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 10/31/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, an electronic device, and a non-transient computer readable memory. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites: A computer-implemented method for interacting with a timeline user interface on an electronic device, the method comprising:
receiving, for a user associated with the electronic device, a user input in respect of an event corresponding to an event record stored in a timeline user database associated with the timeline user interface;
generating a set of predefined actions for the event, based on the corresponding event record; and
performing one or more actions of the set of predefined actions, on the electronic device.
Step 2A Prong 1: The above limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluations). The claim simply takes data (an event record), analyze it (generating predefined actions), and executes, which can be done in human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the following additional elements: “an electronic device”, “a processor”, “a memory”, “a timeline user database” claims 1 and 20. Those additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computer component, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements improve the functioning of a computer or improve any other technology. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B The claim does not recite an additional element that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Whether a claim recites significantly more than an abstract idea should be determined by: (1) identifying any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and (2) evaluating those additional elements, individually and in combination, with respect to the relevant considerations. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
As discussed above, the combined additional elements “an electronic device”, “a processor”, “a memory”, “a timeline user database” in claims 1, 15, and 20 merely embody conventional data processing and data output functions performed by a generic computer. Accordingly, when evaluated individually and in combination, the above-identified considerations indicate that the recited additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
.
The claims have been found to be directed to an abstract idea without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims do not qualify as patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-19 when analyzed as a whole, are not sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely provide additional instruction to narrow the implementation of the abstract idea.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 recites “The method of claim 17” wherein “The electronic device of claims 17” was apparently intended. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20170228700, hereinafter Kim) in view of Huang et al. (US 20150121279, hereinafter Huang) and Masiero et al. (US 20170017929 A1, hereinafter Masiero).
As to independent claim 1. Kim teaches a computer-implemented method for interacting with a timeline user interface on an electronic device (Fig. 6, “The timeline may be represented by a straight-line-shaped user interface including one or more time indicators that divides the time. The timeline may be output without overlapping the event contents output to the user terminal. The controller 140 may perform control so that the event contents including the time information matching the time indicator are output under a certain time indicator displayed on the timeline.” Paragraph 0073, 0061-0072), the method comprising:
receiving, for a user associated with the electronic device, a user input
Kim does not appear to expressly teach receiving, for a user associated with the electronic device, a user input in respect of an event corresponding to an event record stored in a timeline user database associated with the timeline user interface;
generating a set of predefined actions for the event, based on the corresponding event record; and
performing one or more actions of the set of predefined actions, on the electronic device.
Huang teaches receiving, for a user associated with the electronic device, a user input in respect of an event corresponding to an event record stored in a timeline user database associated with the timeline user interface (Fig. 14-15, a user input received on event icon 1213).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious t a person ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kim to comprise receiving, for a user associated with the electronic device, a user input in respect of an event corresponding to an event record stored in a timeline user database associated with the timeline user interface. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve user experience.
Masiero teaches generating a set of predefined actions for the event, based on the corresponding event record (“As depicted, timeline 402 is displayed in graphical user interface 400. Timeline 402 includes plurality of items 404. Each item of plurality of items 404 may include a visual presentation of at least one of an event, an insight, an action, an opportunity, or another type of effect.” Paragraph 0085); and
performing one or more actions of the set of predefined actions, on the electronic device (“Item 412 includes insight message 428, insight message 430, and opportunity control 432.[…] Further, the event manager identifies an opportunity based on the two insights. The opportunity may be the option to submit a timesheet. Opportunity control 432 is a graphical control that presents this opportunity to the user.[….] Opportunity message 436 identifies an opportunity identified by the event manager based on the detection of the trigger. This opportunity may be the option to schedule the meeting for a particular date and time. Graphical control 438, graphical control 440, and graphical control 442 are displayed to present options for the user to accept the opportunity, deny the opportunity, or view more options regarding the opportunity, respectively.” Paragraph 0091-0093).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious t a person ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kim to comprise generating a set of predefined actions for the event, based on the corresponding event record; and performing one or more actions of the set of predefined actions, on the electronic device. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide instant digital access to improve user experience.
As to dependent claim 2, Kim teaches the method of claim 1, Kim teaches the method further comprising: prior to receiving the user input: displaying an event icon corresponding to the event on a timeline graphical user interface (GUI) on a display of the electronic device.
Huang teaches prior to receiving the user input: displaying an event icon corresponding to the event on a timeline graphical user interface (GUI) on a display of the electronic device (Fig. 12-14, the timeline displays event icons).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious t a person ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kim to comprise prior to receiving the user input: displaying an event icon corresponding to the event on a timeline graphical user interface (GUI) on a display of the electronic device. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve user experience.
As to dependent claim 3, Kim teaches the method of claim 2, Kim does not appear to expressly teach wherein generating the set of predefined actions for the event comprises:
detecting that the event requires an action
predicting one or more actions for the event, based on a plurality of event records stored in the timeline user database and a user profile for the user; and
generating, for each predicted action, a respective predicted event record.
Masiero teaches detecting that the event requires an action (detecting event 428, time to submit weekly timesheet and event 436, meeting today at 11:45am);
predicting one or more actions for the event, based on a plurality of event records stored in the timeline user database (“Based on this triggering event, the event manager identifies two insights, which may be that it is time to submit a timesheet and a total hours worked to date. Insight message 428 and insight message 430 identify these two insights, respectively.” Paragraph 0091) and a user profile for the user (user 117, paragraph 0040); and
generating, for each predicted action, a respective predicted event record (event manager generate even records for actions 432,440,442).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious t a person ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kim to comprise detecting that the event requires an action; predicting one or more actions for the event, based on a plurality of event records stored in the timeline user database and a user profile for the user; and generating, for each predicted action, a respective predicted event record. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve user experience.
As to dependent claim 4, Kim teaches the method of claim 3, Kim teaches wherein performing the one or more predefined actions comprises:
outputting information corresponding to one of the one or more predicted actions, by the timeline GUI on the display of the electronic device.
Masiero teaches outputting information corresponding to one of the one or more predicted actions, by the timeline GUI on the display of the electronic device (Fig. 4, timeline 400, plurality of items 404, actions 432,438,440,442).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious t a person ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kim to comprise outputting information corresponding to one of the one or more predicted actions, by the timeline GUI on the display of the electronic device. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve user experience.
As to dependent claim 5, Kim teaches the method of claim 3, Kim does not appear to expressly teach wherein performing the one or more predefined actions comprises:
interfacing with a client application running on the electronic device to allow the user to perform the one or more predefined actions using the client application.
Masiero teaches interfacing with a client application running on the electronic device to allow the user to perform the one or more predefined actions using the client application (“The opportunity may be the option to submit a timesheet.” Paragraph 0092, Fig. 4, control 432 “submit timesheet”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kim to comprise interfacing with a client application running on the electronic device to allow the user to perform the one or more predefined actions using the client application. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve user experience.
As to dependent claim 6, Kim teaches the method of claim 1, Kim further teaches wherein the user input is an entry of a future planned event using the timeline GUI, the future planned event being scheduled by the user. (“The collector may collect the user related information including schedule information of the user, and the generator may generate the predicted user interest information corresponding to the schedule information.” Paragraph 0011, “the user can quickly and easily confirm event contents corresponding to a past time and/or a future time according to time selection from a timeline.” Paragraph 0034).
As to dependent claim 7, Kim teaches the method of claim 2, Kim does not appear to expressly teach wherein the user input is a selection of the event icon corresponding to the event on a timeline GUI on the display of the electronic device.
Huang teaches wherein the user input is a selection of the event icon corresponding to the event on a timeline GUI on the display of the electronic device (Fig. 14-15, event icon 1213 selected).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious t a person ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kim to comprise wherein the user input is a selection of the event icon on a timeline GUI on the display of the electronic device. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve user experience.
As to dependent claim 8, Kim teaches the method of claim 7, Kim does not appear to expressly teach wherein the set of predefined actions is generated based on a type of the event represented by the selected event icon.
Masiero teaches wherein the set of predefined actions is generated based on a type of the event represented by the selected event icon (Fig. 4, action “submit timesheet” is presented for “time to submit weekly timesheet” event).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kim to comprise wherein the set of predefined actions is generated based on a type of the event represented by the selected event icon. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve user experience.
As to dependent claim 9, Kim teaches the method of claim 8, Kim further teaches wherein the type of the event is a future planned event corresponding to a planned event record stored in the timeline user database, or a future predicted event corresponding to a predicted event record stored in the timeline user database (“The collector may collect the user related information including schedule information of the user, and the generator may generate the predicted user interest information corresponding to the schedule information.” Paragraph 0011, “the user can quickly and easily confirm event contents corresponding to a past time and/or a future time according to time selection from a timeline.” Paragraph 0034).
As to dependent claim 13, Kim teaches the method of claim 7, Kim does not appear to expressly teach wherein the set of predefined actions is generated based on a time of the selection relative to a time of the event.
Masiero teaches wherein the set of predefined actions is generated based on a time of the selection relative to a time of the event (the actions 432 and 438-442 are generated based on a time of the event 428 and 436).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious t a person ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kim to comprise wherein the set of predefined actions is generated based on a time of the selection relative to a time of the event. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve user experience.
As to dependent claim 14, Kim teaches the method of claim 7, Kim does not appear to expressly teach wherein the set of predefined actions is generated based on a status of the event.
Masiero teaches wherein the set of predefined actions is generated based on a status of the event (Fig. 4, actions 432,438-442 are generated based on a status of the event 428 and 436).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious t a person ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kim to comprise wherein the set of predefined actions is generated based on a status of the event. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve user experience.
Claims 15-20 are substantially the same as claims 1-5 and are therefore rejected under similar rationale as above.
Claims 10- 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et a. in view of Huang et al. Masiero et al., and Hostyn (US 20180285829 A1)
As to dependent claim 10, Kim teaches the method of claim 7, Kim does not appear to expressly teach wherein the set of predefined actions is generated based on a location of the electronic device at the time of the selection.
Hostyn teaches wherein the set of predefined actions is generated based on a location of the electronic device at the time of the selection (“the agent apparatus may send further event related information, such as a map, address, opening date, etc., to the users associated with the event.” Paragraph 0097).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious t a person ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kim to comprise wherein the set of predefined actions is generated based on a location of the electronic device at the time of the selection. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve user experience.
As to dependent claim 11, Kim teaches the method of claim 10, Kim does not appear to expressly teach the method further comprising:
detecting a location gap between the location of the electronic device and the selected event, wherein performing one or more predefined actions comprises:
automatically displaying map and route information on the display, based on the detected location gap.
Hostyn teaches detecting a location gap between the location of the electronic device and the selected event, wherein performing one or more predefined actions comprises:
automatically displaying map and route information on the display, based on the detected location gap (“the agent apparatus may send further event related information, such as a map, address, opening date, etc., to the users associated with the event.” Paragraph 0097).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious t a person ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kim to comprise automatically displaying map and route information on the display, based on the detected location gap. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve user experience.
As to dependent claim 12, Kim teaches the method of claim 1, Kim does not appear to expressly teach the method further comprising:
detecting a location gap between two consecutive events in the timeline user interface, wherein performing one or more predefined actions comprises:
automatically displaying map and route information on the display, based on the detected location gap.
Hostyn teaches detecting a location gap between two consecutive events in the timeline user interface, wherein performing one or more predefined actions comprises:
automatically displaying map and route information on the display, based on the detected location gap (“the agent apparatus may send further event related information, such as a map, address, opening date, etc., to the users associated with the event.” Paragraph 0097).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious t a person ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kim to comprise automatically displaying map and route information on the display, based on the detected location gap. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve user experience.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kallan US 20150227518 Providing timeline of events regarding a database record.
Gandhi et al. US 20180101902 Metod for the temporal arrangement of data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHELET SHIBEROU whose telephone number is (571)270-7493. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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 at 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 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.
/MAHELET SHIBEROU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights