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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/18/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,695,834 by Aggarwal et al. (Aggarwal) in view of US 2008/0235680 by Strauss et al. (Strauss) and in view of Official Notice.
With respect to claim 1, Aggarwal teaches an information processing apparatus, comprising circuitry configured to:
identify a user who operates a communication terminal communicable with the information processing apparatus via a network, the communication terminal being installed with a terminal application; (Col. 14 lines 5 – Col. 15 line 34, Fig – 1- user with associated client device with browser app - user and corresponding user information are identified for providing app recommendations)
identify an organization to which the user belongs; (Col 2, lines 36-58, Col. 14 lines 5 – Col. 15 line 34, smp can identify organizations to which a user belongs, for example, through use of provisioned organization chart of employees)
acquire attribute information on an attribute of the organization; (Col 2, lines 36-58, Col. 14 lines 5 – Col. 15 line 34 - attributes acquired can include apps used by a specific team/group, tiers/feature of such apps, apps included via admis, number of active licenses,)
select one or more applications to be recommended to the user from among a plurality of applications available to the user based on the attribute information; (Col. 14 lines 5 – Col. 15 line 34 - recommended applications are determined from combinations of determined information)
transmit web content data to the communication terminal in response to receiving a first request transmitted from the communication terminal, the web content data including a UI element, the UI element being for acquiring application information on the one or more applications to be recommended from the information processing apparatus (Col 13 lines 41-57, Col. 10 lines 45-62, Fig. 3-300- “Recommended Apps” – client accesses app store front end component via a browser application over a network such as the internet, the rendering of the initial app store by the browser is considered the first request. The store page provide UI elements, including one connected to recommending applications. Clients can make service requests for features such as providing a listing of recommended apps)
and transmit at least an application name of each of the one or more applications to be recommended to the communication terminal in response to receiving a second request, the second request being transmitted from the communication terminal in response to execution of the UI element, the web content data causing the communication terminal to display the application name on a screen based on the application name transmitted from the information processing apparatus. (Col 13 lines 41-57, Col. 14 lines 38- Col. 15 line 22, Col. 10 lines 45-62, Fig. 8 example UI display of apps– client makes service requests for recommended apps which are subsequently displayed in the UI)
Aggarwal does not explicitly disclose the UI element as being at least one of a first JAVASCRIPT or link information for referring to a second JAVASCRIPT. Strauss teaches a software recommendation system that facilitates installation of the software via a web browser (Abstract). This includes the use of javascript code in a web page to assist in the provisioning of recommended software (Paragraphs 43-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the UI element of Aggarwal be implemented via javascript code as in Strauss. Using well known javascript coding techniques to predictably provide the browser based application recommendation desired in Aggarwal would have been obvious.
Aggarwal does not teach the web content data described in hypertext markup language (HTML) and the first request and second request being a hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) request. However, Aggarwal already teaches the SMP app store is page accessed via a browser application on the client device and is internet accessible (Col. 10 lines 45-55, Col. 13 lines 41-57) . The examiner takes Official Notice that the use of HTML and HTTP is well known in the art in relation to Internet browser based pages and Internet browser based requests.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the web content data and requests of Aggarwal be HTML and HTTP as is well known in the prior art. Using well known HTML and HTTP technologies to predictably provide the web content data and requests in Aggarwal’s browser based system would have been obvious.
With respect to claim 2, Aggarwal as modified teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to select the one or more applications to be recommended to the user based on the attribute information in response to receiving the second HTTP request. (Aggarwal Col 13 lines 41-57, Col. 14 lines 5 – Col. 15 line 34 - requested recommended applications are determined from combinations of determined information)
With respect to claim 3, Aggarwal as modified teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a memory that stores the application information associating each application with a recommended condition indicating a condition under which use of each application is recommended, the recommended condition relating to the attribute of the organization of the user, wherein,the circuitry is configured to select, from among the plurality of applications available to the user, the one or more applications associated with the attribute satisfying the recommended condition, the attribute being indicated by the attribute information on the organization. (Aggarwal Col 2, lines 36-58, Col. 14 lines 5 – Col. 15 line 34 - attributes acquired can include conditions such as apps used/for use by a specific team/group, tiers/feature of such apps, apps included or featured via admins, number of active licenses,)
With respect to claim 4, Aggarwal as modified teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein, the recommended condition of the application information further relates to an attribute of the user, and the circuitry is configured to: acquire another attribute information on the attribute of the user; and select the one or more applications further associated with the attribute of the user satisfying the recommended condition. (Aggarwal Col 14 lines 38-53 – example further condition includes apps that are designated as feature and also the user specifically is already licensed for)
With respect to claim 5, Aggarwal as modified teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the attribute information includes information indicating a type of business of the organization. (Aggarwal Col. 14 lines 54- Col. 15 line 23 – recommendations can be based on similarity to other customer organizations)
With respect to claim 6, Aggarwal as modified teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the attribute information includes information indicating a scale of the organization. (Aggarwal Col. 2 lines 36-58, Col. 16 lines 19-38 – organization chart, and metrics such as usage metrics for a given app and number of licenses)
With respect to claim 7, Aggarwal as modified teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the attribute information includes information on a task of the organization. (Aggarwal Col. 14 lines 54- Col. 15 line 23 – analysis of portfolio includes customer market similarity, team, group, department, role, position, title)
With respect to claim 8, Aggarwal as modified teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to identify the organization based on authentication information input by the user. (Aggarwal Col. 2 lines 36-58 , Col. 8 line 67-Col. 9 line 14– SSO and employee (user) of a organization is recognized as being part of the organization via the organizational chart provided by the organization to the SMP).
With respect to claim 9, Aggarwal as modified teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to identify the organization based on connection destination information of the communication terminal. (Aggarwal Col. 4 lines 15-50 location information)
Claims 10 and 11 are similar in scope to claim 1 and are rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R LAZARO whose telephone number is (571)272-3986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/DAVID R LAZARO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights