DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 12/22/25, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Hu reference does not teach the limitations of claim 1 because the operation is being performed on the first target file and not the node as claimed. Additionally, the file set of Hu only includes a plurality of files and does not include at least two nodes corresponding to at least two documents. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The files of Hu are represented in a directory and are being interpreted as the ‘nodes’ of the claim language. In other words, the target file 304 is one node and it corresponds to the associated file. When the operation is performed on the target file it is also performed on other corresponding files or nodes. Therefore, the Hu reference does teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
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)(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) 1-5, 7, 9, and 18-19 with an earliest effective filing date of 4/6/23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0292056 published on 9/15/22).
With respect to claim 1, the Hu reference teaches an information processing method, comprising:
displaying a directory tree corresponding to documents on a user interface of a document repository, wherein nodes are displayed in the directory tree according to a hierarchical relationship of the documents, and each of the nodes corresponds to at least one document (files are stored in a level directory structure [paragraph 41] which is displayed [Figure 3]);
in response to a first operation event on the nodes in the directory tree on the user interface, selecting a target node on the user interface (a target file is selected S302 [Figure 3 and paragraph 57]);
in response to a second operation event on the target node, performing a bulk operation corresponding to the second operation event on a target document corresponding to the target node (the file names for all of the files in a file set are changed in response to the selected file’s name being changed [paragraph 57 and Figure 3]);
wherein the target document comprises at least two documents (the additional files whose names are changed are all the files in the file set which are at least two files [paragraph 57 and Figure 3]), and the target node comprises at least two nodes corresponding to the at least two documents (each of the files appears in the displayed directory structure [Figure 3]).
With respect to claim 2, the Hu reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. In addition, the Hu reference teaches that wherein in response to a first operation event on the nodes in the directory tree, selecting a target node, comprises: in response to a triggered operation on a first control, entering a preset state; and in the preset state, selecting the target node in response to a selecting operation of the nodes in the directory tree (the user can select an option to rename files with the same name under the same level directory S402 [Figure 4 and paragraph 66] which opens a window to select the files to rename [Figure 5 and paragraphs 67-74]); or, in response to a first preset operation performed based on a first node in the directory tree, entering the preset state and selecting the target node based on the first node.
With respect to claim 3, the Hu reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Additionally, the Hu reference teaches satisfying at least one of the following: the first control being displayed on top of a directory region where the directory tree is located; the first preset operation performed based on the first node in the directory tree, comprising: triggering a preset button in a case where the first node is selected (the user selects a command from a command list to rename files with the same name that are under a same level directory [Figure 4 and paragraph 66]); selecting the target node based on the first node, comprising: selecting all nodes between the first node and a node corresponding to a document currently viewed; after entering the preset state, in a case where a page is refreshed, exiting the preset state; after entering the preset state, in a case where the first preset operation is performed based on the first node in the directory tree, selecting the target node based on the first node.
With respect to claim 4, the Hu reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. In addition, the Hu reference teaches that displaying a directory tree corresponding to documents in a document repository, comprises: displaying a directory region and a document region in a displaying region of the document repository, wherein the directory region is configured to display the directory tree (target level directory 306 [Figure 3 and paragraphs 41 & 57]), and the document region is configured to display a document currently viewed (editor directory tree 904 displays the files and the target file 304 [Figure 9 and paragraph 104]).
With respect to claim 5, the Hu reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Additionally, the Hu reference teaches at least one of the following: in a case where a parent node is selected, all child nodes under the parent node being automatically selected; or, in a case where the parent node is deselected, the all child nodes under the parent node are automatically deselected; or, displaying a number of a manually selected node at a preset location (the user can manually select a number of files at the target directory level [paragraphs 74 & 75]); or, in a case where a number of a selected node reaches a preset node number, another node in the directory tree being not allowed to be selected; or, in a case where a selected node comprises a shortcut node and the shortcut node includes a child node, the child node under the shortcut node being not allowed to be selected; or, in a case where a preset button is triggered in a case where a first node is selected, all nodes between the first node and a node corresponding to a document currently viewed being selected.
With respect to claim 7, the Hu reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. In addition, the Hu reference teaches that wherein in response to a second operation event on the target node, performing a bulk operation corresponding to the second operation event on a target document corresponding to the target node, comprises: displaying a list of an operation option in response to a triggering operation on a second control; in response to a selecting operation on a target operation option, performing a bulk operation corresponding to the target operation option on the target document (a user selects an option to rename files S402 [Figure 4 and paragraph 66] and several files are displayed for selecting to rename [Figure 5 and paragraphs 74 & 75]); or, in response to the target node being dragged to a second node in the directory tree, moving the target document to a location corresponding to the second node.
With respect to claim 9, the Hu reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 as described above. In addition, the Hu reference teaches satisfying at least one of the following: in a case where no node is selected, the operation option being not allowed to be selected (the file must be selected before the operation options are displayed [paragraph 57]); the location corresponding to the second node to which the target document is moved being different from a location of the target document and a location of a subordinate of the target document before the target document being moved.
With respect to claims 18 and 19, the claims represent the information processing device, electronic apparatus, and computer-readable storage medium embodiment of claim 1 and recite no further significant limitations. Therefore, the limitations of claims 18 and 19 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 and are likewise rejected on the same basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6, 8, and 10-14 with an earliest effective filing date of 4/6/23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0292056 published on 9/15/22) in view of Passy (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0272184 published on 9/2/21).
With respect to claim 6, the Hu reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. The Hu reference does not explicitly recite that in response to a second operation event on the target node, performing a bulk operation corresponding to the second operation event on a target document corresponding to the target node, comprises: in response to the second operation event on the target node, performing the bulk operation on a document in the target document that the target node corresponds to for which a current user has a first preset permission. The Passy reference teaches that in response to a second operation event on the target node, performing a bulk operation corresponding to the second operation event on a target document corresponding to the target node, comprises: in response to the second operation event on the target node, performing the bulk operation on a document in the target document that the target node corresponds to for which a current user has a first preset permission (ownership of products can be transferred in bulk [paragraph 120] and products include documents [paragraph 79]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hu with the transfer option of Passy. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by giving them greater control over their files.
With respect to claim 8, the Hu reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 as described above. Additionally, the Hu reference teaches that the operation option comprises:
a moving option, configured to identify a third node and move the target node to the third node, thereby moving the target document to a location corresponding to the third node (a command option includes ‘cut’ [Figure 4 and paragraph 66]);
a creating shortcut option, configured to identify a fourth node and create a shortcut node for the target node at the fourth node (a command option includes ‘copy a path’ and ‘copy a relative path’ [Figure 4 and paragraph 66]);
a creating copy option, configured to identify a fifth node and creating a node corresponding to a copy of the target document at the fifth node, thereby creating the copy of the target document at a location corresponding to the fifth node (a command option includes ‘copy’ [Figure 4 and paragraph 66]);
a deleting option, configured to delete the target node, thereby deleting the target document (a command option includes ‘delete’ [Figure 4 and paragraph 66]).
The Hu reference does not explicitly recite a transferring ownership option, configured to transfer ownership of the target document to a specified user. The Passy reference teaches a transferring ownership option, configured to transfer ownership of the target document to a specified user (ownership of products can be transferred in bulk [paragraph 120] and products include documents [paragraph 79]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hu with the transfer option of Passy. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by giving them greater control over their files.
With respect to claim 10, the Hu and Passy references teach all of the limitations of claim 8 as described above. In addition, the Hu reference teaches that the target operation option is the moving option and the method satisfies at least one of the following: in a case where a document that a current user does not have moving permission is in the target document, the moving option being not allowed to be selected; in a case where the current user does not have second preset permission for the location corresponding to the third node, the target document being not allowed to be moved to the location corresponding to the third node; a node of another document repository that does not adopt the directory tree being not allowed to be identified as the third node; the location corresponding to the third node to which the target document is moved being different from a location of the target document and a location of a subordinate of the target document before the target document being moved (the files are in a level directory with a plurality of levels [paragraph 41] and the files can be moved from one location to another [paragraph 66]); in a process of moving the target document, another document in the document repository being in an immovable state; in a case where a document that the current user does not have third preset permission is in the target document, the document that the current user does not have the third preset permission being not allowed to be moved. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hu with the transfer option of Passy. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by giving them greater control over their files.
With respect to claim 11, the Hu and Passy references teach all of the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Additionally, the Hu reference teaches that
the target operation option is the deleting option and the method satisfies at least one of the following: in a case where a document that a current user does not have deleting permission is in the target document, the deleting option being not allowed to be selected; in a process of deleting the target document, the target document being in an operational state (the selected file can be deleted [paragraph 66]); in the process of deleting the target document, in a case where the target document is moved to another location in the document repository, the target document being still deleted; in the process of deleting the target document, in a case where the target document is moved to another document repository, deleting the target document moved to the another document repository failing; in a case where a node that the current user does not have fourth preset permission is in the target node, the node that the current user does not have the fourth preset permission being not allowed to be deleted. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hu with the transfer option of Passy. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by giving them greater control over their files.
With respect to claim 12, the Hu and Passy references teach all of the limitations of claim 8 as described above. In addition, the Hu reference teaches that the target operation option is the creating shortcut option and the method satisfies at least one of the following: in a case where a current user does not have fifth preset permission for the fourth node, the current user being not allowed to create the shortcut node of the target node at the fourth node; a node of another document repository that does not adopt the directory tree being not allowed to be identified as the fourth node; the fourth node where the shortcut node is created being different from the target node and a child node of the target node; in a process of creating the shortcut node of the target document, the target document being in an operational state (a command option includes ‘copy a path’ and ‘copy a relative path’ [Figure 4 and paragraph 66]); in a case where the target document is deleted in the process of creating the shortcut node of the target document, creating the shortcut node of the deleted target document failing; in a case where the target node comprises an existing shortcut node, copying the existing shortcut node in the target node to the fourth node; in the case where the target node comprises the existing shortcut node, the current user does not need to have permission to view a document to which the existing shortcut node corresponds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hu with the transfer option of Passy. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by giving them greater control over their files.
With respect to claim 13, the Hu and Passy references teach all of the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Additionally, the Hu reference teaches that the target operation option is the creating copy option and the method satisfies at least one of the following: in a case where a document that a current user does not have permission to create a copy is in the target document, the creating copy option being not allowed to be selected; in a case where the current user does not have sixth preset permission to the location corresponding to the fifth node, the copy of the target document at the location corresponding to the fifth node being not allowed to be created; a node of another document repository that does not adopt the directory tree being not allowed to be identified as the fifth node; a location corresponding to the fifth node where a created document copy is located being not belonged to a subordinate of the target document (the files are in a level directory with a plurality of levels [paragraph 41] and a command option includes ‘copy’ [Figure 4 and paragraph 66]); before creating the copy of the target document, calculating estimated time, in a case where the estimated time is less than preset time, the copy of the target document being allowed to be created, in a case where the estimated time is not less than the preset time, displaying reminder information, and after the reminder information is confirmed, creating the copy of the target document.
With respect to claim 14, the Hu and Passy references teach all of the limitations of claim 8 as described above. In addition, the Hu reference teaches at least one of the following: in a case where the bulk operation corresponding to the second operation event on the target document is successful, sending a first prompt message (after the modification is completed a modification result is displayed for the user [paragraph 50]); in a case where the bulk operation on a part of documents of the target document is successful, sending a second prompt message, and sending a result notification message to a current user and/or an owner of the target document through a preset communication client; in a case where the bulk operation on the target document fails, sending a third prompt message.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 with an earliest effective filing date of 4/6/23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0292056 published on 9/15/22) in view of Passy (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0272184 published on 9/2/21) and further in view of Suprasadachandran et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,488,223 patented on 11/1/22).
With respect to claim 15, the Hu and Passy references teach all of the limitations of claim 14 as described above. They do not explicitly recite that in a case where a number of documents of failed bulk operation is not greater than a preset document number, the documents of failed bulk operation are displayed in the result notification message; and/or in a case where the number of documents of failed bulk operation is greater than the preset document number, the preset document number of the documents of failed bulk operation and detail controls are displayed in the result notification message, each of the detail controls is configured to export detail message about a result of the bulk operation. The Suprasadachandran reference teaches that in a case where a number of documents of failed bulk operation is not greater than a preset document number, the documents of failed bulk operation are displayed in the result notification message; and/or in a case where the number of documents of failed bulk operation is greater than the preset document number, the preset document number of the documents of failed bulk operation and detail controls are displayed in the result notification message, each of the detail controls is configured to export detail message about a result of the bulk operation (when a result message has more than a threshold number of results the system displays up to that threshold number with a selectable element to view additional results [col. 9 lines 12-43]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hu and Passy with the detail control of Suprasadachadran. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by providing them with a reasonable amount of information to process at a time.
With respect to claim 16, the Hu, Passy, and Suprasadachadran references teach all of the limitations of claim 15 as described above. In addition, the Suprasadachadran reference teaches that in response to a triggering of each of the detail controls, creating a result document, and displaying information of the target document and a result of the bulk operation (upon selecting the element, additional results are presented to the user [col. 9 lines 12-43]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hu and Passy with the detail control of Suprasadachadran. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by providing them with a reasonable amount of information to process at a time.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRIS E MACKES whose telephone number is (571)270-3554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-4:00 EST.
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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.
/KRIS E MACKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153