DETAILED ACTION
Priority
This action is in response to the U.S. filing dated 09 April 2024 which claims a foreign priority date of 11 April 2023. A preliminary amendment was submitted on 09 April 2024. Claims 3 and 5-15 are amended. No claims have been added or cancelled. Another preliminary amendment was submitted on 19 July 2024. Claims 1-15 are amended. Claims 16 and 17 have been added. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 1-17 are pending and have been considered below.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09 April 2024 and 19 July 2024 have been received, entered into the record, and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 10, 13-15 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims use “and/or” terminology. Examiner does however note that, “A and/or B” does have a meaning and that meaning is A alone, B alone, or A and B together. The “preferred verbiage” should be more simply “at least one of A and B.” Further, giving the claim limitation the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner will use the broader “or” recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 14 is directed towards a computer program. However, all of the elements claimed could be reasonably interpreted by an ordinary artisan as being software alone, and thus is directed to software per se, which is non-statutory. In order for such a software claim to be statutory, it must be claimed in combination with an appropriate medium and/or hardware such as memory and processor to establish a statutory category of invention and enable any functionality to be realized.
Claims Interpreted as Invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f)/Sixth Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations (claims 13 and 15) in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatesh et al. (US 2014/0359475 A1) in view of Schmitt et al. (US 2023/0323571 A1).
As for independent claim 1, Venkatesh teaches a method comprising:
providing a retrieval function for at least one user interface, wherein the at least one user interface comprises a plurality of interface elements that are called up for outputting machine parameters and/or settings of [the textile machine] and/or for input by a user in order to monitor and/or operate [the textile machine] [(e.g. see Venkatesh paragraph 0042, 0044, 0055 and Figs. 5) ”FIG. 5 depicts a method 500, including aspects of the settings analytics component related to considerations of various factors in determining a quantity and placement location of control settings within a customized control settings panel … a setting or value of a control setting within the customized control settings panel, the settings analytics component may modify the behavior of the corresponding system or application as if the user had directly modified the corresponding control setting to the system or application … computer system 702 may be implemented in any of various types of devices, including, but not limited to, a personal computer system, desktop computer, laptop, notebook, or netbook computer, mainframe computer system, handheld computer, workstation, network computer, a camera, a set top box, a mobile device, a consumer device, video game console, handheld video game device, application server, storage device, a television, a video recording device, a peripheral device such as a switch, modem, router, or in any type of computing or electronic device”]. Examiner notes that Venkatesh describes settings for any type of computing or electronic device, but not specifically a textile machine; however, see secondary reference Schmitt below.
wherein each of the interface elements is assigned a designation, wherein a retrieval of each designation is provided by the retrieval function on the basis of a retrieval specification in order to determine the designations that correspond to the retrieval specification, wherein the retrieval specification is defined by the user [(e.g. see Venkatesh paragraphs 0023, 0045 and Fig. 5) ”the settings analytics component may determine particular control settings and in which position the particular control settings may be located within a customized control settings panel based on a combination of different factors. For example, the settings analytics component may use importance criteria based on analytics data in regard to control settings usage to determine a ranking of control settings, use a tree-ordering of settings to determine a relative placement of settings within a customized control settings panel, and utilize user configuration information, such as a user selecting particular control settings to be included in the customized control settings panel. Further, the settings analytics component may use a pre-defined, or user-defined quantity to determine how many control settings to display in a customized control settings panel … at 502-506, the settings analytics component determines which control settings and how many control settings to include within a customized control settings panel. At 508, the settings analytics component determines an ordering of the control settings such that the same control settings to be included in subsequent invocations of the customized control settings panel are displayed in consistent locations. At 510, the settings analytics component determines if any user preferences have been set in regard to the control settings to be included in the customized control settings panel. At 512, the settings analytics component determines a quantity and placement location for the control settings to be included in a customized control settings panel”].
initiating an output of the designations via the at least one user interface for selection by the user [(e.g. see Venkatesh paragraphs 0019, 0035 and Fig. 6) ”the determined number of control settings may then be displayed within the customized control settings panel in positions based on relative importance of the determined number of control settings to display … given an initial display of four control settings within a customized control settings panel, where a first control setting is displayed in the top left corner of the control settings panel, a second control setting is displayed in the top right corner of the control settings panel, a third control setting is displayed in the bottom left corner of the control settings panel, and a fourth control setting is displayed in the bottom right corner of the control settings panel, if a user pins or indicates that the second control setting is to be displayed consistently, then the settings analytics component may display the second control setting in the top right corner of the control settings panel even if other analytics factors, such as disuse or more frequent use, indicate that the second setting may have a different location in the control settings panel”].
and providing a navigation function for the at least one user interface, wherein the navigation function calls up one of the user interface elements to which the designation selected by the user is assigned [(e.g. see Venkatesh paragraphs 0018, 0050) ”a user may "pin" or otherwise designate that a given control setting or given control settings, be maintained in a consistent location, such as through the selection or activation of a particular icon associated with "pinning" a control setting … A pinned control setting may be any given control setting that has been previously displayed within a customized settings panel such that the given control setting has been directly selected or "pinned" by a user to be displayed in a consistent location within the customized control settings panel”].
Venkatesh does not specifically teach for outputting machine parameters and/or settings of the textile machine and/or for input by a user in order to monitor and/or operate the textile machine. However, in the same field of invention or solving similar problems, Schmitt teaches:
for outputting machine parameters and/or settings of the textile machine and/or for input by a user in order to monitor and/or operate the textile machine [(e.g. see Schmitt paragraph 0016, 0028 and Figs. 2-6) ”operating textile machines has a switching function for switching the operating device between a basic mode and an expert mode, wherein basic mode provides a basic operating mask for the basic operation of a textile machine by a user, and expert mode provides an expert operating mask for expert operation of the textile machine by the user … the operating device is designed such that the setting of parameters of the textile machine is provided to operate the textile machine and/or the remote textile machine”]. Examiner notes that the determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use "can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim" as drafted without importing "‘extraneous’ limitations from the specification." Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Venkatesh teaches displaying a setting page for any computing/electronic device. Schmitt teaches displaying a setting page for a textile machine having an operating device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely a software developer, before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute a textile machine for any computing device, as both the textile machine and computing device use a processor and stored instructions in order to achieve the predictable result of displaying settings associated with the particular device. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) – KSR: “Simple Substitution”
As for dependent claim 3, Venkatesh and Schmitt teach the method as described in claim 1 and Venkatesh further teaches:
wherein the retrieval function determines a plurality of the designations which corresponds to the retrieval specification, wherein initiating the output comprises the following steps: determining a frequency with which the interface elements assigned to the designations have been called up [(e.g. see Venkatesh paragraph 0031) ”given stored settings analytics data, the settings analytics component may rank a list of control settings according to importance criteria, as depicted at 304. For example, the settings analytics component may base a ranking of prospective control settings to include in a customized control settings panel, at least partly on most recently used settings and/or most frequently used settings”].
and determining an order for the output of the designations for initiating the output of the designations sorted as a function of the determined frequency [(e.g. see Venkatesh paragraph 0023) ”the settings analytics component may determine particular control settings and in which position the particular control settings may be located within a customized control settings panel based on a combination of different factors. For example, the settings analytics component may use importance criteria based on analytics data in regard to control settings usage to determine a ranking of control settings, use a tree-ordering of settings to determine a relative placement of settings within a customized control settings panel, and utilize user configuration information, such as a user selecting particular control settings to be included in the customized control settings panel. Further, the settings analytics component may use a pre-defined, or user-defined quantity to determine how many control settings to display in a customized control settings panel. In some examples, the settings analytics component may determine a quantity of control settings to use even without any user input specifying a quantity. In other examples, the importance criteria may be based at least partly on recency of use and/or frequency of use of a control setting”].
As for dependent claim 4, Venkatesh and Schmitt teach the method as described in claim 3 and Venkatesh further teaches:
further including: logging a number of call-ups of the interface elements during an operation of the textile machine in order to determine the frequency on the basis of a logged number [(e.g. see Venkatesh paragraph 0015) ”the settings analytics component may track and store user behaviors in regard to the modification of system control settings. In some cases, the settings analytics component may detect and store each change to each system control setting, including characteristics and/or parameters of the change being made. Further, the settings analytics component may detect and store frequency of use and time of use associated with each control settings change”].
providing a selection function for a selection by the user in order to select at least one of the determined designations and providing the selection function, wherein for the determined designations, in a case of an identical designation occurring more than once, the output of an indication of a location of the interface elements thereof is initiated in the user interface in order to select the interface elements on a basis of the location [(e.g. see Venkatesh paragraphs 0019, 0050, 0052) ”the settings analytics component may also determine if any control settings have been designated or specified to be included in particular locations, according to a user preference that may have been set or specified in a previous invocation of a customized control settings panel, as depicted at 510. For example, a user may "pin" or otherwise designate that a given control setting or given control settings, be maintained in a consistent location, such as through the selection or activation of a particular icon associated with "pinning" a control setting. In some implementations, this user preference setting may override any other determined ordering or location positioning for control settings to be included in the customized control settings panel … if a user pins or indicates that the second control setting is to be displayed consistently, then the settings analytics component may display the second control setting in the top right corner of the control settings panel even if other analytics factors, such as disuse or more frequent use, indicate that the second setting may have a different location in the control settings panel … The pin 610 may also be used to indicate a location of the control setting 602 in the dynamic settings panel 106”].
As for dependent claim 5, Venkatesh and Schmitt teach the method as described in claim 1 and Venkatesh further teaches:
wherein providing the navigation function comprises the following step: initiating an output of a selection and/or navigation button for a corresponding one of the designations in order to select the one of the designations when the selection and/or navigation button is activated by the user, and/or to call up the interface elements to which the designations selected by the user is assigned by initiating a display of the interface elements on the user interface and/or by initiating a corresponding output of at least one machine parameter and/or at least one setting and/or by evaluating an input by the user in order to control the textile machine on the basis of the input [(e.g. see Venkatesh paragraph 0018, 0050) ”in addition to using the collected settings analytics, partly base a determination of which control settings to include in the customized control settings panel on pinned settings. A pinned control setting may be any given control setting that has been previously displayed within a customized settings panel such that the given control setting has been directly selected or "pinned" by a user to be displayed in a consistent location within the customized control settings panel … the settings analytics component may also determine if any control settings have been designated or specified to be included in particular locations, according to a user preference that may have been set or specified in a previous invocation of a customized control settings panel, as depicted at 510. For example, a user may "pin" or otherwise designate that a given control setting or given control settings, be maintained in a consistent location, such as through the selection or activation of a particular icon associated with "pinning" a control setting. In some implementations, this user preference setting may override any other determined ordering or location positioning for control settings to be included in the customized control settings panel”].
As for dependent claim 6, Venkatesh and Schmitt teach the method as described in claim 1 and Venkatesh further teaches:
wherein the interface elements comprise at least one of the following elements: an input element for inputting setting and/or data values for the textile machine, an output element for outputting setting and/or measured values of the textile machine, an action element for controlling the textile machine, and a menu designation for menus of the at least one user interface [(e.g. see Venkatesh paragraph 0042 and Figs. 2 and 4) ”after generating and displaying a customized control settings panel to a user, the settings analytics component may receive user input adjusting a user interface element included in the customized control settings panel that is directed at a control setting within the customized control settings panel, as depicted at 410. For example, a user may turn on or off a particular control setting, such as "Airplane Mode" in a mobile device, or some other control setting. In this example, in response to the user input adjusting a setting or value of a control setting within the customized control settings panel, the settings analytics component may modify the behavior of the corresponding system or application as if the user had directly modified the corresponding control setting to the system or application, as depicted at 412”]. Examiner notes that secondary reference Schmitt establishes the textile machine (see claim 1 above).
As for dependent claim 7, Venkatesh and Schmitt teaches the method as described in claim 1 and Venkatesh further teaches:
further including: receiving data from the textile machine, wherein the data indicate at least one setting and/or measured value of the textile machine; assigning the at least one setting and/or measured value to one of the interface elements; initiating an output of the at least one setting and/or measured value when the interface elements assigned thereto are called up, wherein the interface elements corresponding thereto display the at least one setting and/or measured value in the form of a target and/or actual value of a machine parameter and initiating an output of the designations assigned to the interface elements that are called up [(e.g. see Venkatesh paragraphs 0042, 0043 and Fig. 6) ”after generating and displaying a customized control settings panel to a user, the settings analytics component may receive user input adjusting a user interface element included in the customized control settings panel that is directed at a control setting within the customized control settings panel, as depicted at 410. For example, a user may turn on or off a particular control setting, such as "Airplane Mode" in a mobile device, or some other control setting. In this example, in response to the user input adjusting a setting or value of a control setting within the customized control settings panel, the settings analytics component may modify the behavior of the corresponding system or application as if the user had directly modified the corresponding control setting to the system or application … when a user accesses a control settings user interface of the operating system or application directly, and not through the customized control settings panel of the settings analytics component, the setting values displayed in the customized control settings panel may be made consistent with any control settings values adjustments made by the user directly through the operating system or application. For example, if a user changes a network control setting directly through a network control application by selecting a series of icons or links to access the network control setting, the change to the network control setting will also be reflected in the customized control settings panel. Additionally, if a user modifies a control setting via a customized control settings panel, the value of the control setting will be consistent upon access of the control setting directly via an application or operating systems using selections of a series of links or icons in a hierarchical structure of control settings. In a particular implementation, the consistency between the value of a control setting when accessed either directly or via a customized control settings panel is maintained because changes to the value of the control setting are accomplished through the operating system or the application associated with the control setting regardless of how the control setting is accessed”]. Examiner notes that secondary reference Schmitt establishes the textile machine (see claim 1 above).
As for dependent claim 13, Venkatesh and Schmitt teach a system having an apparatus for data processing, comprising means for executing the method according to claim 1. Claim 13 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1. Further, Venkatesh teaches a display apparatus for outputting the user interface [(e.g. see Venkatesh paragraph 0060 and Fig. 6) ”computer system 702 may include … a display”]. Further, Schmitt teaches at least one textile machine that is in data connection with the apparatus in order to be operated by the user interface [(e.g. see Schmitt paragraph 0016) ”operating textile machines has a switching function for switching the operating device between a basic mode and an expert mode, wherein basic mode provides a basic operating mask for the basic operation of a textile machine by a user, and expert mode provides an expert operating mask for expert operation of the textile machine by the user”]. The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 1.
As for dependent claim 14, Venkatesh and Schmitt teach a computer program comprising instructions that, when the computer program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute the method according to claim 1. Claim 14 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1.
As for dependent claim 15, Venkatesh and Schmitt teach an apparatus for data processing, comprising means for executing the method according to claim 1. Claim 15 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1.
As for dependent claim 16, Venkatesh and Schmitt teach the method as described in claim 3 and Venkatesh further teaches:
wherein the designation whose interface element was called up most frequently during a previous operation of the textile machine is output at a first position [(e.g. see Venkatesh paragraphs 0031, 0049) ”given stored settings analytics data, the settings analytics component may rank a list of control settings according to importance criteria, as depicted at 304. For example, the settings analytics component may base a ranking of prospective control settings to include in a customized control settings panel, at least partly on … most frequently used settings, as determined according to the collected settings analytics data … the highest ranked position, the settings analytics component may use a tree-ordering to maintain a consistent relative ordering for the two control settings”].
As for dependent claim 17, Venkatesh and Schmitt teach the method as described in claim 4 and Venkatesh further teaches:
wherein providing the selection function includes initiating an output of a selection and/or navigation button for the designation corresponding thereto and wherein a selection action by the user is provided, in which the selection and/or navigation button is activated by the user, wherein the selection and/or navigation button is assigned a reference to one of the interface elements [(e.g. see Venkatesh paragraph 0050) ”the settings analytics component may also determine if any control settings have been designated or specified to be included in particular locations, according to a user preference that may have been set or specified in a previous invocation of a customized control settings panel, as depicted at 510. For example, a user may "pin" or otherwise designate that a given control setting or given control settings, be maintained in a consistent location, such as through the selection or activation of a particular icon associated with "pinning" a control setting. In some implementations, this user preference setting may override any other determined ordering or location positioning for control settings to be included in the customized control settings panel”].
Claims 2, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatesh et al. (US 2014/0359475 A1) in view of Schmitt et al. (US 2023/0323571 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tan et al. (US 2023/0048246 A1).
As for dependent claim 2, Venkatesh and Schmitt teach the method as described in claim 1, but do not specifically teach wherein: the retrieval function comprises a search function for checking whether the designations correspond to the retrieval specification in the form of a search specification or wherein the search specification comprises a search pattern and/or a search term and/or a similarity specification for a fuzzy search according to the search term and/or one or more initial letters of the designation to be searched for, wherein the search specification defines that and/or to what extent the search pattern and/or the search term and/or the similarity specification and/or the one or more initial letters occur in the designation so that the search specification corresponds to the designation. However, in the same field of invention or solving similar problems, Tan teaches:
wherein: the retrieval function comprises a search function for checking whether the designations correspond to the retrieval specification in the form of a search specification [(e.g. see Tan paragraphs 0036, 0037) ”Referring to FIG. 5, it will be assumed that the user has inputted a character string 53 “IP”, through a software keyboard separately displayed on the display device 15. Upon receipt of the input of the character string 53 through the touch panel 16A, the controller 10 causes the display device 15 to display the inputted character string 53 in a first field 52 … instruction to start the search has been received”].
wherein the search specification comprises a search pattern and/or a search term and/or a similarity specification for a fuzzy search according to the search term and/or one or more initial letters of the designation to be searched for, wherein the search specification defines that and/or to what extent the search pattern and/or the search term and/or the similarity specification and/or the one or more initial letters occur in the designation so that the search specification corresponds to the designation [(e.g. see Tan paragraphs 0037, 0038 and Fig. 5) ”decides whether the inputted character string contains the keyword stored in the HDD 18 with respect to each of the setting items (step S11) … In this case, it will be assumed that the character string 53 does not contain the keyword. Accordingly, the controller 10 decides that the inputted character string does not contain the keyword (NO at step S11), and extracts the names containing the inputted character string, out of the plurality of setting items stored in the HDD 18 (step S12). For example, the controller 10 extracts the names “IP address”, “IPv4 Settings”, “IPv6 Settings”, and “swipe to print”, as names containing the character string 53 “IP” (at least one of the characters may be a lowercase letter)”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Venkatesh, Schmitt and Tan, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein: the retrieval function comprises a search function for checking whether the designations correspond to the retrieval specification in the form of a search specification and wherein the search specification comprises a search pattern and/or a search term and/or a similarity specification for a fuzzy search according to the search term and/or one or more initial letters of the designation to be searched for, wherein the search specification defines that and/or to what extent the search pattern and/or the search term and/or the similarity specification and/or the one or more initial letters occur in the designation so that the search specification corresponds to the designation, as taught by Tan, to the teachings of Venkatesh and Schmitt because it reduces the time and trouble required to change a set value when the user is not sufficiently familiar with the operation of the electronic device (e.g. see Tan paragraph 0055).
As for dependent claim 8, Venkatesh and Schmitt teach the method as described in claim 1, but do not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Tan teaches:
wherein the retrieval function comprises a search function for determining, in the machine parameters, those which correspond to the retrieval specification in the form of a search specification [(e.g. see Tan paragraphs 0036-0038 and Fig. 5) ”start the search has been received (YES at step S10), and decides whether the inputted character string contains the keyword stored in the HDD 18 with respect to each of the setting items (step S11) … In this case, it will be assumed that the character string 53 does not contain the keyword. Accordingly, the controller 10 decides that the inputted character string does not contain the keyword (NO at step S11), and extracts the names containing the inputted character string, out of the plurality of setting items stored in the HDD 18 (step S12). For example, the controller 10 extracts the names “IP address”, “IPv4 Settings”, “IPv6 Settings”, and “swipe to print”, as names containing the character string 53 “IP” (at least one of the characters may be a lowercase letter)”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 2.
As for dependent claim 9, Venkatesh and Schmitt teach the method as described in claim 1, but do not specifically teach the following limitations. However, Tan teaches:
further including: evaluating a user search input in order to define the retrieval specification [(e.g. see Tan paragraph 0037) ”decides whether the inputted character string contains the keyword stored in the HDD 18 with respect to each of the setting items (step S11)”].
prompting the user to input the user search input [(e.g. see Tan paragraph 0035) ”until the touch panel 16A detects that a soft key 51 for instructing to start the search has been touched”].
wherein the user search input results from keyboard input and/or touchscreen input and/or voice input and/or gesture recognition and/or chatbot interaction and/or wherein the retrieval specification defines a condition for the interface elements, wherein the retrieval function checks the designation to determine whether their interface elements satisfy the condition [(e.g. see Tan paragraph 0036 and Fig. 5) ”the user has inputted a character string 53 “IP”, through a software keyboard separately displayed on the display device 15. Upon receipt of the input of the character string 53 through the touch panel 16A, the controller 10 causes the display device 15 to display the inputted character string 53 in a first field 52”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 2.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatesh et al. (US 2014/0359475 A1) in view of Schmitt et al. (US 2023/0323571 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsui (US 2019/0286665 A1).
As for dependent claim 10, Venkatesh and Schmitt teach the method as described in claim 1, but do not specifically teach wherein the retrieval specification comprises a search pattern and/or a search term and further including: automatically supplementing the retrieval specification with synonyms and/or similar search patterns and/or similar search terms in order to determine which one of the designations correspond to the search pattern and/or search term and/or synonyms of the retrieval specification or wherein the supplementing takes place on the basis of a term database that comprise the synonyms and/or similar search patterns and/or similar search terms. However, in the same field of invention or solving similar problems, Matsui teaches:
wherein the retrieval specification comprises a search pattern and/or a search term and further including: automatically supplementing the retrieval specification with synonyms and/or similar search patterns and/or similar search terms in order to determine which one of the designations correspond to the search pattern and/or search term and/or synonyms of the retrieval specification [(e.g. see Matsui paragraphs 0004, 0062-0064 and Fig. 9) ”by entering the keyword (a synonym) registered in the dictionary data, the user is able to arrange the desired setting item to be displayed on the screen, without the need to enter a keyword that completely matches the standard word … on the basis of the entered keyword (e.g., “fastening”) and the first dictionary information (FIG. 6) related to the other multifunction peripheral (e.g., the multifunction peripheral A) corresponding to the identification information obtained at step S1, the searching unit 514 conducts a search and identifies the standard word (e.g., “binding”) … on the basis of the standard word (e.g., “binding”) of the other multifunction peripheral (e.g., the multifunction peripheral A) identified at step S3 and the second dictionary information (FIG. 8), the searching unit 514 conducts a search and identifies the standard word (e.g., “staples”) of the MFP 1 … on the basis of the standard word (e.g., “staples”) of the MFP 1 identified at step S4, the presenting unit 515 presents the user with a setting item containing the standard word of the MFP 1 (FIG. 9) (step S5). For example, the presenting unit 515 displays, on the operation panel 27, a list of two or more of the setting items of the MFP 1 containing the standard word of the MFP 1 identified by the searching unit 514 and further presents the user with (displays for the user) a setting screen corresponding to the setting item selected by the user from the list”].
wherein the supplementing takes place on the basis of a term database that comprise the synonyms and/or similar search patterns and/or similar search terms [(e.g. see Matsui paragraphs 0044, 0049 and Figs. 6-8) ”Returning to the description of FIG. 3, the referring unit 511 refers to the first dictionary information and the second dictionary information stored in the storage unit 52. Alternatively, when the first dictionary information and the second dictionary information are managed (stored) in an apparatus (e.g., a server) different from the MFP 1, the referring unit 511 refers to the first dictionary information and to the second dictionary information stored in the apparatus by accessing the apparatus … The first dictionary information is dictionary information used in the multifunction peripheral A and is also used in the multifunction peripheral B. In association with “facsimile” serving as a standard word (i.e., a standard keyword, which is a keyword contained in the item name of a setting item; the same applies to the second dictionary information and the third dictionary information), the first dictionary information has registered therein “faxing” serving as a relating word (keyword) 1 and “fax” serving as a relating word 2”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Venkatesh, Schmitt and Matsui, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the retrieval specification comprises a search pattern and/or a search term and further including: automatically supplementing the retrieval specification with synonyms and/or similar search patterns and/or similar search terms in order to determine which one of the designations correspond to the search pattern and/or search term and/or synonyms of the retrieval specification and wherein the supplementing takes place on the basis of a term database that comprise the synonyms and/or similar search patterns and/or similar search terms, as taught by Matsui, to the teachings of Venkatesh and Schmitt because it improves convenience in relation to ambiguous searches (e.g. see Matsui paragraphs 0005, 0023).
As for dependent claim 11, Venkatesh and Schmitt teach the method as described in claim 1, but do not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Matsui teaches:
wherein the output of the designations is initiated on a different page of the user interface than the pages on which the interface elements thereof are displayed during a call-up [(e.g. see Matsui paragraph 0055 and Figs. 4 and 5) ”the search screen will be explained. FIG. 4 is a drawing illustrating an example of a first search screen according to the present embodiment. When configuring a setting into the MFP 1, the user enters a keyword on the search screen to arrange a desired one of the plurality of setting items to be displayed on the operation panel 27. FIG. 4 illustrates an example in which the user had entered “fax” as a keyword and had subsequently pressed the “START SEARCH” button in the upper right part, so that a search result corresponding to the keyword was displayed. After that, when the “facsimile initial setting” button illustrated in FIG. 4 is pressed, a transition is made to the setting screen illustrated in FIG. 5. FIG. 5 is a drawing illustrating an example of the setting screen according to the present embodiment”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 10.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatesh et al. (US 2014/0359475 A1) in view of Schmitt et al. (US 2023/0323571 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiang et al. (US 2010/0050128 A1).
As for dependent claim 12, Venkatesh and Schmitt teach the method as described in claim 1, but do not specifically teach wherein the retrieval function is provided on the basis of a machine learning algorithm. However, in the same field of invention or solving similar problems, Chiang teaches:
wherein the retrieval function is provided on the basis of a machine learning algorithm [(e.g. see Chiang paragraph 0039) ”Due to utilization defects of menu shortcuts, the present invention provides a method for automatically generating menu shortcuts and a user interface apparatus thereof, by which besides a method of manually setting the menu shortcuts is maintained, as long as a user normally operates the product, the system can prompt the user to automatically add a current function item or a setting page to the menu shortcut list via a machine learning algorithm”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Venkatesh, Schmitt and Chaing, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the retrieval function is provided on the basis of a machine learning algorithm, as taught by Chaing, to the teachings of Venkatesh and Schmitt because flexibilities for user operation and setting the menu shortcuts are improved and the user can enjoy advantages of the menu shortcuts (e.g. see Chaing paragraphs 0008, 0047).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. PGPub 2015/0169190 A1 issued to Girardeau on 18 June 2015. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-17 (e.g. custom setting interface for an industrial facility).
U.S. PGPub 2018/0352097 A1 issued to Maeda et al. on 06 December 2018. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-17 (e.g. keyword searching device settings).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI whose telephone number is (571)-270-3358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (8am-6pm).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Bashore can be reached at (571)-272-4088. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174