DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 3/19/2024.
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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Displaying Confidentiality Reminders for Task Information.
Claims Status
Claims 1-13 and 16-22 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1, 16 and 22 are independent.
Claims 14-15 are canceled.
Claims 17-22 are newly added.
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 1-2, 5-13, 16-17 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The representative independent claim 1 recites a method for information processing including the steps of displaying a first interface and displaying different types of information. Specifically, A method for information processing, comprising: displaying a first interface in response to an input request received in a document page; and displaying at least one piece of task information of a target user and reminder information of the task information in the first interface in response to a selection operation of a target user. The method uses abstract terminology—such as “interface,” “document page”, “input request,” and “selection operation”—that can be entirely executed through manual, paper-based processes, such as a secretary physically handing a file folder to a manager in response to a verbal request. A “first interface” can represent a physical document, “task information” can be handwritten notes, and the “selection operation” is simply a person looking at or choosing that document. As presented, the claim recites a “mental process” of collecting, analyzing data and displaying the results of the analysis. See Electric Power Group v. Alstom and MPEP 2106(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no other limitations that do not form part of the abstract idea.
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.
Independent claims 16 and 22 are directed to a device and medium for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 1, and are rejected using similar rationale(s). Claim 16 and 22 further recite limitations that rely on generic computer components (processor, memory) to implement the abstract idea, rendering it a conventional computer implementation of an abstract process.
Claims 2 and 17 further describe how information is displayed, and are not effective for making the claimed invention less abstract.
Claims 5 and 20 recite abstract concept of entering information, which can be done by a human using pen/paper, and is ineligible for similar reasons.
Claims 6 and 21 further a search component and abstract displaying step. These concepts are also abstract for reason explained above for displaying step and because the searching component can be implemented outside a computer, .e.g., it can be implemented as a simple a physical filing system, index card catalog, or paper logbook used to organize and locate information about a specific user. Therefore, it is directed to a different category of organizing human activity, which simply results in further abstract activity. As such, the claims are ineligible under 101.
Claim 7 further recite an abstract displaying operation, in response to a trigger operation, which can be implemented by a human, outside of a computer. It relies on a manual, analog event-driven mechanism, such as a human physically inserting a paper document into a folder (insert control) to manually reveal corresponding task instructions or notes filed elsewhere (the first interface). Therefore, this claim is ineligible under 101.
Claim 8-9 and 12-13 further describes how information is displayed, which is also abstract, and/or further recite abstract display steps. Therefore, these claims are also ineligible under 101.
Claim 10 further includes an abstract mental step of determining, and based on the determination, sending a message to a user. According to legal standards, the generic transmission of data [“sending a message”] over a network, including internet data gathering, is regarded as a routine/extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).II.i. Furthermore, the same can also be considered an abstract concept of organizing human activity. The steps can be implemented by a human, outside a computer—for example, in a physical office setting—because a human administrator can manually compare a person’s ID badge to a document’s assigned owner and, if they do not match, deliver a paper note (the prompt message) containing the document's file name to the correct recipient. Such limitations cannot provide inventive concept or significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is ineligible under 101.
Claim 11 is also directed to extra-solution/abstract activity of sending data, and to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, specifically by sending the prompt message “to an instant messaging client of the target user by means of an associated message robot”. The same is not indicative of an integration into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and cannot provide significantly more. Therefore, this claim is ineligible under 101.
NOTE: The 101 rejection for these claims can be overcome by incorporating the subject matter of claims 3 or 4, or otherwise reflecting the purported improvement(s). Specifically, while reciting the abstract idea of displaying information, claims 3 and 4’s display of confidentiality-aware reminders is a contextual, restricted-information alert mechanism that constitutes a functional improvement to application/computer security, Instant Specification ¶¶ 43 and 59, as published. Namely, it helps avoid confidential content leakage, Instant Specification ¶ 18, as published.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 12 and 13 recite “wherein displaying the first interface in response to the input request for receiving the task information in the document page comprises”. However, the Instant Specification doesn’t sufficiently describe that “the input request” is “for receiving the task information in the document page”.
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 1-13 and 16-22 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 a first interface in response to an input request received in a document page; and displaying at least one piece of task information of a target user and reminder information of the task information in the first interface in response to a selection operation of a target user”. The Instant Specification defines the term “in response to” and related terms’ as referring “to a signal or event being affected to a certain extent by another signal or event, but not necessarily completely or directly”, and continues to explain that ‘If event x occurs “in response to” event y, then x may respond directly or indirectly to y. For example, the appearance of y may ultimately lead to the appearance of x, but there may be other intermediate events and/or conditions. In other cases, y may not necessarily lead to the appearance of x, and even if y has not yet occurred, x may still occur. In addition, the term “in response to” may also mean “at least partially responding to’, ¶ 90, as published. Based on this special definition, the term “in response to” renders the claims unclear because it is not clear whether or not the causes of the displaying steps must occur. The special definition allows the “displaying” to occur even if receipt of input request or a selection operation of a target use has not yet occurred, or to be only partially or indirectly linked to the request/selection, making it unclear whether the request/selection are necessary causes for the displaying steps.
Claims 6, 7, 12, 13 and 21 also recite one or more instances of the phrase “in response to” and are unclear for similar reason(s). For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets each of the “in response to” clauses include actions that must occur and serve as triggers/causes for displaying and other claimed steps. Correction required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the document” in the phrase “the prompt message comprising identification information of the document”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as including an identification, like a title, of the prompt message and/or request document. Correction required.
Claims 12 and 13 recite “wherein displaying the first interface in response to the input request for receiving the task information in the document page comprises”. Here, this is unclear because claim 1 describes that the “input request” is “received in a document page” and results in displaying information in the first interface, and not that “the input request” is “for receiving the task information in the document page”. Furthermore, there is no positively recited step of “receiving the task information in the document page”, so it is unclear what is meant by “for receiving the task information”. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets that the input request is for displaying the task information––not for receiving it. Correction required.
Claims 2-13 and 17-21 are 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) 1-5, 7-9, 12-13, 16-20, 22 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, comprising:
displaying a first interface in response to an input request received in a document page; (a selection of an activity data object [task] and issues a command [an input request received in a document page] to share this object and message composition interface is displayed, ¶ 290 and figs. 15 and 16)
and displaying at least one piece of task information of a target user and reminder information of the task information in the first interface in response to a selection operation of a target user. (information about the selected task is automatically included in the message composition interface, and includes task information about Max’s tasks, see item 1620 and 1616, and including a reminder information concerning, e.g., the start date and due date of the task, see item 1603, ¶ 290 and fig. 16A. Here, in a broadest sense, a reminder 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. Because the display here of the selected task 1524 belongs to Max, versus another user’s tasks, see ¶ 286, the displaying of the respective information in the message composition interface [first interface] is interpreted as being in response to a selection operation of a target user)
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Feinsmith further teaches:
wherein displaying the reminder information of the task information comprises:
displaying first reminder information in a first region of the first interface. (the reminders are displayed in a first region of the first interface, e.g., on a first row of a table/spreadsheet, see item 1603, fig. 16A)
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Feinsmith further teaches:
wherein displaying the reminder information of the task information comprises:
displaying second reminder information in a second region associated with a display region of the task information in the first interface, (another reminder are displayed in a second region of the first interface, e.g., on a second row of a table/spreadsheet, see item 1603, fig. 16A)
the second reminder information being determined based on a confidentiality type of the task information. (the reminders include information about a privacy level of the task, see item 1603, ¶ 193 and fig. 16A)
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 task information in the first interface, setting a confidentiality type of the task information to a first type in a client associated with the 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], ¶¶ 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”, ¶ 195 and fig. 11)
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Feinsmith further teaches:
wherein selection operation on the target user comprises:
entering information of the target user in an editing region of the document page associated with the first interface; (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”)
or entering information of the target user in a specified region of the first interface.
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Feinsmith further teaches:
further comprising:
displaying the task information in the document page in response to a trigger operation on an insert control or the task information in the first interface. (when a line item of is opened [trigger operation] for closer inspection, the details of the task information are displayed, ¶ 130 and fig. 16A)
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Feinsmith further teaches:
further comprising:
simultaneously displaying subordinate task information of the task information, content of the subordinate task information being associated with content of the task information. (object hierarchy 1604 simultaneously displaying/reflecting parent-child relationships, ¶¶ 290-293 and fig. 16A)
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Feinsmith further teaches:
further comprising:
displaying a content input component in a region associated with the task information, or displaying a content input component in a region associated with the subordinate task information. (the special message section 1606 is an input component in a region associated with both the task and any of its children/subordinates, ¶ 290 and fig. 16A)
Claim 12:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Feinsmith further teaches:
wherein displaying the first interface in response to the input request for receiving the task information in the document page comprises: (For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets that the input request is for displaying the task information––not for receiving it. Correction required)
displaying a second interface in response to receiving of information of the target user in the document page; (a user’s presentation of activities [second interface] reflects activity information for a selected user [in response to receiving of information of the target user in the document page], e.g., in popup window 2240, see fig. 22 and ¶ 334)
and displaying the first interface in response to selection of a task control in the second interface. (a selection of an activity data object [task control], ¶ 290 and figs. 15 and 16)
Claim 13:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Feinsmith further teaches:
wherein displaying the first interface in response to the input request for receiving the task information in the document page comprises: (For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets that the input request is for displaying the task information––not for receiving it. Correction required)
displaying a trigger component in response to a selection operation of a content line in the document page; (a trigger component, e.g., OK button 2246 in Popup Window 2240 is displayed after View tab 2202 [a content line in the document page] is clicked [a selection operation], ¶ 334 and fig. 22. here, “content line” is broadly interpreted to include a section within a window that separates content.
displaying a third interface in response to a trigger operation on the trigger component; (the activities are filtered based on selection, e.g., of Harry 2242, ¶ 334 and fig. 22)
and displaying the first interface in response to selection of a task control in the third interface.
Independent Claims 16 and 22:
Claim(s) 16 and 22 are directed to a device and medium for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 1, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claims 17-20:
The rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Claims 17-20 are directed to devices for accomplishing the steps of the methods in claims 2-5, respectively, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
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 of this title, 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) 6 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feinsmith (US 20100070542 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Chavan; Viraj Sudhir (hereinafter Chavan – US 20130159074 A1).
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. 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”.
Feinsmith does not appear to expressly teach, but Chavan teaches:
wherein the first interface further comprises a search component; and displaying the at least one piece of task information of the target user in the first interface comprises: in response to input content received in the search component, displaying the target user corresponding to the input content and at least one piece of task information of the target user in the first interface (a message interface with integrated search capabilities, ¶ 23 and 91 and fig. 1:150).
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 modify the method of Feinsmith to include wherein the first interface further comprises a search component; and displaying the at least one piece of task information of the target user in the first interface comprises: in response to input content received in the search component, displaying the target user corresponding to the input content and at least one piece of task information of the target user in the first interface, as taught by Chavan.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve searching functionality, Feinsmith ¶¶ 141 and 44, and user experience by eliminating the need to switch applications/interfaces, Chavan ¶¶ 3-4.
Claim 21:
The rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Claim 21 is directed to a medium for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 6, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feinsmith (US 20100070542 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee; Gen-Cher et al. (hereinafter Lee – US 20110055547 A1).
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Feinsmith further teaches:
further comprising:
determining whether a current user is the same as the target user, and if not,
sending a prompt message to the target user, (if it is Adam’s machine that transmits an activity to Max’s machine, Max is alerted that a new request has arrived [prompt message], ¶ 211 and fig. 2 )
Feinsmith does not appear to expressly teach, but Lee teaches:
the prompt message comprising identification information of the document (a structured data model for a notification [prompt message], including a unique identifier (ssruid) and content fields (subject, remarks), which enables precise identification, tracking, and delivery of specific document-related information via a protocol, ¶ 59. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as including an identification, like a title, of the prompt message and/or request document.).
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 modify the method of Feinsmith to include the prompt message comprising identification information of the document, as taught by Lee.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to deliver the alerts, Feinsmith ¶ 211, in a known and effective manner that allows users to quickly assess the nature of the alerts, Lee ¶¶ 59.
Claim 11:
The rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Feinsmith-Lee further teach:
wherein sending the prompt messages to the target user comprises:
sending the prompt message to an instant messaging client of the target user (the notification can be sent via instant messaging, Lee ¶ 54)
Feinsmith further suggests:
that the prompt message is sent by means of an associated message robot. (agent(s) [an associated message robot] are used for communication purposes, Feinsmith ¶¶ 86 and 96)
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 method of Feinsmith to include that the prompt message is sent by means of an associated message robot, as suggested by Feinsmith.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order improve the practicality of the method to transmit the alert using known means, which is already described as being usable for communication messages between users, Feinsmith ¶¶ 86 and 96.
Conclusion
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