DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims received on 12/18/2025 have been entered, and that no new matter has been added.
Response to Arguments
Argument 1: Applicant argues on page 3 in the filing on 12/18/2025 that the cited prior art does not teach the amended portions of claim 1.
Response to Argument 1: Argument 1 is moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The scope of the amendment has changed and new art has been applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "receive user input selecting one or more of the multiple selectable data items" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, there is an “initial multiple selectable data items” introduced in line 10. However, it is unclear whether “the multiple selectable data items” in line 11 is the same or different than the “initial multiple selectable data items,” of line 10. Clarification is required. Claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations.
Claims 4-7 depend on independent claim 1, and inherit the indefinite/lack of clarity issues of independent claim 1.
Claims 11-14 depend on independent claim 8, and inherit the indefinite/lack of clarity issues of independent claim 8.
Claims 18-20 depend on independent claim 15, and inherit the indefinite/lack of clarity issues of independent claim 15.
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turski et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20060173961 A1, (hereinafter “Turski”), in view of Behzadi et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20220155920 A1 (hereinafter “Behzadi”), in view of Davidson et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20070198474 A1 (hereinafter “Davidson”).
Claim 1: Turski teaches “A computing device for accumulating a tag cache from a proffered dataset, the computing device comprising:
at least one processor (i.e. computer 3312 includes a processing unit 3314 [Turski 0115]);
a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor (i.e. computer 3312 includes a processing unit 3314… and a system bus 3318 [Turski 0115]); and
a memory device storing executable code (i.e. computer 3312 includes a processing unit 3314, a system memory 3316 [Turski 0115]),
wherein upon execution of the executable code by the at least one processor, the at least one processor is configured to:
initiate a tag accumulator tool (Turski Fig. 8 shows a list of items (tags) with checkboxes (accumulation tool)) by at least displaying at least in part, in an expanded mode of the tag accumulator tool (i.e. a collapsible, expandable, and dynamic multi-level contact list [Turski 0027, Fig. 8, 11, 12-15] Turski Fig. 8, 11, 12-15 show both collapsed and expanded views), a proffered dataset comprising initial multiple selectable data items (Turski Fig. 8, 11, 12-15 show collapsed and expanded views comprising multiple list items);
receive user input selecting one or more of the multiple selectable data items (i.e. both "Shelly Farnham" and "Susan Yee" are selected (as evidenced by their checked boxes) [Turski 0089, Fig. 10, 15] note: likewise “Amin Himanshu” in Fig. 15);
display, in the expanded mode of the tag accumulator tool, an accumulation area and display a tag cache within the accumulation area, the tag cache comprising, for each one of the selected data items, a respective corresponding tag (i.e. both "Shelly Farnham" and "Susan Yee" are selected (as evidenced by their checked boxes). Consequently, Susan Yee has been added to the list of selected contacts (1020) in the message view window [Turski 0089, Fig. 10, 15] note: Shelly Farnham and Susan Yee’s names are checked, and in response Shelly Farnham and Susan Yee’s names are displayed in area 1020. Likewise “Amin Himanshu” in Fig. 15, which is an expanded mode); and
display, in at least a reduced mode of the tag accumulator tool (Turski Fig. 8, 11, 12-15 show collapsed and expanded views comprising multiple list items),…
wherein, in the expanded mode of the tag accumulator tool and in the reduced mode of the tag accumulator tool (i.e. When the user clicks on a down-arrow next to a contact in Level 1, an additional level 1110 (Level 2) is revealed… To zoom out of each tier, the navigation bar can be clicked on [Turski 0090, Fig. 11] note: the “down-arrow triangle navigation bar” combo as a toggle. Note: see also “click to zoom in” and “click to zoom out” in Fig. 11), a display of the tag accumulator tool comprises an operable toggle indicium (Turski Fig. 11 “click to zoom in” and “click to zoom out.” Note: the “down-arrow triangle navigation bar” combo as a toggle), by which, upon user action thereon, the display of the tag accumulator transitions between the expanded mode and the reduced mode (i.e. When the user clicks on a down-arrow next to a contact in Level 1, an additional level 1110 (Level 2) is revealed… To zoom out of each tier, the navigation bar can be clicked on [Turski 0090, Fig. 11] note: the “down-arrow triangle navigation bar” combo as a toggle. Note: see also “click to zoom in” and “click to zoom out” in Fig. 11), and
wherein, in the expanded mode of the tag accumulator tool, the display of the tag accumulator tool comprises a query box (Turski Fig. 8 shows a search box in the left bar, just above the list of collapsed contacts. Turski Fig 12-15 show a search box in the left bar, just above the list of expanded contacts),…”
Turski is silent regarding “an enumeration of the selected data items without the proffered dataset and without the accumulation area.”
Behzadi teaches “initiate a tag accumulator tool by at least displaying at least in part, in an expanded mode of the tag accumulator tool, a proffered dataset comprising initial multiple selectable data items (Behzadi Fig. 10J-10L shows a list of photos (tagged) with checkboxes (accumulation tool));
receive user input selecting one or more of the multiple selectable data items (i.e. FIG. 10J, the user selects one of the toggles on a representation a respective photo [Behzadi 0453, Fig. 10J-10L] note: selecting or deselecting both update the selected items);…
display, in at least a reduced mode of the tag accumulator tool, an enumeration of the selected data items (Behzadi Fig. 10J-10L. Fig. 10L shows a reduced mode (photos are stacked), and the number of selected items is displayed at the top) without the proffered dataset and without the accumulation area (Behzadi Fig. 10L shows the reduced mode (photos are stacked), without the list of photos, without the checkboxes, and without any accumulation area of tag caches of each of the selected items),…”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Turski to include the feature of having the ability to show the number of selected items as disclosed by Behzadi.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of allowing the user to more easily keep track of the number of items the user has selected, which reduces user error.
Turski and Behzadi are silent regarding a query box “by which the displayed proffered dataset is filtered as each character of a character string is typed into the query box, such that the filtered displayed proffered data set comprises only any of the multiple initial selectable data items at least partially matching the character string.”
Davidson teaches “a proffered dataset comprising initial multiple selectable data items (Davidson FIG. 11A shows filtered contact list window 1104-A as an initial list. See also Davidson 0084-0085, Fig. 11A-11B);…
wherein,… the display of the… tool comprises a query box by which the displayed proffered dataset is filtered as each character of a character string is typed into the query box, such that the filtered displayed proffered data set comprises only any of the multiple initial selectable data items at least partially matching the character string (i.e. A query string may be typed into the search box 1102-A… Without deleting the query string, additional characters may be typed into the search box, forming a new query string. FIG. 11B illustrates the new query string in search box 1102-B. The search results 1104-B shows a list of contacts that satisfy the new query string [Davidson 0084-0085, Fig. 11A-11B] note: Fig. 11A shows query string “Joh,” and initial results list 1104-A. Fig. 11B shows query string with one additional character, “Joha.” As each character (for example Fig. 11B’s “a”) is typed into the query box, the results list is further filtered, as shown in 1104-B).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Turski and Behzadi to include the concept of having the ability to update a list of matching results, as a search string is inputted, as disclosed by Davidson.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to provide results with the least amount of character input in the text query box, reducing manual steps, and to increase user efficiency.
Claim 7: Turski and Behzadi and Davidson teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Turski teaches “wherein the proffered dataset comprises multiple displayed data items and additional data items displayed upon use of a scroll tool (Turski Fig. 12-13 shows both expanded and collapsed data items. Fig. 12-13 also shows a scroll bar. Scrolling the bar displays multiple data items and additional data items not yet on the screen).”
Claim 8: Turski and Behzadi and Davidson teach a system for accumulating a tag cache from a proffered dataset, the system comprising: at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; a memory device storing executable code (i.e. computer 3312 includes a processing unit 3314 [Turski 0115]) that, when executed, causes the processor to perform operations corresponding to the device of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 14: Claim 14 is similar in content and in scope to claim 7, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15: Turski and Behzadi and Davidson teach a method for a computing system to accumulate a tag cache from a proffered dataset, the computing system including one or more processor, and at least one memory device storing computer-readable instructions, the one or more processor (i.e. computer 3312 includes a processing unit 3314 [Turski 0115]) configured to perform operations corresponding to the device of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turski, in view of Behzadi, in view of Davidson, in view of Ekron, Patent Application Publication number US 20220366131 A1, (hereinafter “Ekron”).
Claim 4: Turski and Behzadi and Davidson teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Turski and Behzadi and Davidson are silent regarding “wherein a design system token is used to initiate display of a tag accumulator tool.”
Ekron teaches “wherein a design system token is used to initiate display of a tag accumulator tool (i.e. Server 133 may implement a predefined template (e.g., stored at data structure 136) to make multiple changes to the website code for website 3404 to conform with accessibility needs, e.g., associated with screen reader usage [Ekron 0516]… a website may include one or more active elements allowing users to interact with the website, such as… checkboxes [Ekron 0510] note: from instant specification 0075, the term “token” appears to be a design template).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Turski and Behzadi and Davidson to include the feature of having the ability to load a page based on a template as disclosed by Ekron.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of quickly changing website design choices and styles, including standards for accessibility and vision impaired, to better reflect the user’s needs.
Claim 5: Turski and Behzadi and Davidson and Ekron teach all the limitations of claim 4, above. Ekron teaches “wherein the design system token is compatible with a screen reader for outputting to a speech synthesizer or braille display (i.e. Server 133 may implement a predefined template (e.g., stored at data structure 136) to make multiple changes to the website code for website 3404 to conform with accessibility needs, e.g., associated with screen reader usage [Ekron 0516]… a website may include one or more active elements allowing users to interact with the website, such as… checkboxes [Ekron 0510] note: from instant specification 0075, the term “token” appears to be a design template).”
One would have been motivated to combine Turski and Behzadi and Davidson and Ekron, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of quickly changing website design choices and styles, including standards for accessibility and vision impaired, to better reflect the user’s needs.
Claim 11: Claim 11 is similar in content and in scope to claim 4, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 12: Claim 12 is similar in content and in scope to claim 5, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18: Claim 18 is similar in content and in scope to claim 4, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19: Claim 19 is similar in content and in scope to claim 5, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turski, in view of Behzadi, in view of Davidson, in view of Papolu et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20210200389 A1 (hereinafter “Papolu”).
Claim 6: Turski and Behzadi and Davidson teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Turski and Behzadi and Davidson are silent regarding “wherein each respective corresponding tag comprises an annul tool the activation of which removes the respective corresponding tag from the accumulation area.”
Papolu teaches “wherein each respective corresponding tag comprises an annul tool the activation of which removes the respective corresponding tag from the accumulation area (i.e. Representation 410 includes a user interface element 420 that allows the tag “project: landscaping” to be removed from the list of selected tags [Papolu 0041, Fig. 3-4]).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Turski and Behzadi and Davidson to include the feature of having the ability to remove selected items as disclosed by Papolu.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of allowing a user to remove selected items, which allows a user greater flexibility to fix their mistakes, typos, and misclicks.
Claim 13: Claim 13 is similar in content and in scope to claim 6, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20: Claim 20 is similar in content and in scope to claim 6, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hettig (US 20220139570 A1) listed on 892 is related to filtering usernames in a messaging application.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL SHEN whose telephone number is (469)295-9169 and email address is samuel.shen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00 am - 5:00 pm CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights