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
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 1/29/2024.
This application is a National Stage of PCT International Application No. PCT/JP2022/0 14424 filed 3/25/2022 and claims the benefit of priority based on Japanese Patent Application No. 2021-127712 filed 8/3/2021.
Claims 1-19 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 12, and 13 are independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 12, and 13 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoshihama, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180007217 filed on 2/22/2017 (hereinafter Yoshihama).
As for independent claim 1, Yoshihama discloses method and an operation display system that constitutes at least a part of a control system for controlling a control target, the operation display system comprising:
a display unit; an input unit configured to receive a user operation;
(Yoshihama paragraph [0017]-[0023], [0026] discloses computing system comprising display and input unit for receiving user input)
a control unit configured to control the display unit to display a selected page among one or more pages prepared in advance;
(Yoshihama paragraph [0031]-[0037] discloses displaying selected page, associated information are displayed on the display 22)
an acquisition unit configured to acquire history information in which user operations and events are recorded in time series; and
(Yoshihama paragraph [0028]-[0036], [0051]-[0059] discloses acquiring user operation history stored in datastore 14 that includes recorded operation history series of operations)
a generation unit configured to extract a pattern constituted of a plurality of user operations included in the acquired history information and
(Yoshihama paragraph [0059]-[0062], [0065]-[0071] discloses extracting pattern, automatically determining whether data is a document created in the series of operations or a pattern)
generate an operation object corresponding to a user operation included in the extracted pattern
(Yoshihama paragraph [0059]-[0061] discloses creating an operation object, button, that includes a combination of some operations).
As for claim 8, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Yoshihama discloses method and system wherein the generation unit is configured to
extract an operation for outputting an instruction for controlling the control target, among contents of operations included in the history information.
(Yoshihama paragraph [0032]-[0033] discloses controller unpacks data store and displays operation history describing series operations, the operations include operation target).
As for claim 12, claim 12 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 1, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 13, claim 13 reflects the article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions disclosed by Yoshihama (non-transitory computer readable medium in Yoshihama paragraph [0002]) for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 1, and is rejected along the same rationale.
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 2, 4, 14, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihama, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180007217 filed on 2/22/2017 (hereinafter Yoshihama) in view of Morita et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20130297049, filed on 3/29/2011 (hereinafter Morita).
As for claim 2, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Morita discloses method and system wherein
specify a session based on, as a criterion, an explicit or implicit feature included in the history information and/or an event having occurred in the control target, and
(Morita paragraph [0003], [0044] discloses specifying session abased on explicit feature, generation of alarm when abnormality diagnosis occurs to when generated alarm is cleared that is automatically stored)
extract the pattern based on the specified session as a unit.
(Morita paragraph [0029] discloses selecting alarm-generating factor candidate based on pattern, alarm number).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Morita with Yoshihama for the benefit of having a system where “a user can efficiently handle an alarm of a servo control device”, (Morita [0012]).
As for claim 4, limitations of parent claim 2 have been discussed above. Morita discloses method and system wherein
the explicit feature includes occurrence of an alarm, and the generation unit is configured to specify, as the session, an interval from occurrence of a specific alarm included in the history information to recovery from the alarm.
(Morita paragraph [0027]-[0038] discloses a session of alarm generated in servo control to transmitting troubleshooting data that includes alarm number and alarm clear information).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Morita with Yoshihama for the benefit of having a system where “a user can efficiently handle an alarm of a servo control device”, (Morita [0012]).
As for claim 14, limitations of parent claim 12 have been discussed above. Claim 14 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 2, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 16, limitations of parent claim 14 have been discussed above. Claim 16 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 4, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 17, limitations of parent claim 13 have been discussed above. Claim 17 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing article of manufacture in claim 2 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 19, limitations of parent claim 17 have been discussed above. Claim 19 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing article of manufacture in claim 4 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 3, 7, 15, and 18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihama in view of Morita in view of Koshio, Japanese Patent Application No. JP2010126141, Published on 12/15/2011 (hereinafter Koshio).
As for claim 3, limitations of parent claim 2 have been discussed above. Koshio discloses method and system
extract, as the pattern, a plurality of user operations common among a plurality of the sessions
(Koshio page 5 discloses extracting related operation history).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Koshio with Yoshihama and Morita for the benefit of having a system that “extracts a series of related operations from a recorded operation history, groups them, and generates and displays display data that can uniquely recognize a series of operations, thereby improving the operability of an electronic device”, (Koshio page 5).
As for claim 7, limitations of parent claim 2 have been discussed above. Koshio discloses method and system comprising an analysis unit configured to
extract the implicit feature by analyzing the history information and/or a measurement value of the control target.
(Koshio page 5 and 8 discloses extracting related operation from first history operation).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Koshio with Yoshihama and Morita for the benefit of having a system that “extracts a series of related operations from a recorded operation history, groups them, and generates and displays display data that can uniquely recognize a series of operations, thereby improving the operability of an electronic device”, (Koshio page 5).
As for claim 15, limitations of parent claim 14 have been discussed above. Claim 15 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 3, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 18, limitations of parent claim 17 have been discussed above. Claim 18 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing article of manufacture in claim 3 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihama in view of Kunihiro, Japanese Patent Application No. JP210105360, Published on 4/24/1998 (hereinafter Kunihiro).
As for claim 9, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Kunihiro discloses method and system wherein
the page includes one or more second operation objects that each instructs predetermined processing, and the operation object is for instructing the same processing as a second operation object targeted by a user operation.
(Kunihiro page 4 discloses displaying a page including second operation objects, normal menu 11 composed of button A to L for activation function shown in figure 4 and operation objects, buttons I to L, shown on shortcut menu page as shown in fig. 8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kunihiro with Yoshihama for the benefit of having a system that create a new page for frequently used buttons to allow easy accessibility for the user.
As for claim 10, limitations of parent claim 9 have been discussed above. Kunihiro discloses method and system wherein
the operation object is a copy of a corresponding second operation object.
(Kunihiro page 4 discloses operation objects, buttons I-L displayed on the separately created shortcut page, is copies of the second operation objects, buttons A to L on the normal menu 11, and performs the same functions).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kunihiro with Yoshihama for the benefit of having a system that create a new page for frequently used buttons to allow easy accessibility for the user.
As for claim 11, limitations of parent claim 9 have been discussed above. Kunihiro discloses method and system wherein
each operation object includes an instruction for accessing a corresponding second operation object.
(Kunihiro page 4 discloses operation object buttons on the shortcut menu has button names I to L serves as instructions to users that these buttons correspond to second operation object buttons I to L on the normal menu).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kunihiro with Yoshihama for the benefit of having a system that create a new page for frequently used buttons to allow easy accessibility for the user.
Conclusion
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEANETTE J PARKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3647. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at 571-272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEANETTE J PARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179