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
This communication is in responsive to the Application 18/500,234 filed on 11/02/2023.
Claims 1, 10 and 16 are independent claims. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending in this application. This Action is made Non-FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/06/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bohle (US 2008/0189646), published on Aug. 7, 2008.
Regarding claim 1, Bohle discloses a processor-implemented method comprising:
receiving user input from one or more user input devices (pars. 0023, 0029 and 0038; Figs. 1 and 9; receiving input 104 into a UI display 105 of computing device 101), the user input corresponding to a selected element of a displayed graphical user interface having one or more software hooks to functionality provided by an undisplayed interface (pars. 0023, 0029, 0038 and 0041; Figs. 1, 4-6 and 9; the transactional logic 201 of the legacy program 107 may be used to perform a function with data input by the user 100; the software upgrade 1000 may implement a hook function to capture the user input and responsive commands performed by the legacy program);
determining one or more corresponding target functions of the undisplayed interface based on the selected element (pars. 0023, 0029, 0038 and 0041; Figs. 1, 4-6 and 9; the transactional logic 201 of the legacy program 107 may be used to perform a function with data input by the user 100);
executing the one or more corresponding target functions via the one or more software hooks (pars. 0023, 0029, 0038 and 0041; Figs. 1, 4-6 and 9; the software upgrade 1000 may implement a hook function to capture the user input and responsive commands performed by the legacy program); and
displaying one or more changes to the displayed graphical user interface based on the execution of the one or more corresponding target functions (pars. 0028-0029 and 0035-0041; Figs. 1, 4-6 and 9; step 916; create new UI for display to the user at 900).
Regarding claim 6, Bohle discloses the processor-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the displayed graphical user interface comprises layouts, windows, buttons, icons, menus, or a combination thereof (par. 0044; Undo/Execute button).
Regarding claim 7, Bohle discloses the processor-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the selected element comprises a window, button, image, icon, or menu (par. 0044; Undo/Execute button).
Regarding claim 8, Bohle discloses the processor-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more corresponding target functions are determined based on a mapping between elements of the displayed graphical user interface and a plurality of target functions of the undisplayed interface (pars. 0041 and 0045-0047; software upgrade 1000 may implement a hook function to capture the user input and responsive commands performed by the legacy program; the action bay be mapped to one or more commands for input to a legacy program).
Regarding claim 9, Bohle discloses the processor-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the elements of the displayed graphical user interface comprise the selected element, and wherein the plurality of target functions comprises the one or more corresponding target functions (pars. 0023, 0029, 0038 and 0041; Figs. 1, 4-6 and 9).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium corresponding to the method recited in claim 1. Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 11, Bohle discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the selected element comprises a Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) element (pars. 0027-0029; web interface [i.e., HTML] displayed on browser).
Regarding claim 12, Bohle discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the displayed graphical user interface is part of a first software application, and wherein the undisplayed interface is part of a second software application (pars. 0023, 0029, 0038 and 0041; Figs. 1, 4-6 and 9).
Regarding claim 13, Bohle discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the first software application comprises a web page (pars. 0027-0029; web interface displayed on web browser).
Regarding claim 14, Bohle discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein the web page is updated by a web browser (pars. 0028-0029 and 0035-0041; create new web UI for display to the user).
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 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.
Claims 2-5 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohle (US 2008/0189646), published on Aug. 7, 2008, in view of Stolikj et al. (“Stolikj,” US 2023/0418721), published on Dec. 28, 2023.
Regarding claim 2, Bohle discloses the processor-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the displayed graphical user interface is stored on a first computing device and displayed by the first computing device (Fig. 1), and the one or more software hooks are stored on a server (pars. 0041; Figs. 1, 4 and 10; software upgrade 1000 may implement a hook function performing Undo command).
Bohle does not explicitly disclose the undisplayed interface is stored on a second computing device.
However, Stolikj disclose a medical imaging system, wherein the undisplayed interface is stored on a second computing device, and he one or more software hooks are stored on a server (Stolikj: pars. 0041-0044; Fig. 1; ordering part is detected and part description is extracted using API or other hooks).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Stolikj with the system/method of Bohle. One would have been motivated to enable the server to intercept, extract and obtain information input by user from other input devices (Stolikj: pars. 0041-0044).
Regarding claim 3, Bohle and Stolikj disclose the processor-implemented method of claim 2.
The combination of Bohle and Stolikj further discloses wherein the server is communicatively coupled to the first computing device and the second computing device (Bohle: pars. 0028-0029 and 0035-0041; Figs. 1, 4-6 and 9; Figs. Stolikj: pars. 0041-0044; Figs. 1-4).
The motivation is the same that of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 4, Bohle and Stolikj disclose discloses the processor-implemented method of claim 2.
Stolikj further discloses wherein the second computing device is configured to receive medical imagery from a medical imaging device (Stolikj: pars. 0033-0039; Fig. 1; medical image device 12).
The motivation is the same that of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 5, Bohle and Stolikj disclose the processor-implemented method of claim 1.
Stolikj further discloses wherein the displayed graphical user interface is configured to display images acquired by a medical imaging device (Stolikj: pars. 0033-0039; Fig. 1; medical image device 12; laptop/service device 18).
The motivation is the same that of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 16, Bohle discloses a system (Figs. 1-4), comprising:
a first computing device configured to:
display a graphical user interface (Figs. 1-4 and 9);
receive user input from one or more user input devices (pars. 0023, 0029 and 0038; Figs. 1 and 9; receiving input 104 into a UI display 105 of computing device 101), the user input corresponding to a selected element of the displayed graphical user interface having one or more software hooks to functionality provided by an undisplayed interface (pars. 0023, 0029, 0038 and 0041; Figs. 1, 4-6 and 9; the transactional logic 201 of the legacy program 107 may be used to perform a function with data input by the user 100; the software upgrade 1000 may implement a hook function to capture the user input and responsive commands performed by the legacy program);
transmit an indication of the selected element (pars. 0023, 0029 and 0035-0036; the intermediary module 106 may send this information to the legacy program 107 for processing by the legacy program's transaction logic 201); and
a second computing device configured to:
receive the indication of the selected element (pars. 0023, 0029 and 0035-0036; the intermediary module 106 may send this information to the legacy program 107 for processing by the legacy program's transaction logic 201);
determine one or more corresponding target functions of the undisplayed interface based on the selected element (pars. 0023, 0029, 0038 and 0041; Figs. 1, 4-6 and 9; the transactional logic 201 of the legacy program 107 may be used to perform a function with data input by the user 100);
receive an output associated with the execution of the one or more corresponding target functions (pars. 0023, 0029, 0038 and 0041; Figs. 1, 4-6 and 9; the software upgrade 1000 may implement a hook function to capture the user input and responsive commands performed by the legacy program); and
instruct the first computing device to change one or more elements of the displayed graphical user interface based on the output (pars. 0028-0029 and 0035-0041; Figs. 1, 4-6 and 9; step 916; create new UI for display to the user at 900).
Bohle discloses all limitations as recited above, but does not explicitly disclose instruct a third computing device to execute the one or more corresponding target functions via the one or more software hooks.
However, Stolikj disclose a medical imaging system including a computing device configured to instruct a third computing device to execute the one or more corresponding target functions via the one or more software hooks (Stolikj: pars. 0041-0044; Fig. 1; application programming interface (API) or other hook enabling the module 41 to receive information from user input 102);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Stolikj with the system/method of Bohle. One would have been motivated to enable the server to intercept, extract and obtain information input by user from other input devices (Stolikj: pars. 0041-0044).
Regarding claim 17, Bohle and Stolikj disclose the system of claim 16.
Bohle further discloses wherein the indication of the selected element comprises an input event (Bohle: pars. 0021 and 0036; event detection to detect user interaction with a UI).
Regarding claim 18, Bohle and Stolikj disclose the system of claim 16.
The combination of Bohle and Stolikj further discloses wherein the second computing device comprises a server (Bohle: pars. 0023-0026; Figs. 1-2; Stolikj: pars. 0033-0039; Fig. 1).
The motivation is the same that of claim 16 above.
Regarding claim 19, Bohle and Stolikj disclose the system of claim 16.
The combination of Bohle and Stolikj further discloses wherein the third computing device is configured to receive medical imagery from a medical imaging device (Stolikj: pars. 0033-0039; Fig. 1; medical image device 12).
The motivation is the same that of claim 16 above.
Regarding claim 20, Bohle and Stolikj disclose the system of claim 19.
The combination of Bohle and Stolikj further discloses wherein the output is associated with control of the medical imaging device, display of the medical imagery, or a combination thereof (Stolikj: pars. 0033-0039; Fig. 1; medical image device 12; laptop/service device 18).
The motivation is the same that of claim 16 above.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohle (US 2008/0189646), published on Aug. 7, 2008, in view of Bender (US 2022/0405157), published on Dec. 22, 2022.
Regarding claim 15, Bohle discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 12.
Bohle does not explicitly disclose wherein the first software application and the second software application are managed by a shared operating system.
However, Bender discloses a system, wherein the first software application and the second software application are managed by a shared operating system (Bender: par. 0033; the shared service of the Operating System is used for the execution of the first application and the second application).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Bender with the system/method of Bohle. One would have been motivated to facilitate the execution of multiple software applications on the same Operating System (Bender: par. 0033).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968))
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINH K PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3230. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM (EST).
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, William L Bashore can be reached on (571) 272-4088. 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.
/LINH K PHAM/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2174