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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/8/2024 was filed before the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Responsive to the applicant’s arguments filed 4/24/2026, to the 101 rejection, the examiner has removed the 101 rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1 (page 10/12): The applicant alleges that herring’s natural language response particular to the task state data structure is not displayed on the document page. However, Herring clearly teaches: in response to receiving a natural language user input, a natural language response can be generated [Herring, 0005]. Herring then further teaches that: where at least one such device or application can provide visual or display-based interaction and another can provide natural language dialog interaction [Herring, 0021]. Thus, Herring IS displaying the information, even if the exact wording doesn’t match the applicant’s intended design. The examiner would remind the applicant that they have applied for a utility patent, and not a design patent. This argument points to a matter of design, and not the utility of the function being claimed.
The examiner points out that he has already given the applicant allowable manner (see claim objections), should the applicant choose to submit allowable matter.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 7, 9-14, 18, and 19, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejection Notes
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 17, 25, and 26, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bequet et al. (US 20180181446 A1, published: 6/28/2018), in view of Herring et al. (US 20210064398 A1, published: 3/4/2021).
Claim 1. (Currently Amended): Bequet teaches a task processing method, comprising: in response to receiving an input request of task information on a document page, displaying a task panel on the document page, the task panel comprising the task information (operate the input device and a display device to provide a user interface (UI) to enable receipt of commands to edit the visualization; receive a first command from the input device to change a visual indication of a dependency in the visualization between two visual representations of task routines in the visualization [Bequet, 0006]. The instance log may include a data object identifier for each data object used by a task routine of the multiple task routines as an input and for each data object generated by a task routine of the multiple task routines during the document performance of the multiple tasks of the first job flow [Bequet, 0025]).
Bequet does not teach and in response to a trigger operation on the task information in the task panel, displaying a task region on the document page, and displaying the task information and a state identifier in the task region, wherein the state identifier is used for presenting a current state of a task.
However, Herring teaches and in response to a trigger operation on the task information in the task panel, displaying a task region on the document page, and displaying the task information and a state identifier in the task region, wherein the state identifier is used for presenting a current state of a task (in response to receiving a natural language user input command via the second computing device as part of the natural language dialog, a natural language response that is particular to one or both of the task state data structure and the working task document can be generated [Herring, 0005]. Providing computerized task guidance across two or more different applications and/or devices, where at least one such device or application can provide visual or display-based interaction and another can provide natural language dialog interaction, but with both using a shared digital task document and digital task state data structure to maintain state and provide a more seamless experience with such different modalities [Herring, 0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the document task panel invention of Bequet to include the task region on the document page features of Herring.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for an interface to display document state's including presenting a current state, to users. Such would give users more available document information, and means to view it.
Claims 25 and 26, having similar elements to claim 1, are likewise rejected.
Claim 2. (Currently Amended): The combination of Bequet and Herring, teaches the method according to claim 1. Herring further teaches wherein the state identifier comprises at least one of a score, progress, and a state (the visual user input can indicate a state of progress in completing the task [Herring, 0006]), or wherein the task region comprises a content editing region located near the task information, or wherein the task information comprises first task information and/or second task information, the first task information and the second task information have an association relationship, and each of the first task information and the second task information corresponds to one state identifier.
Claim 3. (Currently Amended): The combination of Bequet and Herring, teaches the method according to claim 1. Herring further teaches wherein displaying the task information and the state identifier in the task region comprises: acquiring state data corresponding to the task information in a task system; and displaying the state identifier in the task region based on the state data (the technique of FIG. 9 can also include, in response to the receiving of the natural language user input command via the second computing device, perfuming a second update to the task state data structure to represent the natural language user input command and updating the at least a portion of the working task document on a computer display via the first computing device to represent the second update to the task state data structure [Herring, 0096]).
Claim 17. (Currently Amended): The combination of Bequet and Herring, teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: in response to receiving an operation on a second control component in the task region, sending data of the state identifier and/or data of the content editing region to a task system (providing computerized task guidance across two or more different applications and/or devices, where at least one such device or application can provide visual or display-based interaction and another can provide natural language dialog interaction, but with both using a shared digital task document and digital task state data structure to maintain state and provide a more seamless experience with such different modalities [Herring, 0021]; Examiner's Note: a computer program implicitly allows for repeated operation, including running second controls, third controls, and >100,000 controls).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bequet et al. (US 20180181446 A1, published: 6/28/2018) and Herring et al. (US 20210064398 A1, published: 3/4/2021), and in further view of Haruta et al. (US 20110313816 A1, published: 12/22/2011).
Claim 5. (Currently Amended): The combination of Bequet and Herring, teaches the method according to claim 2. The combination of Bequet and Herring, does not teach wherein in response to weight information having been configured for the first task information, the state identifier comprises a first state identifier, the first state identifier being used for representing progress and a state of the task.
However, Haruta teaches wherein in response to weight information having been configured for the first task information, the state identifier comprises a first state identifier, the first state identifier being used for representing progress and a state of the task (the step of inputting the progress of each of the lowest order tasks can include inputting an indication of a "complete," "incomplete," or "postponed." Furthermore, the step of inputting the indication of the "complete" or "incomplete" state as progress of each of the lowest order tasks can include the sub-steps of inputting a numeric value as the progress of the lowest order tasks and inputting an indication of a "complete" or "incomplete" state for each of the lowest order tasks according to whether the numeric value is within a relevant permissible range [Haruta, 0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the document task panel invention of the combination of Bequet and Herring, to include the state progress features of Haruta.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to inform the user of progress when displaying state data. Such will keep the user up to date on that status of the presented tasks.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bequet et al. (US 20180181446 A1, published: 6/28/2018) and Herring et al. (US 20210064398 A1, published: 3/4/2021), and in further view of Kiel et al. (US 20170039124 A1, published: 2/9/2017).
Claim 8. (Currently Amended): The combination of Bequet and Herring, teaches the method according to claim 2. The combination of Bequet and Herring, does not teach wherein in response to weight information having been configured for the second task information, the state identifier comprises a first state identifier and a second state identifier, the first state identifier is used for representing progress and a state of the task, and the second state identifier is used for representing a score of the task.
However, Kiel teaches wherein in response to weight information having been configured for the second task information, the state identifier comprises a first state identifier and a second state identifier, the first state identifier is used for representing progress and a state of the task, and the second state identifier is used for representing a score of the task (wherein the first value is indicative of a state of progress of a performance of a plurality of tasks in at least one of the first and second processors, the second value corresponds to the state of progress indicated by the first value and propagated by the interception layer to the first waiting synchronization object [Kiel, Claim 18]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the document task panel invention of the combination of Bequet and Herring, to include the progress states features of Kiel.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to display at least two state identifiers representing states of progress based on weight information. Such will keep users informed about the same.
Claim(s) 15 and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bequet et al. (US 20180181446 A1, published: 6/28/2018) and Herring et al. (US 20210064398 A1, published: 3/4/2021), and in further view of Wagner (US 20140282150 A1, published: 9/18/2014).
Claim 15. (Currently Amended): The combination of Bequet and Herring, teaches the method according to claim 1. The combination of Bequet and Herring, does not teach further comprising: in response to receiving an operation on a first control component in the task region, displaying a control panel, and in response to an operation on a setting item in the control panel, hiding the state identifier.
However, Wagner teaches further comprising: in response to receiving an operation on a first control component in the task region, displaying a control panel, and in response to an operation on a setting item in the control panel, hiding the state identifier (a corresponding operation (e.g., the display or hiding of a display panel) may be activated and deactivated (e.g., displayed or hidden) based upon a same type of gesture directed at the user interface item [Wagner, 0024]; Examiner's Note: wherein anything in the control panel, including state identifiers, are hidden when the panel is hidden).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the document task panel invention of the combination of Bequet and Herring, to include the displaying and hiding of panels features of Wagner.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to compete with standard computer features that have been available since the early days of displaying windows on screen. Since the 1980s, users have become familiar with the idea of displaying and hiding windows/panels, when needed to access or dismiss programs.
Claim 20. (Currently Amended): The combination of Bequet and Herring, teaches the method according to claim 1. The combination of Bequet and Herring, does not teach further comprising: in response to the state identifier and the content editing region being hidden, displaying the second control component in a first display state; or in response to the state identifier being hidden and there being no data in the content editing region, displaying the second control component in a first display state; or in response to the state identifier and the second task information being hidden, displaying the second control component in a first display state.
However, Wagner teaches further comprising: in response to the state identifier and the content editing region being hidden, displaying the second control component in a first display state; or in response to the state identifier being hidden and there being no data in the content editing region, displaying the second control component in a first display state; or in response to the state identifier and the second task information being hidden, displaying the second control component in a first display state (a corresponding operation (e.g., the display or hiding of a display panel) may be activated and deactivated (e.g., displayed or hidden) based upon a same type of gesture directed at the user interface item [Wagner, 0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the document task panel invention of the combination of Bequet and Herring, to include the displaying and hiding of panels features of Wagner.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to compete with standard computer features that have been available since the early days of displaying windows on screen. Since the 1980s, users have become familiar with the idea of displaying and hiding windows/panels, when needed to access or dismiss programs.
Additional References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following display and access task managers:
Lakness (US 4897780 A, published: 1/30/1990)
Bequet et al. (US 9684544 B1, published: 6/20/2017)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SETH A SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, 8AM-4PM MST.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571)272-4140. 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.
/Seth A Silverman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights