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 Application filed on 07/04/2024, said application claims a priority date of 01/06/2022.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the case.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are independent claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10-12, 14, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moore et al. (US 2021/0243148 A1, published 08/05/2021, hereinafter “Moore”).
Independent Claim 1, 10 and 19:
Moore discloses an electronic device, comprising:
a processor (Moore: ¶ [0007]); and
a memory [non-transitory computer-readable storage medium] having a computer program or an instruction thereon, wherein the program or the instruction, when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform operations [method] comprising (Moore: ¶ [0007]):
displaying a first identifier and a second identifier in a target control, the first identifier being used to indicate a first program and the second identifier being used to indicate a second program (The scene information dashboard includes an identifier for a primary actor 1205 and one or more other actors 1210, and Moore: Fig. 12, ¶ [0160]. The actors are micro-applications, Moore: ¶ [0045], [0053]-[0054].); and
starting a first function when first information meets a first preset condition, wherein the first information is information from the first program, and the first function is a function of the second program (This is a contingent limitation that does not have to be performed when the first information does not meet the first preset condition. According to MPEP § 2111.04(II), the prior art does not need to teach said limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation for method claims. However, for the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner will show how Moore teaches this limitation. A first actor may cause a second actor to perform a workflow process if a trigger condition is met, Moore: ¶ [0014], [0061]-[0062], [0158].).
Claims 2, 11 and 20:
The rejection of claims 1, 10 and 19 are incorporated. Moore further discloses a device, medium and method wherein starting the first function comprises at least one of the following:
granting permission to the target control or the first program to call the first function (When the trigger condition is met the first actor is enabled to (granting permission) to send a notification to the second actor that results in the second actor performing the function, Moore: claim 30, ¶ [0014]); or
controlling the second program to start the first function (Moore: claim 30, ¶ [0014], [0061], [0123], [0158].).
Claims 3 and 12:
The rejection of claims 2 and 11 are incorporated. Moore further teaches a device and method wherein after granting the permission to the target control or the first program to call the first function, the method further comprises:
prohibiting the target control or the first program from calling the first function when the first information meets a second preset condition (If the notification does not meet a second precondition for triggering the action (which would meet a condition for not triggering) the action would be prohibited, Moore: claim 30, ¶ [0014].).
Claims 5 and 14:
The rejection of claims 1 and 10 are incorporated. Moore further teaches a device and method wherein at least one third identifier is further displayed in the target control, the third identifier being used to indicate a third program, and the method further comprises (Moore: Fig. 12A, ¶ [0160]):
receiving a second input by a user for a first target identifier in the at least one third identifier, the first target identifier being used to indicate a first target program (The third actor representation in the scene information interface provides an edit actor button 1120, Moore: Fig. 12, ¶ [0151], [0160]. The edit actor button can be used to indicate a target actor (program) for editing, Moore: ¶ [0151]); and
in response to the second input, starting the first function when second information meets the first preset condition, wherein the second information is information from the first target program (The user can edit the third actor to affect another actor to perform a function based on a trigger condition (in response to the second input), Moore: Fig. 11E, ¶ [0158]-[0159].).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 8, 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Forstall et al. (US 2007/0101291 A1, published 05/03/2007, hereinafter “Forstall”).
Claims 4 and 13:
The rejection of claims 1 and 10 are incorporated. Moore does not appear to expressly teach a device and method wherein before displaying the first identifier and the second identifier in the target control, the method further comprises:
receiving a first input by a user when the target control, a first application icon, and a second application icon are displayed, the first application icon being an icon of the first program and the second application icon being an icon of the second program; and
displaying the first identifier and the second identifier in the target control comprises: displaying the first identifier and the second identifier in the target control in response to the first input.
However, Forstall teaches a device and method wherein before displaying the first identifier and the second identifier in the target control, the method further comprises:
receiving a first input by a user when the target control, a first application icon, and a second application icon are displayed, the first application icon being an icon of the first program and the second application icon being an icon of the second program; and displaying the first identifier and the second identifier in the target control comprises: displaying the first identifier and the second identifier in the target control in response to the first input (Fig. 9A shows that the Search Widget Icon (first application icon) and the Maps Widget Icon (second application icon) is displayed in configuration bar 503 along with the widget Link Manager 900 (target control), Forstall: Fig. 9A, ¶ [0076], [0111]. In response to receiving the drag and drop input in regards to the Map Widget Icon, the identifier for the search widget (which is already displayed in the target control) and the map widget are both displayed in the widget link manger (target control), Forstall: Fig. 9A, ¶ [0113].).
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 Moore wherein before displaying the first identifier and the second identifier in the target control, the method further comprises:
receiving a first input by a user when the target control, a first application icon, and a second application icon are displayed, the first application icon being an icon of the first program and the second application icon being an icon of the second program; and
displaying the first identifier and the second identifier in the target control comprises: displaying the first identifier and the second identifier in the target control in response to the first input, as taught by Forstall.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing a more intuitive linking operation for the two widgets (Forstall: Fig. 9A, ¶ [0111]-[0113].).
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1is incorporated. Moore further teaches a method wherein the second program is an access control program (Each actor can be associated with a visibility setting that controls who can access the particular actor, as such each actor is at least in part an access control program since the program comprises access control settings, Moore: ¶ [0055].).
Moore does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein:
the first program is a first e-commerce program; and
starting the first function when the first information meets the first preset condition comprises: starting a door opening function of the access control program when delivery information from the first e-commerce program meets the first preset condition (This is a contingent limitation that does not have to be performed when delivery information does not meet the first preset condition. According to MPEP § 2111.04(II), the prior art does not need to teach said limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation for method claims.).
However, Forstall teaches a method wherein the first program is a first e-commerce program (Forstall: Fig. 5, ¶ [0080]-[0081]).
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 method of Moore wherein the first program is a first e-commerce program, as taught by Forstall.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide greater flexibility on the types of widgets that can be linked together thus providing the user with greater options link widgets according to his/her needs (Forstall: Fig. 5, ¶ [0080]-[0081]).
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1is incorporated. Moore does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein:
the first program is a second e-commerce program, and the second program is a communication program; and
starting the first function when the first information meets the first preset condition comprises: when shopping information from the second e-commerce program meets the first preset condition, sending target information in the shopping information to at least one contact in the communication program (This is a contingent limitation that does not have to be performed when shopping information does not meet the first preset condition. According to MPEP § 2111.04(II), the prior art does not need to teach said limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation for method claims.).
However, Forstall teaches a method wherein the first program is a second e-commerce program, and the second program is a communication program (Forstall: Fig. 5, ¶ [0080]-[0081]).
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 method of Moore wherein the first program is a second e-commerce program, and the second program is a communication program, as taught by Forstall.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide greater flexibility on the types of widgets that can be linked together thus providing the user with greater options link widgets according to his/her needs (Forstall: Fig. 5, ¶ [0080]-[0081]).
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Scolnick et al. (US 2021/0141621 A1, published 05/13/2021, hereinafter “Scolnick”).
Claims 7 and 16:
The rejection of claims 1 and 10 are incorporated. Moore does not appear to expressly teach a device and method wherein after starting the first function, the method further comprises:
storing a starting record of the first function.
However, Scolnick teaches a device and method wherein after starting the first function, the method further comprises:
storing a starting record of the first function (The records associated with the status change are stored after the first action starts, Scolnick: ¶ [0044], [0076], [0077]. The storing of the status change would apply to the first record in the record set (starting record).).
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 Moore wherein after starting the first function, the method further comprises:
storing a starting record of the first function, as taught by Scolnick.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide greater flexibility on the types of functions that can be performed on various types of widgets (Scolnick: ¶ [0044], [0076], [0077].).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 15, 17 and 18 are 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
Examiner has cited particular columns and line and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to 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.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure.
Wei et al., US 2016/0196588 A1 (A first app can trigger a second app to perform a function based on a trigger condition, ¶ [0023])
Paras Ram et al., US 2023/0401944 A1 (A delivery can act as trigger to unlock the back door, Fig. 5, ¶ [0068])
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