DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the response filed on 4/7/2026.
Claims 1-12 and 14-21 remain pending in this application.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 12, 14, 15, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1, 14, and 15 are independent claims.
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 4/7/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 03/23/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 18/689,818 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Accordingly, the previously presented double patent rejections have been respectfully withdrawn.
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, 5, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoddart et al., US PGPUB 2020/0402108 Al (hereinafter as Stoddart).
Regarding independent claim 1, Stoddart teaches a method for task processing [see e.g. the “tasks” tab shown in figs. 18, 22, and 30 as well as the “Add task” button in fig. 32 and the corresponding description; see also claim 8], the method comprising:
displaying a button in a document page, wherein the button is configured to request to input task information in the document page [see e.g. the “Add task” button in fig. 32, the “Add task button” 3006” in fig. 30, and button 3102 of fig. 31, as well as the corresponding description];
displaying a task panel in the document page in response to receiving an operation performed on the button, the task panel displaying at least one piece of first task information, the task information comprising the first task information [note the display of maintenance tasks page 3200 shown in fig. 32 responsive to selecting 3102 on fig. 31; further note from [0201] that task page 3200 includes maintenance tasks as those shown on fig. 32 for changing air filter and HVAC cleaning]; and
in response to a triggering operation on the at least one piece of first task information, displaying the first task information in a task area, wherein the task area enables to input information associated with the at least one piece of first task information [see [0201] and note that a triggering operation of selecting edit control 3202 results in an editing operation to the corresponding at least one piece of task information (which is considered input information associated with the at least one piece of task information); note that the interface area where the edit is made is a task area].
Although Stoddart does not explicitly teach inserting the task area in the document page and displaying the first task information in the task area in response to a triggering operation on the at least one piece of first task information, Stoddart does teach inserting a task area in a document page and displaying task information in the task area in response to a triggering operation on at least one piece of the task information [note in [0177]-[0178] (in conjunction with figs. 21-22) the display of a pop-up page with editable fields related to a triggering operation (or selection) of a corresponding task-related UI element].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Stoddart, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the operation sequence by explicitly specifying inserting the task area in the document page and displaying the first task information in the task area in response to a triggering operation on the at least one piece of first task information, as per the teaching in the other exemplary pop-up interface with editable fields of Stoddart. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable utilizing overlays for editing information which would benefit mobile computing devices with limited screen sizes, as suggested by Stoddart [see e.g. [0007] as well as [0177]-[0178]].
Regarding independent claims 14 and 15, they are analogously rejected.
For independent claim 14, Stoddart further teaches an electronic device, the electronic device comprising: a processor for executing a computer program stored in a memory see e.g. figs.1A-1B], the computer program, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to implement the operations of the method of claim 1.
For independent claim 15, Stoddart further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon [see e.g. [0009] and [0094]], wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to implement the operations of the method of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, the rejections of independent claim 1 and 14 are respectively incorporated.
Stoddart further teaches that the task information further comprises second task information, the second task information being associated with the first task information [note e.g. the display of maintenance tasks page 3200 shown in fig. 32 responsive to selecting 3102 on fig. 31; further note from [0201] that task page 3200 includes e.g. first and second maintenance tasks as those shown on fig. 32 for changing air filter and HVAC cleaning, wherein they are both associated with one another by virtue of being both associated with the maintenance of the same property item].
Regarding claims 3 and 17, the rejections of independent claim 1 and 14 are respectively incorporated. Stoddart further teaches that the task panel further comprises a first control for choosing the first task information, the first control being located in an associated area of the first task information [note the edit control 3202 whose selection results in an editing operation to the corresponding task information (e.g. of changing air filter) and that the control 3202 is located in an associated area of that task information (same row)].
Regarding claims 5 and 19, the rejections of independent claim 1 and 14 are respectively incorporated. Stoddart further teaches that before the response to the triggering operation on the at least one piece of first task information, the method/acts further comprise(s): selecting the first task information [again, note from [0201] that the triggering operation is selecting the edit control 3202 and results in an editing operation to the corresponding at least one piece of task information].
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoddart (as applied to claims 1 and 14) in view of Arnaudov et al., US PGPUB 2021/0216356 Al (hereinafter as Arnaudov).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, the rejections of independent claim 1 and 14 are respectively incorporated.
Stoddart does not explicitly teach:
the task panel further comprises a second control, the second control being located in an associated area of the first task information; and
in response to a triggering operation on the second control, displaying, in the task panel, at least one piece of second task information associated with the first task information.
Arnaudov teaches:
a task panel that comprises a control being located in an associated area of first task information [see carrot 214 shown in fig. 3 and described in [0035]]; and
in response to a triggering operation on the control, displaying, in the task panel, at least one piece of second task information associated with first task information []note from [0035] and fig, 3 that the interaction with the carrot expands the view to shown tasks associated with the parent task].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Stoddart and Arnaudov, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stoddart’s task panel and operations by explicitly specifying that the task panel further comprises a second control, the second control being located in an associated area of the first task information; and in response to a triggering operation on the second control, displaying, in the task panel, at least one piece of second task information associated with the first task information, as per the teachings of Arnaudov. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable including a variety of relationships within tasks which as well as allowing navigating them which would facilitate visualizing logical relationships such as task branches and nested tasks in a workflow, as suggested by Arnaudov [see e.g. [0012] and [0039]].
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoddart (as applied to claims 5 and 19 respectively) in view of Aspromonte et al., US PGPUB 2018/0174091 A1 (hereinafter as Aspromonte).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, the rejections of claims 5 and 19 above are respectively incorporated.
Stoddart does not explicitly teach that the selecting the first task information comprises:
in response to a selection operation on the first task information belonging to a first user, setting the first task information belonging to a second user into a non-selectable state; and/or
in response to the selection operation on the first task information belonging to the first user, setting second task information belonging to the second user into the non- selectable state.
Aspromonte teaches selecting task information that comprises: in response to a selection operation on the task information belonging to a first user, setting the task information belonging to a second user into a non-selectable state [note e.g. in the last 6 lines of [0074] that the selection of a certain task belonging to a first user renders that task non-selectable to a second user].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Stoddart and Aspromonte, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stoddart s task selection operations by explicitly specifying that the selecting the first task information comprises: in response to a selection operation on the first task information belonging to a first user, setting the first task information belonging to a second user into a non-selectable state; and/or in response to the selection operation on the first task information belonging to the first user, setting second task information belonging to the second user into the non- selectable state, as per the teachings of Aspromonte. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable dynamically adapting task assignments/selections in real-time or near-real time to increases efficiency and avoid overlapping items/tasks, as suggested by Aspromonte [see e.g. [0002-[0003] and [0071]] which would enable extending Stoddart’s interface/framework to items/tasks involving multiple potentially overlapping parties.
Claims 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoddart (as applied to claims 5 and 19 respectively) in view of Basu et al., US Patent No. 10,108,934 B2 (hereinafter as Basu).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, the rejections of claims 5 and 19 above are respectively incorporated. Stoddart does not explicitly teach that the selecting the first task information comprises:
in response to a selection operation on the first task information, setting second task information associated with the first task information into a selected state; or
in response to a selection operation on any of the second task information, setting the first task information associated with the second task information into the selected state.
Basu teaches in response to a selection operation on a first item, setting a second item associated with the first item into a selected state [see e.g. vol. 1, lines 53-55 indicating automatic selections of additional items responsive to an initial selection by a user].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Stoddart and Basu, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply Basu’s automatic setting of additional items into a selected state responsive to a selection on an initial item to Stoddart’s selectable task items and operations by explicitly specifying that that the selecting the first task information comprises: in response to a selection operation on the first task information, setting second task information associated with the first task information into a selected state; or in response to a selection operation on any of the second task information, setting the first task information associated with the second task information into the selected state, as per the teachings of Basu. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to aid in item selection thus allowing greater efficiency in computer interaction, as suggested by Basu [see col. 1, lines 66-67].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoddart (as applied to claim 5) in view of Bills et al., US Patent No. US 9,727,376 B1 (hereinafter as Bills).
Regarding claim 8, the rejections of claim 5 above is incorporated. Stoddart does not explicitly teach that the selecting the first task information comprises: in response to a selection operation on an identification of a first user in the task panel, setting the first task information and/or second task information belonging to the first user into a selected state.
Bills teaches selecting first task information that comprises: in response to a selection operation on an identification of a first user in a task panel, setting first task information and/or second task information belonging to the first user into a selected state [note e.g. col. 6, lines 15-24 indicating user icons in a task panel together with task objects and the dragging of a particular user icon resulting in assigning the task object to the particular use].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Stoddart and Bills before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stoddart’s task selection operations by explicitly specifying that the selecting the first task information comprises: in response to a selection operation on an identification of a first user in the task panel, setting the first task information and/or second task information belonging to the first user into a selected state, as per the teachings of Bills. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable facilitating the association of tasks and users in a visually intuitive way, as in the example given by Bills [again see e.g. col. 6, lines 15-24] which would enable extending Stoddart’s interface/framework to items/tasks involving certain user associations.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoddart (as applied to claim 1) in view of Chan et al., US PGPUB 2021/0389853 Al (hereinafter as Chan).
Regarding claim 9, the rejections of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Stoddart does not explicitly teach that in response to a triggering operation on the at least one piece of first task information, the displaying a task area in the document page and the displaying the first task information in the task area comprises:
in response to there being no second task information associated with selected first task information and after the triggering operation on the at least one piece of first task information, displaying the first task information in the task area;
in response to there being second task information associated with the selected first task information and in accordance with a determination that the second task information is not selected, preventing the triggering operation from being performed on the at least one piece of first task information; or
in response to none of the first task information being selected, preventing the triggering operation from being performed on the at least one piece of first task information.
Chan teaches that in response to a triggering operation on at least one piece of first task information, displaying a task area in a document page [see [0076] and figs. 4A-C; note the drag and drop interaction with item 421 resulting in the display of corresponding node 416 showing that item in region 410 of workspace 400] and the displaying the first task information in the task area comprises:
in response to there being no second task information associated with selected first task information and after the triggering operation on the at least one piece of first task information, displaying the first task information in the task area [again, see [0076] and note the display of node 416 after the drag and drop interaction with entry 421 which does not have additional associated task information];
in response to there being second task information associated with the selected first task information and in accordance with a determination that the second task information is not selected, preventing the triggering operation from being performed on the at least one piece of first task information; or
in response to none of the first task information being selected, preventing the triggering operation from being performed on the at least one piece of first task information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Stoddart and Chan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stoddart’s task handling framework by explicitly specifying that in response to a triggering operation on the at least one piece of first task information, the displaying a task area in the document page and the displaying the first task information in the task area comprises: in response to there being no second task information associated with selected first task information and after the triggering operation on the at least one piece of first task information, displaying the first task information in the task area; in response to there being second task information associated with the selected first task information and in accordance with a determination that the second task information is not selected, preventing the triggering operation from being performed on the at least one piece of first task information; or in response to none of the first task information being selected, preventing the triggering operation from being performed on the at least one piece of first task information, as per the teachings of Chan. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable simulating user-defined sweeps in interacting with the interface, as suggested by Chan [again see e.g. [0076]].
Regarding claim 11, the rejections of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Stoddart does not explicitly teach that in response to the type of the document being a first type, the displaying the first task information in the task area comprises: merging task areas of respective pieces of the first task information into a content block, and displaying the first task information in the merged task area.
Chan teaches that in response to the type of a document being a first type, displaying first task information in a task area comprises: merging task areas of respective pieces of first task information into a content block, and displaying the first task information in the merged task area [note from figs. 4A-C that the respective pieces of information (such as Name, Number, etc.) of item 421 are all merged and displayed in the top portion of area 416 of the workspace].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Stoddart and Chan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stoddart’s task handling framework by explicitly specifying that in response to the type of the document being a first type, the displaying the first task information in the task area comprises: merging task areas of respective pieces of the first task information into a content block, and displaying the first task information in the merged task area as per the teachings of Chan. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable facilitating the association of respective pieces of the first task information in a visually intuitive way, as in the example given by Chan [again see e.g. item 421 in figs. 4A-C] which would enable extending Stoddart’s interface/framework to items/tasks involving certain task element associations.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoddart (as applied to claim 5) in view of Hassan et al., US Patent No. 8,078,990 B2 (hereinafter as Hassan).
Regarding claim 10, the rejections of claim 5 above is incorporated.
Stoddart does not explicitly teach that selecting the first task information comprises: in response to the first task information being set with a permission, displaying prompt information in an area associated with the first task information of the task panel.
Hassan teaches a task selection comprising: in response to the task information being set with a permission, displaying prompt information [see fig. 5 and note the task selection in step 122 and the display of authorization window in 130 responsive to a determination of a task permission setting at 128].
Hassan’s known display of a prompt in response to selecting a task being set with a permission is applicable to the selection of tasks/items taught by Stoddart in which tasks are being selected in an interface.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying Hassan’s technique of prompt displays responsive to permissions associated with a task being selected to Stoddart’s environment of task/item selection would have yielded the predictable results of informing a user of authorization issues related to the tasks, as also suggested by Hassan [see e.g. col. 1, line 55-col. 2, line 9], which would enable a way to be informed of authorization aspects during task selections.
The rationale for the combination would be that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known invention that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
See MPEP 2143 I.D.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoddart (as applied to claim 1) in view of Sellman, US PGPUB 2007/0266309 Al (hereinafter as Sellman).
Regarding claim 12, the rejections of claim 1 above is incorporated. Stoddart does not explicitly teach that in response to the type of the document being a second type, the displaying the first task information in the task area comprises: corresponding a task area of each piece of the first task information to a content block, and displaying each piece of the first task information in the corresponding task area.
Sellman teaches in response to a certain type of document, displaying information in an area that comprises: corresponding an area of each piece of the information to a content block, and displaying each piece of the information in the corresponding area [note in [0039] the identification of different portions of content and displaying them in corresponding areas of a destination document which can depend on attributes related to the document type; see the examples in fig. 6 and the related description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Stoddart and Sellman, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the display of the first task information in the task area taught by Stoddart by explicitly specifying that in response to the type of the document being a second type, the displaying the first task information in the task area comprises: corresponding a task area of each piece of the first task information to a content block, and displaying each piece of the first task information in the corresponding task area, as per the teachings of Sellman regarding partitioning the information and mapping it to areas in the destination depending on a certain document type. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable exporting document structure while preserving layout and relative positioning of document structure in a way that matches a destination document, as suggested by Sellman [see [0039]] which would enable adapting to different document types for exporting information in different views.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims in view of the previously presented claim objections have been respectfully accepted.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claim(s) have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner notes from the prior art:
Herring, Hr. et al., US 20210064398 A1, which teaches computerized guidance across devices creating a visual workflow by selecting items to include in the workflow [see e.g. title and figs. 7, 9, and 10].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA S AYAD whose telephone number is (571)272-2743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am - 4:30 pm. Alt, Friday, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/MARIA S AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights