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 § 103
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 of this title, 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, 3-6, 15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliner (US 2018/0032557 A1), published on February 01, 2018 in view of Rueter et al (“Rueter” US 10656779 B1), published on May 19, 2020.
As to claim 1, Oliner teaches “causing display of, within a first portion of a graphical user interface, a user interface field for editing a query that comprises text that identifies raw machine data upon which the query is to be executed, the first portion of the graphical user interface having a first size” in figure 6A, par. 0142 (“…Search screen 600 includes a search bar 602 that accepts user input in the form of a search string…”. Fig. 6A shown a user interface field for editing a query that comprises text (“buttercupgames”) that identifies raw machine data upon which the query is to be executed (noting that par. 0134 disclosed of “the raw data in each of the returned events”)).
Oliner teaches “based at least in part on execution of the query, causing display of query results corresponding to the query concurrently with the query in a resized version of the first portion of the graphical user interface that has a second size larger than the first size” in par. 0143 (“… the search screen 600 in FIG. 6A can display the results through search results tabs 604…”. The display result area (starting from the search result tabs 604 to the bottom of the screen) corresponds to “display of query results corresponding to the query concurrently with the query in a resized version of the first portion of the graphical user interface that has a second size larger than the first size”).
It appears Oliner does not explicitly teach “identifying a selection, via a graphical user interface, of an action associated with a display object comprising an image including a chart or a graph displayed in the resized version of the first portion of ”.
However, Rueter teaches “identifying a selection, via a graphical user interface, of an action associated with a display object comprising an image including a chart or a graph displayed in the resized version of the first portion of ” in figures 3A-3B, col. 8: 29-50 (“…the tooltip 304 is displayed in response to a user input, such as a user hovering over a portion of the user interface. For example, a user hovers (e.g., using a cursor or other input) over a portion of the graph shown in FIG. 3A, and in response to the user input, the tooltip 304 is generated and/or displayed…”. A user using a cursor to hove over a portion of the graph as to teach of a selection, via a graphical user interface, of an action associated with a display object comprising an image including a chart or a graph).
Oliner and Rueter are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, graphical user interface application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify user action on a GUI, disclosed by Oliner, including “identifying a selection, via a graphical user interface, of an action associated with a display object comprising an image including a chart or a graph displayed in the resized version of the first portion of ” in order to provide a detail information of a graph, especially at a point where the user hooves the cursor into.
Rueter teaches “performing the action in association with the display object” in figures 3A-3B, col. 8: 29-50 (“…the tooltip 304 is displayed in response to a user input, such as a user hovering over a portion of the user interface. For example, a user hovers (e.g., using a cursor or other input) over a portion of the graph shown in FIG. 3A, and in response to the user input, the tooltip 304 is generated and/or displayed…”. The display of tooltip 304 corresponds to the action in association with the display object).
As to claim 17, it is rejected for similar reason as claim 1.
As to claim 19, it is rejected for similar reason as claim 1.
As to claim 3, Rueter teaches “wherein the first portion of the graphical user interface is associated with an image” in fig. 3A (a graph is an image).
Rueter teaches “where the action comprises a request to annotate the image” in fig. 3B, col. 8: 53-63 (edit the tooltip is to annotate the image).
As to claim 4, Rueter teaches “wherein the action comprises a request to annotate the image, and wherein performing the action further comprises causing display, in the graphical user interface, of an editable version of the image” in fig. 3B, col. 8: 53-63 (after the tooltip edits, it displays an editable version of the image).
As to claim 5, Rueter teaches “wherein the action comprises a request to annotate the image, wherein performing the action further comprises causing display, in the graphical user interface, of an editable version of the image, and wherein the method further comprises obtaining a modified version of the image in response to a user editing the editable version of the image” in fig. 3B, col. 8: 53-63 (the tooltip for display graph data point is being edit in order to obtaining a modified version of the image in response to a user editing the editable version of the image).
As to claim 6, Rueter teaches “wherein the action comprises a request to annotate the image, wherein performing the action further comprises: causing display, in the graphical user interface, of an editable version of the image, obtaining a modified version of the image in response to a user editing the editable version of the image, and causing display of the modified version of the image in the graphical user interface” in fig. 3B, col. 8: 53-63 (the tooltip for display graph data point is being edit so that a new tooltip information is being display as to obtaining a modified version of the image in response to a user editing the editable version of the image, and causing display of the modified version of the image in the graphical user interface).
As to claim 15, Rueter teaches “wherein the action comprises a request to edit the query” in fig. 3B, col. 8: 53-63 (changing data field in the tooltip setup as a request to edit the query of fields from the graph data).
As to claim 18, it is rejected for similar reason as claim 15.
Claims 7, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliner (US 2018/0032557 A1), published on February 01, 2018 in view of Rueter et al (“Rueter” US 10656779 B1), published on May 19, 2020 in further view of Cohen (US 2020/0167699 A1), published on May 28, 2020.
As to claim 7, Oliner teaches “wherein the first portion of the graphical user interface is associated with an image” in fig. 19, par. 0293 (user searches for “man” in the first portion of the GUI. The result is the frame crab 1912 corresponding to the associated image).
It appears Oliner and Rueter do not explicitly teach “and wherein the action comprises a request to highlight the image”.
However, Cohen teaches “and wherein the action comprises a request to highlight the image” in fig. 4, par. 0077 (“…The GUI is operable to highlight a profile upon mouse over, wherein the highlighted profile picture 403 further displays personal information 405 and an Individual Match Button 407…”.
Oliner, Rueter and Cohen are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, graphical user interface application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify user action, disclosed by Oliner, including “and wherein the action comprises a request to highlight the image” in order to highlight and display more personal information when needed (see Cohen par. 0077).
As to claim 10, It appears Oliner and Rueter do not explicitly teach “wherein the action comprises [[a]] at least a portion of the request to highlight a display object associated with the first portion of the graphical user interface”.
However, Cohen teaches “wherein the action comprises [[a]] at least a portion of the request to highlight a display object associated with the first portion of the graphical user interface” in fig. 4, par. 0077 (“…The GUI is operable to highlight a profile upon mouse over, wherein the highlighted profile picture 403 further displays personal information 405 and an Individual Match Button 407…”.
Oliner, Rueter and Cohen are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, graphical user interface application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify user action, disclosed by Oliner, including “wherein the action comprises [[a]] at least a portion of the request to highlight a display object associated with the first portion of the graphical user interface” in order to highlight and display more personal information when needed (see Cohen par. 0077).
As to claim 11, It appears Oliner and Rueter do not explicitly teach “wherein the action comprises a request to highlight at least a portion of the first portion of the graphical user interface, and persist an indication that the at least a portion of first portion of the graphical user interface should be highlighted”.
However, Cohen teaches “wherein the action comprises a request to highlight at least a portion of the first portion of the graphical user interface, and persist an indication that the at least a portion of first portion of the graphical user interface should be highlighted” in fig. 4, par. 0077 (“…The GUI is operable to highlight a profile upon mouse over, wherein the highlighted profile picture 403 further displays personal information 405 and an Individual Match Button 407…”. Mouse over the area of display to highlight it as to persist an indication that the at least a portion of first portion of the graphical user interface should be highlighted).
Oliner, Rueter and Cohen are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, graphical user interface application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify user action, disclosed by Oliner, including “wherein the action comprises a request to highlight at least a portion of the first portion of the graphical user interface, and persist an indication that the at least a portion of first portion of the graphical user interface should be highlighted” in order to highlight and display more personal information when needed (see Cohen par. 0077).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliner (US 2020/0167699 A1), published on February 01, 2018 in view of Rueter et al (“Rueter” US 10656779 B1), published on May 19, 2020 and in further view of BEREZA (US 2018/0321826 A1), published on November 08, 2018.
As to claim 8, Oliner teaches “wherein the first portion of the graphical user interface is associated with an image” in fig. 19, par. 0293 (user searches for “man” in the first portion of the GUI. The result is the frame crab 1912 corresponding to the associated image).
It appears Oliner and Rueter do not explicitly teach “and wherein the action comprises a request to delete the image”.
However, BEREZA teaches “and wherein the action comprises a request to delete the image” in par. 0427 (“… the user interface is a photos application and the user interface navigation operation is a request to switch photos, photo albums, delete photos…”.
Oliner, Rueter and BEREZA are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, graphical user interface application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify user action, disclosed by Oliner, including “and wherein the action comprises a request to delete the image” in order to provide more functions for the user interface (see BEREZA par. 0427).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliner (US 2020/0167699 A1), published on February 01, 2018 in view of Rueter et al (“Rueter” US 10656779 B1), published on May 19, 2020 in further view of LIU (US 2015/0156147A1), published on June 04, 2015.
As to claim 9, it appears Oliner and Rueter do not explicitly teach “wherein the action comprises a request to add a comment associated with the first portion of the graphical user interface”.
However, LIU teaches “wherein the action comprises a request to add a comment associated with the first portion of the graphical user interface” in par. 0009 (“…in response to the user request for commenting on the visual object, displaying a comment entry region overlaying at least part of the webpage…”. The visual object corresponds to the first portion of the graphical user interface).
Oliner, Rueter and LIU are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, graphical user interface application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify a user action, disclosed by Oliner, including “wherein the action comprises a request to add a comment associated with the first portion of the graphical user interface” in order to facilitate user comments on a website object (see LIU par. 0009).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliner (US 2020/0167699 A1), published on February 01, 2018 in view of Rueter et al (“Rueter” US 10656779 B1), published on May 19, 2020 in further view of Nguyen (US 2018/0077648 A1), published on March 13, 2018.
As to claim 12, it appears Oliner and Rueter do not explicitly teach “wherein the action comprises a request to create an alert associated with at least a portion of the first portion of the graphical user interface”.
However, Nguyen teaches “wherein the action comprises a request to create an alert associated with at least a portion of the first portion of the graphical user interface” in fig. 8, par. 0138 (button 102 (in fig. 8) corresponds to the first portion of the graphical user interface which associated with the action comprises a request to create an alert).
Oline, Rueter and Nguyen are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, graphical user interface application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify a user action, disclosed by Oliner, including “wherein the action comprises a request to create an alert associated with at least a portion of the first portion of the graphical user interface” in order to alert for beach information when needed (see Nguyen’s par. 0138).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliner (US 2020/0167699 A1), published on February 01, 2018 in view of Rueter et al (“Rueter” US 10656779 B1), published on May 19, 2020 in further view of English et al (“English” US 8719251 B1), published on May 14, 2006.
As to claim 13, it appears Oliner and Rueter do not explicitly teach “wherein the first portion of the graphical user interface is created by a first user, and wherein the action comprises a request so share at least a portion of the first portion of the graphical user interface with a second user”.
However, English teaches “wherein the first portion of the graphical user interface is created by a first user, and wherein the action comprises a request so share at least a portion of the first portion of the graphical user interface with a second user” in col. 12: 37-60 (“The sharing module 1206 receives requests from clients to share a specific search result from a general search result set with other users participating in a search session…The specific sharing module 1206 removes the search result from the user's separate session state and adds the search result to the user's shared session state. With the search result, the specific sharing module 1206 includes information that indicates that it was this user that selected to share the specific search result”).
Oliner, Rueter and English are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, graphical user interface application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify a user action, disclosed by Oliner, including “wherein the first portion of the graphical user interface is created by a first user, and wherein the action comprises a request so share at least a portion of the first portion of the graphical user interface with a second user” in order to provide search result sharing feature to the users (see English’s col. 12).
As to claim 14, it appears Oliner, Rueter do not explicitly teach “wherein the first portion of the graphical user interface is created by a first user, wherein the action comprises a request to share the first portion of the graphical user interface with a second user”.
However, English teaches “wherein the first portion of the graphical user interface is created by a first user, wherein the action comprises a request to share the first portion of the graphical user interface with a second user” in col. 12: 37-60 (“The sharing module 1206 receives requests from clients to share a specific search result from a general search result set with other users participating in a search session…The specific sharing module 1206 removes the search result from the user's separate session state and adds the search result to the user's shared session state. With the search result, the specific sharing module 1206 includes information that indicates that it was this user that selected to share the specific search result”).
Oliner, Rueter and English are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, graphical user interface application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify a user action, disclosed by Oliner, including “wherein the first portion of the graphical user interface is created by a first user, wherein the action comprises a request to share the first portion of the graphical user interface with a second user” in order to provide search result sharing feature to the users (see English’s col. 12).
English teaches “wherein the first user is permitted to edit the query, and wherein the second user is permitted to only view the query” in col. 19: 58-67 (share screen feature that permits only primary user to edit screen/query, and non-primary user to view scree/query only).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliner (US 2020/0167699 A1), published on February 01, 2018 in view of Rueter et al (“Rueter” US 10656779 B1), published on May 19, 2020 and in further view of Xu et al (“Xu” US 2017/0193535 A1), published on July 06, 2016.
As to claim 16, it appears Oliner and Rueter do not explicitly teach “wherein the first portion of the graphical user interface is associated with a workbook, and wherein the workbook is associated with workbook data stored in a workbook data store”.
However, Xu teaches “wherein the first portion of the graphical user interface is associated with a workbook, and wherein the workbook is associated with workbook data stored in a workbook data store” in figure 1, par. 0020 (“…the display screen 160 is implemented to display views of and facilitate user interaction with a graphical user interface (GUI) generated by visual user interface logic 120 for viewing and updating information associated with creating and storing workbooks. The graphical user interface may be associated with a distributed workbook storage application and visual user interface logic 120 may be configured to generate the graphical user interface…”).
Oliner, Rueter and Xu are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, graphical user interface application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify a user action, disclosed by Oliner, including “wherein the first portion of the graphical user interface is associated with a workbook, and wherein the workbook is associated with workbook data stored in a workbook data store” in order to provide a distributed workbook environment (see Xu paragraph [0020-0021]).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loc Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-8485. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri (8:00 am - 5:00 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Ng can be reached on 571-272-3676. 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.
/LOC TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights