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 .
This final rejection is in response to the amendment filed on: 10/29/2025.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 19 and 20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellotti et al (“Taking Email to Task: The Design and Evaluation of a Task Management Centered Email Tool”, published: 2003, pages 345-352) in view of Kay et al (US Patent: 8266544, issued: Sep. 11, 2012, filed: Sep. 27, 2011) in view of Meisels et al (US Patent: 8682989, issued: Mar 25, 2014, filed: Apr. 28, 2011).
Claim(s) 3 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellotti et al (“Taking Email to Task: The Design and Evaluation of a Task Management Centered Email Tool”, published: 2003, pages 345-352) ) in view of Kay et al (US Patent: 8266544, issued: Sep. 11, 2012, filed: Sep. 27, 2011) in view of Meisels et al (US Patent: 8682989, issued: Mar 25, 2014, filed: Apr. 28, 2011) in view of Masterson et al (US Application: US 2015/0281149, published: Oct. 1, 2015, filed: Sep. 25, 2014).
Claim(s) 4 and 8-17 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellotti et al (“Taking Email to Task: The Design and Evaluation of a Task Management Centered Email Tool”, published: 2003, pages 345-352) in view of Kay et al (US Patent: 8266544, issued: Sep. 11, 2012, filed: Sep. 27, 2011) in view of Meisels et al (US Patent: 8682989, issued: Mar 25, 2014, filed: Apr. 28, 2011) in view of ErikJamp (“Shade Windows in OpenTTD”, published: 2009, pages 1-6).
Claim(s) 5 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellotti et al (“Taking Email to Task: The Design and Evaluation of a Task Management Centered Email Tool”, published: 2003, pages 345-352) Kay et al (US Patent: 8266544, issued: Sep. 11, 2012, filed: Sep. 27, 2011) in view of Meisels et al (US Patent: 8682989, issued: Mar 25, 2014, filed: Apr. 28, 2011) in view of Hatoun (US Application: US 2006/0069605, published: Mar. 30, 2006, filed: Mar. 22, 2005).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellotti et al (“Taking Email to Task: The Design and Evaluation of a Task Management Centered Email Tool”, published: 2003, pages 345-352) Kay et al (US Patent: 8266544, issued: Sep. 11, 2012, filed: Sep. 27, 2011) in view of Meisels et al (US Patent: 8682989, issued: Mar 25, 2014, filed: Apr. 28, 2011) in view of Ritter (US Application: 2006/0149725, published: Jul. 6, 2006, filed: Jan. 3, 2005).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 19 and 20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellotti et al (“Taking Email to Task: The Design and Evaluation of a Task Management Centered Email Tool”, published: 2003, pages 345-352) in view of Kay et al (US Patent: 8266544, issued: Sep. 11, 2012, filed: Sep. 27, 2011) in view of Meisels et al (US Patent: 8682989, issued: Mar 25, 2014, filed: Apr. 28, 2011).
With regards to claim 1, Bellotti et al teaches a method of data processing for an application, comprising:
displaying service data in a first display area of an interface of a first application (page 348, Figure 1: thrask service/workflow data (which includes progress/deadline management) is displayed in a first top pane area (interpreted as claimed ‘first display area’) of a computing system);
displaying the first online document in a second display area of the interface of the first application (page 348, Figure 1: thrask content (such as messages and other attachments/files related to the thrask) are shown in a middle pane and when an item is selected in a middle pane, the item selected is displayed in a bottom pane (interpreted as the claimed ‘second display area’. One of the online documents could for example be an email message, or an word document attachment of a word document (see page 347: “The middle pane displays thrask content (messages, attachments, and links) and the bottom pane displays a preview of the content of individual selected items (in figure 1, a thrask entitled ‘CHI2003 Paper’ is selected, and a draft paper within that thrask is being viewed)), the first online document information carrying content required for … (page 348, Figure 1: the selected content such as a message or word document is previewed in the bottom pane and includes content that impacts the thrask’s service/workflow), wherein the second display area is formed by a plurality of edges that are displayed on the interface the first application (Figure 1: the preview pane is formed by edges surrounding the document to form a rectangle border); and
processing the service data in response to a first operation initiated based on the content carried by the first online document (a thrask’s service/workflow can be processed when users update meta information for the document (page 348: “users can assign meta-information directly to items either from the thrask collection view, or from within an open item. They no longer have to copy information into a separate tasks resource or into their calendar as we have often observed people doing. Deadlines and reminders cause notifications to appear when they are due. Actions are represented as red or blue balls (to represent actions for oneself or another”).
However Bellotti et al does not expressly teach …. Wherein the first application is configured to implement approval of items, and the service data comprise a flow of approving a first item associated with a first online document; … the first online document carrying content required for approving the first item, … and wherein the plurality of edges of the second display area are different and separate from boundaries of the first application display interface… and wherein the method further comprises determining a size of the second display area based on an amount of content data carried by the first online document; updating the content data carried by the first online document based on a progress of approving the first item in the first application, wherein the updating the content data carried by the first online document based on the progress of approving the first item in the first application comprises automatically generating approval-related information and displaying the approval-related information at a predetermined position of the first online document; automatically adapting the size of the second display area of the interface of the first application as the amount of the content data carried by the first online document changes; and changing the size of the second display area by fixing the one of the plurality of edges of the second display area while changing a position of another of the plurality of edges of the second display area.
Yet Kay et al teaches and wherein the method further comprises determining a size of the second display area based on an amount of content data carried by the [content set within the second display area/pane] automatically adapting the size of the second display area based on the amount of content data carried by the [content set within] the second display area/pane]; and changing the size of the second display area by fixing the one of the plurality of edges of the second display area while changing a position of another of the plurality of edges of the second display area (column 2, lines 45-56, column 4, lines 56-63, Fig. 1, Fig. 2: a window is resized dynamically as content changes such that the vertical edges get longer or shorter (vertical dimension) and the horizontal edges can be selectively retained during resizing by adjusting in one dimension ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Bellotti et al’s ability to display a set of content (document content) in a visually bounded display area/pane (the claimed second display area) using a computing system, such that the computing system’s size of the visually bounded display area could have been modified to be adjusted in one dimension (such as vertically) when adapting to fit to the set of changing content, as taught by Kay et al. The combination would have allowed Bellotti et al to have been able to dynamically adjust to changing content through resizing of a window/pane.
However the combination does not expressly teach …. Wherein the first application is configured to implement approval of items, and the service data comprise a flow of approving a first item associated with a first online document; … the first online document carrying content required for approving the first item, … and wherein the plurality of edges of the second display area are different and separate from boundaries of the first application display interface…; updating the content data carried by the first online document based on a progress of approving the first item in the first application, wherein the updating the content data carried by the first online document based on the progress of approving the first item in the first application comprises automatically generating approval-related information and displaying the approval-related information at a predetermined position of the first online document; automatically adapting the size of the second display area of the interface of the first application as the amount of the content data carried by the first online document changes.
Yet Meisels et al teaches … wherein the first application is configured to implement approval of items, and the service data comprise a flow of approving a first item associated with a first online document; … the first online document carrying content required for approving the first item, … and wherein the plurality of edges of the second display area are different and separate from boundaries of the first application display interface…; updating the content data carried by the first online document based on a progress of approving the first item in the first application, wherein the updating the content data carried by the first online document based on the progress of approving the first item in the first application comprises automatically generating approval-related information and displaying the approval-related information at a predetermined position of the first online document; automatically adapting the size of the second display area of the interface of the first application as the amount of the content data carried by the first online document changes (Fig. 3 and Fig. 5, column 7, lines 5-35, 50-67, column 8, lines 1-25: a document displays a service flow 311 and 510, which gets updated on its workflow path/journey and the document contains content for approval/acceptance/review such that a display area having a border is nested within the application and the display area is adapted to extend based on the content being reviewed for approval/acceptance in view of the progress of approving content and showing the journey/path of the content’s approval. It is further noted that ‘approval-related information’ is interpreted as any information associated with the progress of approval and comments/revisions/annotations or other types of changes are displayed during the progress of approving/reviewing content. The change information (approval progress information) is automatically collected and displayed in a bounded area of the document content).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Bellotti et al and Kay et al’s ability to display a first and second display area (containing the document with content that is part of a workflow) in an application), such that the document’s content can be updated with flow/path of change data corresponding to approval related information process and the display area encompassing the document can adapt based upon size of the content within the document, as taught by Meisels et al. The combination would have allowed Bellotti et al and Kay et al to have allowed users to have easily tracked the changes made to a document by their co-authors and editors” (Meisels et al, column 1, lines 10-12).
With regards to claim 2. The method of claim 1, Bellotti et al teaches wherein displaying the first online document information comprises: in response to an online document addition control being triggered, adding an existing first online document or creating the first online document (Figure 1: a message (the claimed ‘online document’) is added to the middle-pane display for user selection, such that upon selection in the middle pane, the online document is displayed. It is noted that the online document can be manually added to the middle pane (and as explained above, any item in the middle pane can be displayed in a preview/bottom (claimed second display area). See the following citation from right column, sections ‘meaningful activities not just message threads’ and ‘drafts in context’ of page 347 which explains document addition of items or drafts to the middle area: (“we let users fine-tune the contents of a thrask by adding items and thrasks to other thrasks or by moving items or sub-thrasks out. …. Since we have observed people creating messages slowly in extended-responses, Taskmaster permits users to save drafts (the label [Saved Message] in the middle pane of figure 1 indicates a draft)”).
With regards to claim 19, Bellotti et al, Kay et al and Meisels et al teaches a terminal comprising: at least one memory and at least one processor; wherein the at least one memory configured to store program code, and the at least one processor is configured to call the program code stored in the at least one memory to execute acts comprising: displaying service data in a first display area of an interface of a first application, wherein the first application is configured to implement approval of items, and the service data comprise a flow of approving a first item associated with a first online document; displaying the first online document in a second display area of the interface of the first application, the first online document carrying content required for processing the service data, wherein the second display area is formed by a plurality of edges that are displayed on the first application display interface, and wherein the plurality of edges of the second display area are different and separate from boundaries of the interface of the first application ; processing the service data in response to a first operation initiated based on the content carried by the first online document; wherein the acts further comprise: determining a size of the second display area based on an amount of content data carried by the first online document; updating the content data carried by the first online document based on a progress of approving the first item in the first application, wherein the updating the content data carried by the first online document based on the progress of approving the first item in the first application comprises automatically generating approval-related information and displaying the approval- related information at a predetermined position of the first online document; automatically adapting the size of the second display area of the interface of the first application as the amount of the content data carried by the first online document changes; and changing the size of the second display area by fixing a position of one of the plurality of edges of the second display area while changing a position of another of the plurality of edges of the second display area, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 20, Bellotti et al, Kay et al and Meisels et al teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing program code, the program code, when executed by a processor, causing the processor to perform acts comprising: displaying service data in a first display area of an interface of a first application , wherein the first application is configured to implement approval of items, and the service data comprise a flow of approving a first item associated with a first online document; displaying the first online document in a second display area of the interface of the first application, the first online document carrying content required for approving the first item, wherein the second display area is formed by a plurality of edges that are displayed on the interface of the first application, and wherein the plurality of edges of the second display area are different and separate from boundaries of the interface of the first application; processing the service data in response to a first operation initiated based on the content carried by the first online document; wherein the acts further comprise: determining a size of the second display area based on an amount of content data carried by the first online document; updating the content data carried by the first online document based on a progress of approving the first item in the first application, wherein the updating the content data carried by the first online document based on the progress of approving the first item in the first application comprises automatically generating approval-related information and displaying the approval- related information at a predetermined position of the first online document; automatically adapting the size of the second display area of the interface of the first application as the amount of the content data carried by the first online document changes; and changing the size of the second display area by fixing a position of one of the plurality of edges of the second display area while changing a position of another of the plurality of edges of the second display area., as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 3 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellotti et al (“Taking Email to Task: The Design and Evaluation of a Task Management Centered Email Tool”, published: 2003, pages 345-352) ) in view of Kay et al (US Patent: 8266544, issued: Sep. 11, 2012, filed: Sep. 27, 2011) in view of Meisels et al (US Patent: 8682989, issued: Mar 25, 2014, filed: Apr. 28, 2011) in view of Masterson et al (US Application: US 2015/0281149, published: Oct. 1, 2015, filed: Sep. 25, 2014).
With regards to claim 3. The method of claim 1, Bellotti et al, Kay et al and Meisels et al teaches further comprising: in response to a second operation, adding a file required for processing the service data to the first online document (Figure 1: a message /email (the claimed ‘online document)) can have an added attached file (the added file)).
However Bellotti et al, Kay et al and Meisels et al does not expressly teach in response to a second operation, adding a file required for processing …
Yet Masterson et al teaches in response to a second operation, adding a file required for processing …(paragraphs 0021 and 0025: “For example, the receiving user may reply back to the sending user with the edited content item as an attachment, the receiving user may send the edited content item to one or more other users or groups of users. The receiving user may attach the edited content item to a meeting request, calendar item, electronic note, electronic task, electronic reminder, or the like”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bellotti et al, Kay et al and Meisels et al’s ability to process items associated with tasks and emails (such as attachments) for workflow/service-data, such that users can add attachments to the emails/tasks as part of the workflow/servicing, as taught by Masterson et al. The combination would have allowed made it more efficient to manage edits and/or attachments associated with tasks and/or emails (Masterson et al, paragraph 0003).
Claim(s) 4 and 8-17 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellotti et al (“Taking Email to Task: The Design and Evaluation of a Task Management Centered Email Tool”, published: 2003, pages 345-352) in view of Kay et al (US Patent: 8266544, issued: Sep. 11, 2012, filed: Sep. 27, 2011) in view of Meisels et al (US Patent: 8682989, issued: Mar 25, 2014, filed: Apr. 28, 2011) in view of ErikJamp (“Shade Windows in OpenTTD”, published: 2009, pages 1-6).
With regards to claim 4. The method of claim 1, Bellotti et al , Kay et al and Meisels et al teaches wherein displaying the first online document information in the second display area comprises: displaying the first online document in … in the second display area, to display content information carried by the first online document, as similarly explained in the rejection for claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Bellotti et al, Kay et al and Meisels et al does not expressly teach displaying the first online document in an unfolded state …
Yet ErikJamp teaches displaying the first … document in an unfolded state …(Pages 1 and 2: a document can be in an ‘unfolded’ state displayed in “full size” (page 1: user can toggle title bar to unroll and expand/resize contents of a window (contents interpreted as a document of data) to be displayed fully (interpreted as ‘unfolded’) or vice versa (toggle to contract or resize content ‘shade’ depth/roll-length based upon mouse scroll wheel)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Bellotti et al, Kay et al and Meisels et al’s ability to process workflow/service data for task(s) and display document content information associated with the task(s) in the second display area, such that the second display area would have been displayed based upon user interactive operation to toggle/change/manipulate a content view to be in an unfolded state (from folded/’rolled up’ state) or other desired state(s), as taught by ErikJamp. The combination would have allowed Bellotti et al, Kay et al and Meisels et al to have enabled users to selectively viewed windows that would take up less space, but aren’t entirely closed /minimized to a taskbar. (page 1, ErikJamp).
With regards to claim 8. The method of claim 1, the combination of Bellotti et al, Kay et al, Meisels et al v ErikJamp teaches further comprising: changing a display position and/or a display size of the second display area in response to a third operation, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4 (Bellotti et al’s second display area was modified to display based on a window shade-roll implementation to sized/resized the second display area according to user input via toggle, scroll wheel, etc), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 9. The method of claim 8, Bellotti et al, Kay et al, Meisels et al and ErikJamp teaches wherein changing a display position and/or a display size of the second display area in response to a third operation, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 8, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination of Bellotti et al, Kay et al, Meisels et al and ErikJamp (as explained in the rejection of claim 8) does not expressly teach … comprises: if a length of the second display area in a first direction is greater than a first predetermined length, in response to a first predetermined operation, adjusting the length of the second display area in the first direction according to the first predetermined operation.
Yet Erik Jamp additionally teaches … comprises: if a length of the second display area in a first direction is greater than a first predetermined length, in response to a first predetermined operation, adjusting the length of the second display area in the first direction according to the first predetermined operation (page 2, Update r16492, attached Diagram: when the remaining length of the second display area in a direction of bottom to the second display area is greater than an acceptable condition (in response to an ‘unshade’/expand user operation upon toggling of shade/unshade control-button affixed in first area/title-bar (see diagram which shows the style of button changes based on shade/unshade state)); the second display area will adjust and display it’s length as expanded/’unshaded’. Alternatively, if the length of the second display area in a direction of bottom to the second display area is not greater acceptable (deemed as ‘near the bottom’), then the second display area will cease expansion until the second display area is moved up first (such that the expansion/unshade will result in the second display area being fully visible)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Bellotti et al, Kay et al, Meisels et al and ErikJamp’s ability to display a second area that can be interactive to alter length of the second area (as well as fold/unfold the second area) such that the second area’s length is dependent upon checking a range /proximity to bottom of a screen, as also taught by Erik Jamp. The combination would have allowed the combination to have ensured the second area could be easily visible upon ‘unshade’/expand events.
With regards to claim 10. The method of claim 9, the combination of Bellotti et al, Kay et al, Meisels et al and ErikJamp teaches wherein adjusting the length of the second display area in the first direction according to the first predetermined operation comprises: if the length of the second display area in the first direction is not greater than a second predetermined length, ceasing to adjust the length of the second display area in the first direction according to the first predetermined operation, wherein the first predetermined length is greater than the second predetermined length, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 9, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 11. The method of claim 8, the combination of Bellotti et al, Kay et al, Meisels et al and ErikJamp teaches wherein changing a display position and/or a display size of the second display area in response to a third operation comprises: in response to a control identification being located on a first or second side of the second display area, changing a style of the control identification, and after changing the style of the control identification, changing the position of the first or second side according to an operation of the control identification to change the size of the second display area, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 9 (as explained, display position of the second display area or size can change based upon fold/unfold (shade/unshade toggling of button-control) and the button control will update its visual representation (interpreted as ‘style’) dependent on state of fold/unfold (shade/unshade)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 12. The method of claim 11, the combination of Bellotti et al, Kay et al, Meisels et al and ErikJamp teaches wherein, in response to a control identification being located on a first or second side of the second display area, changing a style of the control identification, comprises: after the second display area is selected, in response to the control identification being located on the first or second side of the second display area, changing the style of the control identification , as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 9 (as explained, display position of the second display area or size can change based upon fold/unfold (shade/unshade toggling of button-control) and the button control will update its visual representation (interpreted as ‘style’) dependent on state of fold/unfold (shade/unshade)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 13. The method of claim 8, the combination of Bellotti et al, Kay et al, Meisels et al and ErikJamp teaches wherein an adjustment frequency of the size or position of the second display area is not greater than a first frequency threshold, or if the adjustment frequency of the size or position of the second display area exceeds a second frequency threshold, the display interface is not refreshed; or, wherein the second display region has a predetermined size range, and changing the display size of the second display area in response to the third operation comprises: determining a target display size of the second display area according to the third operation, if the target display size is greater than a maximum value of the size range, setting the display size of the second display area to the maximum value of the size range, or if the target display size is less than a minimum value of the predetermined size range, setting the display size of the second display area set to the minimum value of the size range (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 8, Bellotti et al, Kay et al and Meisels et al’s second display sizing was modified to be initiated based upon ErikJamp’s user interaction/operation of shade/unshade. As previously explained in the rejection of claim 1, the second display sizing of Bellotti et al and Baird was already explained to teach in Baird, paragraphs 0032-0034, the display area sizing is expanded vertically, such that the top and bottom horizontal edges remain the same width (fixed) and the vertical edges are visually expanded, and the display area can have at least a minimum such as 30 percent and a maximum such as 70 percent when expanding/adjusting in view of the focus interaction); or, the method further comprising at least one of the following: the content carried by the first online document is updated as the service data evolves; the content carried by the first online document comprises service flow information of the service data and/or content information of the service data; the content carried by the first online document comprises data to be referenced by evolvement of the service flow of the service data; or the content carried by the first online document comprises link information that displays a predetermined interface of the first application after being triggered.
With regards to claim 14. The method of claim 8, the combination of Bellotti et al, Kay et al, Meisels et al and ErikJamp teaches wherein the second display area has a folded state and an unfolded state, and the second display area is switchable between the folded state and the unfolded state, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 9 (as explained the second display area can be folded/shaded or unfolded/unshaded by toggling the shade/unshade control-button), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 15. The method of claim 14, the combination of Bellotti et al, Kay et al, Meisels et al and ErikJamp teaches wherein while the document display area is in the unfolded state, the content carried by the first online document is displayed; or while the document display area is in the folded state, the content carried by the first online document is hidden, and abridged information of the first online document is displayed, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 9 (as explained the second display area can be folded/shaded or unfolded/unshaded by toggling the shade/unshade control-button. Also when the content is folded, the content is hidden and abridged information is shown as the title bar), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 16. The method of claim 14, the combination of Bellotti et al, Kay et al, Meisels et al and ErikJamp teaches wherein the second display area has an associated control, if the second display area is in the folded state, the control is used to unfold the second display area after being triggered; or if the second display area is in the unfolded state, the control is used to fold the second display area after being triggered, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 9 (as explained the second display area can be folded/shaded or unfolded/unshaded by toggling the shade/unshade control-button.), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 17. The method of claim 16, the combination of Bellotti et al, Kay et al, Meisels et al and ErikJamp teaches wherein the control is fixed at a target position of the display interface; and/or positioning a display interface to the second display area after the control is triggered , as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 9 (as explained the second display area can be folded/shaded or unfolded/unshaded by toggling the shade/unshade control-button affixed on a title bar/target-position and unshaded content is positioned to the second display area in response to an ‘unshade’ event), and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 5 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellotti et al (“Taking Email to Task: The Design and Evaluation of a Task Management Centered Email Tool”, published: 2003, pages 345-352) Kay et al (US Patent: 8266544, issued: Sep. 11, 2012, filed: Sep. 27, 2011) in view of Meisels et al (US Patent: 8682989, issued: Mar 25, 2014, filed: Apr. 28, 2011) in view of Hatoun (US Application: US 2006/0069605, published: Mar. 30, 2006, filed: Mar. 22, 2005).
With regards to claim 5. The method of claim 1, Bellotti et al, Kay et al, and Meisels et al teaches wherein by carrying a file required for processing the service data by the first online document, as similarly explained in the rejection for claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Bellotti et al, Kay et al, and Meisels et al does not expressly teach … an application processing interface contains no additional control other than an online document addition control.
Yet Hatoun teaches an application processing interface contains no additional control other than an online document addition control (Fig 4D: online addition specific to a specific single document is configured for a workflow).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Bellotti et al, Kay et al, and Meisels et al’s ability to process a workflow/service-data that is associated with a document, such that the online document is the only document being specified during a definition process when adding to a workflow, as taught by Hatoun. The combination would have allowed workflow development and deployment in an efficient and cost effective manner (Hatoun, paragraph 0008).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellotti et al (“Taking Email to Task: The Design and Evaluation of a Task Management Centered Email Tool”, published: 2003, pages 345-352) Kay et al (US Patent: 8266544, issued: Sep. 11, 2012, filed: Sep. 27, 2011) in view of Meisels et al (US Patent: 8682989, issued: Mar 25, 2014, filed: Apr. 28, 2011) in view of Ritter (US Application: 2006/0149725, published: Jul. 6, 2006, filed: Jan. 3, 2005).
With regards to claim 6. The method of claim 1, Bellotti et al, Kay et al, and Meisels et al teaches further comprising: associating the first online document, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Bellotti et al, Kay et al, and Meisels et al does not expressly teach … document with a document archive address to enable automatic archiving of the first online document.
Yet Ritter teaches … document with a document archive address to enable automatic archiving of the first online document (paragraphs 0027. 0028 and 0032: a document can be archived automatically based upon an occurrence/time that an time based-action rule associated with the archival of the document being satisfied. The archive page will designate a specific address/folder).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Bellotti et al, Kay et al, and Meisels et al’s ability to include and manage a first document in a workflow/service, such that the first document could have been assigned to a location/address for archiving after a predetermined/configured time/occurrence-of-satisfying-a-condition, as taught by Ritter. The combination would have allowed Bellotti et al to have implemented rule based document administration in an efficient manner (Ritter, paragraph 0006).
With regards to claim 7. The method of claim 6, the combination of Bellotti et al, Kay et al, Meisels et al and Ritter teaches further comprising at least one of: archiving the first online document to the associated document archive address at a predetermined time, wherein the predetermined time comprises reaching or completing a predetermined service node of the first application (as similarly explained in the rejection for claim 6, a document is associated with a folder at a predetermined occurrence/time when a time based action is satisfied), and rejected under similar rationale; or, wherein associating the first online document with a document archive address comprises: displaying an archive address selection page of a document storage center when the first online document is added to the first application, or displaying an archive address selection page of a document storage center at the predetermined time, and determining the archive address in response to an operation on the archive address selection page; or, wherein associating the first online document with a document archive address comprises at least one of: determining a first archive address associated with a service data template, and determining the document archive address based on the first archive address, wherein the service data is generated based on the service data template, the service data template associated with the first archive address, the first archive address associated with a target online document, the target online document being an online document associated with data established based on the service data template or displaying an archive address selection page in response to an operation of adding the first online document in a display interface of the first application, and determining the document archive address based on a selected second archive address.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claim 1, the applicant pointed out that the claim amended to ‘the service data comprising a flow’ addresses the prior arguments/issues directed to Bellotti. The examiner acknowledges the clarification and directs applicant’s attention to how Bellotti and Kay are now modified to include Meisels teachings which have been explained in the rejection above to show that service /path data of an approval process can be updated /displayed.
The applicant further argues that Meisels’ email including changes and links does not meet the claimed first application wherein the updating the content data carried by the first online document based on the progress of approving the first item in the first application comprises automatically generating approval-related information and displaying the approval-related information at a predetermined position of the first online document; automatically adapting the size of the second display area of the interface of the first application as the amount of content data carried by the first online document changes”. However this argument is not persuasive since as explained above, Meisels teaches Fig. 3 and Fig. 5, column 7, lines 5-35, 50-67, column 8, lines 1-25: a document displays a service flow 311 and 510, which gets updated on its workflow path/journey and the document contains content for approval/acceptance/review such that a display area having a border is nested within the application and the display area is adapted to extend based on the content being reviewed for approval/acceptance in view of the progress of approving content and showing the journey/path of the content’s approval. It is further noted that ‘approval-related information’ is interpreted as any information associated with the progress of approval and comments/revisions/annotations or other types of changes are displayed during the progress of approving/reviewing content. The change information (approval progress information) is automatically collected and displayed in a bounded area of the document content.
The applicant further argues that Meisels does not teach the updated content is based on progress of approving the first item in the first application. However this argument is not persuasive and the examiner notes that ‘progress’ is interpreted to encompass the path/history of changes throughout a workflow, which is shown/taught as the displayed service flow/path of 311 and 510. It appears the applicant might be requiring a more specific embodiment concerning how progress is to be evaluated against defined steps/conditions within a service flow), and if so, the examiner points out that this more specific embodiment is not required by the claim language in claim 1.
With regards to claim 2, the applicant argues it is allowable for at least its dependency upon claim 1. However this argument is not persuasive since claim 1 has been shown/explained to be rejected above.
With regards to claims 19 and 20, the applicant argues they are allowable for reasons presented by the applicant for claim 1. However this argument is not persuasive since claim 1 has been shown/explained to be rejected above.
With regards to claim 3, the applicant argues it is allowable for at least its dependency upon claim 1. However this argument is not persuasive since claim 1 has been shown/explained to be rejected above.
With regards to claims 4 and 8-17, the applicant argues it is allowable for at least its dependency upon claim 1. However this argument is not persuasive since claim 1 has been shown/explained to be rejected above.
With regards to claim 5, the applicant argues it is allowable for at least its dependency upon claim 1. However this argument is not persuasive since claim 1 has been shown/explained to be rejected above.
With regards to claims 6 and 7, the applicant argues it is allowable for at least its dependency upon claim 1. However this argument is not persuasive since claim 1 has been shown/explained to be rejected above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172