DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 December 2025 has been entered.
Introductory Remarks
In response to communications filed on 18 December 2025, claim(s) 1, 6, and 10 is/are amended per Applicant’s request. Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are cancelled. Claim(s) 14-16 is/are new. Therefore, claims 1-10, 12, and 14-16 are presently pending in the application, of which, claim(s) 1, 6, and 10 is/are presented in independent form.
No IDS has been received since the mailing of the last Office action.
The previously raised 112 rejection of claims 13 is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
Examiner’s Note
The rejections below group claims that may not be identical, but whose language and scope are so substantively similar as to lend themselves to grouping, in the interests of clarity and conciseness. Any citation to the instant specification herein is made to the PGPub version (if applicable).
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2018/0219923 A1) (hereinafter Berger) in view of Sequeda et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2020/0097504 A1) (hereinafter Sequeda) in view of Zionpour et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2022/0222426 A1) (hereinafter Zionpour).
As per claim 1, Berger teaches a web database system (0100), which allows concurrent editing operations of a web database through a plurality of interfaces (0103 and 0109), the web database system comprising at least one processor (Figure 8A item 807) configured to:
determine one of whether the web database has been edited through a first interface among the plurality of interfaces or whether the web database is being edited through the first interface (0101); and
execute predetermined processing relating to the web database for the second interface based on content edited through the first interface and content edited through the second interface in one of a case in which it has been determined that the web database has been edited through the first interface or a case in which it has been determined that the web database is being edited through the first interface (0103-0104) and in a case in which the web database is being edited through the second interface (0103);
But Berger does not appear to explicitly disclose:
determine one of whether the web database has been edited through a first interface among the plurality of interfaces or whether the web database is being edited through the first interface by determining whether a save request or an edit request of the web database has been received from the first interface;
determine whether the web database is being edited through a second interface among the plurality of interfaces by determining whether the edit request has been received from the second interface; and
wherein the predetermined processing is fact-of-editing display processing, which comprises a pop-up message. (Emphasis added).
Sequeda teaches a concurrent editing system (0033) that involves clients submitting requests to make changes (0112) that can be denied based upon user permissions (0113). Changes that are permitted are displayed on the screen of each remote computer that is connected to the server (i.e., fact of editing display processing). Sequeda at 0032-33. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Sequeda into the invention of Berger in order to determine one of whether the web database has been edited through a first interface among the plurality of interfaces or whether the web database is being edited through the first interface by determining whether a save request or an edit request of the web database has been received from the first interface; determine whether the web database is being edited through a second interface among the plurality of interfaces by determining whether the edit request has been received from the second interface; and wherein the predetermined processing is fact-of-editing display processing. This would have been clearly advantageous as it would allow other users to see the edits of all other users in real-time, thereby improving usability, coordination, and user-satisfaction. The combination hereinafter BS.
But BS does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein the predetermined processing is fact-of-editing display processing, which comprises a pop-up message. (Emphasis added).
Zionpour does teach this. Zionpour at 0114. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Zionpour into the combination of BS in order to have the fact-of-editing processing comprise a pop-up message. This would have been clearly advantageous as it would inform users that changes have been made and by whom. The combination hereinafter BSZ.
As per claim 10, BSZ teaches a processing execution method (Berger at 0019), comprising:
For the remaining limitations, see the examiner’s remarks regarding claim 1.
As per claim 2, BSZ teaches the web database system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute, when the web database is being displayed on the second interface, the predetermined processing based on content edited through the first interface (Berger at 0101-04).
As per claim 3, BSZ teaches the web database system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute, in one of a case in which the web database has been edited through the second interface as well or a case in which the web database is being edited through the second interface as well, the predetermined processing based on content edited through the first interface and content edited through the second interface (Berger at 0101-04).
As per claim 4, BSZ teaches the web database system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute, as the predetermined processing, automatic reflection processing for automatically reflecting content edited through the first interface in the second interface (Berger at 0101-04).
As per claim 5, BSZ teaches the web database system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute, as the predetermined processing, edited part display processing for displaying a part edited through the first interface so as to be identifiable on the second interface (Berger at 0101-04).
As per claim 6, see the examiner’s remarks regarding claim 1 and Sequeda at 0052-58 with respect to the newly added features of the execute limitation..
As per claim 7, BSZ teaches the web database system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
determine one of whether the same record in the web database as one of a record being displayed on the second interface or a record being edited through the second interface has been edited through the first interface or whether the same record is being edited through the first interface (Berger at 0101-04; see also Berger at 0060); and
execute the predetermined processing in one of a case in which it has been determined that the same record has been edited through the first interface or a case in which it has been determined that the same record is being edited through the first interface (Berger at 0101-04).
As per claim 8, BSZ teaches the web database system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
determine one of whether the web database is being edited through the first interface or whether the web database has been edited through the first interface (Berger at 0101-04); and
execute, as the predetermined processing, in one of a case in which it has been determined that the web database is being edited through the first interface or a case in which it has been determined that the web database has been edited through the first interface, fact-of-editing display processing for displaying, on the second interface, one of information with which it is identifiable that the web database is being edited through the first interface or information with which it is identifiable that the web database has been edited through the first interface (Berger at 0101-04; see also Berger at 0041).
As per claim 9, BSZ teaches the web database system according to claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the fact-of-editing display processing based on a status regarding the web database on the second interface (Berger at 0101-04 – use of online OT pair or offline OT pair is the status; if offline, then other user’s modifications would not appear; see also remarks regarding claim 1).
As per claim 12, BSZ teaches the web database system according to claim 6, wherein the first user attribute and the second user attribute indicate a job title (Sequeda at 0052-58).
As per claim 14, BSZ teaches the web database system according to claim 1, wherein the second interface is not updated in real time (Zionpour at 0114).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 16 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 et seq., filed 18 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10, 12, and 13 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zionpour.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J TORGRIMSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5550. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Aleksander Kerzhner can be reached at 571.270.1760. 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.
/TYLER J TORGRIMSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165