DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 9, and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (All Claims)
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-8 are directed to a method, claims 9-16 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and claims 17-20 are directed to a system comprising one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Claims 1, 9, and 17)
Regarding claim 1, the following limitations are abstract ideas:
A computer-implemented method for persistent manual reordering of rows, the computer-implemented method comprising: is a step that can be performed as a mental process, with the aid of pen and paper.
calculating an order metric for the first row based on order metrics of rows either side of the second position in the row order of the plurality of rows, wherein the order metric for the first row has a value between values of the order metrics of the rows either side of the second position; is a step that can be performed as a mental process, with the aid of pen and paper.
The above analysis applies to each independent claim as they contain similar limitations.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Claims 1, 9, and 17)
Regarding claim 1, the following limitations are additional elements:
receiving, from a first client device, data indicative of user input moving, within a first interface, a first row of a plurality of rows from a first position in a row order of the plurality of rows to a second position in the row order of the plurality of rows; is insignificant extra-solution activity a receiving of data or a request (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. This is nothing more than a request to perform the above identified mental process.
storing the order metric for the first row in a manual ordering field of the first row, wherein the manual ordering field is part of a manual ordering column that is sparse; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
causing a second client device to display the first interface including the first row in the second position using the order metric such that the row order of the plurality of rows is synchronized between the first client device and the second client device. is identified as the insignificant extra-solution activity of displaying information as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Regarding claim 9, the following limitations are additional elements:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising stored instructions for persistent manual reordering of rows, the instructions, when executed by a computing system, causing the computing system to perform operations including: is a high-level recitation of a generic computer component and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application;
receiving, from a first client device, data indicative of user input moving, within a first interface, a first row of a plurality of rows from a first position in a row order of the plurality of rows to a second position in the row order of the plurality of rows; is insignificant extra-solution activity a receiving of data or a request (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. This is nothing more than a request to perform the above identified mental process.
storing the order metric for the first row in a manual ordering field of the first row, wherein the manual ordering field is part of a manual ordering column that is sparse; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
causing a second client device to display the first interface including the first row in the second position using the order metric such that the row order of the plurality of rows is synchronized between the first client device and the second client device. is identified as the insignificant extra-solution activity of displaying information as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Regarding claim 17, the following limitations are additional elements:
one or more processors; is a high-level recitation of a generic computer component and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application;
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising stored instructions for persistent manual reordering of rows, the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, causing the computing system to perform operations including: is a high-level recitation of a generic computer component and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application;
receiving, from a first client device, data indicative of user input moving, within a first interface, a first row of a plurality of rows from a first position in a row order of the plurality of rows to a second position in the row order of the plurality of rows; is insignificant extra-solution activity a receiving of data or a request (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. This is nothing more than a request to perform the above identified mental process.
storing the order metric for the first row in a manual ordering field of the first row, wherein the manual ordering is part of a manual ordering column that is sparse; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
causing a second client device to display the first interface including the first row in the second position using the order metric such that the row order of the plurality of rows is synchronized between the first client device and the second client device. is identified as the insignificant extra-solution activity of displaying information as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B (Claims 1, 9, and 17)
Regarding claim 1, the following limitations are additional elements:
receiving, from a first client device, data indicative of user input moving, within a first interface, a first row of a plurality of rows from a first position in a row order of the plurality of rows to a second position in the row order of the plurality of rows; is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
storing the order metric for the first row in a manual ordering field of the first row, wherein the manual ordering field is part of a manual ordering column that is sparse; is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information as noted in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”
causing a second client device to display the first interface including the first row in the second position using the order metric such that the row order of the plurality of rows is synchronized between the first client device and the second client device. is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of displaying information as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g) “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);”
Regarding claim 9, the following limitations are additional elements:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising stored instructions for persistent manual reordering of rows, the instructions, when executed by a computing system, causing the computing system to perform operations including: ((i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s))
receiving, from a first client device, data indicative of user input moving, within a first interface, a first row of a plurality of rows from a first position in a row order of the plurality of rows to a second position in the row order of the plurality of rows; is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
storing the order metric for the first row in a manual ordering field of the first row, wherein the manual ordering field is part of a manual ordering column that is sparse; is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information as noted in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”
causing a second client device to display the first interface including the first row in the second position using the order metric such that the row order of the plurality of rows is synchronized between the first client device and the second client device. is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of displaying information as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g) “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);”
Regarding claim 17, the following limitations are additional elements:
one or more processors; ((i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s))
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising stored instructions for persistent manual reordering of rows, the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, causing the computing system to perform operations including: ((i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s))
receiving, from a first client device, data indicative of user input moving, within a first interface, a first row of a plurality of rows from a first position in a row order of the plurality of rows to a second position in the row order of the plurality of rows; is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
storing the order metric for the first row in a manual ordering field of the first row, wherein the manual ordering is part of a manual ordering column that is sparse; is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information as noted in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”
causing a second client device to display the first interface including the first row in the second position using the order metric such that the row order of the plurality of rows is synchronized between the first client device and the second client device. is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of displaying information as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g) “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);”
The dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 recite mental steps and are thus not eligible under 101. The dependent claims are further directed to the order metric, the displaying of information, and the ordering of data. These elements are similar to the above identified abstract ideas and additional elements. Therefore, the claims are still directed to the same abstract idea as their parent claims and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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) 1, 2, 4-10, 12-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0192559 (hereinafter Ryu) in view of Stitt et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0026111 (hereinafter Stitt), Wang et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0374403 (hereinafter Wang), and Snow, Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0032722 (hereinafter Snow).
Regarding claim 1, Ryu teaches:
A computer-implemented method for persistent manual reordering of rows (Ryu Paragraph [0057], displayed in a limited row or column, the user should input an input for moving the column or row of the matrix in order to select the emotional contents displayed in another column or another row. For example, when pieces of emotion content in the first row are displayed, in order to select pieces of emotion content in a fifth row, an input changing a displayed row from the first row to the fifth row is received from the user), the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, from a first client device (Ryu Paragraph [0005], which is determined through one more user inputs in an application and one more behaviors of the user in an application), data indicative of user input moving, within a first interface, a first row of a plurality of rows from a first position in a row order of the plurality of rows to a second position in the row order of the plurality of rows (Ryu Paragraph [0057], displayed in a limited row or column, the user should input an input for moving the column or row of the matrix in order to select the emotional contents displayed in another column or another row. For example, when pieces of emotion content in the first row are displayed, in order to select pieces of emotion content in a fifth row, an input changing a displayed row from the first row to the fifth row is received from the user);
Ryu does not expressly disclose:
calculating an order metric for the first row based on order metrics of rows either side of the second position in the row order of the plurality of rows, wherein the order metric for the first row has a value between values of the order metrics of the rows either side of the second position;
However, Stitt teaches:
calculating an order metric for the first row based on order metrics of rows either side of the second position in the row order of the plurality of rows (Stitt Paragraph [0094], the sample matrix 180 is an upper-right triangular matrix with the number of rows and columns equal to the number of collected samples that have unique work metrics), wherein the order metric for the first row has a value between values of the order metrics of the rows either side of the second position (Stitt Paragraph [0227], the exponential fallback technique sets the new work metric value equal to the value halfway between the work metric value sampled during the previous iteration and the minimum sampling work metric (MSWM) value, which is the smallest valid work metric value greater than the work metric value of the frontier point as calculated by the adapter's NextMetric function);
The claimed invention and Stitt are from the analogous art of systems using metrics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Ryu in view of Stitt to have combined Ryu in view of Stitt. Stitt teaches an approach that improves the accuracy of the work metric mapping by using multiple adapters to separate cases that exhibit different execution characteristics (Paragraph 212).
Ryu in view of Stitt does not expressly disclose:
storing the order metric for the first row in a manual ordering field of the first row, wherein the manual ordering field is part of a manual ordering column that is sparse; and
However, Wang teaches:
storing the order metric for the first row in a manual ordering field of the first row (Wang Paragraph [0004], Within the CSR format, a first array stores the nonzero matrix element values in the sparse matrix (in the order of a row-by-row traversal of the sparse matrix), a second array stores the column indexes of the nonzero matrix element values in the sparse matrix, and a third array stores, for each row in the sparse matrix, the cumulative number of nonzero matrix element values up to (but not including) that row), wherein the manual ordering field is part of a manual ordering column that is sparse (Wang Paragraph [0004], Within the CSR format, a first array stores the nonzero matrix element values in the sparse matrix (in the order of a row-by-row traversal of the sparse matrix), a second array stores the column indexes of the nonzero matrix element values in the sparse matrix, and a third array stores, for each row in the sparse matrix, the cumulative number of nonzero matrix element values up to (but not including) that row (Ryu teaches the manual ordering)); and
The claimed invention and Wang are from the analogous art of data organization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Ryu in view of Stitt and Wang to have combined Ryu in view of Stitt and Wang. Wang teaches improving the processing of matrix processing workloads on GPUs or other highly parallel accelerators, a sparse matrix can be recursively divided (Paragraph 29).
Ryu in view of Stitt and Wang does not expressly disclose:
causing a second client device to display the first interface including the first row in the second position using the order metric such that the row order of the plurality of rows is synchronized between the first client device and the second client device.
However, Snow teaches:
causing a second client device to display the first interface including the first row in the second position using the order metric such that the row order of the plurality of rows is synchronized between the first client device and the second client device (Snow Paragraph [0018], The management server 104 manages user accounts and synchronization of an ordered list of widgets to an appropriate network device. At least one database 108 is coupled to the management server 104 to store user account information, Paragraph [0027], the synchronization module may send the configuration to the second network device. The second network device then reconfigures its widgets when activated (e.g., turned on)).
The claimed invention and Snow are from the analogous art of synchronization systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings Ryu in view of Stitt, Wang, and Snow to have combined Ryu in view of Stitt, Wang, and Snow. Snow teaches the benefits of synchronizing widgets between devices (Paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 2, Ryu in view of Stitt, Wang, and Snow further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising causing display of the first row in a second interface at a third position, the third position determined using the order metric (Ryu Figure 7, shows multiple rows in a different interface with at least three positions (Stitt teaches the metric)).
Regarding claim 4, Ryu in view of Stitt, Wang, and Snow further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the order metric is calculated such that a third row that has not been manually reordered, and has no corresponding order metric stored in the manual ordering column, appears after the first and second rows in the first interface (Ryu Paragraph [0057], displayed in a limited row or column, the user should input an input for moving the column or row of the matrix in order to select the emotional contents displayed in another column or another row. For example, when pieces of emotion content in the first row are displayed, in order to select pieces of emotion content in a fifth row, an input changing a displayed row from the first row to the fifth row is received from the user (Ryu teaches the reordering of rows while Stitt teaches the metric)).
Regarding claim 5, Ryu in view of Stitt, Wang, and Snow further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the manual ordering field uses a custom data type (Stitt Paragraph [0083], adapter for a sorting elastic function that maps the input size (e.g., number of elements to sort) to the work metric. In this example, sorting 10 elements would have a work metric of 10, while sorting 100 elements would have a work metric of 100), the computer-implemented method further comprising rebalancing the order metric responsive to the order metric being larger than a threshold length (Stitt Paragraph [0168], A prediction parameter, referred to as the segment error threshold, specifies the maximum percent width (e.g., the width of the confidence interval relative to its execution time) allowed by a segment's confidence interval).
Regarding claim 6, Ryu in view of Stitt, Wang, and Snow further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the manual ordering field is not displayed in conjunction with the first and second rows (Ryu Paragraph [0056], In a matrix of a plurality of columns and rows, each emotion content may be displayed at a designated position).
Regarding claim 7, Ryu in view of Stitt, Wang, and Snow further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first row comprises an additional field, the value of which is set by an equation that uses the ordering metric in the manual ordering field (Stitt Paragraph [0231], the result of the linear regression analysis on the subset of sequential samples indexed two through four (in increasing work metric order) would be located at the cell in row two, column four).
Regarding claim 8, Ryu in view of Stitt, Wang, and Snow further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the manual ordering column being sparse means that the manual ordering column includes manual ordering metrics for only rows that have been manually reordered (Wang Paragraph [0004], Within the CSR format, a first array stores the nonzero matrix element values in the sparse matrix (in the order of a row-by-row traversal of the sparse matrix), a second array stores the column indexes of the nonzero matrix element values in the sparse matrix, and a third array stores, for each row in the sparse matrix, the cumulative number of nonzero matrix element values up to (but not including) that row (Ryu teaches the manual ordering)), and wherein rows that have not been manually reordered are ordered according to a default sort order (Wang Paragraph [0078], nonzero elements in the payload regions could be stored using a default compressed sparse matrix format such as CSR).
Claims 9, 10, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected in the same manner as claims 1, 2, and 4-7 but are merely directed to a different embodiment of the same invention (method, computer-readable medium, and system). Ryu further teaches the processor 140 may be configured to execute a received instruction according to a program code stored in the mentality determiner 110 or the recording device such as a storage medium (Paragraph 79).
Claim(s) 3, 11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Stitt, Wang, Snow, and Burli, Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0073328 (hereinafter Burli).
Regarding claim 3, Ryu in view of Stitt, Wang, and Snow teaches parent claim 1.
Ryu in view of Stitt, Wang, and Snow does not expressly disclose:
wherein the order metric is a fractional index value.
However, Burli teaches:
wherein the order metric is a fractional index value (Burli Paragraph [0137], such a usefulness index could be determined based on a fraction of the textual comment that is tokenized content relative to the total content of the textual comment).
The claimed invention and Burli are from the analogous art of systems using CRUD capabilities. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Ryu in view of Stitt, Wang, Snow, and Burli to have combined Ryu in view of Stitt, Wang, Snow, and Burli. Burli teaches that it could be beneficial to provide a search and retrieval system to find such useful information within the records (Paragraph 2).
Claim 11 is rejected in the same manner as claim 3 but is merely directed to a different embodiment of the same invention (method and computer-readable medium).
Regarding claim 16, Ryu in view of Stitt, Wang, and Snow teaches parent claim 9.
Ryu in view of Stitt, Wang, and Snow does not expressly disclose:
wherein a dedicated CRUD action is used to store the order metric in the manual ordering field.
However, Burli teaches:
wherein a dedicated CRUD action is used to store the order metric in the manual ordering field (Burli Paragraph [0030], These applications may be web-based, and offer create, read, update, delete (CRUD) capabilities (Burli teaches CRUD capabilities while Stitt teaches the metric)).
The claimed invention and Burli are from the analogous art of systems using CRUD capabilities. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Ryu in view of Stitt, Wang, Snow, and Burli to have combined Ryu in view of Stitt, Wang, Snow, and Burli. Burli teaches that it could be beneficial to provide a search and retrieval system to find such useful information within the records (Paragraph 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/19/2026 have been fully considered and they are either persuasive or they are not persuasive. A detailed explanation is provided below.
On pages 1-3, Applicant argues against the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant argues that the claims recite elements that combine to provide the same ordering of rows to multiple client devices and reduce update latency, the Examiner disagrees. The claims do provide the same ordering of rows to multiple client devices but it is not clear from the claims how reduced update latency is provided. It is not clear how the instant application relates to Enfish when Enfish was directed to a specific way to store information in memory which improved the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory. Merely synchronizing the displaying of two devices is not the same as a specific way to store and retrieve information in memory. Therefore, it is not clear how claim 1 addresses a specific problem.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3-4, filed 06/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendment and the newly cited Snow reference.
In response to applicant's argument that Ryu, Stitt, and Wang is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, each of the references are analogous art. The Examiner has stated how each of the secondary references are analogous to the claimed invention. While the Applicant stated that the references address different technical problems, it does not mean that the references are non-analogous art. One of ordinary skill in the art could see the benefits that aspects of the inventions disclose and use those features to improve the primary reference. Therefore, the references are analogous art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mouyade et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0391779 (hereinafter Mouyade). Mouyade teaches a first device synchronizing its display with the display of a second device (Paragraph 4). This shows that the claimed invention and Mouyade are analogous art as both disclose synchronizing the display of two devices.
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 DUSTIN D EYERS whose telephone number is (408)918-7562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-7:00pm 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, Amy Ng can be reached at (571)270-1698. 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.
/DUSTIN D EYERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2164
/AMY NG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights