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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax, Regular postal mail, or EFS Web (PTO/SB/439).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10534637.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications comprise substantially the same elements and cover the same subject matter. As can be seen from the table below the claims of the instant application and the conflicting claims have similar features.
Instant Application: 18615958
US PATENT: 10534637
1. A method for managing software applications, comprising:
establishing a chain application comprising a sequence of two or more applications.
1. A computer-implemented method for managing software applications, comprising:
receiving, via a graphical user interface, a user input request to chain together a first application and a second application, wherein the user input request indicates a sequence of execution of the first application followed by the second application;
identifying a first input type and a first output type of the first application;
identifying a second input type and a second output type of the second application;
in response to determining that the first output type of the first application is not compatible with the second input type of the second application, updating, without further user input, the sequence of execution such that the second application precedes the first application; and
generating a chain application configured to execute the first application and the second application in the updated sequence of execution in which an intermediate output of the second application is passed to the first application as an input.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The following claim language is unclear and indefinite:
As per claim 5, it is unclear what is meant by “the application of the two or more applications” (i.e. it is unclear which application “the application” refers to);
As per claim 5, it is unclear what is meant by “the another application” (i.e. it is unclear which application “the another application” refers to); and
As per claim 3, it is unclear what is meant by “the application profile” (i.e. it is unclear which application profile “the application profile” refers to). Appropriate correction is required.
The following claim language lacks sufficient antecedent basis:
Claim 1: the types of data; and
Claim 1: the respective application.
Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-21 are rejected due to their dependence on independent claim 1.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In adhering to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), Step 1 is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Herein, the claims fall within statutory class of process, machine or manufacture. Hence, the claims qualify as potentially eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C §101. With Step 1 being directed to a statutory category, the analysis directed to Step 2A.
Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. Prong 1 considers whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). In this case independent claim 1 recites mental processes as applied to human activity (i.e. concepts performed in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing components). For example, the following claimed steps are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion:
establishing a chain application comprising a sequence of two or more applications.
But for the recitation of generic computing components, step a can be completed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. Step a describes collecting and analyzing information at a high level of generality. According to the MPEP, this step is an example of a mental processes, thus it is reasonable to identify this limitation as reciting a mental process. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III (A), claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Since the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, analysis flows to Prong 2. Prong 2 considers whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim language merely describes steps of collecting data, field of use/technological environment, and using a computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea and fails to describe an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technical field. The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application for the following reasons:
The additional elements of a “method for managing software applications” is recited at a high level of generality appears to be an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Therefore the abstract idea has not been integrated into practical application and the claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception, the analysis flows to Step 2B. Therein, the elements and combination of elements are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, the additional elements identified at Step 2A Prong 2, individually or in an order combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as given in Step 2A Prong 2 and further because:
The claimed “method for managing software applications” is generically recited as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Thus, this step does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Taken as an ordered combination, the afore-mentioned limitation is directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test) that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea. (MPEP § 2106.05 (I)(A)), “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i… mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.”
Regarding claim 2, the additional element of “wherein each application of the two or more application has associated with it an application profile which contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application” appears to be an attempt to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 3,
the additional elements of “wherein each application of the two or more application has associated with it an application profile which contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application” appears to be an attempt to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h)); and
the additional element of “the application profile is provided by at least one of a developer of the application and a third-party repository of application profiles” amounts to insignificant extra-solution data gathering/data transmission activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 4,
the additional element of “wherein each application of the two or more application has associated with it an application profile which contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application” appears to be an attempt to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h)); and
the additional element of “the application profile is generated in dependence upon information specified by a user within a chain application creation and management utility when establishing at least one of the chain application or establishing one or more previous chain applications” amounts to insignificant extra-solution data gathering/data transmission activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 5,
the additional element of “wherein each application of the two or more application has associated with it an application profile which contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application,” and “the application of the two or more applications is intended to be the preceding application within the chain application to the another application of the two or more applications” appears to be an attempt to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h)); and
the additional element of “generating the chain application such that it executes the application of the two or more applications and the another application of the two or more applications in the sequence of execution defined by the user” amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 6,
the additional element of “wherein the chain application is established through a graphical user interface (GUI) wherein a user drags-and-drops a source icon representing an application of the two or more applications onto a destination icon representing another application of the two or more applications” amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). This additional element also appears to be an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h))
the additional element of “the application of the two or more applications is intended to be the preceding application within the chain application to the another application of the two or more applications” amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). This additional element also appears to be an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h));
the additional element of “in response to determining that an output type of the application of the two or more applications is not compatible with an input type of the another application of the two or more applications, updating, without further user input, the sequence of execution such that the another application of the two or more applications precedes the application of the two or more applications within the generated chain application” is analyzed as a mental process with the “establishing” step of claim 1 because this step can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion but for the recitation of generic computing components; and
the additional element of “generating the chain application such that it executes the application of the two or more applications and the another application of the two or more applications in the updated sequence of execution” amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 7, the additional elements of:
wherein the chain application is established through a graphical user interface (GUI) wherein a user drags-and-drops a source icon representing an application of the two or more applications onto a destination icon representing another application of the two or more applications;
generating the chain application such that it executes the application of the two or more applications and the another application of the two or more applications in a sequence as defined by application profiles of the application of the two or more applications and the another application of the two or more applications; and
each application profile contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application
amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). This additional element also appears to be an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 8,
the additional element of “generating a new graphical user interface (GUI) element representing the chain application; wherein the chain application is established through the GUI by a user associating a source icon representing an application of the two or more applications with a destination icon representing another application of the two or more applications” amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). This additional element also appears to be an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
the additional element of “ the new GUI element includes a combination of visual elements from the two or more applications” appears to be an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 9,
the additional element of “wherein each application of the two or more application has associated with it an application profile which contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application” appears to be an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
the additional element of “the two or more applications are assembled using a chain application creation and management utility which automatically establishes the order of the two or more applications in dependence upon the application profiles of the two or more applications assembled within the chain application creation and management utility to form the chain application” amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 10,
the additional element of “wherein the chain application is established through a graphical user interface (GUI) wherein a user drags-and-drops a source icon representing an application of the two or more applications onto a destination icon representing another application of the two or more applications” amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
the additional element of “the GUI modifies icons of software applications rendered within the GUI upon selection of the source icon such that the modification applied to each icon associated with each software application indicates whether the software application is compatible with the application of the two or more applications” amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
the additional element of “the determination of whether a software application is compatible with the application of the one or more application is made in dependence upon application profiles for the software applications and the application of the two or more applications” is an additional mental process because this step can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion but for the recitation of generic computing components.
the additional element of “each application profile contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application” appears to be an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 11,
the additional element of “wherein the chain application is established through a graphical user interface (GUI) wherein a user drags-and-drops a source icon representing an application of the two or more applications onto a destination icon representing another application of the two or more applications” amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
the additional element of “the GUI modifies icons of software applications rendered within the GUI upon selection of the source icon such that the modification applied to each icon associated with each software application indicates whether the software application is compatible with the application of the two or more applications” amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
the additional element of “the determination of whether a software application is compatible with the application of the one or more application is made in dependence upon application profiles for the software applications and the application of the two or more applications” recites an additional mental process under Prong 1 since this step can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion but for the recitation of generic computing components.
the additional element of “each application profile contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application” appears to be an attempt to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
the additional element of “the chain application is automatically generated such that it executes the application of the two or more applications and the another application of the two or more applications in a sequence as defined by application profiles of the application of the two or more applications and the another application of the two or more applications” amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 12,
the additional elements of:
“wherein the chain application is established through a graphical user interface (GUI) wherein a user drags-and-drops a source icon representing an application of the two or more applications onto a destination icon representing another application of the two or more applications;” and
“the GUI presents a graphical indication within the GUI upon selection of the source icon such that the graphical indication associated with each software application indicates whether the software application is compatible with the application of the two or more applications”
amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). This additional element also appears to be an attempt to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
the additional elements of :
“the determination of whether a software application is compatible with the application of the one or more application is made in dependence upon application profiles for the software applications and the application of the two or more applications;” and
“each application profile contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application”
amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). This additional element also appears to be an attempt to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 13,
the additional elements of:
“wherein the chain application is established through a graphical user interface (GUI) wherein a user drags-and-drops a source icon representing an application of the two or more applications onto a destination icon representing another application of the two or more applications;
the GUI presents a graphical indication within the GUI upon selection of the source icon such that the graphical indication associated with each software application indicates whether the software application is compatible with the application of the two or more applications; the determination of whether a software application is compatible with the application of the one or more application is made in dependence upon application profiles for the software applications and the application of the two or more applications;
each application profile contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application; and the chain application is automatically generated such that it executes the application of the two or more applications and the another application of the two or more applications in a sequence as defined by application profiles of the application of the two or more applications and the another application of the two or more applications.
amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). This additional element also appears to be an attempt to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 14, the additional element of:
the additional elements of:
“wherein each application of the two or more application has associated with it an application profile which contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application; ” and
the two or more applications are assembled using a chain application creation and management utility which automatically establishes the order of the two or more applications in dependence upon the application profiles of the two or more applications assembled within the chain application creation and management utility to form the chain application.
amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). This additional element also appears to be an attempt to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 15, the steps of of “adding a new application to the chain application; wherein a chain application creation and management utility determines whether to modify the existing chain application or create a new chain application in dependence upon a modifier key selection by a user adding the new application” recites additional mental processes under Prong 1 since these steps can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion but for the recitation of generic computing components.
Regarding claim 16,
the steps of:
adding a new application to the chain application; wherein a chain application creation and management utility determines whether to modify the existing chain application or create a new chain application in dependence upon a modifier key selection by a user adding the new application; and
the chain application creation and management utility automatically establishes the order of the new application with respect to the chain application in dependence upon application profiles of the two or more applications within the chain application and the new application
recites additional mental processes under Prong 1 since these steps can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion but for the recitation of generic computing components.
the additional element of “each application profile contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application” amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). This additional element also appears to be an attempt to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 17,
the additional element of wherein the two or more applications are identified by selections made with respect to a graphical user interface (GUI) presenting a plurality of applications whilst a chain application creation and management utility is in execution amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements also appear to be an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h)); and
the steps of:
“the chain application creation and management utility automatically establishes the order of the two or more applications in establishing the chain application in dependence upon application profiles of the two or more applications, each application profile contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application; and
the chain application creation and management utility establishes the order of the two or more application such that every application within the two or more applications is linked within the chain application in a compatible manner with another application of the two or more applications.
recite additional mental processes under Prong 1 since these steps can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion but for the recitation of generic computing components.
Regarding claim 18,
the additional element of “wherein the two or more applications are identified by selections made with respect to a graphical user interface (GUI) presenting a plurality of applications whilst a chain application creation and management utility is in execution amounts to insignificant extra-solution data gathering/data transmission activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
the steps of:
“the chain application creation and management utility automatically establishes the order of the two or more applications in establishing the chain application in dependence upon application profiles of the two or more applications;” and
in the event of multiple options for ordering the two or more applications the chain application creation and management utility employs a tiebreaker comprising either random selection or alphabetical order
recite additional mental processes under Prong 1 because these steps can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion but for the recitation of generic computing components.
the additional element of “each application profile contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application” appears to be an attempt to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
the chain application creation and management utility establishes the order of the two or more application such that every application within the two or more applications is linked within the chain application in a compatible manner with another application of the two or more applications amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements also appear to be an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 19, the additional element of “automatically testing the chain application with a chain application creation and management utility to verify that input and output results of the chain application are as expected” are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements also appear to be an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 20,
the additional element of “automatically establishing the order of the two or more applications with a chain application creation and management utility in dependence upon application profiles of the two or more applications” recites an additional mental process under Prong 1 since this step can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion but for the recitation of generic computing components.; and
the additional elements of:
automatically testing the chain application with a chain application creation and management utility to verify that input and output results of the chain application are as expected; and
wherein each application profile contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application
amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements also appear to be an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 21,
the additional elements of
“establishing the chain application with a chain application creation and management utility in dependence upon application profiles of the two or more applications amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
wherein the chain application creation and management utility is configured to create, via user input, an application profile for an application of the two or more applications that has at least one of not been previously provided and not configured within another chain application.
amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). This additional element also appears to be an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Kontsov et al (US 10534637).
As per claim 1, Kontsov teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a method for managing software applications (Column 1, Lines 44-47, a system and method is disclosed herein for managing software applications, and, more particularly, for creating a chain of applications based on one or more application profiles associated with the applications), comprising:
establishing a chain application comprising a sequence of two or more applications (Column 11, Lines 39-43, responsive to determining that the first output type of the first application is compatible with the second input type of the second application, the system generates a chain application configured to execute the first application and second application).
As per claim 2, Kontsov teaches, wherein
each application of the two or more application has associated with it an application profile (Abstract, system determines application profiles associated with each application) which contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application (Column 4, Lines 28-33,an application 104 may include a special configuration file, referred to herein as an application profile 105, that provides information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application).
As per claim 3, Kontsov teaches, wherein
each application of the two or more application has associated with it an application profile which contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application (Column 1, Lines 52-55, determining a first application profile associated with the first application, wherein the first application profile specifies a first input type and a first output type of the first application; and Column 1, Lines 56-58, The second application profile specifies a second input type and a second output type of the second application); and
the application profile is provided by at least one of a developer of the application and a third party repository of application profiles (Column 4, Lines 38-41, the application profile 105 may be pre-determined, for example, provided with the application program files by the software developer or received from a third party repository of application profiles).
As per claim 4, Kontsov teaches, wherein
each application of the two or more application has associated with it an application profile which contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application (Column 1, Lines 52-55, determining a first application profile associated with the first application, wherein the first application profile specifies a first input type and a first output type of the first application; and Column 1, Lines 56-58, The second application profile specifies a second input type and a second output type of the second application); and
the application profile is generated in dependence upon information specified by a user within a chain application creation and management utility when establishing at least one of the chain application or establishing one or more previous chain applications (Column 4, Lines 38-44, application profile 105 may be pre-determined, for example, provided with the application program files by the software developer or received from a third party repository of application profiles. In other aspects, the application profile 105 may be generated using information specified by user input, for example, by a chain-application creation and management utility 114).
As per claim 5, Kontsov teaches, wherein
the chain application is established through a graphical user interface (GUI) wherein a user drags-and-drops a source icon representing an application of the two or more applications onto a destination icon representing another application of the two or more applications (Column 11, Lines 7-10, the user input request includes a drag-and-drop input event indicating a source icon representing the first application has been dropped on a destination icon representing the second application); and
the application of the two or more applications is intended to be the preceding application within the chain application to the another application of the two or more applications (Column 2, Line 66-Column 3, Line 3, generate a chain application configured to execute the first application and the second application in sequential order in which an intermediate output of the first application is passed to the second application as an input); and
generating the chain application such that it executes the application of the two or more applications and the another application of the two or more applications in the sequence of execution defined by the user (Column 4, Lines 8-17, The chain application 108 is configured to, when executed, execute an application that is first in order, and pass its output to a next application in the order, and so forth for all applications within the chain. In one aspect, the chain application 108 is configured to, when executed, execute a first application (e.g., “Application1”) and then a second application (e.g., “Application2”) in sequential order in which an intermediate output of the first application is passed to and used by the second application as an input; and Column 4, Lines 42-44, the application profile 105 may be generated using information specified by user input, for example, by a chain-application creation and management utility 114 (described later); and Column 11, Lines 49-52, the sequential order of the chain application is determined based on the first application profile associated with the first application and the second application profile associated with the second application).
As per claim 6, Kontsov teaches, wherein
the chain application is established through a graphical user interface (GUI) wherein a user drags-and-drops a source icon representing an application of the two or more applications onto a destination icon representing another application of the two or more applications (Column 11, Lines 7-10, the user input request includes a drag-and-drop input event indicating a source icon representing the first application has been dropped on a destination icon representing the second application);
the application of the two or more applications is intended to be the preceding application within the chain application to the another application of the two or more applications (Column 2, Line 66-Column 3, Line 3, generate a chain application configured to execute the first application and the second application in sequential order in which an intermediate output of the first application is passed to the second application as an input); and
in response to determining that an output type of the application of the two or more applications is not compatible with an input type of the another application of the two or more applications, updating, without further user input, the sequence of execution such that the another application of the two or more applications precedes the application of the two or more applications within the generated chain application (Column 2, Lines 29-35, selecting the destination application as preceding the source application in the sequential order based on a determination that an output type of the destination application is compatible with an input type of the source application and an output type of the source application is not compatible with an input type of the destination application; and Column 9, Lines 24-30, the system may be configured to automatically match applications according to their required input when forming a chain of applications. That is, the system may be configured to re-order the sequence within the chain based on the associated application profiles, irrespective of which application was dragged and which was dropped); and
generating the chain application such that it executes the application of the two or more applications and the another application of the two or more applications in the updated sequence of execution (Column 4, Lines 6-8, system 100 is configured to generate a chain application 108 that represents a chain of two or more applications 104 in a defined order).
As per claim 7, Kontsov teaches, wherein the chain application is established through a graphical user interface (GUI) wherein a user drags-and-drops a source icon representing an application of the two or more applications onto a destination icon representing another application of the two or more applications (Column 11, Lines 7-10, the user input request includes a drag-and-drop input event indicating a source icon representing the first application has been dropped on a destination icon representing the second application);
generating the chain application such that it executes the application of the two or more applications and the another application of the two or more applications in a sequence as defined by application profiles of the application of the two or more applications and the another application of the two or more applications; and
each application profile contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application (Column 4, Lines 28-33,an application 104 may include a special configuration file, referred to herein as an application profile 105, that provides information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application).
As per claim 8, Kontsov teaches, further comprising generating a new graphical user interface (GUI) element representing the chain application (Column 8, Lines 15-20, toolbox 110 may create a new GUI element representing the generated chain application, such as an icon 310… the created icon 310 may include a combination of visual elements from applications that comprise the chain of application);
wherein the chain application is established through the GUI by a user associating a source icon representing an application of the two or more applications with a destination icon representing another application of the two or more applications (Column 11, Lines 7-10, the user input request includes a drag-and-drop input event indicating a source icon representing the first application has been dropped on a destination icon representing the second application); and
the new GUI element includes a combination of visual elements from the two or more applications (Column 8, Lines 15-16, toolbox 110 may create a new GUI element representing the generated chain application, such as an icon 310).
As per claim 9, Kontsov teaches, wherein
each application of the two or more application has associated with it an application profile which contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application (Column 4, Lines 28-33,an application 104 may include a special configuration file, referred to herein as an application profile 105, that provides information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application);
the two or more applications are assembled using a chain application creation and management utility which automatically establishes the order of the two or more applications in dependence upon the application profiles of the two or more applications assembled within the chain application creation and management utility to form the chain application (Column 6, Lines 1-4, system 100 may be configured to first determine whether the two or more applications are compatible for chaining based on the application parameters as specified in the corresponding application profiles; and Column 7, Lines 28-30, the user input may use a specialized chain-application creation utility 114 represented by an icon 205 in the library section 202 (see FIG. 4)).
As per claim 10, Kontsov teaches, wherein
the chain application is established through a graphical user interface (GUI) wherein a user drags-and-drops a source icon representing an application of the two or more applications onto a destination icon representing another application of the two or more applications (Column 11, Lines 7-10, the user input request includes a drag-and-drop input event indicating a source icon representing the first application has been dropped on a destination icon representing the second application);
the GUI modifies icons of software applications rendered within the GUI upon selection of the source icon such that the modification applied to each icon associated with each software application indicates whether the software application is compatible with the application of the two or more applications (Column 8, Lines 36-40, the toolbox 110 may be configured to, during an ongoing drag user input, modify the rendering and display of one or more icons of utility components to indicate whether the corresponding utility component is compatible with the utility component being dragged);
the determination of whether a software application is compatible with the application of the one or more application is made in dependence upon application profiles for the software applications and the application of the two or more applications (Column 6, Lines 1-4, system 100 may be configured to first determine whether the two or more applications are compatible for chaining based on the application parameters as specified in the corresponding application profiles); and
each application profile contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application (Column 4, Lines 28-33,an application 104 may include a special configuration file, referred to herein as an application profile 105, that provides information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application).
As per claim 11, Kontsov teaches, wherein
the chain application is established through a graphical user interface (GUI) wherein a user drags-and-drops a source icon representing an application of the two or more applications onto a destination icon representing another application of the two or more applications (Column 11, Lines 7-10, the user input request includes a drag-and-drop input event indicating a source icon representing the first application has been dropped on a destination icon representing the second application);
the GUI modifies icons of software applications rendered within the GUI upon selection of the source icon such that the modification applied to each icon associated with each software application indicates whether the software application is compatible with the application of the two or more applications (Column 8, Lines 36-49, the toolbox 110 may be configured to, during an ongoing drag user input, modify the rendering and display of one or more icons of utility components to indicate whether the corresponding utility component is compatible with the utility component being dragged. In response to an input event indicating a mouse-drag operation on a “source” icon 204, the toolbox 110 may retrieve application profiles for any present utility components and determine which ones are compatible with the utility component being dragged. In some aspects, the GUI 200 may render a portion of user interface elements 204 differently from other user interface elements based on whether it has been determined that the corresponding utility component is compatible for chaining or not);
the determination of whether a software application is compatible with the application of the one or more application is made in dependence upon application profiles for the software applications and the application of the two or more applications (Column 8, Lines 40-45, In response to an input event indicating a mouse-drag operation on a “source” icon 204, the toolbox 110 may retrieve application profiles for any present utility components and determine which ones are compatible with the utility component being dragged);
each application profile contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application (Column 4, Lines 28-33, an application 104 may include a special configuration file, referred to herein as an application profile 105, that provides information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application); and
the chain application is automatically generated such that it executes the application of the two or more applications and the another application of the two or more applications in a sequence as defined by application profiles of the application of the two or more applications and the another application of the two or more applications (Column 1, Lines 46-47, creating a chain of applications based on one or more application profiles associated with the applications; Column 2, Lines 47-50, determining the sequential order based on the first application profile associated with the first application and the second application profile associated with the second application; and Column 9, Lines 24-30, the system may be configured to automatically match applications according to their required input when forming a chain of applications. That is, the system may be configured to re-order the sequence within the chain based on the associated application profiles, irrespective of which application was dragged and which was dropped).
As per claim 12, Kontsov teaches, wherein the chain application is established through a graphical user interface (GUI) wherein a user drags-and-drops a source icon representing an application of the two or more applications onto a destination icon representing another application of the two or more applications (Column 11, Lines 7-10, the user input request includes a drag-and-drop input event indicating a source icon representing the first application has been dropped on a destination icon representing the second application);
the GUI presents a graphical indication within the GUI upon selection of the source icon such that the graphical indication associated with each software application indicates whether the software application is compatible with the application of the two or more applications (Column 8, Lines 36-40, the toolbox 110 may be configured to, during an ongoing drag user input, modify the rendering and display of one or more icons of utility components to indicate whether the corresponding utility component is compatible with the utility component being dragged);
the determination of whether a software application is compatible with the application of the one or more application is made in dependence upon application profiles for the software applications and the application of the two or more applications (Column 9, Lines 24-30, the system may be configured to automatically match applications according to their required input when forming a chain of applications. That is, the system may be configured to re-order the sequence within the chain based on the associated application profiles, irrespective of which application was dragged and which was dropped); and
each application profile contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application (Column 4, Lines 28-33,an application 104 may include a special configuration file, referred to herein as an application profile 105, that provides information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application).
As per claim 13, Kontsov teaches, wherein the chain application is established through a graphical user interface (GUI) wherein a user drags-and-drops a source icon representing an application of the two or more applications onto a destination icon representing another application of the two or more applications (Column 11, Lines 7-10, the user input request includes a drag-and-drop input event indicating a source icon representing the first application has been dropped on a destination icon representing the second application);
the GUI presents a graphical indication within the GUI upon selection of the source icon such that the graphical indication associated with each software application indicates whether the software application is compatible with the application of the two or more applications (Column 8, Lines 36-40, the toolbox 110 may be configured to, during an ongoing drag user input, modify the rendering and display of one or more icons of utility components to indicate whether the corresponding utility component is compatible with the utility component being dragged);
the determination of whether a software application is compatible with the application of the one or more application is made in dependence upon application profiles for the software applications and the application of the two or more applications (Column 9, Lines 13-17, the toolbox 110 determines whether the source chain application is compatible with the destination (third) application based on a comparison of the application profile associated with the chain application with the destination application);
each application profile contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application (Column 4, Lines 28-33,an application 104 may include a special configuration file, referred to herein as an application profile 105, that provides information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application); and
the chain application is automatically generated such that it executes the application of the two or more applications and the another application of the two or more applications in a sequence as defined by application profiles of the application of the two or more applications and the another application of the two or more applications (Column 9, Lines 24-30, the system may be configured to automatically match applications according to their required input when forming a chain of applications. That is, the system may be configured to re-order the sequence within the chain based on the associated application profiles, irrespective of which application was dragged and which was dropped; and Column 9, Line 65-Column 10, Line 10, the application itself is configured to read the application profile of the first application A and determine its compatibility. The first-in-order application in the chain will be the application that is being dropped. Its output will be passed to the input of the second application (e.g., the application in the taskbar), or vice versa. So the system may identify the required output and input of these applications and match accordingly to the chain. If the output and input are the same, the system can provide a user interface notification to the user about the successful creation of a chain application, for example, through a dialog box, or through the rendering of a new icon representing the chain application).
As per claim 14, Kontsov teaches, wherein
each application of the two or more application has associated with it an application profile which contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application (Column 4, Lines 28-33,an application 104 may include a special configuration file, referred to herein as an application profile 105, that provides information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application);
the two or more applications are assembled using a chain application creation and management utility (Column 10, Lines 18-35, the chain-application creation utility 114 may generate a graphical indication that displays text information representing the application profile…each application may represented by a GUI element that may be selected, moved, re-positioned, and otherwise manipulated by user input (e.g., mouse cursor, touch input) to be connected to another utility component's GUI element to form a chain of applications. In one aspect, the chain-application creation utility 114 may be configured to create a resulting chain application (e.g., in response to a drag-and-drop, or in response to activation of a “Create Chain” button), and prepares the application profile for the chain-application utility itself) which automatically establishes the order of the two or more applications in dependence upon the application profiles of the two or more applications assembled within the chain application creation and management utility to form the chain application (Column 9, Line 65-Column 10, Line 10, the application itself is configured to read the application profile of the first application A and determine its compatibility. The first-in-order application in the chain will be the application that is being dropped. Its output will be passed to the input of the second application (e.g., the application in the taskbar), or vice versa. So the system may identify the required output and input of these applications and match accordingly to the chain. If the output and input are the same, the system can provide a user interface notification to the user about the successful creation of a chain application, for example, through a dialog box, or through the rendering of a new icon representing the chain application).
As per claim 15, Kontsov teaches, further comprising adding a new application to the chain application (Column 9, Lines 4-9, the chain application itself may be used to form additional chains. For example, the user may drag-and-drop the icon 310 representing the chain application onto the icon 306 to generate a second chain application having a chain comprised of: (1) the screenshot utility, (2) the archiver utility, and (3) the email utility);
wherein a chain application creation and management utility determines whether to modify the existing chain application or create a new chain application in dependence upon a modifier key selection by a user adding the new application (Column 9, Lines 17-23, rather than generate a new chain application, the system may modify the existing chain application by appending the destination application to the beginning or end of the chain. In some implementations, the system may determine whether to modify the existing chain or create a new chain based on a modifier key pressed by the user (e.g., a Control, Alt, or Option key)).
As per claim 16, Kontsov teaches, further comprising adding a new application to the chain application (Column 9, Lines 4-9, the chain application itself may be used to form additional chains. For example, the user may drag-and-drop the icon 310 representing the chain application onto the icon 306 to generate a second chain application having a chain comprised of: (1) the screenshot utility, (2) the archiver utility, and (3) the email utility);
wherein a chain application creation and management utility determines whether to modify the existing chain application or create a new chain application in dependence upon a modifier key selection by a user adding the new application (Column 9, Lines 17-23, rather than generate a new chain application, the system may modify the existing chain application by appending the destination application to the beginning or end of the chain. In some implementations, the system may determine whether to modify the existing chain or create a new chain based on a modifier key pressed by the user (e.g., a Control, Alt, or Option key));
the chain application creation and management utility automatically establishes the order of the new application with respect to the chain application in dependence upon application profiles of the two or more applications within the chain application and the new application (Column 9, Line 65-Column 10, Line 10, the application itself is configured to read the application profile of the first application A and determine its compatibility. The first-in-order application in the chain will be the application that is being dropped. Its output will be passed to the input of the second application (e.g., the application in the taskbar), or vice versa. So the system may identify the required output and input of these applications and match accordingly to the chain. If the output and input are the same, the system can provide a user interface notification to the user about the successful creation of a chain application, for example, through a dialog box, or through the rendering of a new icon representing the chain application); and
each application profile contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application (Column 4, Lines 28-33,an application 104 may include a special configuration file, referred to herein as an application profile 105, that provides information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application).
As per claim 17, Kontsov teaches, wherein the two or more applications are identified by selections made with respect to a graphical user interface (GUI) presenting a plurality of applications whilst a chain application creation and management utility is in execution (Column 10, Lines 38-42, the chain-application creation utility 114 may be configured to receive a selection of multiple applications (e.g., via cursor selection), and receive user input indicating a user intention to create a chain from all these selected applications (e.g., via a “Create Chain” button));
the chain application creation and management utility automatically establishes the order of the two or more applications in establishing the chain application in dependence upon application profiles of the two or more applications (Column 9, Line 65-Column 10, Line 10, the application itself is configured to read the application profile of the first application A and determine its compatibility. The first-in-order application in the chain will be the application that is being dropped. Its output will be passed to the input of the second application (e.g., the application in the taskbar), or vice versa. So the system may identify the required output and input of these applications and match accordingly to the chain. If the output and input are the same, the system can provide a user interface notification to the user about the successful creation of a chain application, for example, through a dialog box, or through the rendering of a new icon representing the chain application);
each application profile contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application (Column 4, Lines 28-33,an application 104 may include a special configuration file, referred to herein as an application profile 105, that provides information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application); and
the chain application creation and management utility establishes the order of the two or more application such that every application within the two or more applications is linked within the chain application in a compatible manner with another application of the two or more applications (Column 10, Lines 45-52, In response to the “Create Chain” activation, the system may identify a “best” option for the order of the applications within the chain according to the input and output types of the selected application. In one aspect, the “best” option may be selected such that every selected application is linked within the chain in a compatible manner (e.g., no application goes un-used)).
As per claim 18, Kontsov teaches, wherein
the two or more applications are identified by selections made with respect to a graphical user interface (GUI) presenting a plurality of applications whilst a chain application creation and management utility is in execution (Column 10, Lines 38-42, the chain-application creation utility 114 may be configured to receive a selection of multiple applications (e.g., via cursor selection), and receive user input indicating a user intention to create a chain from all these selected applications (e.g., via a “Create Chain” button));
the chain application creation and management utility automatically establishes the order of the two or more applications in establishing the chain application in dependence upon application profiles of the two or more applications (Column 9, Line 65-Column 10, Line 10, the application itself is configured to read the application profile of the first application A and determine its compatibility. The first-in-order application in the chain will be the application that is being dropped. Its output will be passed to the input of the second application (e.g., the application in the taskbar), or vice versa. So the system may identify the required output and input of these applications and match accordingly to the chain. If the output and input are the same, the system can provide a user interface notification to the user about the successful creation of a chain application, for example, through a dialog box, or through the rendering of a new icon representing the chain application);
each application profile contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application (Column 4, Lines 28-33,an application 104 may include a special configuration file, referred to herein as an application profile 105, that provides information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application);
the chain application creation and management utility establishes the order of the two or more application such that every application within the two or more applications is linked within the chain application in a compatible manner with another application of the two or more applications (Column 10, Lines 45-52, In response to the “Create Chain” activation, the system may identify a “best” option for the order of the applications within the chain according to the input and output types of the selected application. In one aspect, the “best” option may be selected such that every selected application is linked within the chain in a compatible manner (e.g., no application goes un-used)); and
in the event of multiple options for ordering the two or more applications the chain application creation and management utility employs a tiebreaker comprising either random selection or alphabetical order (Column 10, Lines 49-55, the “best” option may be selected such that every selected application is linked within the chain in a compatible manner (e.g., no application goes un-used). If multiple “best” options for ordering the application are determined to be possible, the system may use any suitable tiebreaker method, including a random selection, an alphabetical order, etc.).
As per claim 19, Kontsov teaches, further comprising automatically testing the chain application with a chain application creation and management utility to verify that input and output results of the chain application are as expected (Column 10, Lines 56-58, the chain-application creation utility may be configured to test the chain of applications to verify the input and output results of the chain are as expected).
As per claim 20, Kontsov teaches, further comprising
automatically establishing the order of the two or more applications with a chain application creation and management utility in dependence upon application profiles of the two or more applications (Column 9, Line 65-Column 10, Line 10, the application itself is configured to read the application profile of the first application A and determine its compatibility. The first-in-order application in the chain will be the application that is being dropped. Its output will be passed to the input of the second application (e.g., the application in the taskbar), or vice versa. So the system may identify the required output and input of these applications and match accordingly to the chain. If the output and input are the same, the system can provide a user interface notification to the user about the successful creation of a chain application, for example, through a dialog box, or through the rendering of a new icon representing the chain application); and
automatically testing the chain application with a chain application creation and management utility to verify that input and output results of the chain application are as expected (Column 10, Lines 56-58, the chain-application creation utility may be configured to test the chain of applications to verify the input and output results of the chain are as expected);
wherein each application profile contains information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application (Column 4, Lines 28-33,an application 104 may include a special configuration file, referred to herein as an application profile 105, that provides information pertaining to the types of data can be passed into the respective application and the types of data that can be produced by the application).
As per claim 21, Kontsov teaches, further comprising
establishing the chain application with a chain application creation and management utility in dependence upon application profiles of the two or more applications (Column 6, Lines 1-4, system 100 may be configured to first determine whether the two or more applications are compatible for chaining based on the application parameters as specified in the corresponding application profiles);
wherein the chain application creation and management utility is configured to create, via user input, an application profile for an application of the two or more applications that has at least one of not been previously provided and not configured within another chain application (Column 8, Lines 7-14, the toolbox 110 may further create an application profile associated with the chain application, such that the chain application 108 itself may be used in additional chaining. The application profile for the chain application is created such that it contains the input types specified by the application profile for the application first in its chain, and the output types specified by the application profile for the application last in its chain).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is as follows:
LIU (US 20250130825)- Teaches combining multiple applications:
Abstract, combining and simultaneously starting a plurality of applications. In one example method, a plurality of applications are combined to generate a combined application. A user taps an icon of the combined application to simultaneously start and run an interface of each of the plurality of applications; and
Ji et al. (US 20230367464) -Teaches combining applications:
first content in the interface of the first application is obtained in response to a first operation on the interface of the first application; and second content in the interface of the second application is obtained in response to a second operation on the interface of the second application. In this embodiment, the first content is a text in the first application that is to be combined, and the second content is an image in the second application that is to be combined
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA A HEADLY whose telephone number is (571)272-1972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9-5:30pm.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 571-272-3338. 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.
/MELISSA A HEADLY/Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights