DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-6 and 9-20.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
3. Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura (US 2011/0066972 A1) and further in view of Ji et al. (CN 112631702A).
NOTE: Ji et al. (CN 112631702A) was cited in the IDS dated 6/05/2024 and a copy was provided with a machine translation. The below citations with respect to Ji et al. (CN 112631702A) reference the provided machine translation.
In regard to claim 1, Sugiura discloses a page view generation method, comprising (Paragraph 0067 and Paragraphs 0242-0244):
determining at least one work item and a first page subview to be processed for the at least one work item (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0092, Paragraph 0095 lines 1-5, and Paragraph 0100 lines 1-5: user selects service (e.g. work item) in a management tool which causes a page (e.g. W2) to be processed for the service);
determining, based on at least one first function that corresponds to the first page subview, and data information of the at least one first function, configuration information in the first page subview, to obtain a second page subview (Paragraph 0099 lines 1-5 and lines 7-10 and Paragraph 0100 lines 5-8: field R21 of screen W2 is generated with screen page parts corresponding to functions (e.g. “input of product key”));
determining a third page subview based on field configuration information corresponding to the second page subview (Paragraph 0099 lines 5-7 and lines 10-14 and Paragraph 0100 lines 1-12: field R22 of screen W2 is generated with screen page parts for performing the function (e.g. “input of product key”));
and determining a first page view based on at least one third page subview (Paragraph 0100: the screen (e.g. W2) is generated with the subviews (e.g. R21 and R22) and displayed as the current screen).
While Sugiura teaches determining, based on at least one first function that corresponds to the first page subview, and data information of the at least one first function, configuration information in the first page subview, to obtain a second page subview, they fail to show the layout configuration information in the first page subview, as recited in the claims. Ji teaches generating a page similar to that of Sugiura. In addition, Ji further teaches
determining layout configuration information, based on metadata of a page subview to be processed, to obtain a page subview (Paragraphs n0040, n0041, n0042, n0043, n0046, and n0047: for a page area (e.g. subview), metadata (e.g. page elements) configured within the area is used to determine a page area layout for the page area).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sugiura and Ji before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the determining, based on at least one first function that corresponds to the first page subview, and data information of the at least one first function, configuration information in the first page subview, to obtain a second page subview taught by Sugiura to include the determining layout configuration information, based on metadata of a page subview to be processed, to obtain a page subview of Ji, in order to obtain determining, based on at least one first function that corresponds to the first page subview, and data information of the at least one first function, layout configuration information in the first page subview, to obtain a second page subview. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as improving page acquisition efficiency would have been obtained, as suggested by Ji (Paragraph n0068).
In regard to claim 2, Sugiura discloses wherein the determining at least one work item and a first page subview for the at least one work item comprises: detecting a trigger operation of a user, and determining the at least one work item based on the trigger operation; and creating a first page subview that corresponds to each work item (Paragraph 0092, Paragraph 0093, Paragraph 0095 lines 1-5, Paragraph 0096, and Paragraph 0100 lines 1-5: user selects service (e.g. work item) in a management tool which causes a page (e.g. W2) to be processed for the service).
In regard to claim 3, Sugiura discloses wherein the determining configuration information in the first page subview, to obtain a second page subview comprises: determining the at least one first function that corresponds to the first page subview, and the data information of the at least one function (Paragraph 0099 lines 1-5 and lines 7-10 and Paragraph 0100 lines 5-8: field R21 of screen W2 is generated with screen page parts corresponding to functions (e.g. “input of product key”))and Ji further discloses wherein the determining layout configuration information in a page subview to be processed, to obtain a page subview to be generated comprises determining the layout configuration information of the at least one page subview; and determining, based on the layout configuration information, a page subview (Paragraphs n0040, n0041, n0042, n0043, n0046, and n0047: for a page area (e.g. subview), metadata (e.g. page elements) configured within the area is used to determine a page area layout for the page area). Accordingly, the combination further discloses wherein the determining layout configuration information in the first page subview, to obtain a second page subview comprises: determining the at least one first function that corresponds to the first page subview, and the data information of the at least one first function, and determining the layout configuration information of the at least one first page subview; and determining, based on the layout configuration information, a second page subview that corresponds to each work item. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as improving page acquisition efficiency would have been obtained, as suggested by Ji (Paragraph n0068).
In regard to claim 4, Sugiura discloses dividing a corresponding second page view into a plurality of function display sections, to determine the second page subview (Fig. 7 element R21, Paragraph 0099 lines 1-5 and lines 7-10 and Paragraph 0100 lines 5-8: divided into 5 section each corresponding to a different function of the service) and Ji further discloses layout configuration information based on display size information (Paragraphs n0041, n0042, n0047, and n0062: page metadata configuration is performed in a page area according to the size of the metadata (e.g. page elements)). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein the determining, based on the layout configuration information, a second page subview that corresponds to each work item comprises: dividing a corresponding second page view to be processed into a plurality of function display sections based on display size information of the plurality of function display sections in the layout configuration information, to determine the second page subview. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as improving page acquisition efficiency would have been obtained, as suggested by Ji (Paragraph n0068).
In regard to claim 5, Sugiura discloses wherein the determining a third page subview based on field configuration information corresponding to the second page subview comprises: for each function display section in the second page subview, receiving at least one first field configured for a current function display section, and determining field display parameter information of the first field in the current function display section; determining the field configuration information based on the at least one first field and the corresponding field display parameter information; and displaying the at least one first field in the current function display section based on the field display parameter in the field configuration information, to obtain the third page subview (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0099 lines 5-7 and lines 10-14 and Paragraph 0100 lines 1-12: field R22 of screen W2 is generated with screen page parts for performing the function (e.g. “input of product key”)).
In regard to claim 6, Sugiura discloses wherein the determining a first page view based on at least one third page subview comprises: in response to detecting that a view generation control is triggered, obtaining the first page view by combining the at least one third page subview (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0099, and Paragraph 0100: in response to receiving an instruction, the screen (e.g. W2) is generated with the subviews (e.g. R21 and R22) and displayed as the current screen).
In regard to claims 9 and 11-15, device claims 9 and 11-15 correspond generally to method claims 1-6, respectively, and recite similar features in device form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claims 10 and 16-20, medium claims 10 and 16-20 correspond generally to method claims 1-6, respectively, and recite similar features in medium form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
4. The arguments with respect to the prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the claim amendments and the new grounds of rejection.
While the same prior art references are used to reject the now pending claims, the relied on portions and explanations from the references have been modified to show how the combination teaches the now amended claims. Accordingly, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
It is argued that “As acknowledged by the Office, Sugiura does not disclose "determining layout configuration information in the first page subview, to obtain a second page subview," as recited in claim 1. In other words, the Office concedes that Sugiura indeed fails to disclose the virtual division of an original (blank) page according to layout configuration”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the virtual division of an original (blank) page according to layout configuration) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
It is further argued “Applicant submits that "work item characters", "textbox", and "button" in Sugiura, as minimal UI control units filled into a page container, at most may be said to be equivalent to field-level page elements for the purpose of comparing with the claim 1 recitation "determining a third page subview based on field configuration information corresponding to the second page subview," and cannot be further used for comparing with "determining the at least one first function that corresponds to the first page subview, and the data information of the at least one first function,"”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As provided in the above rejections, it is shown that Sugiura discloses that the screen page parts such as the work item characters are provided in the field R21 (e.g. second page subview) and therefore can be used for comparing with "determining the at least one first function that corresponds to the first page subview, and the data information of the at least one first function”.
It is further argued “In amended claim 1, however, prior to configuring the page based on fields, a functional- level division of the page is first performed”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., prior to configuring the page based on fields, a functional- level division of the page is first performed) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
It is further argued “Ji merely discloses dividing page regions according to spatial positions (i.e., header, subject matter, sidebar). Therefore, in Ji, the nature of the regions in the original page is spatial regions rather than functional regions. Thus, Ji also fails to disclose or suggest the above distinguishing technical features now recited in the combination of claim 1”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Ji discloses more than dividing page regions according to spatial positions, as reflected in the citations of Ji in the above rejections. For example, Ji discloses in n0043 “The configuration format refers to display format of page metadata in each page area, which may include at least one of the following: 1) the correspondence between page metadata and page areas, that is the page metadata contained in each page area; 2) the position of page metadata in the corresponding page area; 3) the page elements corresponding to each page metadata”, which is more than dividing page regions according to spatial positions (i.e., header, subject matter, sidebar), as the layout of each area (e.g. sub-area) is configured based on metadata corresponding to each area. Further, the combination of Sugiura and Ji teaches the now amended claims for the reasons presented in the above rejections.
Conclusion
5. 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.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS S ULRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571)272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
7. 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.
/Nicholas Ulrich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights