DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in responsive to communication(s):
Application filed on 2/20/2024 with effective filing date of 2/20/2023 based on Foreign application CN202310157417.8 filed on 2/20/2023.
The status of the claims is summarized as below:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 18, and 20 are independent claims.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: METHOD, FOR DEVELOPING, EXECUTING PROCESS FLOW FOR BUTTON IN TABLE CELL OF ONLINE DOCUMENT
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 6/10/2025 comply/complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP § 609, and therefore has/have been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has/have been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: (all emphasis added by examiner)
Per claim 3, claim 3 depend from claim 1, and recites a method that “… wherein … a process flow is associated with a start condition and an operation content executed in response to determining that the target start condition is satisfied; …”; where there is no aforementioned “target start condition” in the scope of the instant and parent claim. For the purpose of the examination, the limitation is interpreted as “… a process flow is associated with a start condition and an operation content executed in response to determining that the start condition is satisfied; … “.
Per claim 4, claim 4 depend from claim 3 and 1, and recites “… a field is associated with a first setting interface configured to set a field …”, the examiner presumes the limitation is meant to be “… a field is associated with a first setting interface configured to set the field …”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Per claim 7, claim 7 depend from claim 4, 3, 1, and further recites a method as comprising “… in a case that the target start condition and the target operation content are set and enabled in the second setting interface associated with the target processing flow …” (emphasis added). The examiner notes the term “in a case” implies a contingent limitation where the condition may or may not be met, thus the portion that follows the condition do not necessarily need to be carried out, i.e. when condition is not met. (MPEP 2111.04(II)).
Claims 9, 11-15 also include contingent limitations similar to claim 7, and are similarly interpreted.
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Barrett et al. (US Pub 20060224946, hereinafter Barrett), in view of Twist et al. (US Pub 20170147190, hereinafter Twist).
Per claim 1, Barrett teaches:
A method for processing information, comprising: ( abstract: spreadsheet is extended to create objects with associated state and set of defined behaviors, operations can also be performed automatically similar to spreadsheet triggering mechanism, trigger operations can be programed automatically based on changes to objects or conditions defined);
generating a target button field in a cell of a target table of a first online document in response to a first operation event, ([0031, 0071, 0077] in response to user programing (first operation event), a display object such as a button can be generated based on the programming details; the developed spreadsheet tool can be exported to run in a web environment (online document); [0110-0113] Fig. 9 shows two button A1 and A2 that are programed to behave a certain way in a spreadsheet (target table); also see [0188-0189] Fig. 6 shows a button that can be generated in cell C5 of a spreadsheet (target table)) wherein a target button is displayed in the target button field, the target button field is a button field, a field type of the button field is button, ([0110-0113, 0188-0189] Fig. 9, Fig. 6: Fig. 9 shows a target button “restart” in a table cell, where the cell is a button field) the target button field has a target trigger condition, and the target button field is associated with a target processing ([0111-0112] A1 is a button component, and when the button is pressed (trigger condition), an operation of displaying a number of times the A1 button is pressed is carried out (target processing));
executing the target processing ([0111-0112] when the A1 button is pressed (trigger condition is satisfied), the number of times the button is pressed is displayed in cell A2 (executing target processing)).
Although Barrett teaches extending spreadsheet to create programming construct s to allow users to perform a sequence of operations with trigger mechanism (abstract), and programming a button in a spreadsheet table ([0111-0112]) to carry out operations with trigger condition; Barrett does not explicitly teach defining a “target processing flow” through the interface.
Twist, however, teaches a user interface, that enables development of user application and workflows in parallel (abstract), and development of “target processing flow”/workflow to be used in connection with GUI controls being built ([0041-0042] Fig. 2; [0051] step 204 from Fig. 2 shows a second user interface is provided to enable workflow logic to be configured, as shown in Fig. 6 [0063] and Fig.8 [0067]).
Twist and Barrett are analogous art because Twist also teaches a GUI builder tool extended to carry out workflow. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Barrett and Twist before him/her, to modify the teachings of Barrett to include the teachings of Twist so that the spreadsheet tool can be extended further to include the GUI tools taught by Twist to develop workflows associated with spreadsheet in parallel with GUI builder. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enable workflows to be developed in parallel with building a GUI of an application such as spreadsheet web application, where workflow logic can be closely associated with controls included in the GUI (Twist [0004]), enhancing users experiences of application development through inclusion of workflow GUI integration.
Per claim 3, Barrett-Twist teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
the button field is associated with a trigger condition and an execution operation executed in response to determining that the trigger condition is satisfied; ( Barrett [0111-0112] when the A1 button is pressed (trigger condition is satisfied), the number of times the button is pressed is displayed in cell A2 (executing target processing));
a processing flow is associated with a start condition and an operation content executed in response to determining that the target start condition is satisfied; and ( Twist [0062, 0067, 0070-0071] Fig. 8-9 shows a second user interface 116 for defining a workflow (processing flow), with a start condition – when button is clicked, and operation content – the steps to be carried out, i.e. 804 from Fig. 8 and 902, 908 from Fig. 9, when the target condition (button is clicked) is satisfied);
a target start condition of the target processing (Barrett [0111-0112] teaches a button (A1) in a target table (spreadsheet table); Twist [0062, 0067] when the button “Submit for Approval” is selected to assign a workflow in Fig. 5, Fig. 8 shows the target start condition of the work flow as “When Button is Clicked” in step 802, which comprises the target button “Submit for Approval” in the first user interface (target table), and the trigger condition of “clicked button”) and a target operation content of the target processing flow is a specific operation content of a target execution operation associated with the target button field (Twist [0062, 0067]: the workflow steps (operation content) of the workflow being defined in 2nd UI 116 of Fig. 8 (target processing flow), is the previously selected behavior of assigning a work from Fig. 5 (target execution operation associated with the target button field)).
Per claim 4, Barrett-Twist teach all the limitations of claim 3, and further teach:
a field is associated with a first setting interface configured to set a field, and a processing flow is associated with a second setting interface configured to set a processing flow; and (Twist; [0062, 0067]: Fig. 5 shows a button (field) is associated with a first user interface 114 (first setting interface), which is configured to set the UI field of the button, and a workflow as behavior; where the workflow (processing flow) is associated with a second user interface 116 from Fig. 8 (second setting interface) configured to set the workflow steps);
generating the target button field in the cell of the target table of the first online document comprises: (Barrett [0111-0112] button A1 in spreadsheet table as web application);
setting, in the first setting interface associated with the target button field, the target execution operation executed in response to determining that the target trigger condition of the target button is satisfied; and (Twist: [0062—0065] Fig. 5 shows in the first user interface (first setting interface) with the target button “Submit for Approval”, the assigned workflow (target execution operation) is executed in response to the trigger condition that the button is clicked is satisfied);
setting, in the second setting interface associated with the target processing flow, the target start condition of the target processing flow and the target operation content executed in response to determining that the target start condition is satisfied. (Twist [0067-0068] Fig. 8 shows in the second user interface 116 (second setting interface), the workflow can be set (target processing flow), where when the start condition “When Button is Clicked” is satisfied, the workflow steps (target operation content) are executed in response).
Per claim 5, Barrett-Twist teach all the limitations of claim 4, and further teach:
automatically jumping to the second setting interface associated with the target processing flow after the target execution operation is selected in the first setting interface associated with the target button field. (Twist [0062-0063] Fig. 5-6: when the behavior “assign a workflow” 504 is assigned to button control 510, the second user interface 116 is automatically jumped to, which enables configuration of workflow steps, after the selection of 504 associated with the button 510).
Per claim 6, Barrett-Twist teach all the limitations of claim 5, and further teach:
automatically generating a blank target button field in the target table after the second setting interface associated with the target processing flow is automatically jumped to. (Barrett: a blank button can be generated when the programming expression for the target process is still being developed).
Per claim 7, Barrett-Twist teach all the limitations of claim 4, and further teach:
in a case that the target start condition and the target operation content are set and enabled in the second setting interface associated with the target processing flow, displaying, in the first setting interface associated with the target button field, description information of the target processing flow, and otherwise, not displaying the description information. (Twist Fig. 8 shows when the workflow (target operation content) is still being developed in the second user interface 116, no description information is displayed in the first user interface 114 associated with the button 510).
Per claim 8, Barrett-Twist teach all the limitations of claim 7, and further teach:
wherein the first setting interface associated with the target button field has a first control associated with the description information, and the first control is configured to, after being triggered, open the second setting interface associated with the target processing flow; and/or ([0062-0063] Fig. 5 shows a behavior “Add Flow” 504 (first control) associated with the button 510 after its selection, to open the second user interface 116 as shown in Fig. 8 to define the workflow steps);
the first setting interface associated with the target button field has a second control associated with the description information, and the second control is configured to, after being triggered, delete the target processing flow and the description information. ([0062] Fig. 5 shows behavior “remove” (second control) after the button 510 is selected to remove existing associated workflow).
Per claim 9, Barrett-Twist teach all the limitations of claim 4, and further teach:
in a case that the target execution operation of the target button field, the target start condition and the target operation content are set and enabled, the target button field is generated, and the target button is in an available state; and (“in a case” is a contingent limitation where the condition may not be met, so Barrett-Twist still teach the limitation);
in a case that the target execution operation of the target button field is set and enabled, but the target start condition and the target operation content are not set or not enabled after being set, the target button field is generated, and the target button is in an unavailable state. (“in a case” is a contingent limitation where the condition may not be met, so Barrett-Twist still teach the limitation).
Per claim 10, Barrett-Twist teach all the limitations of claim 3, and further teach:
the target start condition of the target processing flow comprises a start event, an association table and an association field in the association table; and (Twist [0067] Fig. 8 shows the workflow comprises a start event of “When Button is Clicked”, which is associated with the button 510 (association field) in the first user interface 114 (association table); Barrett [0111-0112] teaches button in spreadsheet table);
at least one of the following is satisfied:
a start event of the target start condition is the target trigger condition by default, ([0067] after the user has elected to create a new workflow for control 510, Fig. 8 shows a default start event is the target trigger condition from the first user interface “When Button is Clicked”).
the association table of the target start condition is a currently present target table by default,
the association field of the target start condition is a currently present target button field by default,
the start event is alterable,
the association table is alterable, and
the association field is alterable.
Per claim 11, Barrett-Twist teach all the limitations of claim 3, and further teach:
at least one of the following is satisfied:
the first online document has a third control, wherein the third control is configured to, after being triggered, enter a second setting interface for setting a processing flow, and the second setting interface is configured to set a processing flow; and (Twist [0062-0067] Fig. 5 shows the first user interface 114, which is the UI display in step 1904 in Fig. 19 [0099-0102] (first online document), has a “Add Flow” control 504 (third control), upon selection of 504, the second user interface 116 (second setting interface) is displayed to set the workflow as shown in Fig. 6-8).
in a case that the start condition selected in the second setting interface comprises a trigger button, and a selected table in the start condition has no button field, first prompt information is displayed, and/or a currently set processing flow is savable but not enabled.
Per claim 12, Barrett-Twist teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein at least one of the following is satisfied:
one target button in an available state is associated with only one processing flow; ([0062-0067] Fig. 5-8 show that the button 510 can only be associated with one workflow).
in a case that one target button is associated with at least two processing flows, the target button is unavailable; and
description information of the target processing flow in a first setting interface associated with the target button field is synchronously updated after information of the target processing flow associated with the target button field is updated.
Per claim 13, Barrett-Twist teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
in a case that an association relation between the target button field and the target processing flow is dissolved, at least one of the following:
retaining the target button field; (Twist Fig. 5 shows before any workflow process is assigned to the button 510, the target button field is retained; it’s obvious after disassociation of any workflow with the button 510, the button 510 is still retained).
retaining the target processing flow;
clearing description information of the target processing flow in a first setting interface associated with the target button field; or
generating, after the target button field is associated with another processing flow, description information of the other processing flow in the first setting interface associated with the target button field.
Per claim 14, Barrett-Twist teach all the limitations of claim 8, and further teach:
wherein at least one of the following is satisfied:
in a case that the second setting interface associated with the target processing flow is entered by triggering the first control, that an association between the target start condition of the target processing flow and the target button field is dissolved in the second setting interface associated with the target processing flow, and that the target start condition is associated with another button field, the description information of the target processing flow in the first setting interface associated with the target button field is cleared, and the description information of the target processing flow is generated in a first setting interface associated with the other button field; and (“in a case” is a contingent limitation where the condition may not be met, so Barrett-Twist still teach the limitation).
in a case that the second setting interface associated with the target processing flow is entered by triggering the first control, and the target trigger condition is not comprised in the target start condition of the target processing flow set in the second setting interface associated with the target processing flow, the description information of the target processing flow in the first setting interface associated with the target button field is cleared. (“in a case” is a contingent limitation where the condition may not be met, so Barrett-Twist still teach the limitation).
Per claim 15, Barrett-Twist teach all the limitations of claim 4, and further teach:
wherein at least one of the following is satisfied:
in a case that the target processing flow is deleted, the target button field is retained, and description information of the target processing flow in the first setting interface associated with the target button field is cleared; and
in a case that the target button field is deleted, second prompt information is displayed in the second setting interface associated with the target processing flow, the second prompt information being configured to report an error. “in a case” is a contingent limitation where the condition may not be met, so Barrett-Twist still teach the limitation).
Per claim 16, Barrett-Twist teach all the limitations of claim 3, and further teach:
wherein at least one of the following is satisfied:
in response to determining that a target permission function is not enabled in the first online document, a user having first permission or second permission is capable of setting the execution operation of the button field;
in response to determining that the target permission function is enabled in the first online document, a user having the first permission but no second permission is incapable of setting the execution operation of the button field; (Barrett [0078] all system administrators (user having second permission) can have access to the tool to develop GUI and modify the code, including setting execution for the button field as shown in [0111-0112]; but user without right credential (first permission) would not be able to edit/modify GUI/code, which implies the permission is set for the online document).
in response to determining that the target permission function is enabled in the first online document, a user having the first permission but no second permission is capable of generating an empty button unassociated with the execution operation; and
in response to determining that the target permission function is enabled in the first online document, and a control identifier of a user having the first permission but no second permission hovers over a control configured to set the execution operation, third prompt information is displayed, the third prompt information being configured to provide a prompt of a reason why the execution operation is incapable of being set;
wherein, the second permission is higher than the first permission. (Barrett [0078] administrators (second permission) has higher permission than user without the right credential (first permission)).
Per claim 17, Barrett-Twist teach all the limitations of claim 3, and further teach:
wherein at least one of the following is satisfied:
in response to determining that a target permission function is not enabled in the first online document, a user having first permission or second permission is capable of setting the start condition and the operation content of the processing flow; and
in response to determining that the target permission function is enabled in the first online document, a user having the second permission is capable of setting the start condition and the operation content of the processing flow; (Barrett [0078] all system administrators (user having second permission) can have access to the tool to develop GUI and modify the code, including setting execution for the button field as shown in [0111-0112]; but user without right credential (first permission) would not be able to edit/modify GUI/code, which implies the permission is set for the online document).
wherein the second permission is higher than the first permission. (Barrett [0078] administrators (second permission) has higher permission than user without the right credential (first permission)).
Per claim 18, claim 18 is a system claim comprising at least one memory (Twist [0108] Fig. 20 memory 2004, hard drive 2014), at least one processor (Twist [0108] Fig. 20 processor circuit 2002), that execute a method substantially the same as claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
Per claim 20, claim 20 is a non-transitory medium claim (Twist [0108] Fig. 20 memory 2004, hard drive 2014) that carries out a method substantially the same as claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
Claims 2, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Barrett, in view of Twist, and Onishi (US Pub 20150355812, hereinafter Onishi).
Per claim 2, Barrett-Twist teach all the limitations of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach:
a display style of the target button is relevant to at least one of an enabling state of the target button, an interaction situation between the target button and a control identifier, use permission of a current user for the target button, and an execution situation of the target processing flow; and/or
the enabling state of the target button is relevant to a presence state and/or a validity state of the target processing flow.
However, Onishi teaches:
a display style of the target button is relevant to at least one of an enabling state of the target button, an interaction situation between the target button and a control identifier, use permission of a current user for the target button, and an execution situation of the target processing flow; and/or
the enabling state of the target button is relevant to a presence state and/or a validity state of the target processing flow. ([0198-0200] Fig. 18 shows different states for a button, where A shows when the operation target is unavailable, the button is grayed out – state of the button is relevant to a present state of the target process).
Onishi and Barrett-Twist are analogous art because Onishi also teaches a control button associated with operation flow. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Barrett-Twist and Onishi before him/her, to modify the teachings of Barrett-Twist to include the teachings of Onishi so that the control button can includes states to indicate its current presence state. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enable control button to show different states to indicate its availability, thereby providing user with visual feedbacks, and increasing user experiences.
Per claim 19, claim 19 includes limitations that are substantially the same as claim 2, and is likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US Patents & Publications
US 20130185348 A1
Hall; Gabriel J. et al.
Method for providing integration of client application e.g. personal data management application for workflow management, involves workflow component referenced by accessed file via in-line user interface of client application
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support by shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections, See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHOEBE X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7794. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (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.
/PHOEBE X PAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179