DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. The specification is objected to for the following:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 10-11, 14-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haramati et al. (US 2021/0157978 A1).
As in Claim 1, Haramati teaches a system for improving execution displays, the system comprising:
at least one processor operatively connected to a memory, the at least one processor when executing configured to (pars. 192-194, a computing device 100 includes one or more processors operatively coupled to a memory 120 that stores instructions which, when executed by the processors, cause the computing device to perform actions):
generate a primary display of visual objects created and encoded with modifiable display information, priority, and time based log information associated with any activity performed on respective visual objects (see at least FIGS. 3A-3D, at least pars. 205-225, 711-715, the system provides a customized template created and encoded that comprises building blocks or visual objects such as column, rows, tables, dashboards, texts, images, widgets, actions, triggers, and other user interface elements capable of input or output. Each building block may store editable information including numbers, text, icons, images, dates, times, priority, status, due dates, timelines, or other time-based long information);
match the modifiable display information to current state, and in response to determining the match allow the display of any visual objects matching the current state and disallow the display of visual objects having non-matching current state in the primary display (pars. 451-458, 463, 474-476, 482, 656-658, 703, 774, 810, 1284, the system is capable of determining and displaying information that is not strictly dependent on the current state, such as due dates, deadlines, or scheduled timelines, which reflect the current point in time. The system further incorporates a display time criterion, which selectively excludes data from the displays if the associated time-based metadata falls outside a defined period, such as tasks that have not been updated within the past month);
a database of visual objects comprising a plurality of visual objects encoded with the modifiable display information, the priority information, assigned user information, and data fields for log information (at least pars. 197, 205-211, 220-233, 232-233, 361-371, the repositories (230-1 through 230-n) stores not only customized templates but also all associated information necessary for their use, modification, and access control. This includes structural data such as row, columns, tables, dashboards, widgets, and other building blocks, as well as metadata information, including dates, due dates, priorities, status indicators, and other task-related values. The repository also maintains user-related information account details, roles, subscriptions, access permissions for specific rows, column, tables, or templates, and authorization level required to access or modify content);; and
generate a visual object creation interface for accepting user specification of the modifiable display information, the priority, and the assigned user information associated with a respective visual object (pars 443-482, 774, 1284, the system can generate and display updated customized templates with the editable display information, the priority, and the assigned user information associated with these building block or visual objects; further see pars. 257-290).
As in Claim 4, Haramati teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Haramati further teaches that the at least one processor is configured to generate a display of a selectable object in the user interface, the selectable object configured to accept information for controlling when a visual object can be displayed (pars. 294-295, 443-451, 577-578, 596-600, the user can control when the visual object can be displayed ;further see pars. 209-210, 273, 289).
As in Claim 5, Haramati teaches all the limitations of Claim 4. Haramati further teaches that the at least one processor is configured to override at least one other display property based on the information controlling when the visual object can be displayed (at least pars. 446, 462, 571-628, 655, the user can manually change display properties of the visual objects based on time-based information, such as due date, deadline, timeline, etc.).
As in Claim 8, Haramati teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Haramati further teaches that the at least one processor is configured to automatically adjust display characteristics responsive to action taken on a respective visual object (pars. 318-319, 451-462, 477, 571-638, the system continuously monitors conditions like due dates, elapsed time, or items status, and automatically updates table displays, progress graphics, and triggers communications bases on these conditions).
As in Claim 10, Haramati teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Haramati further teaches that the at least one processor updates the primary display additively and in override of a current modifiable display setting responsive to selection in the user interface (at least pars. 446, 462, 571-628, 655, the customized template can be updated based on the user’s input (manual changes) to the current editable display settings. Also see the rejection of claim 5) .
Claim 11 is substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to Claim 4 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to Claim 5 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to Claim 8 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 is substantially similar to Claim 10 and rejected under the same rationale.
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.
4. Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haramati et al. (US 2021/0157978 A1) in view of Wei et al. (US 2022/0157410 A1).
As in Claim 2, Haramati teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Haramati does not teach that the at least one processor is configured to generate, responsive to user selection, a secondary display of visual objects without filtering on the modifiable display state information.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Wei teaches that the at least one processor is configured to generate, responsive to user selection, a secondary display of visual objects without filtering on the modifiable display state information (pars. 161-172, 433-442, the user can create a new template from an original template without filtering on the editable information).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for creating hanging protocols in the workspace by placing thumbnail images, as taught by Haramati, and to generate the new template from the original template without any filtering, as taught by Wei. The motivation is to allow users to quickly reference pre-stored templates for efficiency while also enabling customization by creating, editing or deleting new temples .
As in Claim 3, Haramati-Wei teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Haramati-Wei further teaches that the at least one processor is configured to require a transition from the primary display to the secondary display in order to render the visual objects without filtering (pars. 216, 375, 632, 644, the system can share customized templates with other users, either freely or under certain conditions, such as upon request, for purchase, or with restrictions on modification).
Claim 12 is substantially similar to Claim 2 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13 is substantially similar to Claim 3 and rejected under the same rationale.
5. Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haramati et al. (US 2021/0157978 A1) in view of Poulter et al. (US 6618730 B1).
As in Claim 6, Haramati teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Haramati further teaches that the at least one processor is configured to accept definition of a visual object including at least a title field, description field, priority field, assigned user field (see the rejection of claim 1).
Haramati does not appear to explicitly teach that a visual object includes an optional client field, an optional deadline field, and an optional do not display until field.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Poulter teaches that a visual object includes an optional client field, an optional deadline field, and an optional do not display until field (see FIG. 5, col. 3, lines 19-31, the system can provide a timeline page for entering initial timeline information in the entry fields, such as due date 94, task 96, responsibility 98, omit 100, hide 102, etc. Examiner notes that ‘do not display until field’ can be considred as design choice. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); See Cf. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for creating hanging protocols in the workspace by placing thumbnail images, as taught by Haramati, and to provide the optional entry fields for designing and configuring the timeline, as taught by Poulter. The motivation is to allow users to customize and control the timeline by assigning tasks, setting deadlines, and selectively omitting or hiding tasks.
As in Claim 7, Haramati-Poulter teaches all the limitations of Claim 6. Haramati-Poulter further teaches that the at least one processor is configured to present visual entry fields to collect information include the at least a title field, the description field, the priority field, the assigned user field (Haramati, see the rejection of claim 1), the optional client field, the optional deadline field, and the optional do not display until field (Poulter, see FIG. 5, col. 3, lines 19-31; further see the rejection of claim 6).
Claim 16 is substantially similar to Claim 6 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to Claim 7 and rejected under the same rationale.
6. Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haramati et al. (US 2021/0157978 A1) in view of Miyai, Toshiya (US 2014/0139874 A1).
As in Claim 9, Haramati teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Haramati does not teach that the at least one processor is configured to disable do not display functionality in response to a deadline associated with a respective visual object being satisfied.
However, in the same field of the invention, Miyai teaches that is configured to disable do not display functionality in response to a deadline associated with a respective visual object being satisfied (pars. 94-96, the system automatically controls the visibility of an item (e.g., a message) when its defined display period expires).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for creating hanging protocols in the workspace by placing thumbnail images, as taught by Haramati, and to incorporate the way to control the visibility based on the defined display period, as taught by Miyai. The motivation is to prevent expired items from being displayed and to ensure that they do not remain visible.
Claim 19 is substantially similar to Claim 9 and rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rinna Yi whose telephone number is (571) 270-7752 and fax number is (571) 270-8752. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RINNA YI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179