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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been examined in response to application filed on 06/28/2024.
FOREIGN APPLICATIONS: CHINA 202310797704.5 06/30/2023
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:[0013], “In some possible implementations, wherein the interface indicated an interface indicated by the first display content is determined according to the second functional interface displayed on the display interface at a first moment, the first moment is a moment at which the display interface is switched from the second functional interface to an interface different from the second functional interface, and the first moment is earlier than a moment at which the first switching operation is acquired.” Appears to be machine translation and does not make sense in a manner that is understandable by one of ordinary skill in the art. [0102], “…second display interface last time…” and [0103], “…second display interface for the last time before…” the phrases “last time” and “for the last time” do not appear to make grammatical sense in their respective paragraphs.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 recite: “historical display content” There is no mention in the original specification of explaining what a “historical display content” is. Thus, the limitation includes subject matter that was not described in the original specification.
If the examiner has overlooked the portion of the original specification that describes the feature of the present invention, then applicant should point it out (by page number and line number) in the response to this office action.
Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are rejected similarly because they are depended on claims 1, 9 and 17.
Applicant may obviate this rejection by canceling the claims.
Claims 4-5, 12-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 4, 12 and 20 recite: “an interface indicated by the first display content is determined according to the second functional interface displayed on the display interface at a first moment, the first moment is a moment at which the display interface is switched from the second functional interface to an interface different from the second functional interface, and the first moment is earlier than a moment at which the first switching operation is acquired.” The specification ([0013]) does not explain the limitation in a manner that is understandable by one of ordinary skill in the art.
If the examiner has overlooked the portion of the original specification that describes the feature of the present invention, then applicant should point it out (by page number and line number) in the response to this office action.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected similarly because they are depended on claims 4 and 12.
Applicant may obviate this rejection by canceling the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a third display content". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is a previous mentioning of another “a third display content” in the parent claim.
Claim 16 is rejected similarly because claim 16 is a device variation of claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 9-11, 14-16 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Graves et al. (US 2023/0102477 A1).
As to INDEPENDENT claim 1, Graves discloses a method of switching display content, comprising: acquiring a first switching operation, wherein the first switching operation is configured to switch a display interface from a first functional interface to a second functional interface, the first functional interface is configured to implement a first editing function, and the second function interface is configured to implement a second editing function; determining a first display content, wherein the first display content is determined according to a historical display content of the second functional interface; and displaying the first display content on the display interface (fig.7A, 7B; [0041]; the user switches from a code view to a policy builder view or vise versa, wherein edits done in one of the views is displayed on the other view).
As to claim 2, Graves discloses wherein the first functional interface is configured to edit a first aspect of a target application, and the second functional interface is configured to edit a second aspect of the target application (fig.1; textual aspect of the program is modified in code view and rule aspect of the program is modified in policy builder view).
As to claim 3, Graves discloses wherein the first switching operation is triggered by a first switching control, and the first switching control is a control displayed on the first functional interface (fig.2; [0041]; the user selects “Code View” from “Policy Builder View” interface).
As to claim 6, Graves discloses wherein after acquiring the first switching operation, the method further comprises: storing a second display content, wherein the second display content is determined according to a content displayed by the first functional interface when the first switching operation is acquired ([0041]; edits are reflected in each view).
As to claim 7, Graves discloses acquiring a second switching operation, wherein the second switching operation is configured to switch the display interface to the first functional interface (fig.7A, 7B; the user switches back to the first interface);
determining a third display content according to the second display content; and displaying the third display content ([0041]; the third display content reflects edits done in the second functional interface).
As to claim 8, Graves discloses wherein the determining a third display content according to the second display content comprises: determining data adjustment information according to an operation acquired within a target time period, wherein the target time period is a time period from acquiring the first switching operation to acquiring the second switching operation; and adjusting the second display content according to the data adjustment information to obtain the third display content (fig.3, “305”, “315”; while the interface is in the policy builder view the code view is updated with the received modifications to obtain a third content when the user switches the display from the policy builder view to the code view).
As to INDEPENDENT claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
As to claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 2 above.
As to claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 3 above.
As to claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 6 above.
As to claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 7 above.
As to claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 8 above.
As to INDEPENDENT claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
As to claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 2 above.
As to claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAOSHIAN SHIH whose telephone number is (571)270-1257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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.
/HAOSHIAN SHIH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights