DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 3/22/2024.
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 .
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: Dynamic Action Routing Based on Application State.
Claims Status
Claims 1-10 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1 and 9-10 are independent.
Claim Interpretation
Concerning claims 1-10: An "endpoint of the application" is interpreted as including a “handler”, or other software component that serves as destination for incoming requests, and/or points to processing devices or services that handle execution associated with the requests.
Concerning claims 1-8: Here, the "in accordance with" clause(s) in the independent claim 1 raise questions as to the limiting effect of the clauses’ language upon the claims. See MPEP § 2111.04.I. Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. See MPEP § 2115. For example, the “in accordance with” clause(s) include “in accordance with a determination that the application is in a first state” and “in accordance with a determination that the application is in a second state different from the first state”. However, none of the positively steps/functions include any steps/functions of determining an application state. Furthermore, the Instant Specification equates the phrase “in accordance with a determination that” with the conditional “if”, see ¶ 50, as published. Therefore, the "in accordance with" clause(s) is/are not found to limit the claim because the clauses do not give "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps” of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2111.04.I and/or Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The representative claim 1 recite(s) A method, comprising:
receiving an indication of a user-interface element corresponding to an application; (Note that "user-interface element", "an application", and "user-interface element corresponding to an application" have counterparts in non-computer realms because these concepts fundamentally represent tools [such as pen and paper], the tasks or functions those tools enable [e.g., overall purpose/use of the tools], and the specific components used to interact with them, much like the relationship between a physical book, the act of reading, and its individual pages or cover. Here, the application can also refer to the entire system used to perform a specific task, such as creating a document, which could be pen and paper. A person can receive an indication using mental processing, e.g., being made aware of a user's choice or request via pen and paper, and/or by seeing and perceiving a flashing light on a computer or other machine. These interpretations are aligned with the Instant Specification, ¶ 3, as published, that mentions that “a notification center can use techniques described herein”, ¶ 3. Using broadest reasonable interpretation [hereinafter “BRI”], these centers, and/or their user interface and interface elements in the claims’ language include, but are not limited to, non-computer "notification centers" with user interfaces that existed many years ago. Almost any centralized system designed to gather, organize, and present information or messages, e.g., communicating an action to users, qualifies. E.g., bulletin boards, command center status board system for military or emergency services, and post offices, etc.)
in response to receiving the indication of the user-interface element corresponding to the application, identifying an action corresponding to the user-interface element; (determining, using the mind, the appropriate action to take based on the user's choice or request, or based on the flashing light)
These steps, as claimed, recite the abstract idea of managing actions based on the state of an application, which is a mental process. As such, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) doesn’t add limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application. The additional limitations include:
"at a system process of a computer system" (mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
and in response to identifying the action corresponding to the user-interface element: in accordance with a determination that the application is in a first state, sending, to a first endpoint of the application, an instruction to perform the action; (Deciding to act in a certain way [mental processing] and sending a message to one location/person [endpoint] based on a specific set of circumstances [first state]. Even if endpoints are interpreted as physical computing devices, sending information is recognized by the courts as a well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, MPEP 2106.05(d))
and in accordance with a determination that the application is in a second state different from the first state, sending, to a second endpoint of the application different from the first endpoint of the application, the instruction to perform the action. (Deciding to act in a different way [mental processing] and sending a message to a different location/person [endpoint] based on another set of circumstances [second state]. Sending information is recognized by the courts as a well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity)
These limitations are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and/or insignificant extra-solution activity. None of these are indicative of integration into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they recite an abstract idea together with limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application which are also ineffective to show “significantly more”.
Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible under 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2 and 3 recite wherein the user-interface element is included in a user-interface view of the application (claim 2) and “wherein the first endpoint corresponds to the application” (claim 3), which is further reciting the abstract idea, e.g., visible lights and/or paper [user-interface element view] corresponding to the system/purpose/activity [of the application], and/or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, assuming the user-interface can be interpreted as a computer’s user interface.
Claim 3 also recites wherein the second endpoint corresponds to an extension of the application, and wherein the extension executes separately from the application (here, the local system or application may be described as having counterparts because any modular system, such as a main office delegating specific tasks to a separate branch office that operates autonomously, embodies the core principle of an independent application extension executing separately from the core application.
Claims 4 and 5, further indicate that the first and second states are active or inactive state. This doesn’t preclude performing the idea in the human mind.
Claims 6-8 involves further recitations of the abstract idea(s) and well-known functions, such as receiving indications, identifying, and/or sending information.
As such, claims 2-8 are also rejected for similar reasons, because they further recite the abstract idea(s) and/or add limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application or “significantly more” for the similar reasons as explained for claim 1.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are directed to a storage medium and computer system for accomplishing steps of the method in claim 1, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsao; Anson et al. (hereinafter Tsao – US 20080313561 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Tsao teaches:
A method, comprising:
at a system process of a computer system:
receiving an indication of a user-interface element corresponding to an application; (a user interface having application components [user-interface element] which each represent commands that are received, Abstract and ¶ 30, e.g., by user selection of a component representing the command [receiving an indication], ¶ 38. The command is received, e.g., by a command processor 116 or a command system 120, ¶¶ 38 and 41 and fig. 3, which is included in a computer system, ¶¶ 7 and 17 and figs. 1 and 3)
in response to receiving the indication of the user-interface element corresponding to the application, identifying an action corresponding to the user-interface element; (a user action or other operation is determined based on the selection, ¶ 42 and fig. 3A.)
and in response to identifying the action corresponding to the user-interface element:
in accordance with a determination that the application is in a first state, sending, to a first endpoint of the application, an instruction to perform the action; (the command processor invokes one or more handlers [e.g., first and second endpoint] in accordance with a current context, ¶ 43 and fig. 3A, which includes the selected action/command and other application state [e.g., determination that the application is in a first state or determination that the application is in a second state different from the first state], ¶ 42, to make updates according to the command(s) and other context, ¶¶ 42-43. An "application endpoint" is interpreted as including a “handler”, or other software component that receives and processes incoming requests. The “in accordance with a determination that” conditional clauses in this claim, see claim interpretation section above, are mapped herein mainly for the benefit of claims 9 and 10.)
and in accordance with a determination that the application is in a second state different from the first state, sending, to a second endpoint of the application different from the first endpoint of the application, the instruction to perform the action. (the command processor invokes one or more handlers [e.g., first and second endpoint] in accordance with a current context, ¶ 43 and fig. 3A, which includes the selected action/command and other application state [e.g., determination that the application is in a first state or determination that the application is in a second state different from the first state], ¶ 42, to make updates according to the command(s) and other context, ¶¶ 42-43)
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Tsao further teaches:
wherein the user-interface element is included in a user-interface view of the application. (the user interface components are presented/displayed for the application(s) [included in a user-interface view of the application], ¶¶ 36 and 82 and fig. 8)
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Tsao further teaches:
further comprising:
receiving a second indication of a second user-interface element corresponding to the application; (any number of indications for actions can be received, as selected by a user, as mapped above for claim 1)
in response to receiving the second indication of the second user-interface element corresponding to the application, identifying a second action corresponding to the second user-interface element; (any number of indications for actions can be received/identified, as selected by a user, as mapped above for claim 1)
and in response to identifying the second action corresponding to the second user-interface element, sending, to the first endpoint of the application, an instruction to perform the second action. (in response to identifying any number of actions related to any number of user interface components, different commands/instructions are sent to one or more handlers, as mapped above for claim 1)
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Tsao further teaches:
further comprising:
receiving a third indication of a third user-interface element corresponding to the application; (any number of indications for actions can be received, as selected by a user, as mapped above for claim 1)
in response to receiving the third indication of the third user-interface element corresponding to the application, identifying a third action corresponding to the third user-interface element; (any number of indications for actions can be received/identified, as selected by a user, as mapped above for claim 1)
and in response to identifying the third action corresponding to the third user-interface element, sending, to the second endpoint of the application, an instruction to perform the third action. (in response to identifying any number of actions related to any number of user interface components, different commands/instructions are sent to one or more handlers, as mapped above for claim 1)
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Tsao further teaches:
further comprising:
receiving a fourth indication of a fourth user-interface element corresponding to a second application different from the application; (the handlers are part of one or more of the application(s) of the composite application 104a, e.g., as shown in fig. 3 and ¶¶ 30-31, as such the indications are for any number of elements corresponding to any number of applications, including a second application different from the application)
in response to receiving the fourth indication of the fourth user-interface element corresponding to the second application, identifying a fourth action corresponding to the fourth user-interface element; (any number of indications for actions can be received, as selected by a user, as mapped above for claim 1)
in response to identifying the fourth action corresponding to the fourth user-interface element, sending, to a second computer system different from the computer system, an instruction to perform the fourth action; (in response to identifying any number of actions related to any number of user interface components, different commands/instructions are sent to one or more handlers, as mapped above for claim 1)
receiving a fifth indication of a fifth user-interface element corresponding to a third application different from the application; (the handlers are part of one or more of the application(s) of the composite application 104a, e.g., as shown in fig. 3 and ¶¶ 30-31, as such the indications are for any number of elements corresponding to any number of applications, including a third application different from the application)
in response to receiving the fifth indication of the fifth user-interface element corresponding to the third application, identifying a fifth action corresponding to the fifth user-interface element; (any number of indications for actions can be received, as selected by a user, as mapped above for claim 1)
and in response to identifying the fifth action corresponding to the fifth user-interface element, sending, to a respective endpoint of the computer system, an instruction to perform the fifth action. (in response to identifying any number of actions related to any number of user interface components, different commands/instructions are sent to one or more handlers, as mapped above for claim 1)
Independent Claims 9 and 10:
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are directed to a storage medium and computer system for accomplishing steps of the method in claim 1, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsao (US 20080313561 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ionescu; Alexandru Catalin et al. (hereinafter Ionescu – US 20130239189 A1).
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Tsao further teaches:
wherein the first endpoint corresponds to the application, (the handlers are part of one or more of the application(s) of the composite application 104a [corresponds to the application], e.g., as shown in fig. 3 and ¶¶ 30-31)
Tsao does not appear to expressly teach, but Ionescu teaches:
wherein the second endpoint corresponds to an extension of the application, and wherein the extension executes separately from the application (a handler can be either integrated within an application or can be an independently executed application that offers additional services to the application, ¶ 68. This reflects an application and an extension of that application, where the "protocol handler" acts as the extension mechanism to broaden the application's capabilities).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Tsao to include wherein the second endpoint corresponds to an extension of the application, and wherein the extension executes separately from the application, as taught by Ionescu, e.g., by modifying the handlers in Tsao.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the practicality and/or development simplicity of the method, by implementing one or more of the handlers in a way that is known and effective in the art for implementing handlers and/or keeping the development of the application simple, Ionescu ¶ 68.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsao (US 20080313561 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hyodo; Katsuya et al. (hereinafter Hyodo – US 20210275899 A1).
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Tsao does not appear to expressly teach, but Hyodo teaches:
wherein the first state corresponds to an active state. (A context of the application (application context) generally includes any of information about the application, status of the application (active or inactive), specific content shown by the application, and/or a specific state of the application (active in the background, resumed by the system, etc.), ¶ 26)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Tsao to include wherein the first state corresponds to an active state, as taught by Hyodo.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the contextual awareness of the method, e.g., by applying the method to other application states known in the art, Hyodo ¶ 26.
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Tsao does not appear to expressly teach, but Hyodo teaches:
wherein the second state corresponds to an inactive state. (A context of the application (application context) generally includes any of information about the application, status of the application (active or inactive), specific content shown by the application, and/or a specific state of the application (active in the background, resumed by the system, etc.), ¶ 26)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Tsao to include wherein the second state corresponds to an inactive state, as taught by Hyodo.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the contextual awareness of the method, e.g., by applying the method to other application states known in the art, Hyodo ¶ 26.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Nowak-Przygodzki; Marcin et al. US 20240257817 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing delegation of an action to a secondary device is triggered by determining that the required application needs a logged-in state, which the first device cannot satisfy, ¶ 10 and fig. 3.
Hsu; Chun et al. US 20160140012 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a task can be delegated to the first node based on the operational status of the first node, ¶ 47 and ¶ 55 and figs. 3-4.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern 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, 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171