DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-10, 12, 18, 21-22 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beresford-Wood et al. (“Beresford-Wood” Pub. No. 2014/0012614).
Per claim 1, Beresford-Wood teaches a method for information processing, comprising:
creating a first document and displaying a workflow creation interface in response to receiving a first operation event in the first document (figs. 4A and 4B; [0060]… as shown in FIG. 4B, the user may create the annotation and associate it with a portion or section of the document. In FIG. 4B, the lines from "Yammer" to "categories" are all highlighted (e.g., annotated) by the user and associated with a DDDI. In certain examples, the user may "draw" on the document by circling or otherwise marking up the portions that he/she wishes the annotation to be associated with (e.g., drawing an arrow, underlining, strike through, making any type of drawing). Accordingly, various techniques may be implemented to allow a user to select or otherwise specify a portion of a document (or information) that the created annotation is to be associated with.);
creating a workflow item associated with the first document in response to a second operation event for the workflow creation interface, wherein the workflow item has an associated processing personnel (fig. 4B; [0061]…the annotation may be shared by assigning it to another user. This is graphically shown in FIG. 4B with the "Assign to Someone" dialog box. In the above discussed example, Adam may share an annotation with Erica. As described in more detail below, the list of users that is displayed may be controlled via group policy settings such that groups or teams of people can only assign new annotations to other users within their team. In other words, not all of the users of a particular virtual data room may be available for assignment.); and
displaying a workflow processing interface of the workflow item in the first document, wherein the workflow processing interface has a processing control for processing the workflow item (fig. 4C-4F; [0064]… the viewer that is used by users for the document in question (e.g., the "The Forrester Wave.TM.: Mobile Collaboration, Q3 2011" in FIG. 4C) may be updated to show that an annotation is now associated with a portion of the document. For example, an icon as shown in FIG. 4C may be used to indicate that an annotation and associated DDDI is present. In certain example embodiments, the annotation may be viewable to all users or may only be viewable to a subset of users that are associated with the document (e.g., assignor users or assignee users). [0065]…As users reply to or otherwise acknowledge an annotation, the originally created annotation may be updated to show the assignor the updated status. For example, in FIG. 4E the display of the created annotation is updated after "Carl Crossover" acknowledges the annotation (e.g., by hitting an acknowledge button). Similarly, as shown in FIG. 4F, when a user replies, the text of the reply is displayed to the users who open the annotation.).
Per claim 3, Beresford-Wood teaches the method of claim 1, wherein creating a workflow item associated with the first document in response to a second operation event for the workflow creation interface comprises: determining a processing personnel of the workflow item in response to a second operation for a second control on the workflow creation interface and creating a workflow item associated with the first document in response to a third operation for a third control on the workflow creation interface (fig. 4B; [0061]… the annotation may be shared by assigning it to another user. This is graphically shown in FIG. 4B with the "Assign to Someone" dialog box. In the above discussed example, Adam may share an annotation with Erica. As described in more detail below, the list of users that is displayed may be controlled via group policy settings such that groups or teams of people can only assign new annotations to other users within their team. In other words, not all of the users of a particular virtual data room may be available for assignment. [0062]…a notification is sent via email to the user that the annotation is assigned to. Thus, continuing with the above example, Erica may receive an email indicating that Adam has assigned her an annotation that is associated with a particular document.).
Per claim 7, Beresford-Wood teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the workflow processing interface further displays at least one of the following: a name of the workflow item, a current processing status of the workflow item, an identification of a processing personnel of the workflow item, a processing result of the processing personnel, a control for adding the processing personnel, and an identification for jumping to the workflow item in a workflow application (figs. 4D-4F; [0065] …As users reply to or otherwise acknowledge an annotation, the originally created annotation may be updated to show the assignor the updated status. For example, in FIG. 4E the display of the created annotation is updated after "Carl Crossover" acknowledges the annotation (e.g., by hitting an acknowledge button). Similarly, as shown in FIG. 4F, when a user replies, the text of the reply is displayed to the users who open the annotation).
Per claim 8, Beresford-Wood teaches the method of claim 7, wherein displaying a first preset flag at an identification of a processing personnel that has completed the workflow item; and/or displaying a second preset flag at an identification of a processing personnel that has not completed the workflow items (figs. 4D-4F; [0065] …As users reply to or otherwise acknowledge an annotation, the originally created annotation may be updated to show the assignor the updated status. For example, in FIG. 4E the display of the created annotation is updated after "Carl Crossover" acknowledges the annotation (e.g., by hitting an acknowledge button). Similarly, as shown in FIG. 4F, when a user replies, the text of the reply is displayed to the users who open the annotation).
Per claim 9, Beresford-Wood teaches the method of claim 1, wherein displaying the workflow processing interface when a person associated with the workflow item views the first document; or hiding the workflow processing interface when a person not associated with the workflow item views the first document; wherein the person associated with the workflow item comprises a creator and a processing personnel of the workflow item (figs. 4D-4F; [0061]… the list of users that is displayed may be controlled via group policy settings such that groups or teams of people can only assign new annotations to other users within their team. In other words, not all of the users of a particular virtual data room may be available for assignment. [0064]… the annotation may be viewable to all users or may only be viewable to a subset of users that are associated with the document (e.g., assignor users or assignee users). [0065] …As users reply to or otherwise acknowledge an annotation, the originally created annotation may be updated to show the assignor the updated status. For example, in FIG. 4E the display of the created annotation is updated after "Carl Crossover" acknowledges the annotation (e.g., by hitting an acknowledge button). Similarly, as shown in FIG. 4F, when a user replies, the text of the reply is displayed to the users who open the annotation).
Per claim 10, Beresford teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a processing control displayed on the workflow processing interface is related to a role of a person viewing the first document; and in response to that a person viewing the first document is a creator of the workflow item, the processing control comprises: a control for undoing the workflow item (fig. 4D, Assignor screen; [0066]…in certain instances a user may desire to cancel an annotation, assignment, or a DDDI. However, the system may only allow annotations (or other items) to be canceled/deleted when certain conditions are met. Thus, in step 310 (and shown in FIG. 4D) an assignment or annotation may be canceled. In certain example embodiments, canceling may remove one or more users from the created annotation. If there are no users left after cancellation, then the entire annotation may be canceled. In certain example embodiments the annotation or DDDI may be canceled or otherwise removed from the system. In certain example embodiments, cancellations actions may only be carried out when users have not already responded to the annotation or an action has not already been taken with the created DDDI. For example, after Carl crossover responds as shown in FIG. 4E, the annotation may not be canceled by the assignor. In any event, if the created DDDI and associated annotation is canceled, then in step 312, the originally assigned user may be notified that the DDDI that they were assigned to has been canceled. In certain example embodiments, the system may require that the users enter a reason for canceling the DDDI.).
Per claim 12 Beresford-Wood teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising: deleting the workflow processing interface in the first document in response to a triggering operation for a control for undoing the workflow item (fig. 4D, Assignor screen; [0066]…in certain instances a user may desire to cancel an annotation, assignment, or a DDDI. However, the system may only allow annotations (or other items) to be canceled/deleted when certain conditions are met. Thus, in step 310 (and shown in FIG. 4D) an assignment or annotation may be canceled. In certain example embodiments, canceling may remove one or more users from the created annotation. If there are no users left after cancellation, then the entire annotation may be canceled. In certain example embodiments the annotation or DDDI may be canceled or otherwise removed from the system. In certain example embodiments, cancellations actions may only be carried out when users have not already responded to the annotation or an action has not already been taken with the created DDDI. For example, after Carl crossover responds as shown in FIG. 4E, the annotation may not be canceled by the assignor. In any event, if the created DDDI and associated annotation is canceled, then in step 312, the originally assigned user may be notified that the DDDI that they were assigned to has been canceled. In certain example embodiments, the system may require that the users enter a reason for canceling the DDDI.)
Per claim 18, Beresfored-Wood the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving processing operations of a plurality of the processing personnels on the workflow processing interface; and displaying a processing result of a current processing personnel to other processing personnels on the workflow processing interface, wherein the plurality of processing personnels are processing personnels accessing the first document simultaneously; or wherein the method further comprises: synchronizing the first document and the workflow item to a workflow application to process the workflow item in the workflow application; or wherein the method further comprises: in response to a first processing for the workflow item in the first document, synchronizing the first processing to a workflow application; and/or in response to a second processing for the workflow item in the workflow application, synchronizing the second processing to the first document (figs. 1 and 7E and 7F; [0039]… The virtual data room 100 is implemented on a computing system (e.g., as described herein) such as a server system that may be centrally located or located in a distributed environment. In certain example embodiments, the virtual data room 100 may be provided via a cloud service or other services that may provide on demand computing resources. The virtual data room 100 may provide functionality that facilitates or allows users to perform due diligence tasks. The virtual data room 100 may include files, documents, information (e.g., account database, sales history databases, software code repositories, etc.), and the like that the users of the system access to carry out their due diligence. [0041]… When reviewing a document on client system 103, initiating user 102 decides to create a new workflow 110 (e.g., a DDDI) associated with the document being reviewed by the initiating user 102. The new workflow 110 includes a list of users 112 to assign the workflow to and an optional comments section 114. Initiating user 102 selects Erica and Alan as the users assigned to the workflow and then includes a brief note so that the users receiving the workflow may have some context for the received workflow. [0042]… The newly created workflow 110 is saved with the virtual data room 100 which then notifies both Erica and Alan that a workflow is now assigned to them. When the workflow 110 is saved to the virtual data room 100, additional processing may take place to store information related to the workflow 110 into a database or other storage medium so that the save information may be retrieved at a later time. [0096]… This updated information is then sent to the server in step 766. For example, the Custom Viewer may send the Document ID, AnnotationID, the date of Acknowledgement, and Response to the server. It will be appreciated that additional server updates may be performed in response to user actions. For example, when the user acknowledges the DDDI, a response may be sent before sending information on the supplemental response. In certain example embodiments, updates may be sent when a document is closed out or at certain time based intervals (e.g., every minute the document viewer information is synchronized with the server). [0099]… FIG. 7F is a flow chart of an example of updating a dynamic due diligence item. The Dynamic Due Diligence item creator may or may not receive an email notification (e.g., depending upon client configuration). In step 776, if the Dynamic Due Diligence item creator has the document open in the Custom Viewer already, then the Custom Viewer may poll the system's Web Services layer at regular intervals (e.g., every 15 seconds) to check for updates made to the document. If the Dynamic Due Diligence item creator does not have the document open in the Custom Viewer already, then this data is pulled as part of re-opening the document via step 776. [0101]… Accordingly, in the Viewer, the Dynamic Due Diligence Assignment tool provides an updated status of a given Dynamic Due Diligence item, showing the Dynamic Due Diligence item creator and for each assignee: 1) the Acknowledgement Status (Acknowledged Yes/No and, if Yes, the date may be displayed) in step 778; and 2) the response, if any, typed in by the assignee in step 780.).
Per claim 21, Beresford-Wood teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising at least one of the following: saving a version of the first document when the processing personnel processes the workflow item; or saving a version of the first document after the processing personnel completes processing the workflow item ([0042]… The newly created workflow 110 is saved with the virtual data room 100 which then notifies both Erica and Alan that a workflow is now assigned to them. When the workflow 110 is saved to the virtual data room 100, additional processing may take place to store information related to the workflow 110 into a database or other storage medium so that the save information may be retrieved at a later time. [0064]… [0064]… In step 308, the viewer that is used by users for the document in question (e.g., the "The Forrester Wave.TM.: Mobile Collaboration, Q3 2011" in FIG. 4C) may be updated to show that an annotation is now associated with a portion of the document. For example, an icon as shown in FIG. 4C may be used to indicate that an annotation and associated DDDI is present. In certain example embodiments, the annotation may be viewable to all users or may only be viewable to a subset of users that are associated with the document (e.g., assignor users or assignee users). [0077]… The system also determines which DDDIs are associated with the requesting user for this document from the Dynamic Due Diligence Database in step 710G. Also, in step 710H document version information may be retrieved to allow a particular version of a document to be shown to a user (e.g., if there are multiple different versions of a document). All of this collected information is then sent hack to the document viewer (e.g., via the Document Annotation Streaming API) on the user's computing resource. [0091] …the rendering of the display through the document viewer may include having the Custom Viewer request details of the specific annotations assigned to the user within the document, regardless of the fact that such annotations were created by another user in another version of the document. Specifically, the version of the document may play a role in how the annotation/DDDI is displayed, but may not hinder the DDDI from being displayed even if the document versions being worked on are different. [0096]… This updated information is then sent to the server in step 766. For example, the Custom Viewer may send the Document ID, AnnotationID, the date of Acknowledgement, and Response to the server. It will be appreciated that additional server updates may be performed in response to user actions. For example, when the user acknowledges the DDDI, a response may be sent before sending information on the supplemental response. In certain example embodiments, updates may be sent when a document is closed out or at certain time based intervals (e.g., every minute the document viewer information is synchronized with the server)
Per claim 22, Beresford-Wood teaches the method of claim 1, wherein after creating a workflow item associated with the first document, the method further comprises: sending, in a workflow application, a notification message to the processing personnel using a robot account; or sending, in a workflow application, a notification message to the processing personnel using an account of a creator of the workflow item ([0042]…the newly created workflow 110 is saved with the virtual data room 100 which then notifies both Erica and Alan that a workflow is now assigned to them. When the workflow 110 is saved to the virtual data room 100, additional processing may take place to store information related to the workflow 110 into a database or other storage medium so that the save information may be retrieved at a later time. [0062]…In step 306, a notification is sent via email to the user that the annotation is assigned to. Thus, continuing with the above example, Erica may receive an email indicating that Adam has assigned her an annotation that is associated with a particular document. Other forms of notification may also be used. For example, text messages, automated phone calls, notification through a secure email system, etc.).
Claims 24-25 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beresford-Wood et al. (“Beresford-Wood” Pub. No. 2014/0012614) and Soni et al. (“Soni”, Pub. No. 2018/0077103).
Per claim 2, Beresford-Wood teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach wherein displaying a workflow creation interface in response to receiving a first operation event in the first document comprises: displaying a component panel in response to a first operation for the first document, and displaying a workflow creation interface in response to a triggering operation for a first control in the component panel.
However, Soni teaches wherein displaying a workflow creation interface in response to receiving a first operation event in the first document comprises: displaying a component panel in response to a first operation for the first document, and displaying a workflow creation interface in response to a triggering operation for a first control in the component panel (fig. 2C; [0048]… In one example, the contextual action includes an assign task action. In this example, the task object may be created in response to receiving a selection of the assign task action within the contextual menu. In other examples, the contextual action may include a create task action, task assignment action, or any other contextual action for creating and/or assigning a task and/or a task object associated with the file. In some examples, in response to detecting highlighting of content within the file, the contextual menu including at least one contextual action may be displayed within the file.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Soni in the invention of Beresford-Wood include a contextual menu, because doing so would enhance efficiency and usability in document collaboration.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beresford-Wood et al. (“Beresford-Wood” Pub. No. 2014/0012614) and De Souza et al. (“De Souza”, Pub. No. 2008/0209416).
Per claim 4, Beresford-wood teaches the method of claim 3, but does not teach wherein the third control is unavailable before determining a processing personnel of the workflow item, or the third control is hidden before determining a processing personnel of the workflow item.
However, De Souza teaches the third control is unavailable before determining a processing personnel of the workflow item, or the third control is hidden before determining a processing personnel of the workflow item ([0069]… an approve button included in the interface can be disabled if the received responses indicate that at least one required task was not satisfactorily completed. Thus, a user cannot approve an entity that has not satisfied the current status. Similarly, all buttons can be disabled if a response has not been received for at least one mandatory question. Thus, a user can be required to answer all mandatory questions before any actions can be taken with respect to an entity. Further, one or more actions also can be disabled if the user does not have authorization to perform an action with respect to the current status. A visual indicator can be used to indicate that one or more manual actions are prohibited, such as by shading a disabled button and an active button differently). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of De Souza in the invention of Beresford-Wood include enabling/disabling button because doing so would enhance usability in assigning of task to one or more users.
Per claim 13, Beresfored-Wood teaches the method of claim 1, wherein in response to that a person viewing the first document is a processing personnel of the workflow item ([0072]… After considering the annotated portion the assignee may open up the response tool to submit a textual response (in addition to the earlier acknowledgement) in step 516. An example opened response tool is shown in FIG. 6D.), but does not teach the processing control comprises: a control for agreeing to the workflow item and a control for rejecting the workflow item.
De Souza teaches the processing control comprises: a control for agreeing to the workflow item and a control for rejecting the workflow item (fig. 5, Approve and Reject buttons). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of De Souza in the invention of Beresford-Wood include the workflow buttons because doing so would enhance usability in allowing the user one or more controls to approve and reject a workflow item.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beresford-Wood et al. (“Beresford-Wood” Pub. No. 2014/0012614) and Schlegel (Pub. No. US 2012/0072867).
Per claim 5, Beresford teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach displaying a workflow creation interface in response to a first operation event comprises: determining a current location of a control identification in the first document in response to a first operation event; in response to that a document context exists at the current location, displaying the workflow creation interface below the current location; and in response to that no document content exists at the current location, displaying the workflow creation interface at the current location.
However, Schlegel teaches determining a current location of a control identification in the first document in response to a first operation event, in response to that a document context exists at the current location, displaying the workflow creation interface below the current location, and in response to that no document content exists at the current location, displaying the workflow creation interface at the current location ([0079]… FIG. 2 is an example user interface 200 illustrating the presentation of a pop-up menu near a user-defined display object, where the input focus applies to the entire user-defined display object. The user-defined display object can be a highlighted block of text, a set of selected icons, multiple simultaneously selected graphical objects in an application window, or other formations that are defined ad hoc by the user. Since the shape and extent of the user-defined display object is not predetermined, the operating system can determine the nature and boundary of the user-defined display object after the user has defined the display object (e.g., by selecting/highlighting the constituent items forming the display object) and entered the predetermined input instructing presentation of the pop-up menu. [0081]… the operating system can identify the items or text that are selected or highlighted by the user and designate the selected items or text as a whole as the display object that has the current input focus. The location of the display object can be the location of the selected block of text (e.g., as represented by the center or a corner of the block of text). In order to determine the content area of the display object, the operating system can determine a boundary that encloses all the content that should not be obscured by the pop-up menu. [0083]… Once the operating system has determined the location and the content area of the user-defined display object (e.g., the selected block of text), the operating system can present the pop-up menu 206 near the location of the user-defined display object, while keeping the pop-up menu 206 clear of the content area of the user-defined display object.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Schlegel in the invention of Beresford-Wood to include determining location for displaying a user interface because doing so would enhance displaying the user interface while avoiding blocking/obscuring document content area selected by the user.
Per claim 6, the modified Beresford teaches the method of claim 5, wherein displaying a workflow processing interface of the workflow item in the first document comprises: displaying the workflow processing interface at a location of the workflow creation interface after creating a workflow item associated with the first document; or displaying the workflow processing interface in an area corresponding to the workflow creation interface in a page of the first document after creating a workflow item associated with the first document (Schlegel, [0079]… FIG. 2 is an example user interface 200 illustrating the presentation of a pop-up menu near a user-defined display object, where the input focus applies to the entire user-defined display object. The user-defined display object can be a highlighted block of text, a set of selected icons, multiple simultaneously selected graphical objects in an application window, or other formations that are defined ad hoc by the user. Since the shape and extent of the user-defined display object is not predetermined, the operating system can determine the nature and boundary of the user-defined display object after the user has defined the display object (e.g., by selecting/highlighting the constituent items forming the display object) and entered the predetermined input instructing presentation of the pop-up menu. [0081]… the operating system can identify the items or text that are selected or highlighted by the user and designate the selected items or text as a whole as the display object that has the current input focus. The location of the display object can be the location of the selected block of text (e.g., as represented by the center or a corner of the block of text). In order to determine the content area of the display object, the operating system can determine a boundary that encloses all the content that should not be obscured by the pop-up menu. [0083]… Once the operating system has determined the location and the content area of the user-defined display object (e.g., the selected block of text), the operating system can present the pop-up menu 206 near the location of the user-defined display object, while keeping the pop-up menu 206 clear of the content area of the user-defined display object).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beresford-Wood et al. (“Beresford-Wood” Pub. No. 2014/0012614), De Souza et al. (“De Souza”, Pub. No. 2008/0209416), and Burman et al. (“Burman”, Pub. No. 2014/0201131).
Per claim 14, the modified Beresford-Wood teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising: in response to a triggering operation for a control for agreeing to the workflow item or a control for rejecting the workflow item as described above in claim 13, but does not teach displaying a preset flag corresponding to a triggered control at an identification of a corresponding processing personnel on the workflow processing interface and in response to all processing personnels completing a triggering operation for a processing control, changing a current processing status of the workflow item on the workflow processing interface according to a processing result.
However, Burman teaches displaying a preset flag corresponding to a triggered control at an identification of a corresponding processing personnel on the workflow processing interface and in response to all processing personnels completing a triggering operation for a processing control, changing a current processing status of the workflow item on the workflow processing interface according to a processing result ([0055]… The approvals flyout box 1102 may present each of the steps of the workflow for the social document. In this example, the steps of the workflow include the RFP Draft 1104, Review 1 1106, and Review 2 1108. In addition, the date and status for each of the steps is presented as well as the responsible collaborator. The portion of the approvals flyout box 1102 containing each step may be shaded, colored or otherwise highlighted to indicate status. For example, a step outlined in green may indicate that the step has been completed and approved. Similarly, a step outlined in yellow may indicate that the tasks for the workflow step have been completed but not yet approved. A step outlined in red may indicate that one or more tasks for the workflow step have yet to be completed. A step is fully highlighted in yellow may indicate that the due date is within 48 hours (or some other pre-determined time parameter). A step fully highlighted in red may indicate that completion of the workflow step is now overdue.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Burman in the invention of the modified Beresford-Wood to include shaded, colored or otherwise highlighted a workflow item, doing so would allow the user to visually aware of a status of the workflow item using various colors and/or shades.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beresford-Wood et al. (“Beresford-Wood” Pub. No. 2014/0012614). and Burman et al. (“Burman”, Pub. No. 2014/0201131)
Per claim 16, Beresford-Wood teaches the method of claim 7, wherein a current processing status of the workflow item is displayed as a status identification, and the status identification comprises at least one of the following: a first status identification and a second status identification (Figs 4D-4E shows status identifications such as Checkmark, “acknowledged” and “pending” and a name of a workflow item “Assigned item”), but does not specifically teach the first status identification is associated with a name of the workflow item, and the second status identification is associated with the workflow processing interface.
However, Burman teaches the first status identification is associated with a name of the workflow item, and the second status identification is associated with the workflow processing interface ([0055]… The approvals flyout box 1102 may present each of the steps of the workflow for the social document. In this example, the steps of the workflow include the RFP Draft 1104, Review 1 1106, and Review 2 1108. In addition, the date and status for each of the steps is presented as well as the responsible collaborator. The portion of the approvals flyout box 1102 containing each step may be shaded, colored or otherwise highlighted to indicate status. For example, a step outlined in green may indicate that the step has been completed and approved. Similarly, a step outlined in yellow may indicate that the tasks for the workflow step have been completed but not yet approved. A step outlined in red may indicate that one or more tasks for the workflow step have yet to be completed. A step is fully highlighted in yellow may indicate that the due date is within 48 hours (or some other pre-determined time parameter). A step fully highlighted in red may indicate that completion of the workflow step is now overdue.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Burman in the invention of the modified Beresford-Wood to include shaded, colored or otherwise highlighted a workflow item, doing so would allow the user to visually aware of a status of the workflow item using various colors and/or shades.
Per claim 17, the modified Beresfored-Wood teaches the method of claim 16, wherein changing a current processing status of a workflow item on the workflow processing interface according to a processing result comprises: changing the first status identification to a first status completion identification, an identification content and an identification style of the first status completion identification being different from an identification content and an identification style of the first status identification; and/or changing the second status identification to a second status completion identification, an identification style of the second status completion identification being different from an identification style of the second status identification (Burman, [0055]… The approvals flyout box 1102 may present each of the steps of the workflow for the social document. In this example, the steps of the workflow include the RFP Draft 1104, Review 1 1106, and Review 2 1108. In addition, the date and status for each of the steps is presented as well as the responsible collaborator. The portion of the approvals flyout box 1102 containing each step may be shaded, colored or otherwise highlighted to indicate status. For example, a step outlined in green may indicate that the step has been completed and approved. Similarly, a step outlined in yellow may indicate that the tasks for the workflow step have been completed but not yet approved. A step outlined in red may indicate that one or more tasks for the workflow step have yet to be completed. A step is fully highlighted in yellow may indicate that the due date is within 48 hours (or some other pre-determined time parameter). A step fully highlighted in red may indicate that completion of the workflow step is now overdue.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Burman in the invention of the modified Beresford-Wood to include shaded, colored or otherwise highlighted a workflow item, doing so would allow the user to visually aware of a status of the workflow item using various colors and/or shades.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH T VU whose telephone number is (571)272-4073. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7AM - 3:30PM.
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.
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.
/THANH T VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights