CTNF 18/737,982 CTNF 84277 DETAILED ACTION This Non-Final communication is in response to Application No. 18/737,982 filed 6/8/2024 which claims priority from JP2023-109876 filed 7/4/2023. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-14 have been examined. Title 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation The examiner considered whether the limitation(s) that recite(s) “ an obtaining unit ” and “ a control unit ” from claim 1 invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f), however, “ an obtaining unit ” and “ a control unit ” are recited as a function of “ at least one memory and at least one processor ”, and therefore, do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-5 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. The independent claim(s) recite(s) at least “ categorize and display the plurality of the display targets such that among the plurality of the display targets, the display targets having a same first portion in the respective names are a same group at a first tier, and among the plurality of the display targets included in the same group at the first tier, the display targets having a same second portion in the respective names are in a same group at a second tier situated one tier lower than the first tier ”. These limitations are construed as abstract ideas for being performable in the human mind or on paper. Specifically, a human is capable of observing the alphanumeric strings that are display targets, as depicted in the application’s drawings, evaluate which display targets begin with the same characters, and grouping the display targets accordingly. A human can certainly perform this observation on a second portion of the display targets and evaluate secondary groupings within the first groupings. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of “ at least one memory ”, “ at least one processor ”, “ obtaining unit ”, and “ control unit ” are merely generic computing components on which the instructions to implement the abstract idea are applied. The “ obtain a name of each of a plurality of display targets ” limitation is insignificant pre-solution activity as data gathering. Additional limitations directed toward mere instructions to apply the exception to generic computing components and insignificant extra-solution activity, alone or in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP§2106.05(f) and §2106.05(g)). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements identified above, being directed toward mere instructions to apply the exception to generic computing components and insignificant extra-solution activity, alone or in combination, are well-understood routine and conventional, do not provide an inventive concept, and thus, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the independent claims are directed toward ineligible subject matter. The dependent claims not mentioned recite non-functional descriptions of the display targets , and more generally recite additional limitations that are also construed as additional abstract ideas, mere instructions to apply the judicial exception to generic computing components, or insignificant extra solution activity and are, therefore, also directed toward ineligible subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 6, 11, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakajima et al. (US 2003/0187870 A1, hereinafter “Nakajima”) . Regarding claim 1, Nakajima teaches an information processing system, comprising at least one memory and at least one processor which function as: an obtaining unit configured to obtain a name of each of a plurality of display targets; More specifically, a parts list system that generates a parts list based on at least configuration part numbers (Nakajima, abstract). a control unit configured to perform control based on the names obtained by the obtaining unit to categorize and display the plurality of the display targets such that among the plurality of the display targets, the display targets having a same first portion in the respective names are a same group at a first tier. More specifically, Figure 2 depicts the hierarchical arrangement of the parts list by parts configuration in area 58. One tier of the hierarchy appears to have at least the same first portion of the part configuration names (i.e., “F01”) (Nakajima, Figure 2, [0191]-[0193]). among the plurality of the display targets included in the same group at the first tier, the display targets having a same second portion in the respective names are in a same group at a second tier situated one tier lower than the first tier . More specifically, a second tier of the hierarchy has the same portions (e.g., “42326”) (Nakajima, Figure 2, [0191]-[0193]). Regarding claim 6, Nakajima teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the plurality of the display targets are categorized and displayed by the control unit, the plurality of the display targets belonging to the same group at the second tier are displayed even without an operation that designates the second tier . More specifically, Figure appears to be a default view of the hierarchy/grouping of the part numbers where all part numbers of at least one group is visible (Nakajima, Figure 2). Regarding claim 11, Nakajima teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the names of the plurality of the display targets are each a model name of a product . More specifically, a parts list system that generates a parts list based on at least configuration part numbers and part names (Nakajima, abstract, Figure 2, items 58 and 59). Regarding claim 13, this claim recites the method that recites the steps performed by the system of claim 1, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable. Regarding claim 14, this claim recites the non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program which causes a computer to execute the method of claim 13, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima, and further in view of Tawfick et al. (US 2013/0054581 A1, hereinafter “Tawfick”) . Regarding claim 2, Nakajima teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein the names of the plurality of the display targets each includes an alphabetical portion and a portion of the other character type, and the first portion is the alphabetical portion . Tawfick discloses a method of identifying and organizing part numbers comprising parsing the part numbers into components (Tawfick, abstract). Part numbers can have alphanumeric components at least with letters first and then numbers (Tawfick, [0003], [0020]-[0021], e.g., “AB12345”, “DS12345”, “ABC123”, Figures 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B). The part numbers are indexed according to their components as described in the process of Figure 3 (Tawfick, [0050]). Part numbers can be retrieved and grouped by their components such as with a query of just the letters component according to the process of Figure 4 (Tawfick, [0053], [0067]-[0084], part numbers that match just the letters portion would be retrieved). Therefore, Tawfick suggests at least that part numbers can have an alphabetic portion first and a numerical portion second and can be organized and retrieved by the alphabetic portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Nakajima and Tawfick that an information processing system for displaying display targets with distinct portions defining tiers of the display would include wherein the display targets’ first portion includes an alphabetical portion and a second portion of a different character type. With Nakajima and Tawfick describing part numbers consisting of alphanumeric portions used for referencing and organizing the part numbers, with Nakajima displaying the part numbers in hierarchical groupings according to the portions of the part numbers, and with Tawfick additionally disclosing the portions part numbers are distinct where the first portion can be alphabetic letters and the second portion can be numerical digits, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing an information processing system for displaying display targets with distinct portions defining tiers of the display would include wherein the display targets’ first portion includes an alphabetical portion and a second portion of a different character type in order to make the groupings in Nakajima easier to comprehend. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this information processing system for displaying display targets with distinct portions defining tiers of the display. Regarding claim 3, Nakajima and Tawfick teach the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the second portion is a part of a head portion in the portion of the other character type . More specifically, the part numbers can have alphanumeric components at least with letters first and then numbers (Tawfick, [0003], [0020]-[0021], e.g., “AB12345”, “DS12345”, “ABC123”, Figures 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B). Regarding claim 4, Nakajima and Tawfick teach the information processing system according to claim 3, wherein the other character type is a numerical character . More specifically, the part numbers can have alphanumeric components at least with letters first and then numbers (Tawfick, [0003], [0020]-[0021], e.g., “AB12345”, “DS12345”, “ABC123”, Figures 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B). Regarding claim 5, Nakajima and Tawfick teach the information processing system according to claim 3, wherein the names of the plurality of the display targets are each a character string in which the alphabetical portion is followed by the portion of the other character type . More specifically, the part numbers can have alphanumeric components at least with letters first and then numbers (Tawfick, [0003], [0020]-[0021], e.g., “AB12345”, “DS12345”, “ABC123”, Figures 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima, and further in view of Tamura et al. (US 2003/0187879 A1, hereinafter “Tamura”) . Regarding claim 7, Nakajima teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein in a case where the plurality of the display targets are categorized and displayed by the control unit, the plurality of the display targets belonging to the same group at the second tier are displayed in response to an operation that designates the second tier . In other words, while Figure 2 depicts the categorization of part numbers, it does not clear depict the controls for designating and displaying the second tier. Tamura discloses the same parts list system from Nakajima, however, Tamura includes a more clear depiction of the parts list in Figure 6 with controls for expanding and collapsing the different tiers (Tamura, Figure 6, see column 56 “+” and “-“). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Nakajima with Tamura that an information processing system for displaying display targets with distinct portions defining tiers of the display would include an operation that designates a second tier resulting in the display of the display targets within the second tier. With Nakajima and Tamura describing part numbers consisting of alphanumeric portions used for referencing and organizing the part numbers, with Nakajima and Tamura displaying the part numbers in hierarchical groupings according to the portions of the part numbers, and with Tamura clearly depicting that the display includes expand/collapse controls for each tier, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing an information processing system for displaying display targets with distinct portions defining tiers of the display would include an operation that designates a second tier resulting in the display of the display targets within the second tier in order to make the hierarchy of part numbers easier to navigate when displayed. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this information processing system for displaying display targets with distinct portions defining tiers of the display . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima, and further in view of Sklar et al. (US 6,025,843 A, hereinafter “Sklar”) . Regarding claim 8, Nakajima teach the information processing system according to claim 1, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein the control unit performs control such that the display targets are subjected to the categorization at the second tier and displayed in a case where the number of the display targets belonging to the same group at the first tier is a threshold value or more, and the control unit performs control such that the display targets are displayed without being subjected to the categorization at the second tier in a case where the number of the display targets belonging to the same group at the first tier is less than the threshold value . Sklar discloses a user is presented with a display of item labels and category labels, where item labels are shown to the extent that categories contain not more than a threshold count of items. Alternatively, the item labels are shown to the extent that display area is left over after the display of category labels (Sklar, abstract). Figure 11 depicts a display of categories and items where items within each category are shown unless the number of items exceeds a space threshold, then a category is shown in the items place (Sklar, col 10, lines 25-64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Nakajima with Sklar that an information processing system for displaying display targets with distinct portions defining tiers of the display would include control where the display targets are subject to categorization if the number of display targets in a group exceed a threshold and are displayed without categorization if the number of display targets in a group do not exceed a threshold. With Nakajima and Sklar describing generating hierarchical displays of items, and with Sklar additionally describing displaying item categorization if the number of items in a group exceed a threshold and displaying the items themselves if the number of items in a group do not exceed a threshold, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing an information processing system for displaying display targets with distinct portions defining tiers of the display would include control where the display targets are subject to categorization if the number of display targets in a group exceed a threshold and are displayed without categorization if the number of display targets in a group do not exceed a threshold in order to make the most of the space available in hierarchical displays. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this information processing system for displaying display targets with distinct portions defining tiers of the display. Regarding claim 9, Nakajima with Sklar teach the information processing system according to claim 8, wherein a plurality of display targets which are included in a first group at the first tier and are to be displayed after being subjected to the categorization at the second tier and a plurality of display targets which are included in a second group at the first tier and are to be displayed without being subjected to the categorization at the second tier are both displayed . More specifically, Figure 11 depicts a display where one group is displayed fully while other groups are displayed with categorization because the threshold is exceeded (Sklar, col 10, lines 25-64). Regarding claim 10, Nakajima with Sklar teach the information processing system according to claim 8, wherein the threshold value varies depending on a size of a display area in which the plurality of the display targets are displayed . More specifically, the threshold is based on the display area (Sklar, col 10, lines 25-64) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima, and further in view of Haapanen (US 2014/0293325 A1) . Regarding claim 12, Nakajima teaches the information processing system according to claim 11, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein the product is a printer . Haapanen describes a user interface for printer selection (Haapanen, abstract). Figure 12D depicts a user interface for printer selection with an area showing model numbers grouped by product names such that a first portion of the model name is used to designate a first tier (e.g., “Rhino X”), and the full model names being included in the second tier (e.g., “Rhino X001” and “Rhino X002”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Nakajima with Haapanen that an information processing system for displaying display targets with distinct portions defining tiers of the display would include wherein the display targets are printers. With Nakajima and Haapanen describing generating hierarchical displays of items where groupings are determined from portions of the item names, and with Haapanen additionally describing the items being printers, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing an information processing system for displaying display targets with distinct portions defining tiers of the display would include wherein the display targets are printers in order to include items of any type of devices including printers. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this information processing system for displaying display targets with distinct portions defining tiers of the display. Pertinent Prior Art The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action. Nakajima (US 2003/0182152 A1) – displays a parts list system. George (US 2016/0012020 A1) – prefix trees where portions of item names are used to create groups, if threshold number of items within a prefix is exceeded, local clustering/categorization occurs. Michaels (US 2008/0041950 A1) – prefix grouping with expandable/collapsable displays. Inoue (US 2021/0368050 A1) – grouping printer jobs based on matching strings in the job names. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK F RIEGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3625. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm, 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /PATRICK F RIEGLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/737,982 Page 2 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/737,982 Page 3 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/737,982 Page 4 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/737,982 Page 5 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/737,982 Page 6 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/737,982 Page 7 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/737,982 Page 8 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/737,982 Page 9 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/737,982 Page 10 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/737,982 Page 11 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/737,982 Page 12 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/737,982 Page 13 Art Unit: 2171 Application/Control Number: 18/737,982 Page 14 Art Unit: 2171
Prosecution Insights