18180453
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 .
1. In response to the Office action dated on 10/02/2025, applicant(s) amend the application as follow:
Claims amended: 1-13
Claims canceled: none
Claims newly added: none
Claims pending: 1-13
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 12-13have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues “… This is not a process, or a process that can be performed with pencil and paper. In the other words, computer technology is necessarily required to implement the features of this claim. For at least this reason, claim 1 is subject matter eligible. Claims 12 and 13 recite similar features and are likewise eligible. The dependent claims 2-11 are likewise eligible due to their dependency, so all 101 rejections should be withdrawn.”
Examiner respectfully disagree with the above argument. The process of “receive the selection…” is a process of receiving to obtain information. The process of “identify and displaying…” is a mental process to provide information to the user.
Applicant argues “the Ishiwata reference does not appear to disclose all of these features. Although, Figures 3-4 appear to show attribute information, this attribute information does not appear to be selected so as to display corresponding sub-folders…”
Please see the rejection below for the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
3. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (See MPEP 2106)
Claims 1-13 are directed to a method, a system and a tangible , non-transitory computer readable medium which belongs to a statutory class.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claims 1 and 12-13, the limitation
“identify and display plurality of attribute items of the plurality of electronic document in the starting folder, the plurality of attribute items comprising content statistics regarding which proportion of the electronic documents have a corresponding attribute, and frequency of use statistics regarding the plurality of electronic documents” is a mental process of identifying to provide information to the user.
“Identify and display a plurality of sub-folders under the starting folder corresponding to the selected one of the plurality of attribute items, each of the sub-folders corresponding to various documents from among the plurality of electronic documents” is a mental process of identifying to provide information to the user.
These are processes which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, 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.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Claims recited hardware processor and memory include processing instructions. These are generic computer components and program which use to perform abstract ideas.
“Receive a selection of a staring folder, the starting folder containing a plurality of electronic documents” is the process obtaining information using the received information.
“Receive a selection of one of the plurality of attribute items” is the process obtaining information using the received information.
The limitation is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). 2106.05(g)--Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
As to claim 2, the limitation “the plurality of attribute items include a status of user that is an attribute provision rate indicates a proportion of search target data in which a corresponding attribute value is provided to an attribute item or an attribute provision number that indicates a number of search target data in which a corresponding attribute value is provided an attribute item, for each of the plurality of attribute items” is further defined what included in the attribute but insufficiently to amount significantly more.
As to claim 3, the limitation “the plurality of attribute items include information that indicates use status information which is search use time information that indicates a number of times of search use in which an attribute value corresponding to an attribute item has been used to search target data for the plurality of attribute items” is the only further defined what the plurality attribute included which is insignificantly to amount significantly more.
As to claim 4, the limitation “the plurality of attribute items includes workflow information that represents a content of a workflow in which mutually different processes are performed in accordance with attribute values corresponding to a specific attribute item of process data” is only further defined of what attribute items are and significantly to amount significantly more.
The limitation “the workflow information indicates whether or not each of the plurality of attribute item is an attribute item corresponding to an attribute value for determining a process content in the workflow” is only further defined what workflow information can perform and insignificantly to amount significantly more.
As to claim 5, the limitation “set a combination of a selected attribute item and an attribute value corresponding to the selected attribute item in response to a user who has been notified of a status of use selecting the selected attribute item from the plurality of attribute items” is the process of combining the attributes and notify the user which is insignificant to amount significantly more.
As to claim 6, the limitation “to notify a user a user of a status of provision for each of a plurality of attribute values corresponding to a selected attribute item on a basis of attribute information that indicates an attribute item and an attribute value corresponding to the attribute item in response to the user who has been notified of the status of use selecting the selected attribute item from the plurality of attribute items” is the process for providing alert information to the user is insignificant to amount significantly more.
As to claim 7, the limitation “to notify the user of a status of provision for each of a plurality of combination of an attribute value corresponding to a first selected attribute item and an attribute value corresponding to a second selected attribute in a case where the user has been notified of the status of use selects the first selected attribute item and the second selected attribute item from the plurality of attribute items” is the process of notify the user the status of the selected attribute and insignificantly to amount significantly more.
As to claim 8, the limitation “set combination of an attribute item corresponding to a selected attribute value and the selected attribute value as a search condition in response to the user who has been notified of the status of provision selecting the selected attributed value form the plurality of attribute values indicated by the status of provision” is a process to combine the attributes to from the selected attribute for a search condition which is information retrieval information.
As to claim 9, the limitation “to set a combination of an attribute item corresponding to a selected attribute value and the selected attribute value as a search condition in response to the user who has been notified of the status of provision selecting the selected attribute value from the plurality of attribute values indicated by the status of provision” is a process to combine the attributes to from the selected attribute for a search condition which is information retrieval information.
As to claim 10, the limitation “generate a search folder which is a virtual folder that virtually stores search target data retrieved using the set search condition” is an abstract idea. The limitation “notify the user of a status of use for each of a plurality of attribute items of a plurality of second search target data stored in the search folder selected by the user on the basis of the attribute use status information” is the process of alert use when item updated/changed which is insignificantly to amount significantly more.
As to claim 11, the limitation “generate search folder which is a virtual folder that virtually stores search target data retrieved using the set search condition; and notify the user of a status of provision in a plurality of second search target data stored in the search folder selected by the user for each of a plurality of attribute values corresponding to a specific attribute item of the plurality of second search target data on a basis of the attribute information” is the mental process.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claim(s) 1 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUI et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0076343 A1) in view of Castellanos et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0106155 A1).
As to claim 1. (Currently Amended) SUI discloses n information processing apparatus, comprising:
A hardware processor (processing circuitry) (paragraph 0008) configured to:
Receive a selection of a staring folder, the starting folder containing a plurality of electronic documents (display the item selection control including the candidate item identifier…) (paragraph 0155),
Identify and display plurality of attribute items of the plurality of electronic document in the starting folder, the plurality of attribute items comprising content statistics regarding which proportion of the electronic documents have a corresponding attribute, and frequency of use statistics regarding the plurality of electronic documents (where the item attribute include at least one of an item type, an item use frequency, or an item score) (paragraph 0155).
SUI discloses receive a selection of one of the plurality of attribute items and Identify and display a plurality of sub-folders under the starting folder corresponding to the selected one of the plurality of attribute items, each of the sub-folders corresponding to various documents from among the plurality of electronic documents.
Castellanos discloses receive a selection of one of the plurality of attribute items (the selected attribute categories) (paragraph 0034); and identify and display a plurality of sub-folders under the starting folder corresponding to the selected one of the plurality of attribute items, each of the sub-folders corresponding to various documents from among the plurality of electronic documents (the sentiment analyzes 50 then displays (block 536) recent message, real time sentiment scores and real time sentiment frequency in the GUI…) (paragraph 0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify SUI to include receive a selection of one of the plurality of attribute items and Identify and display a plurality of sub-folders under the starting folder corresponding to the selected one of the plurality of attribute items, each of the sub-folders corresponding to various documents from among the plurality of electronic documents as disclosed by Castellanos in order to retrieve folder.
Claim 12 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, SUI discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium (a computer-readable storage medium) (paragraph 0011) storing a program (computer instructions) (paragraph 0011) causing a computer to execute a process.
Claim 13 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, SUI discloses the method (method) (paragraph 0006).
5. Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUI et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0076343 A1) in view of Castellanos et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0106155 A1) and further in view of SANO et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0208765 A1).
As to claim 2, (currently amended) SUI discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 excepting for wherein the plurality of attribute items include a status of user that is an attribute provision rate indicates a proportion of search target data in which a corresponding attribute value is provided to an attribute item or an attribute provision number that indicates a number of search target data in which a corresponding attribute value is provided an attribute item, for each of the plurality of attribute items. However, SANO discloses the plurality of attribute items include a status of user that is an attribute provision rate indicates a proportion of search target data in which a corresponding attribute value is provided to an attribute item or an attribute provision number that indicates a number of search target data in which a corresponding attribute value is provided an attribute item, for each of the plurality of attribute items (Operation S3': After operation S2', since the number of acquired users does not satisfy the certain number , the content provision unit 14 uses the access attribute information in the access attribute information storage unit 12 as a basis for acquiring the attribute values and access counts of users who accessed the content, using the content URL and the attribute criteria as search keys) (paragraph 0120). This suggests the claimed concept the plurality of attribute items include a status of user that is an attribute provision rate indicates a proportion of search target data in which a corresponding attribute value is provided to an attribute item or an attribute provision number that indicates a number of search target data in which a corresponding attribute value is provided an attribute item, for each of the plurality of attribute items. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of SUI to include of search target data in which a corresponding attribute value is provided to an attribute item or an attribute provision number that indicates a number of search target data in which a corresponding attribute value is provided an attribute item, for each of the plurality of attribute items as disclosed by SANO in order to provide search target.
As to claim 3, (Currently amended) SUI the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 excepting for wherein the plurality of attribute items include information that indicates use status information which is search use time information that indicates a number of times of search use in which an attribute value corresponding to an attribute item has been used to search target data for the plurality of attribute items. However, SANO discloses the plurality of attribute items include information that indicates use status information which is search use time information that indicates a number of times of search use in which an attribute value corresponding to an attribute item has been used to search target data for the plurality of attribute items (Operation S3': After operation S2', since the number of acquired users does not satisfy the certain number , the content provision unit 14 uses the access attribute information in the access attribute information storage unit 12 as a basis for acquiring the attribute values and access counts of users who accessed the content, using the content URL and the attribute criteria as search keys) (paragraph 0120). This suggests the claimed concept the plurality of attribute items include information that indicates use status information which is search use time information that indicates a number of times of search use in which an attribute value corresponding to an attribute item has been used to search target data for the plurality of attribute items. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of SUI to the plurality of attribute items include information that indicates use status information which is search use time information that indicates a number of times of search use in which an attribute value corresponding to an attribute item has been used to search target data for the plurality of attribute items as disclosed by SANO in order to provide search target.
6. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUI et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0076343 A1) in view of Castellanos et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0106155 A1) and further in view of Viswanathan et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0261288 A1).
As to claim 4, (Currently amended) SUI discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 excepting for wherein the plurality of attribute items includes workflow information that represents a content of a workflow in which mutually different processes are performed in accordance with attribute values corresponding to a specific attribute item of process data; and the workflow information indicates whether or not each of the plurality of attribute item is an attribute item corresponding to an attribute value for determining a process content in the workflow. However, Viswanathan discloses wherein the plurality of attribute items includes workflow information that represents a content of a workflow in which mutually different processes are performed in accordance with attribute values corresponding to a specific attribute item of process data; and the workflow information indicates whether or not each of the plurality of attribute item is an attribute item corresponding to an attribute value for determining a process content in the workflow (an instance of the workflow component (object thereof) is generated to represent the risk management process that involves storing values for attributes defiined for the workflow component in the appropriate table found in the repository for the microservice. For instance, a value proving a name of the custom workflow (e.g., “risk management process’) can stored in a corresponding field (e.g., “Name” field) of the appropriate table) (paragraph 0054). This suggests wherein the plurality of attribute items includes workflow information that represents a content of a workflow in which mutually different processes are performed in accordance with attribute values corresponding to a specific attribute item of process data; and the workflow information indicates whether or not each of the plurality of attribute item is an attribute item corresponding to an attribute value for determining a process content in the workflow (an instance of the workflow component. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of MUI to include wherein the plurality of attribute items includes workflow information that represents a content of a workflow in which mutually different processes are performed in accordance with attribute values corresponding to a specific attribute item of process data; and the workflow information indicates whether or not each of the plurality of attribute item is an attribute item corresponding to an attribute value for determining a process content in the workflow (an instance of the workflow component as disclosed by Viswanathan in order to provide the content of workflow.
6. Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUI et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0076343 A1) in view of Castellanos et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0106155 A1) and further in view of Namboodiri et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0262922 A1).
As to claim 6, (Currently amended) SUI discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 excepting for wherein the processor is configured to notify a user of a status of provision for each of a plurality of attribute values corresponding to a selected attribute item on a basis of attribute information that indicates an attribute item and an attribute value corresponding to the attribute item in response to the user who has been notified of the status of use selecting the selected attribute item from the plurality of attribute items. Namboodiri discloses to notify a user of a status of provision for each of a plurality of attribute values corresponding to a selected attribute item on a basis of attribute information that indicates an attribute item and an attribute value corresponding to the attribute item in response to the user who has been notified of the status of use selecting the selected attribute item from the plurality of attribute items (the notification module 215 notifies the customer of the acceptance of the consultation request by the selected service provider. The notification module 215 also communication with the attribute module 207 to modify the availability status of the selected service provider to be unavailable. The unavailable status indicates that the selected service provider is unavailable for other consultation requests….) (paragraph 0074). This suggests to notify a user of a status of provision for each of a plurality of attribute values corresponding to a selected attribute item on a basis of attribute information that indicates an attribute item and an attribute value corresponding to the attribute item in response to the user who has been notified of the status of use selecting the selected attribute item from the plurality of attribute items . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify SUI to include to notify a user of a status of provision for each of a plurality of attribute values corresponding to a selected attribute item on a basis of attribute information that indicates an attribute item and an attribute value corresponding to the attribute item in response to the user who has been notified of the status of use selecting the selected attribute item from the plurality of attribute items as disclosed Namboodiri in order to alert the user for additional processing.
As to claim 7, (Currently SUI discloses the amended) the information processing apparatus according to claim 6 excepting for wherein the processor is configured to notify the user of a status of provision for each of a plurality of combination of an attribute value corresponding to a first selected attribute item and an attribute value corresponding to a second selected attribute in a case where the user has been notified of the status of use selects the first selected attribute item and the second selected attribute item from the plurality of attribute items. Namboodiri to notify the user of a status of provision for each of a plurality of combination of an attribute value corresponding to a first selected attribute item and an attribute value corresponding to a second selected attribute in a case where the user has been notified of the status of use selects the first selected attribute item and the second selected attribute item from the plurality of attribute items (the notification module 215 notifies the customer of the acceptance of the consultation request by the selected service provider. The notification module 215 also communication with the attribute module 207 to modify the availability status of the selected service provider to be unavailable. The unavailable status indicates that the selected service provider is unavailable for other consultation requests….) (paragraph 0074). This suggests to notify the user of a status of provision for each of a plurality of combination of an attribute value corresponding to a first selected attribute item and an attribute value corresponding to a second selected attribute in a case where the user has been notified of the status of use selects the first selected attribute item and the second selected attribute item from the plurality of attribute items. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify SUI to include to notify the user of a status of provision for each of a plurality of combination of an attribute value corresponding to a first selected attribute item and an attribute value corresponding to a second selected attribute in a case where the user has been notified of the status of use selects the first selected attribute item and the second selected attribute item from the plurality of attribute items as disclosed Namboodiri in order to alert the user for additional processing.
7. Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUI et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0076343 A1) in view of Castellanos et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0106155 A1) and further in view of Namboodiri et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0262922 A1) and further in view of SANO et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0208765 A1).
As to claim 8, (Original) SUI discloses the information apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to set combination of an attribute item corresponding to a selected attribute value and the selected attribute value as a search condition in response to the user who has been notified of the status of provision selecting the selected attributed value form the plurality of attribute values indicated by the status of provision. Sano discloses set combination of an attribute item corresponding to a selected attribute value and the selected attribute value as a search condition in response to the user who has been notified of the status of provision selecting the selected attributed value form the plurality of attribute values indicated by the status of provision (Operation S3': After operation S2', since the number of acquired users does not satisfy the certain number , the content provision unit 14 uses the access attribute information in the access attribute information storage unit 12 as a basis for acquiring the attribute values and access counts of users who accessed the content, using the content URL and the attribute criteria as search keys) (paragraph 0120). This suggests the claimed concept of to set combination of an attribute item corresponding to a selected attribute value and the selected attribute value as a search condition in response to the user who has been notified of the status of provision selecting the selected attributed value form the plurality of attribute values indicated by the status of provision. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of SUI to include to set combination of an attribute item corresponding to a selected attribute value and the selected attribute value as a search condition in response to the user who has been notified of the status of provision selecting the selected attributed value form the plurality of attribute values indicated by the status of provision as disclosed by SANO in order to provide search target.
As to claim 9, (Original) SUI discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 7 excepting for wherein the processor is configured to set a combination of an attribute item corresponding to a selected attribute value and the selected attribute value as a search condition in response to the user who has been notified of the status of provision selecting the selected attribute value from the plurality of attribute values indicated by the status of provision. Sano discloses to set a combination of an attribute item corresponding to a selected attribute value and the selected attribute value as a search condition in response to the user who has been notified of the status of provision selecting the selected attribute value from the plurality of attribute values indicated by the status of provision (Operation S3': After operation S2', since the number of acquired users does not satisfy the certain number , the content provision unit 14 uses the access attribute information in the access attribute information storage unit 12 as a basis for acquiring the attribute values and access counts of users who accessed the content, using the content URL and the attribute criteria as search keys) (paragraph 0120). This suggests the claimed concept of to set a combination of an attribute item corresponding to a selected attribute value and the selected attribute value as a search condition in response to the user who has been notified of the status of provision selecting the selected attribute value from the plurality of attribute values indicated by the status of provision. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of SUI to include to set a combination of an attribute item corresponding to a selected attribute value and the selected attribute value as a search condition in response to the user who has been notified of the status of provision selecting the selected attribute value from the plurality of attribute values indicated by the status of provision as disclosed by SANO in order to provide search target.
8. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUI et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0076343 A1) in view of Castellanos et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0106155 A1) and further in view of SANO et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0208765 A1) and further in view of NAKAMURA (Pub. No. US 2009/0198744 A1).
As to claim 5, (Currently amened) SUI discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 excepting for wherein the processor is configured to set a combination of a selected attribute item and an attribute value corresponding to the selected attribute item in response to a user who has been notified of a status of use selecting the selected attribute item from the plurality of attribute items. SANO discloses wherein the processor is configured to set a combination of a selected attribute item and an attribute value corresponding to the selected attribute item in response to a user who has been notified of a status of use selecting the selected attribute item from the plurality of attribute items (Operation S3': After operation S2', since the number of acquired users does not satisfy the certain number , the content provision unit 14 uses the access attribute information in the access attribute information storage unit 12 as a basis for acquiring the attribute values and access counts of users who accessed the content, using the content URL and the attribute criteria as search keys) (paragraph 0120). This suggests the claimed concept of wherein the processor is configured to set a combination of a selected attribute item and an attribute value corresponding to the selected attribute item in response to a user who has been notified of a status of use selecting the selected attribute item from the plurality of attribute items. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of SUI to include wherein the processor is configured to set a combination of a selected attribute item and an attribute value corresponding to the selected attribute item in response to a user who has been notified of a status of use selecting the selected attribute item from the plurality of attribute items as disclosed by SANO in order to provide search target.
9. Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUI et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0076343 A1) in view of Castellanos et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0106155 A1) and further in view of SANO et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0208765 A1) and further in view NAKAMURA (Pub. No. US 2009/0198744 A1).
As to claim 10, SUI discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 5 excepting for wherein the processor configured to: generate a search folder which is a virtual folder that virtually stores search target data retrieved using the set search condition; and notify the user of a status of use for each of a plurality of attribute items of a plurality of second search target data stored in the search folder selected by the user on the basis of the attribute use status information. However, NAKAMURA discloses generate a search folder which is a virtual folder that virtually stores search target data retrieved using the set search condition (the data records of the management information are respectively composed of, for example, a “virtual folder name” a “parent folder” a “generation time” and “distance to root folder” and “external sorage flag” and “external storage node flag” an “extend storage removal flag” a “full path” an “external storage type” and “external storage ID”; etc” (paragraph 0073); and notify the user of a status of use for each of a plurality of attribute items of a plurality of second search target data stored in the search folder selected by the user on the basis of the attribute use status information (the similar folder searching instructing unit 11 transfer an instruction notification to the virtual folder managing unit 8 when a user selects a start button displayed on a display unit 13 to search for a similar folder) (paragraph 0062). This suggests generate a search folder which is a virtual folder that virtually stores search target data retrieved using the set search condition; and notify the user of a status of use for each of a plurality of attribute items of a plurality of second search target data stored in the search folder selected by the user on the basis of the attribute use status information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching to include generate a search folder which is a virtual folder that virtually stores search target data retrieved using the set search condition; and notify the user of a status of use for each of a plurality of attribute items of a plurality of second search target data stored in the search folder selected by the user on the basis of the attribute use status information as disclosed NAKAMURA in order to retrieve the data.
As to claim 11, SUI discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 5 excepting for wherein the processor is configured to: generate search folder which is a virtual folder that virtually stores search target data retrieved using the set search condition; and notify the user of a status of provision in a plurality of second search target data stored in the search folder selected by the user for each of a plurality of attribute values corresponding to a specific attribute item of the plurality of second search target data on a basis of the attribute information. NAKAMURA discloses generate search folder which is a virtual folder that virtually stores search target data retrieved using the set search condition (the data records of the management information are respectively composed of, for example, a “virtual folder name” a “parent folder” a “generation time” and “distance to root folder” and “external sorage flag” and “external storage node flag” an “extend storage removal flag” a “full path” an “external storage type” and “external storage ID”; etc” (paragraph 0073); and notify the user of a status of provision in a plurality of second search target data stored in the search folder selected by the user for each of a plurality of attribute values corresponding to a specific attribute item of the plurality of second search target data on a basis of the attribute information (the similar folder searching instructing unit 11 transfer an instruction notification to the virtual folder managing unit 8 when a user selects a start button displayed on a display unit 13 to search for a similar folder) (paragraph 0062). This suggests generate search folder which is a virtual folder that virtually stores search target data retrieved using the set search condition; and notify the user of a status of provision in a plurality of second search target data stored in the search folder selected by the user for each of a plurality of attribute values corresponding to a specific attribute item of the plurality of second search target data on a basis of the attribute information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching to include generate search folder which is a virtual folder that virtually stores search target data retrieved using the set search condition; and notify the user of a status of provision in a plurality of second search target data stored in the search folder selected by the user for each of a plurality of attribute values corresponding to a specific attribute item of the plurality of second search target data on a basis of the attribute information as disclosed NAKAMURA in order to retrieve the data.
Conclusion
10. 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.
Contact Information
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights