DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communication: The Amendment filed on 04/16/2026. This action is made final.
Claims 1-18, 20-21 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 20 and 21 are independent claims.
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 .
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.
Claims 1-8, 11-18, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Newhouse et al. (US 2018/0189706 A1; hereinafter Newhouse).
As to claim 1, Newhouse teaches:
A method of information processing, comprising:
in response to a first user receiving an association request for task information of a second user, displaying a first control in a task interface of the first user (see Fig. 3 and ¶ 0082; the first user receives a task shared by other users because projects can be shared with and/or accessible by other user of the content management system. ¶ 0090; tasks created by other users and shared with the first users can be presented in the user interface 304), wherein the task interface of the first user further displays task information of the first user, the task information comprising objective task information and sub-task information (see Fig. 3 and ¶ 0090; My Projects 334, Recent Projects 332, All Projects 336); and
in response to a first predetermined operation on the first control, displaying a task sub- interface (see Figs. 3-4 and ¶ 0091; the user can select project 340 [~first control] to present GUI 400 of Fig. 4), wherein the task sub-interface displays task information created by the second user (see Fig. 4 and ¶ 0091-0094; information about selected task “Project Widget” shared by the creator to the first user), the task information comprising objective task information and/or sub-task information (see Fig. 4 and ¶ 0095), and wherein the association request is for prompting the first user to associate the first user's own task information with the task information created by the second user (see Fig. 4 and ¶ 0111; if the user is not currently a member of project 340, the user can select graphical element 452 to join the project, ¶ 0106; graphical element 436 presenting content items that are shared with the user, and ¶ 0107; graphical element 438 presenting content items that ware created by the user).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Newhouse further discloses: wherein task information is displayed in the task sub-interface, the task information comprising objective task information and/or sub-task information, and the objective task information having an association relationship with the sub-task information (see Figs. 3-4 and ¶ 0091-0094).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Newhouse further discloses: wherein the task information comprises a first user identification (see Figs. 3-4 and ¶ 0082-0083).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Newhouse further discloses: wherein the first control is displayed in a predetermined region of the task interface, and the first control is associated with the objective task information of the first user (see Fig. 3 and ¶ 0082; the first user receives a task shared by other users because projects can be shared with and/or accessible by other user of the content management system. ¶ 0090; tasks created by other users and shared with the first users can be presented in the user interface 304).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Newhouse further discloses: wherein the first control uniquely corresponds to the objective task information of the first user ((see Fig. 3 and ¶ 0082; the first user receives a task shared by other users because projects can be shared with and/or accessible by other user of the content management system. ¶ 0090; tasks created by other users and shared with the first users can be presented in the user interface 304; for example, task 340).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Newhouse further discloses:
in response to receiving an association request related to the objective task information, the objective task information is displayed in the task sub-interface (see Fig. 4 and ¶ 0095; subject task “Project Widget”); or,
in response to receiving an association request related to the sub-task information, the sub-task information is displayed in the task sub-interface, and the objective task information having the association relationship with the sub-task information is displayed (examiner’s note: this limitation is directed to alternative elected embodiment).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Newhouse further discloses: wherein a second control corresponding to the task information is further displayed in the task sub-interface (see Fig. 4 illustrated multiple controls).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Newhouse further discloses:
in response to receiving an association request related to the objective task information, displaying the second control in an association region of the objective task information in the task sub- interface (see Fig. 4 and ¶ 0091-0095, 0111); or
in response to receiving an association request related to the sub-task information, determining the objective task information having the association relationship with the sub-task information, and displaying the second control in the association region of the objective task information of the task sub- interface (examiner’s note: this limitation is directed to alternative elected embodiment).
As to claim 11, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Newhouse further discloses: wherein in response to a second predetermined operation on the second control, displaying the task information in the task sub-interface is terminated (see Figs. 3-4 and ¶ 0094).
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Newhouse further discloses: wherein a third control corresponding to the second user is displayed in the task sub-interface (see Fig. 4 illustrated multiple controls).
As to claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Newhouse further discloses: wherein in response to a third predetermined operation on the third control, displaying the task information of the second user in the task sub-interface is terminated (see Fig. 4 and ¶ 0091-0095).
As to claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Newhouse further discloses: wherein predetermined information corresponding to the number of pieces of task information displayed in the task sub-interface is further displayed near the first control (see Fig. 3).
As to claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Newhouse further discloses: wherein the task information comprises objective task information and/or sub-task information, the objective task information having an association relationship with the sub-task information; the method further comprises: determining whether the objective task information and sub-task information contain an association request; determining the predetermined information based on the number of pieces of the objective task information containing the association request; or, determining the predetermined information based on the number of pieces of objective task information associated with the sub-task information containing the association request (see Fig. 3-4 and ¶ 0090-0091).
As to claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Newhouse further discloses: wherein when the task information is not contained in the task sub-interface, the task sub-interface is closed, and the first control is not displayed in the task interface (see Fig. 3-4 and ¶ 0090-0091).
As to claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Newhouse further discloses: in response to the first user having a permission to the task information, displaying the first control in the task interface of the first user (see ¶ 0082-0083).
As to claim 18, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Newhouse further discloses: in response to the first user having a permission to the task information, displaying the task information in the task sub-interface (see ¶ 0082-0083).
As to claim 20, claim 20 is a terminal, comprising: at least one memory and at least one processor; wherein the at least one memory is for storing program code, the at least one processor is for calling the program code stored in the at least one memory to perform steps as claimed in claim 1; therefore, is rejected under similar rationale (see Fig. 16A-16B and ¶ 0212-0216).
As to claim 21, claim 21 is a non-transitory storage medium for storing program code, the program code for performing the steps as claimed in claim 1; therefore, is rejected under similar rationale (see Fig. 16A-16B and ¶ 0212-0216).
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.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newhouse in view of QIU et al. (US 2019/0288965 A1; hereinafter as QUI).
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Newhouse further discloses: wherein the task information comprises objective task information and/or sub-task information (see Fig.4 and ¶ 0090-0094).
Newhouse does not teach, but QUI is relied upon for teaching the limitation: in response to the task information of the second user having been associated with a first objective task information of the first user, forgoing displaying the task information of the second user in task sub- interface corresponding to the first objective task information (see Fig. 6-1B and ¶ 0080-0081; if the individual task button 14 is selected, the information on the task which the user himself or herself (the user A in this case) is in charge of is displayed with respect to the selected topic).
The references, each is directed to a task user interface; 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 task user interface disclosed in Newhouse to include the specific feature of displaying tasks related to a selected user as taught by QUI to achieve the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter and the advantages provided by QUI that providing the task user interface would allow the user to easily identify the task of interest (QUI: see ¶ 0080-0081).
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Newhouse/QUI further disclose: determining second objective task information of the first user that is unassociated with the task information of the second user, and displaying the task information of the second user in task sub- interface corresponding to the second objective task information (QUI: see Fig. 6-2A and ¶ 0084; If the all-member task button 15 is selected, information on the tasks of all members is displayed with respect to the selected topic). Thus, combining Newhouse/QUI would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 9.
.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18, 20, 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to 101 rejection, the amendment corrects the previous rejections; therefore, the 101 rejections are now withdrawn.
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.
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)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYETLIEN T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1033. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 AM - 8:00 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, Irete (Fred) Ehichioya can be reached on 571-272-4034. 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.
/TUYETLIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights