DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment filed on 06/12/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the case.
Claims 1, 13 and 20 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gottlieb et al. (US 2008/0065977 A1, published 03/13/2008, hereinafter “Gottlieb”) in view of Mansurov et al. (US 6,346,945 A1, issued 02/12/2002, hereinafter “Mansurov”).
Independent Claims 1, 13 and 20:
Gottlieb discloses an electronic device comprising:
one or more processors (Gottlieb: ¶ [0152]); and
a storage apparatus [computer-readable medium], storing one or more computer programs, wherein the one or more computer programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement a display mode switching method and the display mode switching method comprising (Gottlieb: ¶ [0152], [0162]):
acquiring a highlighting operation triggered by a user for a first object, wherein the first object belongs to a first flowchart (The user can select a single cell in flowchart to cause a particular path within the flow chart to be highlighted, Gottlieb: Figs. 1 and 2, ¶ [0160]-[0162]);
determining a first object cluster according to a first flow logic corresponding to the first object, wherein the first object cluster comprises the first object, and the first object cluster corresponds to the first flow logic in the first flowchart, the first flow logic comprises a loop processing logic and a branch processing logic (When the user selects a particular cell, a path is determined by isolating the cells above and/or below the selected cell according to the flow structure (first flow logic), Gottlieb: Figs. 1 and 2, ¶ [0161]-[0162], [0166]-[0168]. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the determined path traverses through path segments between the first and last cells, Gottlieb: ¶ [0159]. Figure 1 illustrates that the path can comprise branch segments. Gottlieb also teaches that the path can comprise a loop, Gottlieb: ¶ [0182]. Although Gottlieb does not show a path that comprises both branch and loop segments, Mansurov shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would know of such flowchart paths comprising both branch and loop flow segments before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, Mansurov teaches that a flowchart diagram can contain a path that comprises both a branch segment and a loop segment, Mansurov: Fig. 14, abstract, column 2 lines 25-27 and 45-49. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gottlieb’s flowchart to comprise both branch and loop segments as taught by Mansurov. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to enable the user to highlight paths of interest including paths that comprise more complex path segments. In combination, the flow logic would comprise logic that determines how the flowchart flows through branch segments and loop segments.); and
switching a display mode of the first object cluster (The presentation (display mode) of the determined path is highlighted in order to distinguish the determined path from the other portions of the flowchart, Gottlieb: Figs. 1 and 2, ¶ [0162]).
Claims 2 and 14:
The rejection of claims 1 and 13 are incorporated. Gottlieb in view of Mansurov further teaches a device and method wherein the determining the first object cluster according to the first object comprises:
in response to the first object being a parent node of a first branch path, determining the first flow logic as the branch processing logic corresponding to the first branch path (When the user selects a single cell, the cells downstream of the selected cells are determined to be part of the determined path, Gottlieb: ¶ [0166]. It is clear that the first cell has to be a parent node in order for the downstream node path to be determined. The cell can correspond to a branch segment, Gottlieb: Fig. 1, ¶ [0159]); and
determining nodes and connection lines comprised in the first branch path as objects in the first object cluster (Cells (including connecting lines) downstream of the selected cell are determined as part of the path, Gottlieb: Figs. 1-2, ¶ [0162], [0166]).
Claims 3 and 15:
The rejection of claims 2 and 14 are incorporated. Gottlieb in view of Mansurov further teaches a device and method wherein the determining nodes and connection lines comprised in the first branch path as objects in the first object cluster comprises:
determining a tail node of the first branch path according to the first flow logic (The last cell in a branch can automatically be determined as the endpoint (tail node) of the path or a predetermined number of cells below the selected cell can be determined as the endpoint of the path or a second node can be manually selected as the endpoint of the path, Gottlieb: Figs. 1 and 2, ¶ [0166]-[0167].); and
determining nodes and connection lines between the first object and the tail node as objects in the first object cluster (Gottlieb: Figs. 1 and 2, ¶ [0159], [0166]-[0167].).
Claims 4 and 16:
The rejection of claims 1 and 13 are incorporated. Gottlieb in view of Mansurov further teaches a device and method wherein the determining the first object cluster according to the first object comprises:
in response to the first object belonging to a sub-path of a second branch path, determining the first flow logic as the branch processing logic corresponding to the sub-path (The user can select a first point and a second point to establish a path between the two points, Gottlieb: Figs. 1 and 2, ¶ [0167]. It is clear that the user can select a sub path with the first and second cell selections. The cell can correspond to a branch segment, Gottlieb: Fig. 1, ¶ [0159]); and
determining nodes and connection lines comprised in the sub-path as objects in the first object cluster (Gottlieb: Figs. 1 and 2, ¶ [0159], [0167]).
Claims 5 and 17:
The rejection of claims 1 and 13 are incorporated. Gottlieb in view of Mansurov further teaches a device and method wherein the determining the first object cluster according to the first object comprises:
in response to the first object belonging to a loop path, determining the first flow logic as the loop processing logic corresponding to the loop path (Gottlieb: ¶ [0182]); and
determining nodes and connection lines comprised in the loop path as objects in the first object cluster (Gottlieb: ¶ [0159], [0182]).
Claims 7-11 and 19:
The rejection of claims 1-5 and 13 are incorporated. Gottlieb in view of Mansurov further teaches a device and method wherein the first objects is a node or a connection line in the first flowchart (The first object is a cell (node) in the first flowchart, Gottlieb: Figs. 1 and 2, ¶ [0160].).
Claim(s) 6, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gottlieb in view of Mansurov and further in view of Puranik et al. (US 2014/0143709 A1, published 05/22/2014, hereinafter “Puranik”).
Claims 6 and 18:
The rejection of claims 1 and 13 are incorporated. Gottlieb in view of Mansurov further teaches a device and method wherein the switching the display mode of the first object cluster comprises:
switching a visual attribute of the first object cluster (The cells of the path are highlighted based on a change in a visual attribute (e.g. color, line thickness, cell size, etc…), Gottlieb: ¶ [0162]).
Gottlieb in view of Mansurov does not appear to expressly teach a device and method wherein the visual attribute comprises a display brightness that switches from a first brightness to a second brightness, wherein the second brightness is greater than the first brightness.
However, Puranik teaches a device and method wherein the visual attribute comprises a display brightness that switches from a first brightness to a second brightness, wherein the second brightness is greater than the first brightness (The highlighting is applied by increasing the brightness of the component that is being highlighted, Puranik: ¶ [0030]-[0031].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device and method of Gottlieb in view of Mansurov wherein the visual attribute comprises a display brightness that switches from a first brightness to a second brightness, wherein the second brightness is greater than the first brightness, as taught by Puranik.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide greater flexibility on the type of highlighting that is applied to the determined path (Puranik: ¶ [0030]-[0031].).
Claim12:
The rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Gottlieb in view of Mansurov and further in view of Puranik further discloses a method wherein the first object is a node or a connection line in the first flowchart (The first object is a cell (node) in the first flowchart, Gottlieb: Figs. 1 and 2, ¶ [0160].).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to claim 20 has been fully considered and is persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claim 20 is respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Gottlieb does not teach “determining a first object cluster according to the first object, wherein the first object cluster comprises the first object, and the first object cluster corresponds to a first flow logic in the first flowchart” because the path is according to historical records of the selected cell and the consecutive historical records of its upstream and downstream cells (Remarks: page 8.). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The historical records are of the upstream and downstream cells of the selected cell which follow the flow logic of the flow chart (i.e. there is never a cell included from the historical record to be included in the path that doesn’t follow the flow logic of the flow chart). Therefore, it is reasonable, under BRI, to interpret Gottlieb’s determination of the path (object cluster) to be “according” to the flow logic.
Applicant’s remaining prior art arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30 am - 2:30 pm.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/DANIEL RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights