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
The pending claims 1-9 are presented for examination.
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant's claim for priority based on application filed on March 08, 2023 (Japan 2023-035437).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies retrieved under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which propriety documents have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/03/2023 has been considered by the examiner. Please see attached PTO-1449.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3/21/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because there is no application information for NPL documents “search report”, the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2, it is suggested to have “a processor; and a memory to store instructions; the instructions is executed by processor to”.
Because “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2114.II.
Claim 3, line 3 recites “whose”, it is not clear the meaning of the limitation,
Similar problem exists in claim 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 4 and 9, recites the limitation "a file". It is not clear if they are referring to the same limitation or not. Therefore it is indefinite.
Similar problem exists in claims 8 and 9.
Claim 1, line 3, 4,, 12 and 13, recites the limitation "an attribute value". It is not clear if they are referring to the same limitation or not. Therefore it is indefinite.
Similar problem exists in claims 8 and 9.
Claim 7, line 3, recites the limitation "the number of files". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7, line 4, recites the limitation "the number of cells". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7, recites “the number of files corresponding to the row or the column of the two-dimensional table is 0 is equal to or greater than a predetermined second threshold value”. It is not clear haw can 0 be greater than a predetermined second threshold value. Therefore, it is indefinite.
Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicklin et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2014/0280374) in view of Hachio et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2008/0281882) and Kemick et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2021/0049128).
Referring to claim 1, Hicklin et al. teaches an information processing system comprising:
a processor (one or more processors, see Kemick et al., Para. 35) configured to:
in a two-dimensional table in which an attribute value of a first attribute given to a file (create a table by reading information from a file, see Hicklin et al., Para. 65. Reading from a delimited text file may create one variable in a table (T) for each column in the file, see Hicklin et al., Para. 66) is used as a header of each row (Row Names may correspond to a parameter specifying row names, name 1 may correspond to a first row name, and nameN may correspond to an Nth row name, see Hicklin et al., Para. 57) and an attribute value of a second attribute given to the file is used as a header of each column (The table (T) variable names may be written as column headings in the first line of the file, see Hicklin et al., Para. 80, a first dimension name of the table may be written as the column heading for the first column of the file, see Hicklin et al., Para. 81).
However, Hicklin et al. does not explicitly teach
display statistical information of the file corresponding to the attribute value of the first attribute and the attribute value of the second attribute;
reflect statistical information of a file corresponding to the received row or column of the two-dimensional table in the movement destination and delete the received row or column of the two-dimensional table from the two-dimensional table; and
receive a row or a column of the two-dimensional table selected by a user and a movement destination of the row or the column; change an attribute value of the file corresponding to the received row or column of the two-dimensional table to an attribute value of the movement destination.
Hachio et al. teaches
receive a row or a column of the two-dimensional table selected by a user and a movement destination of the row or the column; change an attribute value of the file corresponding to the received row or column of the two-dimensional table to an attribute value of the movement destination; delete the received row or column of the two-dimensional table from the two-dimensional table (said selected data is moved from said physical storage place in said second storage structure to a new physical storage place designated by said storage destination changing condition, said second information is changed into information which indicates the new physical storage place after said data has been moved, see Hachio et al., Claim 9, In addition to the teaching for “a row or a column of the two-dimensional table” by Hicklin et al. in the rejection above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hicklin et al., to have receive a row or a column of the two-dimensional table selected by a user and a movement destination of the row or the column; change an attribute value of the file corresponding to the received row or column of the two-dimensional table to an attribute value of the movement destination, as taught by Hachio et al., to have the performance may be improved (Hachio et al., Para. 98).
Hicklin et al. as modified still does not explicitly teach
display statistical information of the file corresponding to the attribute value of the first attribute and the attribute value of the second attribute;
reflect statistical information of a file corresponding to the received row or column of the two-dimensional table in the movement destination.
Kemick et al. teaches
display statistical information of the file corresponding to the attribute value of the first attribute and the attribute value of the second attribute;
reflect statistical information of a file corresponding to the received row or column of the two-dimensional table in the movement destination.
Kemick et al. teaches
display statistical information of the file (The data file can be displayed…, access frequency to the data file, see Kemick et al., Para. 45) corresponding to the attribute value of the first attribute and the attribute value of the second attribute (timestamp data; originating source data; information indicating which application the data file is stored in; size of the data file, see Kemick et al., Para. 45);
reflect statistical information of a file corresponding to the received row or column of the two-dimensional table in the movement destination (further includes determining that a frequency of photographs included in messages sent by the client device, see Kemick et al., Para. 147. In addition to the teaching for “a row or a column of the two-dimensional table” by Hicklin et al. in the rejection above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hicklin et al. as modified, to display statistical information of the file corresponding to the attribute value of the first attribute and the attribute value of the second attribute; reflect statistical information of a file corresponding to the received row or column of the two-dimensional table in the movement destination, as taught by Kemick et al., to have determining sets of identical and/or redundant data files and/or applications by performing a similarity function, and selecting one data file and/or application in each set of the sets of identical and/or redundant data files and/or applications to be preserved, and identifying the remaining data files and/or applications for deletion (Kemick et al., Para. 117).
As to claim 2, Hicklin et al. as modified teaches display a confirmation screen for asking the user whether or not to make the change before changing the attribute value of the file corresponding to the row or the column of the two-dimensional table (A deletion confirmation prompt 244 can be presented to the user, prompting the user to select which ones of the deletion data file subset should be deleted and/or archived. Metadata, file name, file descriptors, and/or compressed or full content of the file can be displayed to the user to aid the user in making their decision, see Kemick et al., Para. 37. In addition to the teaching for “a row or a column of the two-dimensional table” by Hicklin et al. in the rejection above). As to claim 3, Hicklin et al. as modified teaches wherein the processor is configured to: allow the user to select a file whose attribute value is to be changed (said selected data is moved from said physical storage place in said second storage structure to a new physical storage place designated by said storage destination changing condition, said second information is changed into information which indicates the new physical storage place after said data has been moved, see Hachio et al., Claim 9) from files corresponding to the row or the column of the two-dimensional table (A deletion confirmation prompt 244 can be presented to the user, prompting the user to select which ones of the deletion data file subset should be deleted and/or archived. Metadata, file name, file descriptors, and/or compressed or full content of the file can be displayed to the user to aid the user in making their decision, see Kemick et al., Para. 37. In addition to the teaching for “a row or a column of the two-dimensional table” by Hicklin et al. in the rejection above). As to claim 4, Hicklin et al. as modified teaches display a content of the file corresponding to the row or the column of the two-dimensional table (content of the data file, see Kemick et al., Para. 45. In addition to the teaching for “a row or a column of the two-dimensional table” by Hicklin et al. in the rejection above). As to claim 5, Hicklin et al. as modified teaches select a row or a column (A deletion confirmation prompt 244 can be presented to the user, prompting the user to select which ones of the deletion data file subset should be deleted and/or archived. Metadata, file name, file descriptors, and/or compressed or full content of the file can be displayed to the user to aid the user in making their decision, see Kemick et al., Para. 37) having, as a header, an attribute value, whose similarity to an attribute value as a header of a row or a column that is a candidate for attribute value correction is equal to or greater than a predetermined first threshold value (determining frequency of accesses is less than an access frequency threshold indicated in the deletion criteria, see Kemick et al., Para. 31), from the two-dimensional table; and present the selected row or column as a candidate for a movement destination of the row or the column that is the candidate for attribute value correction (said selected data is moved from said physical storage place in said second storage structure to a new physical storage place designated by said storage destination changing condition, said second information is changed into information which indicates the new physical storage place after said data has been moved, see Hachio et al., Claim 9). As to claim 6, Hicklin et al. as modified teaches wherein the row or the column that is the candidate for attribute value correction is the row or the column of the two-dimensional table selected by the user (said selected data is moved from said physical storage place in said second storage structure to a new physical storage place designated by said storage destination changing condition, said second information is changed into information which indicates the new physical storage place after said data has been moved, see Hachio et al., Claim 9). As to claim 7, Hicklin et al. as modified teaches in a case in which the statistical information is the number of files, select the row or the column, in which the number of cells in which the number of files corresponding to the row or the column of the two-dimensional table is 0 is equal to or greater than a predetermined second threshold value (if the files selected for deletion do not meet the deletion quota criteria, a number of additional files that are next highest ranked can be automatically selected and presented to the user via the GUI 145, see Kemick et al., Para. 46), as the column or the row that is the candidate for attribute value correction (said selected data is moved from said physical storage place in said second storage structure to a new physical storage place designated by said storage destination changing condition, said second information is changed into information which indicates the new physical storage place after said data has been moved, see Hachio et al., Claim 9). Referring to claim 8, Hicklin et al. teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium (memory, see Kemick et al., Para. 35) storing a program causing a computer to implement, which recites the corresponding limitations as set forth in claim 1 above; therefore, it is rejected under the same subject matter.
Referring to claim 9, Hicklin et al. teaches an information processing method, which recites the corresponding limitations as set forth in claim 1 above; therefore, it is rejected under the same subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAU SHYA MENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1634. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at 571-272-4085. 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.
/JAU SHYA MENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights