DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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 1, 4 and 18 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.
The claim 1 recites “..based on a fact that the second application program supports a first method” and in the second paragraph “..based on a fact that the third application program does not support the first method”. However, the claim does not define what “support” or “does not support” of the first method renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The claim 4 recites “the second method” the claim refers to dropping a plurality of icon associated with the second application program” and enabling sharing “with the second application program”, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, regards as the invention.
The claim 18 recites “wherein the predetermined program is at least one of iOS 17, iPadOS 17, and iOS of a version later than iOS 17” are trademarks. The use of trademarks in a claim to identify or describe a particular product renders the claim indefinite.
Contingent Limitations
Section MPEP 2111.04(II) sets forth, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” The following are contingent limitations which are not required to be found in the prior art under broadest reasonable interpretation. This does not necessarily include contingent limitations which are required to be found in the prior art.
Claim 1 recites the following contingent limitations “executing, based on receiving a dragging operation of dragging a file icon included in a screen displayed by a first application program and a dropping operation of dropping the dragged file icon on an application icon associated with a second application program and based on a fact that the second application program supports a first method; and executing, based on receiving a dragging operation of dragging the file icon included in the screen displayed by the first application program and a dropping operation of dropping the dragged file icon on an application icon associated with a third application program and based on a fact that the third application program does not support the first method “recite preform first processing (sharing by a first method) when a file icon is dragged from a first application and dropped on a second application icon and the second supports the first method ” and perform second processing (sharing by a second method) when the same drag and drop occur onto a third application icon and the third application does not support the first method’ create contingent limitations. Therefore, the BRI of the claim is satisfied by a system capable of evaluating the support condition and executing the corresponding branch. The contingent limitations is for the compact prosecution but is not required by the prior art to read on the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulloy et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0101566) in view of Ording et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0184587).
Regarding claim 1, Mulloy discloses a method for controlling an information processing apparatus having a predetermined program, the method comprising [see para. 0011, 0033; systems and/or methods that provide for file management and transfer using a remora. More particularly, the file management and transfer using a remora implementation may use a remora-generating application]:
executing, based on receiving a dragging operation of dragging a file icon included in a screen displayed by a first application program and a dropping operation of dropping the dragged file icon on an application icon associated with a second application program [see para. 0016, 0023, 0027; elect one more files (e.g., image.sub.--08.png) to be emailed to another user. More particularly, as shown by indication C, the user may move and/or transfer the selected file/image to a destination icon corresponding to a destination application. The transfer performed using a pointing device (e.g., by clicking on and dragging the selected file/image to the destination icon), using a touch screen device (e.g., by touching the selected file/image with a finger or some other device and dragging the selected file/image to the destination icon; which corresponds to select a file in a first application moves and transfer the select file to a destination icon associated with another application] and based on a fact that the second application program supports a first method, first processing for sharing a file associated with the dropped file icon with the second application program by the first method [see para. 0064; the generating application may receive a request, via remora UI, to perform an operation on the selected file using another application when the user transfers the selected file to a destination icon corresponding to the other application. The transfer operation may be performed by dragging and/or otherwise moving the selected file to the destination icon in a manner similar to the generating application may, in a manner similar to that described above, receive a request to perform an operation on the selected file using another application that is included in a remoralet by transferring the selected file to a destination icon associated with a remoralet (e.g., remoralet icons); which corresponds to a second applications are selected as capable of performing operation uploading and attaching of being operated on by the destination application]; and
executing, based on receiving a dragging operation of dragging the file icon included in the screen displayed by the first application program and a dropping operation of dropping the dragged file icon on an application icon associated [see para. 0013, 0017, 0026; a user may open an application for which a remora was created and may select a file on which to perform a particular operation. The user may, for example, perform the operation by moving and/or transferring the selected file from a UI associated with the application to a remora icon, associated with the remora (destination icon), that corresponds to another application (e.g., an email application, a social networking application, an instant messaging application, etc.) that is capable of performing some other operation (e.g., attaching a file to an email or some other operation, uploading a file, etc.). Moving the file to the icon may automatically open the other application that permits the user to perform another operation to complete the task (e.g., by entering recipients, a subject line, and/or any text into the email UI and/or by sending the email with the selected file attached); which corresponds to provide an indication when the transferred files is capable of being operated by the destination application]; however, Mulloy fails to explicitly teach a third application program and based on a fact that the third application program does not support the first method, second processing for sharing the file associated with the dropped file icon with the third application program by a second method.
Ording discloses a third application program and based on a fact that the third application program does not support the first method, second processing for sharing the file associated with the dropped file icon with the third application program by a second method [see para. 0023-0025 and figure 3A-3C; various types of objects dragged to a trash icon, to remove them from the computer system. For instance, the user can drag a document, a folder 34, a floppy disk 36 or a compact disk (CD) 38 to the trash icon 30. In the case of documents 32 and folders, the effect of dragging them to the trash icon is to delete them from the computer's file system. For this purpose, an appropriate image for the icon is that of a container associated with the disposal of objects, such as a wastebasket, or a garbage can; however, the act of dragging their icons to the trash icon does not result in a deletion of those objects; which corresponds to a dragged object relative to a destination icon during a drag and drop operation and selecting different resulting actions].
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mulloy and Ording before the affective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mulloy’s a file icon is dragged from a first application and dropped on an application associated icon of a secondary application by incorporating the object type evaluation and differential action selection, as taught by Ording.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a drag of file icon onto application associated icon and perform sharing operation including multi-file support and evaluate object type during drag and drop and select different resulting actions.
Regarding claim 2, Mulloy discloses wherein the predetermined program is an operating system of the information processing apparatus [see para. 0019 and figure 1; a file management and transfer system that uses a remora implementation, desktop UI rendered on a display, associated with a user device, via which information may be received from a user (e.g., a user of a user device) and/or presented to a user, desktop UI a desktop rendered on a user device (e.g., by an operating system associated with the user device) that may permit an icon, a UI, and/or other information to be presented; which corresponds to system operates on a user device running an operating system].
Regarding claim 3, Mulloy discloses wherein in the first method, in a case that an operation of dropping, on the application icon associated with the second application program, a plurality of file icons included in the screen displayed by the first application program is received, a plurality of files associated with the plurality of file
icons dropped are enabled to be shared with the second application program [see para. 0020, 0026; The user may cause an operation to be performed on a file using a remora. For example, a user open a folder that includes a file on which the user desires to perform a task, such as emailing a particular photo to a friend, the user, select an icon located on a desktop that corresponds to an application that renders a UI containing a directory and/or folders that store files that accessed by a user; which corresponds to perform multi-file icons are enable to be shared with the second application program].
Regarding claim 4, Mulloy discloses wherein in the second method, in a case that an operation of dropping, on the application icon associated with the second application program, a plurality of file icons included in the screen displayed by the first application program is received, only any one of a plurality of files associated with the plurality of file icons dropped is enabled to be shared with the second application program [see para. 0023-0025; the destination icon indicate when the transferred file/image is capable of being operated on by a destination application corresponding to the destination icon, the generating application cause the destination icon to change appearance (e.g., change color, grow in size, change shape, etc.) and/or provide some other indication (e.g., an audible sound, a vibration, etc.) when the selected file/image is positioned over the destination icon in a manner that permits the corresponding destination application to open and/or perform an operation on the transferred file/image].
Regarding claim 5, Mulloy discloses wherein the first processing includes processing of storing the file associated with the dropped file icon to a storage region accessible by the second application program, and the second processing includes processing of storing the file associated with the dropped file icon to a storage region accessible by the third application program [see para. 0013, 0017, 0026; a user may open an application for which a remora was created and may select a file on which to perform a particular operation. The user may, for example, perform the operation by moving and/or transferring the selected file from a UI associated with the application to a remora icon, associated with the remora (destination icon), that corresponds to another application (e.g., an email application, a social networking application, an instant messaging application, etc.) that is capable of performing some other operation (e.g., attaching a file to an email or some other operation, uploading a file, etc.). Moving the file to the icon may automatically open the other application that permits the user to perform another operation to complete the task (e.g., by entering recipients, a subject line, and/or any text into the email UI and/or by sending the email with the selected file attached); which corresponds to provide an indication when the transferred files is capable of being operated by the destination application].
Regarding claim 6, Mulloy discloses wherein in a case where the file associated with the dropped file icon is present on the Internet, the first processing and the second processing include processing of receiving the file associated with the dropped file icon from the Internet [see para. 0013, 0029 and figure 2; performing an operation on a file (e.g., transferring, uploading/downloading, saving, emailing, attaching, deleting, etc.) using another application or collection of other applications corresponding to a remora icon or collection of remora icons, respectively, that are displayed within, adjacent to, and/or in contact with the border of the UI associated with the application].
Regarding claim 7, Mulloy discloses wherein the first processing includes processing of causing the second application program to acquire a file path indicating a region in which the file associated with the dropped file icon is stored, and identification information of the first application program that displayed the dropped file icon, and the second processing includes processing of causing the third application program to acquire the file path indicating the region in which the file associated with the dropped file icon is stored, and the identification information of the first application program that displayed the dropped file icon [see para. 0013, 0017; perform the operation by moving and/or transferring the selected file from a UI associated with the application to a remora icon, associated with the remora (e.g., sometimes referred to as a destination icon), that corresponds to another application (e.g., an email application, a social networking application, an instant messaging application, etc.) that is capable of performing some other operation (e.g., attaching a file to an email or some other operation, uploading a file, etc.). Moving the file to the icon may automatically open the other application (e.g., an email message UI) that may permit the user to perform another operation to complete the task (e.g., by entering recipients, a subject line, and/or any text into the email UI and/or by sending the email with the selected file attached)].
Regarding claim 8, Mulloy discloses wherein the first processing includes processing of activating the second application program, and the second processing includes processing of activating the third application program [see para. 0013, 0017; Moving the file to the icon may automatically open the other application (e.g., an email message UI) that may permit the user to perform another operation to complete the task (e.g., by entering recipients, a subject line, and/or any text into the email UI and/or by sending the email with the selected file attached)].
Regarding claim 16, Mulloy discloses wherein the second application program and the third application program are printing application programs [see para. 0019 and figure 1; Tool bar include a collection of fields (e.g., file, edit, view, tools, window, help, and/or other fields) that, when selected by the user, permit a user to perform operations (e.g., save, edit, print, adjust the physical appearance of desktop UI 100, etc.) associated with desktop UI and/or applications and/or files displayed via desktop UI].
Regarding claim 17, Mulloy discloses wherein in a case that the first processing is executed, processing of displaying an image based on the file associated with the dropped file icon is executed by the second application program, and in a case that the second processing is executed, the processing of displaying the image based on the file associated with the dropped file icon is executed by the third [see para 0061 and figure 7A; Application toolbar include fields (e.g., edit, rotate, print, save, close, and/or other fields) that enable the user to perform operations using the opened application (e.g., iPhoto.RTM.), such as editing an image, rotating an image, printing an image, saving an image, closing remora UI, and/or performing other operations associated with the opened application. It should be understood that remora UI 700 is described herein with respect to an iPhoto.RTM. application for explanatory purposes. In practice remora UI include an application that is different than the application described with respect to remora UI].
Regarding claim 18, Mulloy discloses wherein the predetermined program is at least one of iOS 17, iPadOS 17, and iOS of a version later than iOS 17 [see para, 0012-0020 and figure 1]. It would have been well known in the art operating system such as iOS and iPadOS17.
Regarding claims 19 and 20; Mulloy discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor that is in communication with the at least one memory and that, when executing the instructions, cooperates with the at least one memory to [see para. 0041; Device perform these operations in response to processor executing software instructions contained in a computer-readable medium, such as memory. A computer-readable medium may be defined as a physical or logical memory device. A logical memory device may include memory space within a single physical memory device or spread across multiple physical memory devices. The software instructions may be read into memory from another computer-readable medium or from another device]:
executing, based on receiving a dragging operation of dragging a file icon included in a screen displayed by a first application program and a dropping operation of dropping the dragged file icon on an application icon associated with a second application program [see para. 0016, 0023, 0027; elect one more files (e.g., image.sub.--08.png) to be emailed to another user. More particularly, as shown by indication C, the user may move and/or transfer the selected file/image to a destination icon corresponding to a destination application. The transfer performed using a pointing device (e.g., by clicking on and dragging the selected file/image to the destination icon), using a touch screen device (e.g., by touching the selected file/image with a finger or some other device and dragging the selected file/image to the destination icon; which corresponds to select a file in a first application moves and transfer the select file to a destination icon associated with another application] and based on a fact that the second application program supports a first method, first processing for sharing a file associated with the dropped file icon with the second application program by the first method [see para. 0064; the generating application may receive a request, via remora UI, to perform an operation on the selected file using another application when the user transfers the selected file to a destination icon corresponding to the other application. The transfer operation performed by dragging and/or otherwise moving the selected file to the destination icon in a manner similar to the generating application may, receive a request to perform an operation on the selected file using another application that is included in a remoralet by transferring the selected file to a destination icon associated with a remoralet (e.g., remoralet icons); which corresponds to a second applications are selected as capable of performing operation uploading and attaching of being operated on by the destination application]; and
executing, based on receiving a dragging operation of dragging the file icon included in the screen displayed by the first application program and a dropping operation of dropping the dragged file icon on an application icon associated [see para. 0013, 0017, 0026; a user open an application for which a remora was created and select a file on which to perform a particular operation. The user perform the operation by moving and/or transferring the selected file from a UI associated with the application to a remora icon, associated with the remora (destination icon), that corresponds to another application (e.g., an email application, a social networking application, an instant messaging application, etc.) that is capable of performing some other operation (e.g., attaching a file to an email or some other operation, uploading a file, etc.). Moving the file to the icon automatically open the other application that permits the user to perform another operation to complete the task (e.g., by entering recipients, a subject line, and/or any text into the email UI and/or by sending the email with the selected file attached); which corresponds to provide an indication when the transferred files is capable of being operated by the destination application]; however, Mulloy fails to explicitly teach a third application program and based on a fact that the third application program does not support the first method, second processing for sharing the file associated with the dropped file icon with the third application program by a second method.
Ording discloses a third application program and based on a fact that the third application program does not support the first method, second processing for sharing the file associated with the dropped file icon with the third application program by a second method [see para. 0023-0025 and figure 3A-3C; various types of objects dragged to a trash icon, to remove them from the computer system. For instance, the user can drag a document, a folder 34, a floppy disk 36 or a compact disk (CD) 38 to the trash icon 30. In the case of documents 32 and folders, the effect of dragging them to the trash icon is to delete them from the computer's file system. For this purpose, an appropriate image for the icon is that of a container associated with the disposal of objects, such as a wastebasket, or a garbage can; however, the act of dragging their icons to the trash icon does not result in a deletion of those objects; which corresponds to a dragged object relative to a destination icon during a drag and drop operation and selecting different resulting actions].
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mulloy and Ording before the affective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mulloy’s a file icon is dragged from a first application and dropped on an application associated icon of a secondary application by incorporating the object type evaluation and differential action selection, as taught by Ording.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide a drag of file icon onto application associated icon and perform sharing operation including multi-file support and evaluate object type during drag and drop and select different resulting actions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-15 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
Fu (US 10,445,486) discloses method includes receiving a first user input to zoom out a first application, wherein the first application is displayed on a first area of a screen of a device; zooming out the first application to be displayed on a second area of the screen; and displaying an icon of a second application on a third area of the screen, wherein a user has logged into the second application on the device; receiving a second user input to drag the displayed icon of the second application from the third area to the second area; transmitting login authorization information of the second application to the first application; and submitting, by the first application, the login authorization information to a server of the second application through a server of the first application; and authorizing logging into the first application on the device. Ferguson (US 5,801,700) discloses the user of an e-mail system can drag an icon representing a file to be sent, and drop it onto an icon representing the intended recipient (204). The system includes a technique (208) for determining the recipient information from the recipient icon. Such information would indicate a destination address to which the file is to be transferred. The system incorporates a process (212) for automatically establishing a communications session between the sending user and the recipient, using given recipient address The system also has a process (216) for transferring the file to the recipient via established communications link using transfer protocol.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAO H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4053. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CAO H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights