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
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been examined in response to application filed on 01/12/2024.
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 1, 5, 7-9, 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiz Velazquez et al. (US 2016/0292206 A1) in view of Teare et al. (US 6,151,624).
As to INDEPENDENT claim 1, Ruiz discloses a computing system comprising: a memory configured to store tables of data (fig.4; [0062]; data is stored in memory) and a processor ([0004]; a processor is usable for executing computing functions) communicably coupled to the memory and configured to: display a plurality of rows of data from a table among the tables of data stored within the memory via a user interface of a software application (fig.4; a table of data is displayed),
receive a request to add a row to the table (fig.4, “402”; [0042]; a user selects “Add New” button to add a row to the table),
display a pop-up window via the user interface, the pop-up window comprising a plurality of fields for inputting data and an input button (fig.6; a pop-up window is displayed with fillable fields and an input button for closing the pop-up window),
receive input content via the plurality of fields within the pop-up window (fig.6; [0042]; the user fills out the fields), and
insert a new row with the received input content into the plurality of rows of data displayed via the user interface (fig.6; [0042]; a new row with filled out information is created). Ruiz does not expressly disclose …in response to a command via the pop-up window.
In the same field of endeavor, Teare discloses…in response to a command via the pop-up window (col.23, l.58-60; a command button in the pop-up window is displayed to allow the user to confirm user entered data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Ruiz and Teare before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the data entry interface taught by Ruiz to include a confirmation button taught by Teare with the motivation being to providing the user with a visual indication of confirming user inputs.
As to claim 5, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the processor is further configured to detect a user input on the user interface with respect to a predetermined user interface control, and display the pop-up window via the user interface in response to the user input on the user interface (Ruiz, fig.4, fig.6; the user selects “Add New” button to invoke the pop-up window).
As to claim 7, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the processor is further configured to insert the new row with the received input content into the table stored within the memory in response to the command (Teare, col.23, l.58-60; the user clicks on the SAVE function button to add a new entry).
As to claim 8, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the pop-up window comprises a solid background, and the processor is configured to overlay the pop-up window on top of one or more rows of data displayed within the user interface (Ruiz, fig.6; the pop-up window “608” is opaque and is displayed on top of the table).
As to INDEPENDENT claim 9, see rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
As to claim 13, see rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 5 above.
As to claim 15, see rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 7 above.
As to claim 16, see rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 8 above.
As to INDEPENDENT claim 17, see rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 4, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiz-Teare and in view of Bonner et al. (US 2015/0100606 A1).
As to claim 4, the prior art as combined does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to determine that available space exists in the user interface, and insert the new row into a currently shown page of the user interface in response to the determination that the user interface has available space.
In the same field of endeavor, Bonner discloses… determining that available space exists in the user interface, and insert the new row into a currently shown page of the user interface in response to the determination that the user interface has available space (fig.8; if there is space insert the row, if there is no space, insert the row in a new page).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of the prior art as combined and Bonner before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the data entry interface taught by the prior art as combined to include page insertion taught by Bonner with the motivation being to enhance usability by automatically determining if extra pages are needed.
As to claim 16, see rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 4 above.
As to claim 20, see rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiz-Teare and in view of Bates et al. (US 6,865,713 B1).
As to claim 6, the prior art as combined does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to display the pop-up window at a height of a predetermined row of data from among the plurality of rows of data displayed within the user interface.
In the same field of endeavor, Bates discloses display the pop-up window at a predetermined height within the user interface (col.12, l.29-l45; the display location of the pop-up window is predetermined).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of the prior art as combined and Bates before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the data entry interface taught by the prior art as combined to fixed pop-up location taught by Bates with the motivation being to enhance usability by displaying the pop-up window in a relevant location.
As to claim 14, see rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 10-11 and 18-19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAOSHIAN SHIH whose telephone number is (571)270-1257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, 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.
/HAOSHIAN SHIH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179