DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is responsive to the application filed June 04, 2024.
Thus, claims 1-13 are pending and are presenting for examination.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 11, recites to include the following limitation “API” in the claim. As acronym is likely to change its meaning over time, thus, it (API) needs to be spelled out once in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TAKEDA NAOYA (JP 2014119814 A, published on 2014-06-30, hereinafter Takeda).
As per claims 1, 12, and 13, Takeda discloses a display control method, comprising:
updating, based on an update operation executed by a user who uses groupware (e.g., business applications), app setting data (e.g., business system environment variables) indicating a setting of an app of the groupware – (E.g., change the setting value of the environment setting of the business applications – see at least 0001, 0019-0022, Figs. 14-17, and associated text);
saving, in a data storage module, update location data indicating an update location of the app setting data when the app setting data is updated – (e.g., the environment setting change history data table 1400 includes data items such as ID 1401, date and time 1402, user 1403, environment setting file 1404, item 1405, setting value 1406, change value return condition 1407, and the like – see at least 0013, 0022, 0143, Figs. 14-17 and associated text); and
displaying, based on the update location data, the update location on an update location screen of the groupware – (e.g., the environment setting change screen 1700 shown in FIG. 17 is displayed on the display device 210 (step S801). – see at least 0112-0114, Fig. 17, and associated text).
Further regarding to claim 1, Takeda discloses a display control system-- (e.g., information processing apparatus FIG. 1, CPC 201 of Fig. 2– see at least 0015, and 0024-0025), comprising at least one processor configured to implement method steps as of claim 12 above.
Further regarding to claim 13, Takeda discloses a non-transitory information storage medium (e.g., external memory 211 of Fig. 2 – see at least 0026, 0028) having stored thereon a program for causing a computer to implement method steps as of claim 12 above.
As to claim 2, Takeda discloses wherein when the app setting data includes a plurality of the update locations, the update location data indicates a chronological relationship among the plurality of the update locations --(e.g., the environment setting change history data table 1400 includes data items such as ID 1401, date and time 1402, user 1403, environment setting file 1404, item 1405, setting value 1406, change value return condition 1407, and the like – see at least 0013, 0022, 0143, Figs. 14-17 and associated text), and wherein the at least one processor is configured to display the plurality of the update locations arranged in a chronological order on the update location screen --(e.g., the environment setting change screen 1700 shown in FIG. 17 is displayed on the display device 210 (step S801). – see at least 0112-0114, Fig. 17, and associated text).
As to claim 3, Takeda discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to restore the app setting data based on a restoration operation executed on the update location screen by the user – (e.g., manage the history information of environment setting changes and restore the environment settings to the original state according to the change history information, for example, when the environment settings are changed while repeating trial and error. However, it is possible to easily return the environment setting to the state at a certain point in time – see at least 0141, 0148, Figs. 14-17, and associated text).
As to claim 4, Takeda discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to restore the app setting data such that at least one of change, cancel, or addition of the update location is executed on past app setting data --see at least 0141, 0148, 0151, Figs. 14-17, and associated text.
As to claim 5, Takeda discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to restore, when past app setting data includes a plurality of the update locations, the app setting data based on setting content at a time corresponding to an update location that is selected by the user among the plurality of the update locations--see at least 0141, 0148, 0151, Figs. 14-17, and associated text.
As to claim 7, Takeda discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine, based on relationship data indicating a relationship between setting items of the app setting data, whether a setting item influenced by the update of the app setting data exists; and execute predetermined influence processing based on a result of the determination--see at least 0141, 0148, 0151, 0166-0168, Figs. 14-17, and associated text.
As to claim 8, Takeda discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to: save, when the user executes at least one of an UNDO operation or a REDO operation after the execution of the update operation, in the data storage module, the update location data indicating that the at least one of the UNDO operation or the REDO operation has been executed; and display the execution of the at least one of the UNDO operation or the REDO operation on the update location screen--see at least 0141, 0148, 0151, 0166-0168, Figs. 14-17, and associated text.
As to claim 9, Takeda discloses wherein the update operation is executed on a setting update screen of the groupware, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine whether the app setting data is to be simultaneously updated from a plurality of the setting update screens; and execute predetermined simultaneous update processing based on a result of the determination-- see at least 0141- 0148, 0151, 0166-0168, Figs. 14-17, and associated text.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Guertler et al. (US 20110078600 A1, hereinafter Guertler).
As to claim 10, it is to note that while Takeda discloses allowing user to manage the history information of environment setting changes and restore the environment settings to the original state according to the change history information, for example, when the environment settings are changed while repeating trial and error. However, it is possible to easily return the environment setting to the state at a certain point in time – see at least 0141, 0148, Figs. 14-17, and associated text, but does not explicitly disclose; however, Guertler, in an analogous art, discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to provide, based on third-party attribute data indicating an attribute of a third party different from an organization to which the user belongs, data for third party indicating the update location for the third party to the third party – (e.g., Alternatively, the hosted application 122 at server 102 can be capable of processing and responding to local requests from a user accessing server 102 locally. Accordingly, in addition to requests from the external clients 135 illustrated in FIG. 1, requests associated with the hosted applications 122 may also be sent from internal users, external or third-party customers, other automated applications, as well as any other appropriate entities, individuals, systems, or computers—see Guertler, at least 0015, 0019).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Guertler’s teaching into Takeda’s teaching for further optimizing and maintaining of updating data setting values as seen in Guertler (e.g., 0015 and 0019).
10. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Rathod (US 10310723 B2).
As to claim 11, it is to note that while Takeda discloses allowing user to manage the history information of environment setting changes and restore the environment settings to the original state according to the change history information, for example, when the environment settings are changed while repeating trial and error– see at least 0141, 0148, Figs. 14-17, and associated text, but does not explicitly disclose; however, Rathod, in an analogous art, discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to: identify, when the app setting data has been updated, a range influenced by the update of the app setting data based on API cooperation data indicating an API cooperating with the app; and execute predetermined range processing based on the range – (E.g., enabling user to access, use, register, communicate, connect, participate, share, transact and interact with internet enabled applications, within APIs,.—see Rathod, at least col. 1: 38-49, col. 11: 1-11, col. 23: 21-28, and col 25: 26-32).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Rathod’s teaching into Takeda’s teaching for further enable user to optimize and share within friendly user interface in updating data setting values as seen in Rathod (e.g., col. 1: 50-64).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon (cited on 892 form) is considered pertinent to application disclosure.
Reiss et al. (US-9823917-B2) disclosed updating the user interface of a software application executing on a client device.
SHINOHARA et al. (US-20170208193-A1) disclosed automatically changes the setting values about the setting items of which setting values can be automatically changed so as to eliminate incompatibility.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARINA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8 am to 4: 30 pm ET).
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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached on (571)-272-6799. 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.
/MARINA LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights