DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 7/23/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The new title of the invention, as filed on 7/23/2026, is acceptable.
Claims Status
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, 16-19 and 21-22 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1, 16 and 22 are independent.
Claims 5, 7, 14-15 and 20 are canceled, of which claims 5, 7 and 20 are newly canceled.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-13, 16-19, and 21-22 are newly amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, 16-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 requires a method for information processing. Information processing is clearly a mental process. As such, the claim recites the abstract idea of a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no other limitations that are required steps of this method.
Similarly, the claim does not include any additional elements and therefore no limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim is ineligible under 101.
Similarly, claims 2-4, 6 and 8-13 also fail to recite any limitations that are required under broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations, which as explained in the 102 rejection below, requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met, see MPEP 2111.04.II. As such, these claims are ineligible under 101.
Independent claim 16 recites functions of retrieving, displaying, and organizing (e.g., by searching and inserting) task and reminder information. These functions, other than mention of generic computer language (An electronic device comprising: a processor; and a memory for storing a computer program; wherein the computer program, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to perform operations comprising), can be performed through human mental processes and/or basic pen-and-paper tracking (organizing human activities). Therefore, as presented, the claim recites a “mental process” of collecting, analyzing data and displaying the results of the analysis and/or “organizing human activity” of searching for personal tasks, reviewing reminders, and copying that information into a document.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because additional computer related limitations, such as “An electronic device comprising: a processor; and a memory for storing a computer program; wherein the computer program, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to perform operations comprising” and reflect mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the additional limitation of searching using a “search box” is reflective of generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (of automated computer searching), see MPEP 2106.05(h). As such, the claim is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Similarly, the claim does not include any additional elements and therefore no limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 16 is ineligible under 101.
Claims 17-19 and 21 do nothing more than further recite abstract concepts, e.g., displaying information and setting a confidentiality type, etc., and are therefore also ineligible under 101.
Independent claim 22 is directed to a medium for accomplishing the functions of the device in claim 1, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or 112(2nd)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, 16-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 16 and 22 recite “displaying, upon selection of a user corresponding to input content received via the search box, at least one piece of task information…”. Here, the ambiguous and convoluted condition of “upon selection of a user corresponding to input content received via...” makes it difficult to determine who or what is actually being selected (e.g., the user or the input content). For the purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets this limitation as referring to a condition (namely, “upon” receiving user “input content” in a search box), which when met, results in the automatic “selection” (that is, selection for display, or filtered display) of task information associated with the received input content. Correction required.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8-13, 17-19 and 21 are also rejected as they depend on claim(s) above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feinsmith; Jason B. (hereinafter Feinsmith – US 20100070542 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Feinsmith teaches:
A method for information processing, (data processing machine carrying out functions, ¶¶ 120 and 360 figs. 1)
Further concerning claim(s) 1: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met, see MPEP 2111.04.II. Here, the claim(s) includes/include steps that are contingent on “upon” conditions (“upon receipt of an input request” and “upon selection of a user”) that are not positively recited as being met. Specifically, each of the limitations are unrequired and listed below:
“comprising: displaying a first interface upon receipt of an input request in a document page, wherein the first interface comprises a search box configured to receive input content and an insert control that is selectable to insert displayed task information into the document page” (not required unless receipt occurs)
“displaying, upon selection of a user corresponding to input content received via the search box at least one piece of task information of the user and reminder information of the at least one piece of task information in the first interface” (not required unless selection occurs)
“and inserting the at least one piece of task information into the document page upon selection of the insert control” (This step is also interpreted as unrequired because “the at least one piece of task information” can only be inserted if it is displayed “upon selection of a user”)
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Feinsmith further teaches:
wherein displaying the reminder information of the at least one piece of task information comprises:
displaying first reminder information in a first region of the first interface. (This step is also interpreted as unrequired because “the at least one piece of task information” must be displayed “upon selection of a user”, which doesn’t occur)
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Feinsmith further teaches:
wherein displaying the reminder information of the at least one piece of task information comprises:
displaying second reminder information in a second region associated with a display region of the at least one piece of task information in the first interface, the second reminder information being determined based on a confidentiality type of the at least one piece of task information. (This step is also interpreted as being contingent on a precedent that doesn’t occur)
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Feinsmith further teaches:
further comprising:
before displaying the second reminder information in the second region associated with the at least one piece of task information in the first interface, setting a confidentiality type of the at least one piece of task information to a first type in a client associated with the at least one piece of task information, the first type indicating that the task information is confidential information. (This step is also interpreted as being contingent on a temporal precedent that doesn’t occur)
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Feinsmith further teaches:
further comprising:
displaying, in the first interface, the user corresponding to the input content. (This step is also interpreted as being contingent on a temporal precedent, i.e., receipt of input content, that doesn’t occur)
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Feinsmith, as modified, further teaches:
further comprising:
simultaneously displaying subordinate task information of the at least one piece of task information, content of the subordinate task information being associated with content of the at least one piece of task information. (This step is also interpreted as being contingent on a precedent that doesn’t occur)
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Feinsmith, as modified, further teaches:
further comprising:
displaying a content input component in a region associated with the at least one piece of task information, or displaying a content input component in a region associated with the subordinate task information. (This step is also interpreted as being contingent on a precedent that doesn’t occur)
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Feinsmith further teaches:
further comprising: determining whether a current user is the same as the user, and if not, sending a prompt message to the user, the prompt message comprising identification information of the document page. (This step is also interpreted as being contingent on a precedent that doesn’t occur, i.e., a document page in which a first interface is displayed upon receipt of an input request, see claim 1)
Claim 11:
The rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Feinsmith further teaches:
wherein sending the prompt messages to the user comprises:
sending the prompt message to an instant messaging client of the user by means of an associated message robot. (This step is also interpreted as being contingent on a precedent that doesn’t occur, i.e., a document page in which a first interface is displayed upon receipt of an input request, see claim 1)
Claim 12:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Feinsmith further teaches:
wherein displaying the first interface upon receipt of the input request in the document page comprises:
displaying a second interface upon receipt of information of the user in the document page;
and displaying the first interface upon receipt of an indication of a selection of a task control in the second interface. (This step is also interpreted as being contingent on a precedent that doesn’t occur)
Claim 13:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Feinsmith further teaches:
wherein displaying the first interface upon receipt of the input request in the document page comprises:
displaying a trigger component upon receipt of an indication of a selection operation of a content line in the document page;
and displaying the first interface upon receipt of an indication of a selection of a task control in the third interface. (These steps are also interpreted as being contingent on a precedent that doesn’t occur)
Claim(s) 16-19 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feinsmith; Jason B. (hereinafter Feinsmith – US 20100070542 A1) in view of Misra; Karan et al. (hereinafter Misra – US 20210397270 A1) and Soryal; Joseph et al. (hereinafter Soryal – US 20220006898 A1).
Independent Claim 16:
Feinsmith teaches:
An electronic device comprising:
a processor;
and a memory for storing a computer program;
wherein the computer program, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to perform operations comprising: (electronic device, ¶¶ 12-16 and fig. 8)
displaying a first interface upon receipt of an input request in a document page, (The "Meta-Search" capability 617 of a page displaying an activity document data [in a document page], allows a user, e.g., Max, to perform Boolean sum of product searches and selection-filters on his activities. It can be implemented as a button 617 used for [upon receipt of an input request] opening and displaying a search and sort options tool menu [first interface], ¶ 145 and fig. 6A. The activity documents can be displayed in either a graphical or a tabular format to help users clearly see the logical associations between different activity data objects and journal data items (JDIs), ¶ 90 and figs 1, 8 and 6A.)
wherein the first interface comprises a search box configured to receive input content […]; (a user can user the capability 617 to enter text, strings, or value search criteria to automatically identify and filter relevant presentation items, e.g., entering the name “Maxene”, ¶¶ 141, 144 and 153, and figs. 6A and 9A. This teaches that the interface 617 comprises a search box because it involves providing a text input interface that accepts strings, text, or values to dynamically filter and identify relevant data items based on specific attributes)
an insert control that is selectable to insert displayed task information into the document page; (activity objects are inserted, or added, into an activity tree [document], which is shareable with other users, ¶¶ 37, 199 and 273, by using user interface controls that allow a user (Adam) to select and initiate activity tree insertions or task bundle modifications in a single operation, ¶ 273)
displaying […] at least one piece of task information of the user and reminder information of the at least one piece of task information in [an] interface; (in the process of composing task sharing activities, information about a selected task is displayed in a message composition interface, and includes task information, see item 1620 and 1616, and a reminder information concerning, e.g., the start date and due date of the task, see item 1603, ¶ 290 and fig. 16A, and/or the reminders include information about a privacy level of the task, see item 1603, ¶ 193 and fig. 16A. Here, in a broadest sense, task reminder information encompasses task details like start and due dates because it acts as an external cognitive aid designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a responsibility, ensuring the user has the necessary context to start, progress, and complete a task on time rather than merely alerting them to its existence. )
and inserting the at least one piece of task information into the document page upon selection of the insert control (activity objects are inserted, or added, into an activity tree [document], which is shareable with other users, ¶¶ 37, 199 and 273, by using user interface controls that allow a user (Adam) to select [upon selection of the insert control] and initiate activity tree insertions or task bundle modifications in a single operation, ¶ 273)
However, Feinsmith does not appear to expressly teach, but Misra teaches:
that the insert control is comprised in the first interface [the search tool] (a user interface where an emoji search interface (search box) accepts input content to display selectable emojis (user content information), which are then directly inserted into a content entry region 606 (editing portion) of message region 601 (document page) using an emoji keyboard button or direct selection (insert control), e.g., ¶¶ 192 and 212 and figs. 6E and 6F).
that the displaying of the displaying at least one piece of task information is performed “upon selection of a user corresponding to input content received via the search box” (a user interface where an emoji search interface (search box) accepts input content to display selectable emojis (content information) [upon selection of a user corresponding to input content received via the search box], which are then directly inserted into a content entry region 606 (editing portion) of message region 601 (document page) using an emoji keyboard button or direct selection (insert control), e.g., ¶¶ 192 and 212 and figs. 6E and 6F)
that the display of the task information is “upon selection of a user corresponding to input content received via the search box” and in “the first” interface. (search results of objects that are insertable [comparable to task information insertion in Feinsmith] into the document is selected for display and are displayed [upon selection of a user corresponding to input content received via the search box], ¶¶ 192 and 212 and figs. 6E and 6F. For the purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets this limitation as referring to a condition (namely, “upon” receiving user “input content” in a search box), which when met, results in the automatic “selection” (that is, selection for display, or filtered display) of task information associated with the received input content.)
Accordingly, since both Feinsmith and Misra are directed to editing a document, albeit of different types, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Feinsmith to include that the insert control is comprised in the first interface [the search tool],
that the displaying of the displaying at least one piece of task information is performed “upon selection of a user corresponding to input content received via the search box”, and that the display of the task information is “upon selection of a user corresponding to input content received via the search box” and in “the first” interface, as taught by Misra.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability and efficiency of the device, because an integrated search and insertion interface maintains a consistent display size to prevent search activities from obstructing the content entry region, thereby minimizing user input errors and streamlining device operability, Misra ¶¶ 21 and 153.
Feinsmith, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Soryal teaches:
that the display of the reminder information is also “upon selection of a user corresponding to input content received via the search box” and in “the first” interface (a system detects when an interaction is likely to put sensitive data at risk, and alerts the user before the user can reveal the sensitive data or otherwise perform a risky action, ¶¶ 47 and 49 and fig. 2:208,210).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Feinsmith to include that the display of the reminder information is also “upon selection of a user corresponding to input content received via the search box” and in “the first” interface, as taught by Soryal.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to help improve data protection offered by the device, Soryal ¶¶ 1 and 58. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that applying Misra’s concept of a search interface, for allowing and inserting items into an editing portion of a document, into the device of Feinsmith, in which the task documents are shareable with others, see Feinsmith ¶¶ 37, 199 and 273, would result in protecting task data that may be searched and inserted into the shareable document, Soryal ¶¶ 1 and 58. Furthermore, because the search result of Feinsmith-Soryal is displayed before on the same search interface before being inserted, it would have been obvious to add the warning in “the first” interface, when the user is presented with the search results, Soryal
¶¶ 47 and 49 and fig. 2:208,210.
Claim 17:
The rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Feinsmith, as modified, further teaches:
wherein displaying the reminder information of the at least one piece of task information comprises:
displaying first reminder information in a first region of the first interface. (the reminders are displayed in a first region of information related to tasks, e.g., on a first row of a table/spreadsheet, see item 1603, Feinsmith fig. 16A. for displaying in first interface, see modification in claim 16 by Soryal)
Claim 18:
The rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Feinsmith, as modified, further teaches:
wherein displaying the reminder information of the at least one piece of task information comprises:
displaying second reminder information in a second region associated with a display region of the at least one piece of task information in the first interface, (another reminder are displayed in a second region of information related to tasks, e.g., on a second row of a table/spreadsheet, see item 1603, Feinsmith fig. 16A. for displaying in first interface, see modification in claim 16 by Soryal.)
the second reminder information being determined based on a confidentiality type of the at least one piece of task information. (the reminders include information about a privacy level of the task, see item 1603, Feinsmith ¶ 193 and Feinsmith fig. 16A)
Claim 19:
The rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Feinsmith, as modified, further teaches:
the operations further comprising:
before displaying the second reminder information in the second region associated with the at least one piece of task information in the first interface, setting a confidentiality type of the at least one piece of task information to a first type in a client associated with the at least one piece of task information, the first type indicating that the task information is confidential information. (users interact with the system via their machine/computer, which is connected to server(s) [in a client], Feinsmith ¶¶ 76 and 93, and the machine can assign privacy settings for a task automatically or a user can manually set/change them, and such settings including a privacy level of 2, or “Company Confidential”, Feinsmith ¶ 195 and fig. 11. for displaying reminder information in the first interface, see modification in claim 16 by Soryal)
Claim 21:
The rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Feinsmith, as modified, further teaches:
further comprising: displaying, in the first interface, the user corresponding to the input content (Feinsmith further teaches a “Selection-Filtered Journal Mode” where a user can enter text, strings, or value search criteria to automatically identify and filter relevant journal data items based on specific ADO attributes, ¶¶ 141 and 144 and fig. 6A, e.g., entering the name “Maxene”. a document interface with integrated search capabilities, Misra ¶¶ 192 and 212 and figs. 6E and 6F. for displaying reminder information in the first interface, see modification in claim 16 by Soryal).
Independent Claim 22:
Claim(s) 22 is directed to a medium for accomplishing the functions of the device in claim 16, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Comments/Response to Arguments
Previous 112(a) rejections of claims 12-13 and 112(b) rejections of claims 1-13 and 16-22 are overcome by claim amendment(s).
However, the claim amendment(s) introduce new 112(b) issues as explained in the 112(b) rejection section above.
101:
Applicant's 101 arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the applicant alleges that none of that a human mind cannot practically perform the claimed graphical user interface operations, Remarks Pg(s) 9.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because:
as explained in the 101 rejection section and 102 section claim 1 only requires a method for information processing.
When applied to claims 16 and 22, the argument is still not persuasive, because as mentioned in the 101 rejection section above, the claim merely applies the abstract idea using a computer.
Second, the applicant alleges that the claims include a practical application because it reflects as workflow that allows users to recognize potential confidentiality and leakage concerns, Remarks Pg(s) 10.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because:
Claims 1 and its dependent claims required only a method for information processing.
Claims 16 (its dependent claims) and 22 require nothing related to confidentiality.
Third, the applicant relies on argument(s) above to allege patentability of remaining claims, Remarks Pg(s) 10.
The examiner respectfully disagrees for similar reasons.
102/103:
Applicant’s 102 argument(s) have been fully considered, but are at least partially persuasive when respect to claim 16 and 22. Therefore, the rejection for claim 16 and 22 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of section 103.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-13 are still/now rejected under 102 because, as claimed, they only require a method of information processing, as explained in the 102 rejection section above.
Arguments related to claims 16-19 and 21-22 are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
First, the applicant alleges that the prior arts do not teach claim 1’s interface with integrated search and insert functions, Remarks Pg(s) 11-13.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because:
Claim 1 and its dependent claims only require a method for information processing.
Second, the applicant relies on the arguments above to allege patentability of the remaining claims.
The examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons presented above.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Kakegawa; Ienobu US 20130222836 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a system that is configured for maintaining security of scanned documents wherein in a case that the document status determining part determines that the scanned document requested to be output by the output request includes proprietary or confidential information, the operation monitoring part causes the user interface displaying part to display a warning message through the user interface, Kakegawa Claim 10.
Dubey; Alpana et al. US 10552781 B2, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing an architecture that delivers task information to the workers while maintaining confidentiality, Abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights