DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL action is in response to Application No. 18/500,448 filed 11/2/2023. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The amendment presented on 6/29/2026 which provides amendments to claims 1, 7, 14, 17, 19, and 20, cancelation of claims 16 and 18, and new claims 21 and 22, is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-15, 17, and 19-22 are currently pending.
Claims Allowed
Claims 14, 15, 17, 19 and 20 are allowed; reasons for allowability will be articulated upon Notice of Allowability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-13, 21, and 22 have been considered, however, the amendment(s) to the claims necessitated a new consideration and search resulting in new prior art cited below.
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.
Claims 21 and 22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 21 (and similarly in claim 22), “the rate” and “the threshold rate” lack antecedent basis in the claims.
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 10,444,949 B2, hereinafter “Scott”), and further in view of Carraway et al. (US 2021/0342128 A1, hereinafter “Carraway”).
Regarding claim 1, Scott teaches a method comprising:
receiving, via a processor of a human machine interface (HMI) communicatively coupled to an industrial automation device, an indication of a user identifier from an input device, wherein the HMI is configured to present one or more visualizations that communicate sensed data, a status, or both associated with an operation of the industrial automation device. More specifically, dashboards (HMI) are used to communicate operations of a process plant and its devices (industrial automation devices) to a user including sensors and statuses (Scott, abstract, col 9, line 25 – col 10, line 3; col 11, lines 31-53). Upon logon to the application 20 or the system in which the application 20 is used, as determined by a user authentication system 112, the user may be provided with a dashboard or display to use in viewing the operation of the plant 10 at any particular time according to an identified user and user role (Scott, col 19, line 56 – col 20, line 29).
identifying, via the processor, a user type corresponding to the user identifier based on a user type data structure, wherein the user type data structure is configured to characterize a dataset stored in a memory component accessible to the processor, and wherein each of a plurality of user identifiers are categorized with respect to a plurality of user types comprising an operator user type, a set-up user type, an engineer user type, a maintenance user type, an administrator user type, or any combination thereof. More specifically, the dashboards are provided according to user roles (type) such as operator roles, maintenance roles, configuration engineer roles, business manager or plant manager (administrator) roles, etc. (Scott, col 19, line 56 – col 20, line 29).
generating, via the processor, HMI visualization data based on the user type, the user identifier, and a presentation priority data structure, wherein the presentation priority data structure comprises presentation priority data corresponding to the user type and the user identifier. More specifically, the dashboard for the identified user is retrieved from the dashboard library and then the primary display interface logic 102 may receive or obtain many different kinds of process and plant information from various different sources within the process plant 10 or control system 22 to which the application 20 is connected, in order to fill out or generate the display on the user screen or interface 30 (Scott, col 17, lines 10-29). The computing environment may filter and organize (priority data structure) engineering tools/screens and information according to the role of the user in the corresponding organization (Scott, col 26, line 61 – col 27, line 18). Additionally, each user can be automatically provided favorite/likely useful displays and screens to be presented upon login (Scott, col 19, line 56 – col 20, line 29).
sending, via the processor, a control signal to a display to cause presentation of the HMI visualization data. More specifically, at least Figures 4 and 12 depict resultant displays of dashboards (Scott, Figures 4 and 12, col 21, lines 30-50; col 24, line 39- col 25, line 12).
However, while Scott discloses that “favorite” screens or dashboards are favorites because they are used the most frequently (Scott, col 7, lines 64-67; col 16, lines 11-14), Scott may not suggest they are added to favorites automatically after crossing a threshold number of selections. More specifically, Scott may not explicitly teach every aspect of
determining, via the processor, that a number of times that a first screen is selected during a session corresponding to the user identifier exceeds a threshold number of selections; and
generating, via the processor, based on the user type, the user identifier, and the number of times that the first screen was selected during the session exceeding the threshold number of selections, second level input data to indicate that the first screen is a preferred screen of a plurality of screens.
Carraway discloses adjusting user interfaces based on user usage patterns. The page layout server may track user interactions with the set of user interface components, determine an updated page layout for the page based on an analysis of the tracked user interactions and the initial page layout (Carraway, abstract). Adjusting a user interface based on page usage patterns may provide a user experience that is tailored to a specific user and/or particular role (Carraway, [0015]-[0016]). The tracked interactions may include the number of clicks on a component (e.g., pane/screen) (Carraway, [0031], [0040]). The updated page layout for the page may be determined based on a number of clicks for each user interface component of the set of user interface components (Carraway, [0070]). The data defining the layout (second level input data) is associated at a user level, a user role level, a user interface component level, or a combination thereof (Carraway, [0034]). The number of clicks received during a session is compared to a second number (threshold) to determine whether a layout change should be implemented (Carraway, [0037]). The positioning and/or ordering of the updated set of user interface components is different from positioning of the set of user interface components (screen preference) (Carraway, [0072]). Therefore, Carraway suggests the determination of a preferred panel is based on the number of clicks on a panel exceeding a threshold and is associated with a specific user and/or user role/type.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Scott and Carraway that a method for providing user interface visualizations with a plurality of screens for operators having a plurality of user types and preferred screens would include indicating a first screen is a preferred screen when the number of times the first screen is selected during a session exceeds a threshold number of selections. With Scott and Carraway disclosing panel/screen layouts in a user interface are based on the most frequently used panels/screens and can be associated with a specific user or user role, and with Carraway additionally suggesting that t determination of a preferred panel is based on the number of clicks on a panel exceeding a threshold and is associated with a specific user and/or user role/type, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for providing user interface visualizations with a plurality of screens for operators having a plurality of user types and preferred screens would include indicating a first screen is a preferred screen when the number of times the first screen is selected during a session exceeds a threshold number of selections in order to allow layout adjustments to be automatic increasing user experience, productivity, and system efficiency. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for providing user interface visualizations with a plurality of screens for operators having a plurality of user types and preferred screens.
Regarding claim 2, Scott and Caraway teach the method of claim 1, wherein generating the HMI visualization data based on the user type comprises determining a subset of presentation priority data corresponds to preferences determined by the processor while the user identifier was logged into the HMI, wherein the subset of presentation priority data is different from another subset of presentation priority data corresponding to a different user type, a different user identifier, or both. More specifically, the computing environment may filter and organize (priority data structure) engineering tools/screens and information according to the role of the user (user type) in the corresponding organization (Scott, col 26, line 61 – col 27, line 18). Additionally, each user (different user identifier) can be automatically provided favorite/likely useful (gain data) displays and screens to be presented upon login (Scott, col 19, line 56 – col 20, line 29).
Regarding claim 3, Scott and Caraway teach the method of claim 1, comprising reading the presentation priority data structure, wherein the presentation priority data comprises: an indication of a percentage of time a respective screen is presented in association with the user identifier; an indication of a quadrant placement of a respective screen in association with the user identifier; an indication of a frequency of inputs received via a respective screen in association with the user identifier; an indication of a total set of screens selected in association with the user identifier; or any combination thereof. More specifically, the favorites (gain data) can be set based on the last or most used (time presented) displays by the user (Scott, col 20, lines 40-51). This claim is interpreted as only requiring one of the “indications” due to the list concluding with “or”.
Regarding claim 4, Scott and Caraway teach the method of claim 3, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein generating the HMI visualization data comprises: reading gain data associated with each of the presentation priority data; and selecting a subset of screens to present via the display while the user identifier is logged into the HMI based on the gain data, the presentation priority data, the user identifier, and the user type. More specifically, each user (user identifier) can be automatically provided favorite/likely useful (gain data) displays and screens to be presented upon login (Scott, col 19, line 56 – col 20, line 29).
Regarding claim 5, Scott and Caraway teach the method of claim 4, wherein the subset of screens corresponding to the user identifier is different from another subset of screens previously selected in association with another user identifier being logged into the HMI. More specifically, the favorites for each user can be manually set (Scott, col 15, line 8-22; col 20, line 47-51).
Regarding claim 6, Scott and Caraway teach the method of claim 4, comprising transmitting, via the processor, an indication of the subset of screens to a computing device external to the HMI, wherein the computing device external to the HMI is configured to generate additional HMI visualization data corresponding to the HMI visualization data for presentation on a display of the computing device. More specifically, computers 40 connect via the data highway 54 to the controllers 40 (HMI) (Scott, col 2, line 3-42; col 9, line 55 – col 10, line 3).
Regarding claim 7, Scott teaches a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, causes a human machine interface (HMI) terminal to perform operations comprising:
receiving an indication of a first user identifier from an input device of an industrial automation device while a first visualization is presented that communicates sensing data, a status, or both associated with an operation of the industrial automation device. More specifically, dashboards (HMI) are used to communicate operations of a process plant and its devices (industrial automation devices) to a user including sensors and statuses (Scott, abstract, col 9, line 25 – col 10, line 3; col 11, lines 31-53). Upon logon to the application 20 or the system in which the application 20 is used, as determined by a user authentication system 112, the user may be provided with a dashboard or display to use in viewing the operation of the plant 10 at any particular time according to an identified user and user role (Scott, col 19, line 56 – col 20, line 29). Figure 2 depicts the processes of the system which includes the depiction of a loop going from user interface 30 to user authentication 112 to user files 110 to display applications 20, and back to the user interface 30, which suggests that a second user can log in (first user identifier) and have their displays/dashboard generated at any time, including after a first user has been logged in with their displays/dashboard (first visualization) displayed (Scott, Figure 2).
identifying a first user type corresponding to the first user identifier based on a user type data structure, wherein the user type data structure is configured to characterize a dataset stored in a memory component accessible to the processor, and wherein each of a plurality of user identifiers are categorized with respect to a plurality of user types comprising an operator user type, a set-up user type, an engineer user type, a maintenance user type, an administrator user type, or any combination thereof; More specifically, the dashboards are provided according to user roles (type) such as operator roles, maintenance roles, configuration engineer roles, business manager or plant manager (administrator) roles, etc. (Scott, col 19, line 56 – col 20, line 29). Figure 2 depicts the processes of the system which includes the depiction of a loop going from user interface 30 to user authentication 112 to user files 110 to display applications 20, and back to the user interface 30, which suggests that a second user can log in (first user identifier) and have their displays/dashboard generated at any time, including after a first user has been logged in with their displays/dashboard (first visualization) displayed (Scott, Figure 2).
generating first HMI visualization data configured to cause presentation of a second visualization generated based on the first user type, the first user identifier, and a presentation priority data structure, wherein the presentation priority data structure comprises first presentation priority data corresponding to the first user type and the first user identifier. More specifically, the dashboard for the identified user is retrieved from the dashboard library and then the primary display interface logic 102 may receive or obtain many different kinds of process and plant information from various different sources within the process plant 10 or control system 22 to which the application 20 is connected, in order to fill out or generate the display on the user screen or interface 30 (Scott, col 17, lines 10-29). The computing environment may filter and organize (priority data structure) engineering tools/screens and information according to the role of the user in the corresponding organization (Scott, col 26, line 61 – col 27, line 18). Additionally, each user can be automatically provided favorite/likely useful (gain data) displays and screens to be presented upon login (Scott, col 19, line 56 – col 20, line 29). Figure 2 depicts the processes of the system which includes the depiction of a loop going from user interface 30 to user authentication 112 to user files 110 to display applications 20, and back to the user interface 30, which suggests that a second user can log in (first user identifier) and have their displays/dashboard generated at any time, including after a first user has been logged in with their displays/dashboard (first visualization) displayed (Scott, Figure 2).
sending a control signal to a display to cause presentation of the first HMI visualization data. More specifically, at least Figures 4 and 12 depict resultant displays of dashboards (Scott, Figures 4 and 12, col 21, lines 30-50; col 24, line 39- col 25, line 12).
However, while Scott discloses that “favorite” screens or dashboards are favorites because they are used the most frequently (Scott, col 7, lines 64-67; col 16, lines 11-14), Scott may not suggest they are added to favorites automatically after crossing a threshold number of selections. More specifically, Scott may not explicitly teach every aspect of
determining, via the processor, that a number of times that a first screen is selected during a session corresponding to the user identifier exceeds a threshold number of selections; and
generating, via the processor, based on the user type, the user identifier, and the number of times that the first screen was selected during the session exceeding the threshold number of selections, second level input data to indicate that the first screen is a preferred screen of a plurality of screens.
Carraway discloses adjusting user interfaces based on user usage patterns. The page layout server may track user interactions with the set of user interface components, determine an updated page layout for the page based on an analysis of the tracked user interactions and the initial page layout (Carraway, abstract). Adjusting a user interface based on page usage patterns may provide a user experience that is tailored to a specific user and/or particular role (Carraway, [0015]-[0016]). The tracked interactions may include the number of clicks on a component (e.g., pane/screen) (Carraway, [0031], [0040]). The updated page layout for the page may be determined based on a number of clicks for each user interface component of the set of user interface components (Carraway, [0070]). The data defining the layout (second level input data) is associated at a user level, a user role level, a user interface component level, or a combination thereof (Carraway, [0034]). The number of clicks received during a session is compared to a second number (threshold) to determine whether a layout change should be implemented (Carraway, [0037]). The positioning and/or ordering of the updated set of user interface components is different from positioning of the set of user interface components (screen preference) (Carraway, [0072]). Therefore, Carraway suggests the determination of a preferred panel is based on the number of clicks on a panel exceeding a threshold and is associated with a specific user and/or user role/type.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Scott and Carraway that a computer-readable medium for providing user interface visualizations with a plurality of screens for operators having a plurality of user types and preferred screens would include indicating a first screen is a preferred screen when the number of times the first screen is selected during a session exceeds a threshold number of selections. With Scott and Carraway disclosing panel/screen layouts in a user interface are based on the most frequently used panels/screens and can be associated with a specific user or user role, and with Carraway additionally suggesting that t determination of a preferred panel is based on the number of clicks on a panel exceeding a threshold and is associated with a specific user and/or user role/type, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a computer-readable medium for providing user interface visualizations with a plurality of screens for operators having a plurality of user types and preferred screens would include indicating a first screen is a preferred screen when the number of times the first screen is selected during a session exceeds a threshold number of selections in order to allow layout adjustments to be automatic increasing user experience, productivity, and system efficiency. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this computer-readable medium for providing user interface visualizations with a plurality of screens for operators having a plurality of user types and preferred screens.
Regarding claim 8, Scott and Caraway teach the tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 7, the operations comprising: receiving an indication of a second user identifier from the input device while the second visualization is presented; and generating second HMI visualization data configured to cause presentation of a third visualization based on the second user identifier, a second user type, and the presentation priority data structure that comprises second presentation priority data corresponding to the second user type and the second user identifier, wherein the second visualization and the third visualization are different. More specifically, the dashboard for the identified user is retrieved from the dashboard library and then the primary display interface logic 102 may receive or obtain many different kinds of process and plant information from various different sources within the process plant 10 or control system 22 to which the application 20 is connected, in order to fill out or generate the display on the user screen or interface 30 (Scott, col 17, lines 10-29). The computing environment may filter and organize (priority data structure) engineering tools/screens and information according to the role of the user in the corresponding organization (Scott, col 26, line 61 – col 27, line 18). Figure 2 depicts the processes of the system which includes the depiction of a loop going from user interface 30 to user authentication 112 to user files 110 to display applications 20, and back to the user interface 30, which suggests that a third user can log in (second user identifier) and have their displays/dashboard (third visualization) generated at any time, including after a different user has been logged in with their displays/dashboard (second visualization) displayed (Scott, Figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Scott and Caraway teach the tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 7, wherein the second visualization corresponds to the first user type comprising the operator user type, wherein the second visualization prioritizes presentation at least a production data screen over one or more other screens of a plurality of screens based on the operator user type. More specifically, Scott discloses role-dependent views such as an operator role responsible for supervising process parameters such as flow, level, temperature, pressure, etc., monitoring events related to process control loops, and generally assuring accuracy of control logic implemented in the process plant (production data) (Scott, col 20, lines 2-14; col 28, lines 4-50).
Regrading claim 10, Scott and Caraway teach the tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 7, wherein the second visualization is configured to sort indications of keywords configured to be presented as part of a keyword list visualization based on the first user type and a plurality of indications of screens selected to be presented for the first user type. More specifically, Figures 9 and 10 depict visualizations of a list of gadgets (screens) sorted by name (keywords) (Scott, col 23, lines 17-50).
Regarding claim 11, Scott and Caraway teach the tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 7, wherein the first presentation priority data comprising: an indication of a percentage of time a respective screen is presented in association with the first user identifier; an indication of a quadrant placement of a respective screen in association with the first user identifier; an indication of a frequency of inputs received via a respective screen in association with the first user identifier; an indication of a total set of screens selected in association with the first user identifier; or any combination thereof. More specifically, the favorites (gain data) can be set based on the last or most used (time presented) displays by the user (Scott, col 20, lines 40-51). This claim is interpreted as only requiring one of the “indications” due to the list concluding with “or”.
Regarding claim 12, Scott and Caraway teach the tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 7, the operations comprising determining the second visualization to comprise a second set of screens to be different from a first set of screens of the first visualization. More specifically, the computing environment may filter and organize (priority data structure) engineering tools/screens and information according to the role of the user (user type) in the corresponding organization (Scott, col 26, line 61 – col 27, line 18). Additionally, each user (different user identifier) can be automatically provided favorite/likely useful (gain data) displays and screens to be presented upon login (Scott, col 19, line 56 – col 20, line 29).
Regarding claim 13, Scott and Caraway teach the tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the second set of screens are respectively presented via one of four quadrants of the display, and wherein each screen of the second set of screens corresponds to a respective visualization data file. More specifically, Figure 7 depicts the configuration of the dashboards which includes a 4x4 quadrant-style selection which is then filled in by visualizations (Scott, Figure 7, col 22, lines 16 – col 23, line 3).
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott and Carraway, and further in view of Pham (US 9,563,327 B1).
Regarding claim 21, Scott and Carraway teach the method of claim 1, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein generating the second level input data to indicate that the first screen is the preferred screen of the plurality of screens is further based on the rate being less than the threshold rate.
Pham discloses a graphical user interface displayed at a mobile computing device may adjust dynamically and automatically in response to detecting a pattern of user interactions with the graphical user interface. Adjustments to the graphical user interface may include removing or resizing the display of particular interface components, and re-locating components of the interface (Pham, abstract). A pattern of user interactions is determined by detecting minimum number of selections on a component (crossing a threshold number) with a minimum amount of time between the selections (less than a threshold rate). Example patterns include: a pattern is determined when a command/selection is repeated at least 3 times but at least 4 seconds apart, a command/selection is repeated at least 2 times but at least 20 seconds apart, etc. (Pham, col 6, lines 37-67; col 7, lines 46-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Scott and Carraway with Pham that a method for providing user interface visualizations with the determination of a preferred layout of components for operators based on selection numbers meeting thresholds would include wherein indicating that the first screen is the preferred screen of the plurality of screens is further based on the rate being less than the threshold rate. With Scott, Carraway, and Pham disclosing panel/screen/component layouts in a user interface are based on the most frequently used panels/screens/components, with Carraway additionally suggesting that t determination of a preferred panel is based on the number of clicks on a panel exceeding a threshold, and with Pham additionally suggesting that in addition to meeting a threshold number of selections, the time between selections needs to be a minimum amount of time, or in other words, below a threshold rate, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for providing user interface visualizations with the determination of a preferred layout of components for operators based on selection numbers meeting thresholds would include wherein indicating that the first screen is the preferred screen of the plurality of screens is further based on the rate being less than the threshold rate in order to allow automatic layout adjustments to determine intentionality so as to not make unwanted layout changes. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for providing user interface visualizations with the determination of a preferred layout of components for operators based on selection numbers meeting thresholds.
Regarding claim 22, Scott and Caraway teach the tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 7, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein generating the second level input data to indicate that the first screen is the preferred screen of the plurality of screens is further based on the rate being less than the threshold rate.
Pham discloses a graphical user interface displayed at a mobile computing device may adjust dynamically and automatically in response to detecting a pattern of user interactions with the graphical user interface. Adjustments to the graphical user interface may include removing or resizing the display of particular interface components, and re-locating components of the interface (Pham, abstract). A pattern of user interactions is determined by detecting minimum number of selections on a component (crossing a threshold number) with a minimum amount of time between the selections (less than a threshold rate). Example patterns include: a pattern is determined when a command/selection is repeated at least 3 times but at least 4 seconds apart, a command/selection is repeated at least 2 times but at least 20 seconds apart, etc. (Pham, col 6, lines 37-67; col 7, lines 46-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Scott and Carraway with Pham that a computer-readable medium for providing user interface visualizations with the determination of a preferred layout of components for operators based on selection numbers meeting thresholds would include wherein indicating that the first screen is the preferred screen of the plurality of screens is further based on the rate being less than the threshold rate. With Scott, Carraway, and Pham disclosing panel/screen/component layouts in a user interface are based on the most frequently used panels/screens/components, with Carraway additionally suggesting that t determination of a preferred panel is based on the number of clicks on a panel exceeding a threshold, and with Pham additionally suggesting that in addition to meeting a threshold number of selections, the time between selections needs to be a minimum amount of time, or in other words, below a threshold rate, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a computer-readable medium for providing user interface visualizations with the determination of a preferred layout of components for operators based on selection numbers meeting thresholds would include wherein indicating that the first screen is the preferred screen of the plurality of screens is further based on the rate being less than the threshold rate in order to allow automatic layout adjustments to determine intentionality so as to not make unwanted layout changes. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this computer-readable medium for providing user interface visualizations with the determination of a preferred layout of components for operators based on selection numbers meeting thresholds.
Pertinent Prior Art
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.
Liang (US 2010/0235789 A1) – numerical controller display is adjusted for a logged-in user based the determination of commonly-used components based on use-count.
Kurokawa (US 10,949,740 A1) – numerical controller display is adjusted for a user based the determination of commonly-used components based on use-count.
Cote (US 2019/0188395 A1) – changing the layout of a user interface by adjusting priority of displayed panels based on the number of user interactions for each panel.
Webb (US 10,331,314 B2) – changing the layout of a grid user interface by adjusting priority of displayed panels based on the frequency of use.
Whitney (US 10,585,680 B2) – changing the layout of a user interface by adjusting preference of displayed components based on the number of user interactions.
Jayathirtha (US 2022/0398665 A1) - discloses providing a dashboard visualization for a portfolio of assets (e.g., equipment). In this regard, a request to obtain asset data for a dashboard visualization associated with a portfolio of assets is transmitted to a server system. The request comprises an asset descriptor and a user identifier. In response to the request, the asset data is received from the server system. The asset data is configured based on the asset descriptor and the user identifier, and the asset data comprising prioritized actions for the portfolio of assets (Jaya, [abstract, [0037]). An ordering of prioritized actions may be different for Energy Optimization than Digitized Maintenance (JY, [0039]). The user identifier is associated with a user role (e.g., a manager, an executive, a maintenance engineer, a process engineer, etc.) (Jaya, [0089]). The rendering the dashboard visualization comprises configuring a layout of the interactive display elements based on the prioritized actions and the user identifier (Jaya, [0128].
Forstall (US 7,707,514 B2) - a widget manager facilitating management of widgets in a dashboard layer (Forstall, abstract). The widgets can be presented according to several criteria including at least usage information (e.g., when a widget was last activated) as well as and user privilege information (Forstall, col 22, line 62 – col 23, line 15; col 23, line 45 – col 24, line 3).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PATRICK F RIEGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3625. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm, ET.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/PATRICK F RIEGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights