernation can but has an reboot necessary update to install can receive a command to proceed to reboot instead of going into hibernation where the embodiments to perform this functionally can be implemented as a program code, viewed as a type of second program separate from the installed first program and thus can be viewed as showing the specifics of installing, by the one or more processors using a second program, a first program to which an update is not applied even in a case where the shutdown operation is performed while the high-speed start-up function is enabled and an update is applied in a case where an operation of rebooting the information processing apparatus is performed while the high-speed start-up function is enabled or in a case where the shutdown operation is performed while the high-speed start-up function is disabled, wherein the second program is different from the first program);
performing control, by the one or more processors using the second program, to execute a process (i) of executing a predetermined notification to notify and prompt a user to reboot the information processing apparatus based on specific conditions being meet and performing control, by the one or more processors, not to execute the predetermined notification based on specific conditions (Bernardini [0003] lines 8-12, [0009] lines 1-13, [0010] lines 1-8, [0016] lines 1-10, [0017] lines 1-2 and [0019] lines 1-2; which show being able to issue notification/prompt to the user, viewed as a type of predetermined notification, to reboot the computer/information processing apparatus responsive to/based on conditions associated with determining that a reboot is needed but a reboot has not been selected/is not going to be performed but a hibernation is being performed and not issuing that prompt/notification under other conditions).
Bernardini does not specifically disclose the specifics of performing control, by the one or more processors using the second program, to execute a process (ii) installing a third program different from the first program and second program; in a case where the process (i) is executed using the second program, registering, by the one or more processors using the second program, clock time information for the third program to execute the predetermine notification in a registry of the information processing apparatus; and executing, by the one or more processors using the third program, the predetermined notification at a predetermined timing which is after execution of the process (i) using the second program and is based on the clock time information registered in the registry.
However, Cooper disclose the specifics of performing control, by the one or more processors using the second program, to execute a process (ii) installing a third program different from the first program and second program (Cooper [0051] lines 11-16, [0061] lines 1-4, [0062] lines 1-13 and [0064] lines 1-15; which shows an individual/separate program for implementing the notification in response to event, being downloaded and installed, viewed as a type of third program that is able to be downloaded/installed, thus a type of process for those actions, where in light of the teachings of Bernardini above showing the specifics of the performing control by the one or more processors using a second program that is different from a first program, execute a process can together show the specifics of performing control, by the one or more processors using the second program, to execute a process (ii) installing a third program different from the first program and second program);
in a case where the process (i) is executed using the second program, registering, by the one or more processors using the second program, clock time information for the third program to execute the predetermine notification in a registry of the information processing apparatus (Cooper [0051] lines 11-16, [0061] lines 1-4, [0062] lines 1-13 and [0064] lines 1-15; which shows an individual/separate program, for notification in response to event, viewed as a type of third program, where this program is able in response to an event determine by being able to register by a clock a time interval for the event, that in light of the teaching of Bernardini above showing the specifics of an execution process (i), viewed as a type of event, can together show in a case where the process (i) is executed using the second program, registering, by the one or more processors using the second program, clock time information for the third program to execute the predetermine notification in a registry of the information processing apparatus); and
executing, by the one or more processors using the third program, the predetermined notification at a predetermined timing which is after execution of the process (i) using the second program and is based on the clock time information registered in the registry(Cooper [0051] lines 11-16, [0061] lines 1-4, [0062] lines 1-13 and [0064] lines 1-15; which shows for the notification program in response to event, where this program is able in response to an event determine by being able to register by a clock a time interval for the event, where it is able to determine based on detection of event and length of time interval associated with the event if that information matches an associated alert rule with notification the associated/matched notification is sent out, and as this information is compared with already set information viewed as a type of predetermined notification and since it registers a specific time interval for the event can be viewed as a type of providing notification at a predetermined timing, that in light of the teachings of Bernardini above showing the specifics of an execution process (i) viewed as the type of event can together be viewed as showing executing, by the one or more processors using the third program, the predetermined notification at a predetermined timing which is after execution of the process (i) using the second program and is based on the clock time information registered in the registry).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Cooper showing the specifics of an individual program to monitor and provide notifications associated with detected events into the into the providing notification to user about needed to reboot the device under specific conditions of Bernardini for the purpose of improving performance of the system and tools by improved monitoring of the performance, as taught by Cooper [0002] lines 10-14 and [0064] lines 1-6.
Bernardini as modified by Cooper does not specifically disclose in a case where the first program is installed, displaying, by the one or more processors using the second program, a selection screen for accepting from a user a selection of rebooting the information processing apparatus or not rebooting of the information processing apparatus; performing control, by the one or more processors using the second program, to execute a process (i) of executing a predetermined notification to notify and prompt a user to reboot the information processing apparatus based on the selection of not rebooting of the information processing apparatus being made in the selection screen and the high speed start up function being enable in the information processing apparatus, performing control, by the one or more processors using the second program, not to execute the predetermined notification based on the selection of not rebooting of the information processing apparatus being made in the selection screen and the high speed start up function being not enabled in the information processing apparatus, and performing control, by the one or more processors using the second program, to reboot the information processing apparatus without executing the predetermined notification regardless of whether the high speed start up function is enable in the information processing apparatus in a case where the selection of rebooting the information processing apparatus is made in the selection screen.
However, Liao discloses in a case where the first program is installed, displaying, by the one or more processors using the second program, a selection screen for accepting from a user a selection of rebooting the information processing apparatus or not rebooting of the information processing apparatus (Liao [0053] lines 1-17 [0054] lines 1-27 and [0056] lines 1-18, [0062] lines 15-21 and [0064] lines 1-4; which shows responsive to an update, viewed as update program being installed, being able to provide a GUI window/display that can accept a user selection to reboot the computer/processing apparatus or other associated power state selections associated with the information processing apparatus/computing device thus viewed as including being able to select a rebooting or not rebooting of the computer device);
performing control, by the one or more processors using the second program, to execute a process (i) of executing a predetermined notification to notify and prompt a user to reboot the information processing apparatus based on the selection of not rebooting of the information processing apparatus being made in the selection screen and the high speed start up function being enable in the information processing apparatus, performing control, by the one or more processors using the second program, not to execute the predetermined notification based on the selection of not rebooting of the information processing apparatus being made in the selection screen and the high speed start up function being not enabled in the information processing apparatus, and performing control, by the one or more processors using the second program, to reboot the information processing apparatus without executing the predetermined notification regardless of whether the high speed start up function is enable in the information processing apparatus in a case where the selection of rebooting the information processing apparatus is made in the selection screen (Liao [0046] lines 1-19, [0054] lines 1-27, [0056] lines 1-18, [0061] lines 1-8 and [0064] lines 1-4; which shows responsive to the selection in the GUI the GUI can provide additional notification/information to the user responsive to user interaction with elements in GUI window with additional insight information provided/notified to the user tied to the update in the form of the context associated with the update including data insight correlated from application of a trained AI model that can include parameters related to application/services currently executing/active on the computing device thus being able to determine which applications/services/function are active/enabled on the device and providing specifically associated notification based on that determination thus in light of the teachings Bernardini above showing the specifics of displaying or not displaying a specific update notification based on specific conditions associated with the determination of rebooting is necessary and if hibernation is going to be performed instead can together show the ability of providing that specific predetermined notification when selection of non-rebooting of the device and determination that a specific function is enabled/active on the device, the specifics of a high speed start up function is seen specifically disclosed in the teachings of Iyigun below, not providing that same specific notification based on determining not selection of rebooting the device but determining that a specific function is not active/enabled on the device and not providing that same specific notification based on determination that a reboot is selected to be performed no matter if a specific function is active/enabled or not on the device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Liao showing the specifics of providing specific notification to the user responsive to specific user selection and other conditional data on the device, into the providing notification to user about needed to reboot the device under specific conditions of Bernardini as modified by Cooper for the purpose of increasing accuracy of the provided notification to the user to helping ensure correct functionality by using additional details to determine when and what notification to provide to the user when installing updates, as taught by Liao [0061] lines 1-8.
Bernardini as modified by Cooper and Liao do not specifically disclose a control method of an information processing apparatus comprising one or more processors and having a high speed start up function which is a function of setting the information processing apparatus to hibernation instead of completely shutting down the information processing apparatus in a case where a shutdown operation of the information processing apparatus is performed, wherein the information processing apparatus is set to hibernation in a case where the shutdown operation is performed while the high speed start up function is enabled, and the information processing apparatus is completely shut down in a case where the shutdown operation is performed while the high speed start up function is not enabled; wherein the high-speed start-up function is a function of speeding up activation of the information processing apparatus after the shutdown operation of the information processing apparatus is performed
However, Iyigun discloses a control method of an information processing apparatus comprising one or more processors and having a high speed start up function which is a function of setting the information processing apparatus to hibernation instead of completely shutting down the information processing apparatus in a case where a shutdown operation of the information processing apparatus is performed, wherein the information processing apparatus is set to hibernation in a case where the shutdown operation is performed while the high speed start up function is enabled, and the information processing apparatus is completely shut down in a case where the shutdown operation is performed while the high speed start up function is not enabled (Iyigun [0012] lines 1-5, [0016] lines 1-3, [0072] lines 1-5 and [0097] lines 1-12; which shows the specifics of the computer/information processing apparatus being configured so that in response to a shutdown command it instead sets the computer to hibernation instead of shut down, thus viewed as having a type of high speed start up function enabled/active on the computer device, and the computer device performs a convention shutdown when computer is in another specific state, viewed as one that does not have the type of high speed start up element/operation active thus when not enable a convention shut down or full shut down of the computing device is performed);
wherein the high-speed start-up function is a function of speeding up activation of the information processing apparatus after the shutdown operation of the information processing apparatus is performed (Iyigun [0012] lines 1-5, [0072] lines 1-5 and [0097] lines 1-12; which shows the specifics of the computer with the functionality to enter hibernation instead of a complete shut down in response to a shutdown operation as thus be able to be more quickly ready for user after a startup command is later received thus viewed as a form of speeding up activation of the information processing apparatus after a shutdown operation is performed when the computer in this hibernation configuration)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Iyigun showing the specifics of conditions for enabling performing a hibernation instead of shutdown when a shutdown command/instruction is received, into the updating and restarting system with a plurality of options of Bernardini as modified by Cooper and Liao for the purpose of helping to increase efficiency of start up by avoiding many types of work required during boot by determining when hibernation performed Iyigun [0064] lines 1-9 and [0065] lines 1-5.
As to claim 20 Bernardini discloses, wherein the third program is a resident application (Bernardini [0020] lines 5-6; which shows that embodiment implement in software make include resident software thus in light of Cooper above incorporating into an embodiment the specifics of the third program can together be viewed as the third program being able to be implemented as resident software application)
Claim 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernardini, Cooper Liao and Iyigun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chew et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0334047 A1).
As to claim 10, Bernardini as modified by Cooper, Liao and Iyigun do not specifically disclose wherein the first program is a printer driver.
However, Chew discloses wherein the first program is a printer driver (Chew [0030] lines 1-3; which shows the installer includes a printer driver and that the printer driver is installed/incorporated into the processing apparatus).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Chew showing the specifics of the installer in the setup of software on a processing apparatus into the software installation of Bernardini as modified by Cooper, Liao and Iyigun for the purpose of increasing simplicity by incorporating display/notification into a single installer function, as taught by Chew [0070] lines 1-4.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernardini, Cooper, Liao and Iyigun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dave et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0248910 A1).
As to claim 14, Bernardini as modified by Cooper, Liao and Iyigun do not specifically disclose wherein the third program executes the predetermined notification based on specifying that a predetermined time elapses by the clock time information registered in the registry.
However, Dave discloses wherein the third program executes the predetermined notification based on specifying that a predetermined time elapses by the clock time information registered in the registry (Dave [0068] lines 3-9; which shows how a notification/alert app/third program to provide an indication/notification of an elapsed time reaching a threshold, viewed as when the predetermined time elapses where in light of the teachings of Cooper showing the specifics of the time being the predetermined clock interval registered in the registry).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Dave showing the specifics of an alert/notification for a predetermined time, into the alert notification of Bernardini as modified by Cooper, Liao and Iyigun for the purpose of being able to provide addition details from the alerts thus being able to have a more detailed representation of what is happening, as taught by Dave [0068] lines 3-9.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernardini, Cooper, Liao and Iyigun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akridge et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0106959 A1).
As to claim 15, Bernardini as modified by Cooper, Liao and Iyigun do not specifically disclose, a screen that is displayed by the predetermined notification that is executed by the second program and a screen that is displayed by the predetermined notification that is executed by the third program are different from each other.
However, Akridge discloses a screen that is displayed by the predetermined notification that is executed by the second program and a screen that is displayed by the predetermined notification that is executed by the third program are different from each other (Akridge [0142] lines 24-26; which shows screen is able to display different visual alerts, thus viewed as a screen for displaying an alert associated with the predetermined notification that is executed by the second program and a different visual alert screen for the different alert that is executed by the third program, where the specifics of when the different alerts are displayed are seen in the teachings of Cooper and Bernardini above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Akridge showing the specifics of displaying different alerts visually in the screen into the alter displaying system of Bernardini as modified by Cooper, Liao and Iyigun for increasing clarity for provided user feedback by providing different visual alerts for different conditions as taught by Akridge [0142] liens 3-26.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernardini, Cooper, Liao and Iyigun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boelter et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0303842 A1)
As to claim 16, Bernardini as modified by Cooper, Liao and Iyigun do not specifically disclose wherein a screen that is displayed by the predetermined notification that is executed by the third program includes a region for accepting from the user selection of rebooting the information processing apparatus.
However, Boelter discloses wherein a screen that is displayed by the predetermined notification that is executed by the third program includes a region for accepting from the user selection of rebooting the information processing apparatus (Boelter [0015] lines 6-15 and claim 7; which shows the notification screen can be divided into different regions for the selection of accepting of rejecting the information, where the specifics of the rebooting action tied to a predetermined notification being performed are seen in the teachings of Bernardini above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Boelter showing the notification screen divided into selectable regions for the user, into the alert notification of Bernardini as modified by Cooper, Liao and Iyigun for the purpose of increasing the convenience of interaction with a convenient human machine interface as taught by Boelter [0015] lines 1-6.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernardini, Cooper, Liao and Iyigun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boelter et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0303842 A1), Chakrabarty et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0058840 A1) and further in view of Kuroda (Pub. No. US 2017/0270183 A1)
As to claim 19, Bernardini as modified by Cooper, Liao and Iyigun do not specifically disclose a screen displayed by the predetermined notification executed by the third program includes a first region for accepting from a user a selection of rebooting the information processing apparatus.
However, Boelter discloses wherein a screen displayed by the predetermined notification executed by the third program includes a first region for accepting from a user a selection of rebooting the information processing apparatus (Boelter [0015] lines 6-15 and claim 7; which shows the notification screen can be divided into different regions for the selection of accepting of rejecting associated information, where the specifics of the selection of rebooting action tied to a predetermined notification being performed are seen in the teachings of Bernardini above);
the control method further comprises: executing, by the one or more processors using the third program, a process of rebooting the information processing apparatus in a case where the selection of rebooting the information processing apparatus is accepted (Boelter [0015] lines 6-15, [0033] lines 1-7 and claim 7; which shows being able to perform the select action associated with the screen selection, viewed as accepting the selected action, that in light of the teachings of Bernardini above showing the specifics of the control executing by the processors to perform the process of rebooting can together be viewed as the control method further comprises: executing, by the one or more processors using the third program, a process of rebooting the information processing apparatus in a case where the selection of rebooting the information processing apparatus is accepted)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Boelter showing the notification screen divided into selectable regions for the user, into the alert notification of Bernardini as modified by Cooper, Liao and Iyigun for the purpose of increasing the convenience of interaction with a convenient human machine interface as taught by Boelter [0015] lines 1-6.
Bernardini as modified by Cooper, Liao, Iyigun and Boelter do not specifically disclose the specifics of a second region for accepting from a user a selection of preventing the third program from executing the predetermined notification from now.
However, Chakrabarty discloses the specifics of a second region for accepting from a user a selection of preventing the third program from executing the predetermined notification from now (Chakrabarty [0051] lines 1-10, [0060] lines 1-11, and [0063] lines 1-7; which shows as part of a selection provide screen/notification at a separate region/location provide not to provide the notification in the future, that in light of the teachings of Bernardina and Cooper above showing the specifics of when the predetermined notification is provided and the specifics of Boelter above showing the screen divided into a plurality of regions where different accepting and/or rejection action can be made can together provide the specifics of a second region for accepting from a user a selection of preventing the third program from executing the predetermined notification from now )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Chakrabarty showing the specifics of a region in a provided screen to prevent further display of information in the further, into the providing predetermined notifications based on conditions of Bernardini as modified by Cooper, Liao, Iyigun and Boelter for the purpose of increasing use control over provided information and thus increase the adaptability of the provided system as taught by Chakrabarty [0051] lines 1-10, and [0063] lines 1-7.
Bernardini as modified by Cooper, Liao, Iyigun, Boelter and Chakrabarty do not specifically disclose the specifics of the control method further comprises: deleting, by the one or more processors using the third program, the clock time information from the registry in a case where the selection of rebooting the information processing apparatus is not accepted and the selection of preventing the third program from executing the predetermined notification from now is accepted; and updating, by the one or more processors using the third program, the clock time information stored in the registry in a case where the selection of rebooting the information processing apparatus is not accepted and the selection of preventing the third program from executing the predetermined notification from now is not accepted.
However, Kuroda disclose the specifics of the control method further comprises: deleting, by the one or more processors using the third program, the clock time information from the registry in a case where the selection of rebooting the information processing apparatus is not accepted and the selection of preventing the third program from executing the predetermined notification from now is accepted; and updating, by the one or more processors using the third program, the clock time information stored in the registry in a case where the selection of rebooting the information processing apparatus is not accepted and the selection of preventing the third program from executing the predetermined notification from now is not accepted (Kuroda [0100] lines 1-10; which shows being able to perform actions that can include the performance of the deleting clock time information and updating clock time information stored based on specific conditions where the teachings of Bernardini above show the specifics of the user selection of not from the notification to reboot the information processing apparatus and the teachings of Chakrabarty show the specifics of the user being able to select, accept or not accept, the prompt/display of information in the future and thus together can be viewed as showing the specifics of the control method further comprises: deleting, by the one or more processors using the third program, the clock time information from the registry in a case where the selection of rebooting the information processing apparatus is not accepted and the selection of preventing the third program from executing the predetermined notification from now is accepted; and updating, by the one or more processors using the third program, the clock time information stored in the registry in a case where the selection of rebooting the information processing apparatus is not accepted and the selection of preventing the third program from executing the predetermined notification from now is not accepted)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Kuroda showing the specifics of being able to modify stored clock time information associated with data, into the recording of clock time data used to trigger notification of Bernardini as modified by Cooper, Liao, Iyigun, Boelter and Chakrabarty for the purpose of improving resource utilization by not having to permanently retain the data and associated clock time and thus have improved resource utilization for data management as taught by Kuroda [0003] lines 7-17 and [0100] lines1-10.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD F WHEATON whose telephone number is (571)270-1779. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 EST.
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.
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.
/BRADFORD F WHEATON/Examiner, Art Unit 2193