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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/9/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 4/9/2026 has been entered. Claim 5 has been cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Amendment, with respect to rejections under prior art have been fully considered and are moot upon a new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment, as outlined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9 and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the user interface is a network diagram comprising nodes and edges, and wherein the visual elements are nodes within the network diagram”. Claim 1, from which claim 18 depends recites “identifying a pair of combinable visual elements, wherein the pair of combinable visual elements comprise an overlap in an associated time dimension; identifying a first portion of the time dimension, the first portion of the time dimension representing where the pair of combinable visual elements do not overlap; and identifying a second portion of the time dimension, the second portion of the time dimension representing where the pair of combinable visual elements do overlap” and “wherein the pseudo visual element comprises a first color indicating the first portion of the time dimension, and wherein the pseudo visual element comprises a second color indicating the second portion of the time dimension”. The Examiner was unable to find support in Applicant’s Specification for the claimed overlap and color behavior of the visual elements when the visual elements represent network diagram nodes. Applicant does not cite support for such a limitation in Applicant’s Arguments filed 3/17/2026.
Accordingly, the subject matter described in this section will not be considered under prior art. It is also noted that support for the amendments to the claims should originate from the written description rather than from amended figures. Similarly, for claim 18.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this Office Action:
Rucker et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0061360), referred to as Rucker herein [previously cited].
Steinglass et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0234699), referred to as Steinglass herein [previously cited].
Brown (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0240122), referred to as Brown herein [previously cited].
Tensix.com, (“Color-Coded Task Roll-up Summary Gantt Bars in Microsoft Project”, https://web.archive.org/web/20230406052751/https://tensix.com/color-coded-task-roll-up-summary-gantt-bars-in-microsoft-project/), referred to as Tensix herein.
Examiner’s Note
Strikethrough notation in the pending claims has been added by the Examiner. Claims 1 and 10 have been rejected twice under prior art.
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) 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 16-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rucker in view of Brown in further view of Tensix.
Regarding claim 1, Rucker discloses a method comprising: receiving, at a backend system, a request to provide a user interface comprising a plurality of visual elements to a client device (Rucker, Abstract with ¶0034 – user can select progress monitoring and resource allocation chart views. ¶0027 – Gantt. Fig. 9 with ¶0050-¶0051 and ¶0058 – remote computer system sends project information including schedule information to the client device);
analyzing,
identifying a pair of combinable visual elements, wherein the pair of combinable visual elements comprise an overlap in an associated time dimension (Rucker, Figs. 5-6B with ¶0041-¶0042 – task groups include tasks which can be expanded from the group or collapsed (combined) into the group. Subtasks have overlapping times);
identifying a first portion of the time dimension, the first portion of the time dimension representing where the pair of combinable visual elements do not overlap (Rucker, Figs. 5-6B with ¶0041 – group burn-down graph includes overlapping periods as well as periods which do not overlap. For overlapping periods with multiple tasks with burn down, the burn-down graph represents a combined progress. For non-overlapping periods, the burn down represents only one. For example. Fig. 6B includes Task B with no progress in the non-overlapping portion. Empty progress is shown in the “Independent Tasks” from the non-overlapping portion. Similarly at Fig. 5); and
identifying a second portion of the time dimension, the second portion of the time dimension representing where the pair of combinable visual elements do overlap (Rucker, Figs. 5-6B with ¶0041 – group burn-down is shown for all tasks. The group progress is shown for periods where the progress from the sub-tasks overlap);
based on the analysis, generating, by the backend system, a pseudo visual element, wherein the pseudo visual element represents the pair of combinable visual elements, wherein each particular visual element of the pair of combinable visual elements is graphically represented in the pseudo visual element (Rucker, Figs. 5-6B with ¶0041-¶0042 – burn-down graph for the group view of the group represents the process view of the tasks within the group. Fig. 9 with ¶0050-¶0051 and ¶0058 – remote computer system sends project information including schedule information to the client device. Schedule information is based on underlying calculations including project time remaining),
wherein the pseudo visual element comprises a first color
updating, by the backend system, the user interface by replacing the two or more particular visual elements with the pseudo visual element (Rucker, Fig. 6A-6B with ¶0041-¶0042, ¶0056, ¶0063 – grouped tasks are hidden when in a collapsed state. A collapse icon is shown when the tasks are in the expanded state, and an expand icon is shown when the tasks are in a collapsed state. The user can toggle to replace the expanded state with the collapsed state. ¶0034, ¶0036, ¶0058 – expanding and collapsing views causes an updated view, requiring updating task data. Dynamic progress views for tasks are obtained from the server); and
sending information, by the backend system, to the client device to cause the client device to render the updated user interface at a display associated with the client device (Rucker, Fig. 9 ¶0012, ¶0050-¶0054 – client-server communication. Server communicates information updates to render the charts at client devices. Fig. 9 with ¶0050-¶0051 and ¶0058 – remote computer system sends project information including schedule information to the client device).
However, Rucker appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor Brown discloses a task management system (Brown, Abstract), including
enabling users to modify child tasks, and analyzing, by the backend system, the plurality of visual elements to identify a subset of visual elements that are child tasks of a parent task (Brown, ¶0016 with Fig. 11 and ¶0067-¶0075 – user can create new tasks and assign a parent task. Tasks and task relationships are synchronized at the server (either directly server side or incrementally from the client). The server detects the presence of input relationships and implements the relationship in task data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the server interface rendering of Rucker enabling users to create/modify child tasks which are synchronized to the server based on the teachings of Brown. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve ease and accessibility in managing tasks and subtasks concurrently across multiple users (Brown, ¶0005-¶0008).
However, Rucker as modified appears not to expressly disclose wherein the pseudo visual element comprises a first color indicating the first portion of the time dimension, and wherein the pseudo visual element comprises a second color indicating the second portion of the time dimension. However, in the same field of endeavor, Tensix discloses color-coded roll-up summary bars for Gantt charts (Tensix, Title, Page 1), including
wherein the pseudo visual element comprises a first color indicating the first portion of the time dimension, and wherein the pseudo visual element comprises a second color indicating the second portion of the time dimension (Tensix, Pages 6-8, Fig. 8 – “Pipe Repair & Improve” Roll-up bar and “Installation Piping System” Roll-up bar includes different colors for different subtasks. Colors for subs-tasks are indicated in overlapping portions. For example, the overlapping portions of “Thrustblock” and “Piping” are shown in yellow, red, and purple. The non-overlapping portions for “Piping” is shown in a light blue color).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the group task bar of Rucker to include color coded portions for overlapping tasks and a different color for non-overlapping portions based on the teachings of Tensix. The motivation for doing so would have been to better differentiate tasks within a rolled-up bar, so that users can more easily recognize subtasks (Tensix, Page 1).
Regarding claim 2, Rucker as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the subset of visual elements that are combinable comprises visual elements that are at least one of: adjacent to each other; or within a predetermined distance from each other (Rucker, Figs. 6A-6B with ¶0041-¶0042 – independent tasks are inserted and collapsed from adjacent rows, or from adjacent display within the same row as the group task display (predetermined distance)).
Regarding claim 3, Rucker as modified discloses the elements of claim 2 above, and further discloses wherein the predetermined distance or adjacency is based on the relative location of the subset of visual elements on a timeline (Rucker, Figs. 6A-6B with ¶0006, ¶0041-¶0042 – independent tasks are inserted and collapsed from adjacent rows in the timeline, or from adjacent display within the same row as the group task display (predetermined distance)).
Regarding claim 4, Rucker as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the subset of visual elements that are combinable comprises visual elements that are associated with overlapping timelines (Rucker, Figs. 6A-6B with ¶0041-¶0042 – independent tasks have overlapping timelines).
Regarding claim 6, Rucker as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses receiving a selection of the pseudo visual element in the updated user interface; and in response to receiving the selection, sending information to the client device to cause the two or more replaced visual elements to be rendered in the updated user interface (Rucker, Fig. 6A-6B with ¶0041-¶0042, ¶0056, ¶0063 – grouped tasks are hidden when in a collapsed state. A collapse icon is shown when the tasks are in the expanded state, and an expand icon is shown when the tasks are in a collapsed state. The user can toggle to replace the collapsed state with the expanded state. Fig. 9 with ¶0012, ¶0050-¶0054 – client-server communication. Server communicates information updates to render the charts at client devices).
Regarding claim 7, Rucker as modified discloses the elements of claim 6 above, and further discloses wherein the pseudo visual element is rendered next to the two or more replaced visual elements (Rucker, Figs. 6A-6B with ¶0006, ¶0041-¶0042 – independent tasks are inserted and collapsed from adjacent rows in the timeline, or from adjacent display within the same row as the group task display).
Regarding claim 8, Rucker as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the user interface is a Gantt chart, and wherein the visual elements are tasks to be rendered within a timeline of the Gantt chart (Rucker, ¶0027 – Gantt Chart. Figs. 6A-6B with ¶0006, ¶0041-¶0042 – independent tasks are inserted and collapsed from adjacent rows in the timeline).
Regarding claim 10, Rucker discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform operations comprising: receiving, at a backend system, a request to provide a user interface comprising a plurality of visual elements to a client device (Rucker, Abstract with Fig. 12 and ¶0069 – processor executing instructions stored in memory. ¶0034 – user can select progress monitoring and resource allocation chart views. ¶0027 - Gantt);
analyzing,
identifying a pair of combinable visual elements, wherein the pair of combinable visual elements comprise an overlap in an associated time dimension (Rucker, Figs. 5-6B with ¶0041-¶0042 – task groups include tasks which can be expanded from the group or collapsed (combined) into the group. Subtasks have overlapping times);
identifying a first portion fo the time dimension, the first portion of the time dimension representing where the pair of combinable visual elements do not overlap (Rucker, Figs. 5-6B with ¶0041 – group burn-down graph includes overlapping periods as well as periods which do not overlap. For overlapping periods with multiple tasks with burn down, the burn-down graph represents a combined progress. For non-overlapping periods, the burn down represents only one. For example. Fig. 6B includes Task B with no progress in the non-overlapping portion. Empty progress is shown in the “Independent Tasks” from the non-overlapping portion); and
identifying a second portion of the time dimension, the second portion of the time dimension representing where the pair of combinable visual elements do overlap (Rucker, Figs. 5-6B – group burn-down is shown for all tasks. The group progress is shown for periods where the progress from the sub-tasks overlap);
based on the analysis, generating, by the backend system, a pseudo visual element, wherein the pseudo visual element represents the pair of combinable visual elements of the subset of visual elements, wherein each particular visual element of the pair of combinable visual elements is graphically represented in the pseudo visual element (Rucker, Figs. 5-6B with ¶0041-¶0042 – burn-down graph for the group view of the group represents the process view of the tasks within the group. Fig. 9 with ¶0050-¶0051 and ¶0058 – remote computer system sends project information including schedule information to the client device. Schedule information is based on underlying calculations including project time remaining),
wherein the pseudo visual element comprises a first color
updating, by the backend system, the user interface by replacing the two or more particular visual elements with the pseudo visual element (Rucker, Fig. 6A-6B with ¶0041-¶0042, ¶0056, ¶0063 – grouped tasks are hidden when in a collapsed state. A collapse icon is shown when the tasks are in the expanded state, and an expand icon is shown when the tasks are in a collapsed state. The user can toggle to replace the expanded state with the collapsed state. ¶0034, ¶0036, ¶0058 – expanding and collapsing views causes an updated view, requiring updating task data. Dynamic progress views for tasks are obtained from the server); and
sending, by the backend system, information to the client device to cause the client device to render the updated user interface at a display associated with the client device (Rucker, Fig. 9 ¶0012, ¶0050-¶0054 – client-server communication. Server communicates information updates to render the charts at client devices. Fig. 9 with ¶0050-¶0051 and ¶0058 – remote computer system sends project information including schedule information to the client device).
However, Rucker appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor Brown discloses a task management system (Brown, Abstract), including
enabling users to modify child tasks, and analyzing, by the backend system, the plurality of visual elements to identify a subset of visual elements that are child tasks of a parent task (Brown, ¶0016 with Fig. 11 and ¶0067-¶0075 – user can create new tasks and assign a parent task. Tasks and task relationships are synchronized at the server (either directly server side or incrementally from the client). The server detects the presence of input relationships and implements the relationship in task data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the server interface rendering of Rucker enabling users to create/modify child tasks which are synchronized to the server based on the teachings of Brown. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve ease and accessibility in managing tasks and subtasks concurrently across multiple users (Brown, ¶0005-¶0008).
However, Rucker as modified appears not to expressly disclose wherein the pseudo visual element comprises a first color indicating the first portion of the time dimension, and wherein the pseudo visual element comprises a second color indicating the second portion of the time dimension. However, in the same field of endeavor, Tensix discloses color-coded roll-up summary bars for gantt charts (Tensix, Title, Page 1), including
wherein the pseudo visual element comprises a first color indicating the first portion of the time dimension, and wherein the pseudo visual element comprises a second color indicating the second portion of the time dimension (Tensix, Pages 7-8, Fig. 8 – “Pipe Repair & Improve” Roll-up bar and “Installation Piping System” Roll-up bar includes different colors for different subtasks. Colors for subs-tasks are indicated in overlapping portions. For example, the overlapping portions of “Thrustblock” and “Piping” are shown in yellow, red, and purple. The non-overlapping portions for “Piping” is shown in a light blue color).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the group task bar of Rucker to include color coded portions for overlapping tasks and a different color for non-overlapping portions based on the teachings of Tensix. The motivation for doing so would have been to better differentiate tasks within a rolled-up bar, so that users can more easily recognize subtasks (Tensix, Page 1).
Regarding claim 11, Rucker as modified discloses the elements of claim 10 above, and further discloses wherein the subset of visual elements that are combinable comprises visual elements that are at least one of: adjacent to each other; or within a predetermined distance from each other (Rucker, Figs. 6A-6B with ¶0041-¶0042 – independent tasks are inserted and collapsed from adjacent rows, or from adjacent display within the same row as the group task display (predetermined distance)).
Regarding claim 12, Rucker as modified discloses the elements of claim 10 above, and further discloses wherein the subset of visual elements that are combinable comprises visual elements that are associated with overlapping timelines (Rucker, Figs. 6A-6B with ¶0041-¶0042 – independent tasks have overlapping timelines).
Regarding claim 14, Rucker as modified discloses the elements of claim 10 above, and further discloses receiving a selection of the pseudo visual element in the updated user interface; and in response to receiving the selection, sending information to the client device to cause the two or more replaced visual elements to be rendered in the updated user interface (Rucker, Fig. 6A-6B with ¶0041-¶0042, ¶0056, ¶0063 – grouped tasks are hidden when in a collapsed state. A collapse icon is shown when the tasks are in the expanded state, and an expand icon is shown when the tasks are in a collapsed state. The user can toggle to replace the collapsed state with the expanded state. Fig. 9 ¶0012, ¶0050-¶0054 – client-server communication. Server communicates information updates to render the charts at client devices).
Regarding claim 16, Rucker as modified discloses the elements of claim 14 above, and further discloses wherein the pseudo visual element is rendered next to the two or more replaced visual elements (Rucker, Figs. 6A-6B with ¶0006, ¶0041-¶0042 – independent tasks are inserted and collapsed from adjacent rows in the timeline, or from adjacent display within the same row as the group task display).
Regarding claim 17, Rucker as modified discloses the elements of claim 10 above, and further discloses wherein the user interface is a Gantt chart, and wherein the visual elements are tasks to be rendered within a timeline of the Gantt chart (Rucker, ¶0027 – Gantt Chart. Figs. 6A-6B with ¶0006, ¶0041-¶0042 – independent tasks are inserted and collapsed from adjacent rows in the timeline).
Regarding claim 19, Rucker discloses a computer-implemented system, comprising: one or more computers; and one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, perform one or more operations comprising: receiving, at a backend system, a request to provide a user interface comprising a plurality of visual elements to a client device (Rucker, Abstract with Fig. 12 and ¶0069 – processor executing instructions stored in memory. ¶0034 – user can select progress monitoring and resource allocation chart views. ¶0027 – Gantt. Fig. 9 with ¶0050-¶0051 and ¶0058 – remote computer system sends project information including schedule information to the client device);
analyzing, from the group or collapsed (combined) into the group. ¶0058 - Changes are synchronized back to the remote system):
identifying ap air of combinable visual elements, wherein the pair of combinable visual elements comprise an overlap in an associated item dimension (Rucker, Figs. 5-6B with ¶0041-¶0042 – task groups include tasks which can be expanded from the group or collapsed (combined) into the group. Subtasks have overlapping times);
identifying a first portion of the time dimension, the first portion of the time dimension representing where the pair of combinable visual elements do not overlap (Rucker, Figs. 5-6B with ¶0041 – group burn-down graph includes overlapping periods as well as periods which do not overlap. For overlapping periods with multiple tasks with burn down, the burn-down graph represents a combined progress. For non-overlapping periods, the burn down represents only one. For example. Fig. 6B includes Task B with no progress in the non-overlapping portion. Empty progress is shown in the “Independent Tasks” from the non-overlapping portion); and
identifying a second portion of the time dimension, the second portion of the time dimension representing where the pair of combinable visual elements do overlap (Rucker, Figs. 5-6B – group burn-down is shown for all tasks. The group progress is shown for periods where the progress from the sub-tasks overlap);
based on the analysis, generating, by the backend system, a pseudo visual element, wherein the pseudo visual element represents the pair of combinable visual elements of the subset of visual elements, wherein each particular visual element of the pair of combinable visual elements is graphically represented in the pseudo visual element (Rucker, Figs. 5-6B with ¶0041-¶0042 – burn-down graph for the group view of the group represents the process view of the tasks within the group. Fig. 9 with ¶0050-¶0051 and ¶0058 – remote computer system sends project information including schedule information to the client device. Schedule information is based on underlying calculations including project time remaining),
wherein the pseudo visual element comprises a first color
updating, by the backend system, the user interface by replacing the two or more particular visual elements with the pseudo visual element (Rucker, Fig. 6A-6B with ¶0041-¶0042, ¶0056, ¶0063 – grouped tasks are hidden when in a collapsed state. A collapse icon is shown when the tasks are in the expanded state, and an expand icon is shown when the tasks are in a collapsed state. The user can toggle to replace the expanded state with the collapsed state. ¶0034, ¶0036, ¶0058 – expanding and collapsing views causes an updated view, requiring updating task data. Dynamic progress views for tasks are obtained from the server); and
sending, by the backend system, information to the client device to cause the client device to render the updated user interface at a display associated with the client device (Rucker, Fig. 9 ¶0012, ¶0050-¶0054 – client-server communication. Server communicates information updates to render the charts at client devices. Fig. 9 with ¶0050-¶0051 and ¶0058 – remote computer system sends project information including schedule information to the client device).
However, Rucker appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor Brown discloses a task management system (Brown, Abstract), including
enabling users to modify child tasks, and analyzing, by the backend system, the plurality of visual elements to identify a subset of visual elements that are child tasks of a parent task (Brown, ¶0016 with Fig. 11 and ¶0067-¶0075 – user can create new tasks and assign a parent task. Tasks and task relationships are synchronized at the server (either directly server side or incrementally from the client). The server detects the presence of input relationships and implements the relationship in task data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the server interface rendering of Rucker enabling users to create/modify child tasks which are synchronized to the server based on the teachings of Brown. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve ease and accessibility in managing tasks and subtasks concurrently across multiple users (Brown, ¶0005-¶0008).
However, Rucker as modified appears not to expressly disclose wherein the pseudo visual element comprises a first color indicating the first portion of the time dimension, and wherein the pseudo visual element comprises a second color indicating the second portion of the time dimension. However, in the same field of endeavor, Tensix discloses color-coded roll-up summary bars for gantt charts (Tensix, Title, Page 1), including
wherein the pseudo visual element comprises a first color indicating the first portion of the time dimension, and wherein the pseudo visual element comprises a second color indicating the second portion of the time dimension (Tensix, Pages 7-8, Fig. 8 – “Pipe Repair & Improve” Roll-up bar and “Installation Piping System” Roll-up bar includes different colors for different subtasks. Colors for subs-tasks are indicated in overlapping portions. For example, the overlapping portions of “Thrustblock” and “Piping” are shown in yellow, red, and purple. The non-overlapping portions for “Piping” is shown in a light blue color).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the group task bar of Rucker to include color coded portions for overlapping tasks and a different color for non-overlapping portions based on the teachings of Tensix. The motivation for doing so would have been to better differentiate tasks within a rolled-up bar, so that users can more easily recognize subtasks (Tensix, Page 1).
Regarding claim 20, Rucker as modified discloses the elements of claim 19 above, and further discloses wherein the subset of visual elements that are combinable comprises visual elements that are at least one of: adjacent to each other; or within a predetermined distance from each other (Rucker, Figs. 6A-6B with ¶0041-¶0042 – independent tasks are inserted and collapsed from adjacent rows, or from adjacent display within the same row as the group task display (predetermined distance)).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rucker in view of Brown in further view of Tensix in further view of Steinglass.
Regarding claim 15, Rucker discloses the elements of claim 14 above. However, Rucker appears not to expressly disclose wherein the pseudo visual element is removed from the user interface in response to the selection.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Steinglass discloses a project timeline view interface (Steinglass, Abstract), including
wherein the pseudo visual element is removed from the user interface in response to the selection (Steinglass, Fig. 3 with ¶0033-¶0034 – zooming out to a higher level view of the tasks replaces the lower level tasks with the higher level parent task. Zooming in results in removing the higher level task to display the child tasks).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the grouped task of Rucker to include removing the higher level task to display child tasks based on the teachings of Steinglass. The motivation for doing so would have been to avoid confusion, save screen space, and to simplify the display by providing a single detail level for the user instead of multiple.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL W PARCHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4281. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time.
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 Bashore can be reached at (571)272-4088 (Eastern Time). 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.
/DANIEL W PARCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights