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 with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4-11, 15, 16, and 18-20 have 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-12, 15, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US 2013/0179208) and further in view of Fowler (US 11,107,021) and further in view of Mullender (US 8,434,021).
Regarding claim 1, Chung teaches: A method for processing a workflow in combination with a task, comprising:
displaying a task page on a content editing interface, in response to receiving a task addition instruction on the content editing interface for the workflow (¶ 25, “Stage transitions may be insertable action sentences including one or more go-to commands for transitioning to another workflow stage, for instance, after task completion, if desired” and ¶ 26, “Upon receiving a task customization selection 202, method 200 may include receiving 204 an initiate task property customization selection”);
selecting a target task from a task displayed on the task page (¶ 21, “selecting a task action 308, 310 from the Action tab 302 of workflow customization user interface 300 may activate a workflow customization canvas 400”).
Chung does not teach; however, Fowler discloses: creating a task control in a preset area of the content editing interface and displaying the target task in the task control (col. 8:45-50, “the user selects the task creation option and identifies the objects, persons, and times relevant to that task. In various aspects, dialogs or prompts are provided to the user to select the values from the productivity application or manually input those values to build the task”); and
sending the workflow added with the target task to a target user (col. 10:42-44, “the system provides a notification to the first user (the task assignor) of the second user's selection to update the status or assignee of the task list item”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of creating a task control in a preset area of the content editing interface and displaying the target task in the task control; and sending the workflow added with the target task to a target user, as taught by Fowler, in the same way to the method for processing a workflow, as taught by Chung. Both inventions are in the field of managing workflows, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “[e]nhancements to the efficiency of a task management,” as indicated by Fowler (col. 1:37).
Chung and Fowler do not teach; however, Mullender teaches: wherein the task control comprises a task information display area (col. 5:62-66, “Task pane 320 may include a number of regions that present object identification, dynamic messages, content control, description of direct actions, links to related reports, links to related actions, or contextual data”) and a task associated information editing area (col. 7:35-38, “Example task pane 600 is employed to provide summary information and content controls for exchange of data between a scheduling application and an LOB application keeping track of time”), and
creating the task control in the preset area of the content editing interface and displaying the target task in the task control (col. 9:33-34, “At operation 906, the supplementary UI (in the example, the task pane) is generated”) comprises:
creating the task information display area in the preset area of the content editing interface (col. 9:41-42, “At operation 908, the task pane is dynamically positioned based on a position and size of the application UI”) and displaying the target task in the task information display area (col. 9:34-37, “The contents of the task pane such as message, object, and control regions may be created and ordered based on the information retrieved from the LOB application and the application UI”); and
creating the task associated information editing area in the preset area of the content editing interface (col. 5:62-66, “Task pane 320 may include a number of regions that present object identification, dynamic messages, content control, description of direct actions, links to related reports, links to related actions, or contextual data”) and editing content information associated with the target task in the task associated information editing area (col. 5:2-5, “The supplementary UI may also provide controls that enable the user to add, modify, or remove some or all of the data being transferred between the two applications”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of wherein the task control comprises a task information display area and a task associated information editing area, and creating the task control in the preset area of the content editing interface and displaying the target task in the task control comprises: creating the task information display area in the preset area of the content editing interface and displaying the target task in the task information display area; and creating the task associated information editing area in the preset area of the content editing interface and editing content information associated with the target task in the task associated information editing area, as taught by Mullender, in the same way to the method for processing a workflow, as taught by Chung. Both inventions are in the field of managing workflows, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “[e]nhancements to the efficiency of a task management,” as indicated by Mullender (col. 1:37).
Regarding claim 2, Fowler teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the creating a task control in a preset area of the content editing interface and displaying the target task in the task control comprises: creating the task control in a content editing area of the content editing interface, wherein the content editing area is used for inputting at least one of a text, an image, a video, and an audio (claim 1, “the productivity application comprises one of a word processing application, a spreadsheet application, a presentation application and a note taking application,” the note taking application corresponds to editing area used for inputting a text).
Regarding claim 4, Chung teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein after displaying the target task in the task control, the method further comprises: displaying an editing result for an editing operation in the task associated information editing area, in response to receiving the editing operation in the task associated information editing area of the task control (claim 20, “receiving a content type selection; and displaying a menu of corresponding outcomes based on the received task content type selection”).
Regarding claim 5, Chung teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the selecting a target task from a task displayed on the task page comprises: displaying at least one task corresponding to the task addition instruction on the task page (¶ 26, “method 200 may include displaying 206 a task customization user interface”); and receiving at least one target task selected from at least one task (¶ 27, “Method 200 may include receiving 208 one or task property customization selections within task customization user interface 500”).
Regarding claim 7, Fowler teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the task displayed on the task page comprises a first subtask and/or a second subtask, and content of the second subtask is associated with content of the first subtask (claim 3, “the new task item comprises a first new task item and the portion of the document comprises a first portion of the document and wherein the method further comprises creating a second new task item by: receiving a selection of a second portion of the document”).
Regarding claim 9, Fowler teaches: The method according to claim 7, wherein the displaying the target task in the task control comprises: determining a first identification of a second subtask corresponding to the target task (col. 11:26-28, “a manager may set a task item to copyedit pages X-Z of a word processing document and assign the task item to a work group or an individual user”), and a second identification of a first subtask corresponding to the target task (col.11:28-33, “The manager, for example, may a select the pages X-Z while accessing those pages in a word processing application and select an option to create a task based on that selection, which is shared from the word processing application to the task list service 120 to assign as a task to the members of the work group”); and displaying the first identification and the second identification in the task control (col. 11:65-66, “the task item is displayed within the context of the productivity application for the user”).
Regarding claim 10, Fowler teaches: The method according to claim 9, wherein the displaying the first identification and the second identification in the task control comprises: combining the first identification and the second identification (claim 1, “storing in the relational store managed by the task management application, in association with the assigned new task item, an assignor identification of the assignor, an assignee identification of the user, a productivity application identification of the productivity application, a document identification of the document and the due date”), and displaying a combination of the first identification and the second identification in the task control (claim 1, “display of the new task item within the productivity application accessed by the user and including within the display of the new task item at least one of a name of the assignor based on the assignor identification in the relational store and the due date from the relational store”).
Regarding claim 11, Chung teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the displaying a task page on a content editing interface, in response to receiving a task addition instruction on the content editing interface for the workflow comprises: displaying a task addition control on the content editing interface for the workflow (col. 8:39-43, “a task creation option is provided in an email productivity application. In one example, the system identifies the “volunteer registration” as an entity possibly related to a task and identifies the candidate time as “tonight” and provides the task creation control”); and in response to triggering the task addition control, generating the task addition instruction in a case of determining that an account triggering the task addition control activates a task function (col. 8:43-45, “Upon selection of the task creation control, the “volunteer registration” task is created as a task item for “tonight””); and generating prompt information for activating the task function in a case of determining that the account triggering the task addition control does not activate the task function (col. 8:45-50, “In another aspect, the user selects the task creation option and identifies the objects, persons, and times relevant to that task. In various aspects, dialogs or prompts are provided to the user to select the values from the productivity application or manually input those values to build the task”).
Regarding claim 12, Chung teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein before the sending the workflow added with the target task to a target user, the method further comprises: generating prompt information for removing a deleted task, in response to a determination that the target task comprises the deleted task (col. 4:14-19, “The task list application provides user-specific tasks that the user wishes to be reminded of to complete and tools for manipulating those tasks (e.g., assign task to another user, share task with another user, complete task, mark status of task, add task, remove task)”).
Claims 15, 16, and 18-20 recite commensurate subject matter as claims 1, 2, 4, and 5. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung, Fowler, and Mullender, as applied above, and further in view of Chu (US 2012/0123835).
Regarding claim 6, Chung, Fowler, and Mullender do not teach; however, Chu teaches: determining at least one task cycle corresponding to the task addition instruction (¶ 75, “The To Do Management facility 110 may display all charts created by the manager for an individual or by the individual themselves”), ranking the at least one task cycle in a chronological order (¶ 80, “an assigned task may need to be completed and graded in order to gain access to game play. For example, once a task has been completed and/or graded, an individual may have the ability to access game play through an individual user interface 104. In an embodiment, a manager may indicate a threshold number of tasks to complete, points to accumulate, or a combination thereof in order to gain access to a game”), and displaying the ranked at least one task cycle on the task page (¶ 60, “The grade tasks facility 154 may have an individual selection drop down that lists all individuals sorted by first name and a View All option. By default the View All option may be selected”), wherein one task cycle corresponds to one time period (¶ 62, “The summary row may display the sum for the selected time period”); receiving a target task cycle selected from the at least one task cycle (¶ 75, “the Chore Chart 830 may be viewed by the current day, by a specific day, by a date range, by the current week, by the current month, by the year, and the like”); calling at least one task corresponding to the target task cycle, in response to determining that there is a task within the target task cycle (¶ 58, “The Grade button 2012 may function on checked tasks within the chart. The Grade button 2012 may mark the tasks as completed and change the main navigation to the Grade tab 2012, automatically selecting the individual for which a manager may wish to grade tasks”); and displaying the at least one task on the task page (¶ 58, “The default chart of the first individual is displayed when selecting the left Task Charts navigation menu”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of determining at least one task cycle corresponding to the task addition instruction, ranking the at least one task cycle in a chronological order, and displaying the ranked at least one task cycle on the task page, wherein one task cycle corresponds to one time period; receiving a target task cycle selected from the at least one task cycle; and calling at least one task corresponding to the target task cycle, in response to determining that there is a task within the target task cycle; and displaying the at least one task on the task page, as taught by Chu, in the same way to the displaying, as taught by Chung, Fowler, and Mullender. Both inventions are in the field of managing workflows, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “managing tasks assigned by a manager to an individual comprising an online task management system where task completion earns individual points which may be exchanged for rewards, privileges, game play, and the like,” as indicated by Chu (¶ 3).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung, Fowler, and Mullender, as applied above, and further in view of Albornoz (US 8,839,092).
Regarding claim 8, Chung, Fowler, and Mullender do not teach; however, Albornoz discloses: setting the second subtask to be selectable and setting the first subtask to be unselectable, wherein the second subtask comprises at least one second subtask (claim 1, “the one or more workflow annotation widgets each represent a workflow task in a workflow, and wherein the one or more workflow annotation widgets are presented as selectable icons on the workflow document” and col. 9:51-53, “the annotation also shows fields that are not writeable 512 514 515 516 by the evaluator as signified by a black padlock icon next to the field name 512 515”); and receiving at least one target second subtask selected from the at least one second subtask (col. 8:62-64, “The user selects an annotation 1212 to view a task represented by the annotation 1212 retrieved from the annotation database 1007”), and determining the received at least one target second subtask as the target task (col. 8:64-67, “The user completes the task (assessment) 1004 and modifies or creates an Annotation on the document 1215 with relevant information about the completed task 1005. The data is stored 1011 in the annotation system 1007”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of the selecting a target task from a task displayed on the task page comprises: setting the second subtask to be selectable and setting the first subtask to be unselectable; and receiving at least one target second subtask selected from the at least one second subtask, and determining the received at least one target second subtask as the target task, as taught by Albornoz, in the same way to the selecting a target task, as taught by Chung, Fowler, and Mullender. Both inventions are in the field of managing workflow tasks, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “GUI assisted Workflow process control,” as indicated by Albornoz (col. 1:16-17).
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 JACOB D DASCOMB whose telephone number is (571)272-9993. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/JACOB D DASCOMB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights