DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on April 22, 2025 has been acknowledged.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
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. The claims (claim 1, and similarly claims 2-20) recite “updating option parameters using a workflow …, comprising: receiving … a selection … of an option parameter for an option of an option group, wherein an order of the workflow is based upon a priority of the option group; determining … if any option constraints are affected by the selected option parameter; determining … if any affected option constraints will be respected if the option parameter is set to the selected option parameter; updating … the option parameter to the selected option parameter in response to the determining that no option constraints are affected or in response to the determining that the affected option constraints will be respected; determining … whether other option parameters are in a same option constraint as the selected option parameter; determining … whether the same option constraint may be satisfied by changing other option parameters that are in the same option constraint and the option group; and generating … a warning … in response to the determining that the other option parameters are not in the same option constraint or in response to the determining the same option constraint will not be satisfied.” Claims 1-20, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of updating options in a workflow by receiving an option parameter in a option group prioritized in a workflow, determining if any constraints are affected or respected by the option parameter, updating the option parameter if it determine any constraints are not affected or are respected, determining whether there are other option parameters in the same constraint and the same constraint may be satisfied by changing the other option parameters, and displaying a warning when the other option parameters are not in the same constraint or the same constraint will not be satisfied.
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited receiving an option parameter in a option group prioritized in a workflow, determining if any constraints are affected or respected by the option parameter, updating the option parameter if it determine any constraints are not affected or are respected, determining whether there are other option parameters in the same constraint and the same constraint may be satisfied by changing the other option parameters, and displaying a warning when the other option parameters are not in the same constraint or the same constraint will not be satisfied could all be reasonably interpreted as a human using their mind observing of information regarding an option, a human using their mind to perform evaluations and make judgements for determining if any constraints are affected or respected, updating the option parameter, whether there are other option parameters in the same constraint, the same constraint may be satisfied by changing the other option parameters, a human using judgment and deciding a warning when the other option parameters are not in the same constraint or the same constraint will not be satisfied, and a human displaying the warning by the human using a pen and/or paper; therefore, the claims recite mental processes. Moreover, aside from the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea addressed below pursuant to the second prong of Step 2A and 2B, the dependent claims recite further abstract limitations that merely narrow the abstract ideas recited in the independent claims because the perform further mental processes by observing information, evaluating the information, and outputting the results of the observations and evaluations. Accordingly, since the claims recite mental processes, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of “[a] method for automatically … a graphic user interface,” “by a computer comprising a processor and memory,” “by an interactive element,” and “on the graphic user interface” in claim 1, “the graphic user interface comprises one or more of: one or more slide bars, one or more text input boxes, one or more max value buttons, one or more min value buttons, one or more notification buttons, one or more next buttons, and one or more workflow navigators” in claims 2, 9, & 16, “pages indicated by three tabs” in claim 4, 11, & 18, “slide button” in claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, & 20, “[a] system for automatically … a graphic user interface, comprising: a computer comprising a processor and memory, and configured to,” “by an interactive element,” and “on the graphic user interface” in claim 8, and “[a] non-transitory computer-readable medium embodied with software for automatically … a graphic user interface, the software when executed configured to,“ “by an interactive element,” and “on the graphic user interface” in claim 15; however, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. In addition, these features generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment/field of use, namely a generic computing environment. Furthermore, as noted above, with respect to the receiving and displaying limitations, while portions of these limitations are themselves abstract, even if analyzed as additional elements beyond the abstract idea, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they perform mere data gathering operations, which is insignificant extrasolution activity. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, & 16-20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment/field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. In addition, as noted above, with respect to the receiving and displaying limitations, while portions of these limitations are themselves abstract, even if analyzed as additional elements beyond the abstract idea, these elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because they also perform data gathering operations, which is insignificant extrasolution activity. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s specification at [0019], [0025]-[0026], [0028]-[0029], (disclosing that computers including processors, computer-readable storage media comprising instructions, include any suitable input device and output device, and may be may be a work station, personal computer (PC), network computer, notebook computer, tablet, etc. to perform the methods of the invention). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, receiving or transmitting data over a network, presenting offers, and storing and retrieving information in memory, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, & 16-20 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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, 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue, et al. (US 20160026949 A1), hereinafter Inoue, in view of Greene, et al. (US 20150269524 A1), hereinafter Greene.
Regarding claim 1, Inoue discloses a method for automatically updating option parameters using a workflow and a graphic user interface, comprising ([0006]-[0007], [0009]):
receiving, by a computer comprising a processor and memory ([0040]-[0042], the production planning system is configured with a production plan server equipped with a calculation device configured with a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, and the like, display device configured with a display and an input device configured with a keyboard, a touch panel, and the like, and a ratio calculation module and other programs), a selection by an interactive element of an option parameter for an option of an option group ([0059], [0069], the calculation of the upper limits and the lower limits of the composition ratios of each grade and each specification starts by inputting the composition ratio determined for any grade or specification (STEP-4), [0061]-[0062], fig. 6, the input/output screen (i.e. first page) of the production plan designing system 1 displays an input field for inputting the determined composition ratio, wherein, as shown in fig. 6 reproduced below depicts the input fields before the composition ratios are input, input fields for inputting the composition ratio include input fields for the grades A, B, & C, Drives, Steering wheel, Aluminum wheel, and the specifications of 2WD, 4WD, Right Handed, Left Handed, etc., [0063]-[0064], in this input/output screen (i.e. first page), as shown in Fig. 7, as reproduced below, wherein “’35%’ is input in the input field for ‘B grade’”,
PNG
media_image1.png
353
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
380
481
media_image2.png
Greyscale
),
wherein an order of the workflow is based upon a priority of the option group ([0030], wherein, for example, for a car (car model X), there are set A grade to C grade (three grades) which are in different price ranges (i.e. priorities), [0043], the specification definition information J1 which is specific contents of each grade and each category set, [0050], the specification definition information J1 and the combination constraint information J2 are first read into the ratio calculation module 5);
determining, by the computer, if any option constraints are affected by the selected option parameter;
determining, by the computer, if any affected option constraints will be respected if the option parameter is set to the selected option parameter;
updating, on the graphic user interface, the option parameter to the selected option parameter in response to the determining that no option constraints are affected or in response to the determining that the affected option constraints will be respected ([0059], [0069], after the composition ratio determined for any grade or specification (STEP-4) is input, the upper limit and the lower limit of the composition ratio are calculated for each grade and each specification, [0019], [0061], [0063]-[0064], in fig. 6, input/output screen of the production plan designing system 1 shows the upper limits and the lower limits (initially, 100% to 0%) of the composition ratios of the grades and the specifications and an input field for inputting the determined composition ratio, in fig. 7 the composition ratio of “B grade” is input, and when the data “35%” is input in the input field for “B grade”, the composition ratio of “B grade” is determined to be “35%,” and Examiner notes fig. 7 depicts the upper and lower limit of the composition ratio of B grade are narrowed to 35% to 35%);
determining, by the computer, whether other option parameters are in a same option constraint as the selected option parameter;
determining, by the computer, whether the same option constraint may be satisfied by changing other option parameters that are in the same option constraint and the option group; and
generating, by the computer, … in response to the determining that the other option parameters are not in the same option constraint or in response to the determining the same option constraint will not be satisfied ([0069]-[0071], after the composition ratio determined for any grade or specification (STEP-4) is input, the upper limit and the lower limit of the composition ratio are calculated for each grade and each specification (i.e. determining, changing, and generating in response to determining other option parameters in the same option constraint and option group) by the calculations in figs. 5A, 5B, and 5C (STEP-5), after the upper limits and the lower limits of the composition ratios are calculated, it is determined whether there is a grade or a specification whose composition ratio is not specified (STEP-6) (i.e. determining and generating in response to determining other option parameters in the same option constraint and option group), and if there is a grade or a specification whose composition ratio is not specified, the flow returns to STEP-4 again, where a determined composition ratio within a range (i.e., a range in which consistency is secured) from the upper limit to the lower limit of the composition ratio, [0064]-[0066], in the input/output screen shown in fig. 7, when the data “35%” is input in the input field for “B grade”, and due to the composition ratio of “B grade” being determined to be “35%,” the composition ratios of “A grade” and “C grade” are automatically narrowed down to “65% to 0%” in relation to the composition ratio of “B grade” and the composition ratio of the specification “Equipment P” is automatically narrowed down to “100% to 35%” in relation to the composition ratio of “B grade” (i.e. determining, changing, and generating in response to determining other option parameters in the same option constraint and option group), [0073]-[0076], in the input/output screen shown in fig. 8, when the data “60%” is input in the input field of the specification “Four-17 inch,” the composition ratio of the specification “Four-17 inch” is determined to be “60%,” and then due to the composition ratio of the specification “Four-17 inch” having being determined to be “60%,” the composition ratios of the specification “Four-15 inch” and the specification “Five-17 inch” are each automatically narrowed down to “40% to 0%” in relation to the composition ratio of the specification “Four-17 inch” and the composition ratio of the specification “Equipment P” is automatically narrowed down to “100% to 60%” in relation to the composition ratio of “A grade”,
PNG
media_image2.png
380
481
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image3.png
313
409
media_image3.png
Greyscale
).
While Inoue discloses all of the above, including generating, by the computer, … in response to the determining that the other option parameters are not in the same option constraint or in response to the determining the same option constraint will not be satisfied (as above), Inoue does not necessarily disclose the remaining elements of the following limitation, which however, are taught by further teachings in Greene.
Greene teaches generating, by the computer, a warning on the graphic user interface in response to the determining that the other option parameters are not in the same option constraint or in response to the determining the same option constraint will not be satisfied ([0106], figs. 16-21 are exemplary administrative screen displays for adding, viewing, and revising one or more client records, wherein fig. 16 includes, in response to the user selection of Clients 1690 and Add 1695 icons, the application displays a list 1630 of all created titles sorted alphabetically by their respective discipline assignments and by title within discipline, each title may have an associated hourly rate (e.g., 1635), which a user may modify by selecting and entering the desired rate (e.g., in dollars), the application may establish a maximum allowed rate, e.g., $999.99, and user selection of save control 1640 may cause the application to save the entered rate, and if the entered rate is not valid, the application may display appropriate error message(s) upon attempt to save,
PNG
media_image4.png
486
661
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
[0117], [0119], FIGS. 26-28 are exemplary administrative screen displays for adding, viewing, and revising one or more project types, wherein fig. 26 includes, in response to the user selection of Project Types 2690 and Add 2695 icons, each portion of the duration is associated with a particular slider bar, e.g., slider bar 2642, may be repositioned by, e.g., click, hold, and drag operation, changing the portion of total hours assigned to the corresponding portion of the project duration, a total assigned percentage field 2648 is displayed and updated in response to user repositioning of the respective sliders, each 10% portion may be represented by a color-coded element, e.g., element 2644, and if repositioning of a slider (e.g., 2642) increments the total hours above 100%, the application may change the color of the displayed elements (e.g., to red) and the total assigned percentage 2648 to indicate the exceeded limit,
PNG
media_image5.png
490
653
media_image5.png
Greyscale
).
Inoue and Greene are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of managing parameters to ensure parameters satisfy constraints. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system of Inoue the ability to generate a warning on the graphic user interface as taught by Greene since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would produce the predictable results of generating a warning on the graphic user interface, as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Inoue with the aforementioned teachings of Greene in order to produce the added benefit of graphically displaying resources for selectable periods of a project in an easily understandable, color-coded manner. [0007].
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings of Inoue and Greene teach the method of Claim 1 (as above). Further, Inoue discloses wherein interactive elements of the graphic user interface comprises one or more of: one or more slide bars, one or more text input boxes, one or more max value buttons, one or more min value buttons, one or more notification buttons, one or more next buttons, and one or more workflow navigators ([0061]-[0062], fig. 6, the input/output screen (i.e. first page) of the production plan designing system 1 displays an input field for inputting the determined composition ratio, wherein, as shown in fig. 6 reproduced below depicts the input fields before the composition ratios are input, input fields for inputting the composition ratio include input fields for the grades A, B, & C, Drives, Steering wheel, Aluminum wheel, and the specifications of 2WD, 4WD, Right Handed, Left Handed, etc., [0063]-[0064], in this input/output screen (i.e. first page), as shown in Fig. 7, as reproduced below, wherein “’35%’ is input in the input field for ‘B grade’”,
PNG
media_image1.png
353
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
380
481
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings of Inoue and Greene teach the method of Claim 1 (as above). Further, Inoue discloses wherein the workflow comprises a workflow navigator comprising a graphical representation of the workflow ([0061]-[0062], fig. 6, the input/output screen (i.e. first page) of the production plan designing system 1 displays an input field for inputting the determined composition ratio, wherein, as shown in fig. 6 reproduced above depicts the input fields before the composition ratios are input, input fields for inputting the composition ratio include input fields for the grades A, B, & C, Drives, Steering wheel, Aluminum wheel, and the specifications of 2WD, 4WD, Right Handed, Left Handed, etc.).
In addition, while Inoue discloses all of the above, including all of the aforementioned limitations, Greene also teaches this limitation as follows.
Greene teaches wherein the workflow comprises a workflow navigator comprising a graphical representation of the workflow ([0099]-[0100], figs. 10-34 depict administrative screen displays rendered by an application program executing on a user interface device, according to various embodiments of the present disclosure, wherein in fig. 10, Display 1000 illustrates an exemplary primary navigation menu of administrative options, upon selection of a particular option (e.g., disciplines 1090), the application may render a line to the secondary option menu, and the user may further select an option in the secondary menu (e.g., Add 1095), which may cause the application to change the color of the icon corresponding to the selected option, [0106], wherein fig. 16 includes, in response to the user selection of Clients 1690 and Add 1695 icons, the application displays a list 1630 of all created titles sorted alphabetically by their respective discipline assignments and by title within discipline, each title may have an associated hourly rate, [0119], wherein fig. 26 includes, in response to the user selection of Project Types 2690 and Add 2695 icons, each portion of the duration is associated with a particular slider bar, e.g., slider bar 2642, may be repositioned by a user).
Inoue and Greene are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of managing parameters to ensure parameters satisfy constraints. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Inoue with the aforementioned teachings of Greene in order to produce the added benefit of graphically displaying resources for selectable periods of a project in an easily understandable, color-coded manner. [0007].
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings of Inoue and Greene teach the method of Claim 3 (as above). Further, while Inoue discloses wherein the workflow comprises three [sections of fields] indicated by three [sections of fields] of the workflow navigator ([0061]-[0062], fig. 6, the input/output screen of the production plan designing system 1 displays an input field for inputting the determined composition ratio, wherein, as shown in fig. 6 reproduced above depicts the input fields before the composition ratios are input, input fields for inputting the composition ratio include input fields for the grades A, B, & C, Drives, Steering wheel, Aluminum wheel, and the specifications of 2WD, 4WD, Right Handed, Left Handed, etc.), Inoue does not necessarily disclose the remaining elements of the following limitation, which however, are taught by further teachings in Greene.
Greene teaches wherein the workflow comprises three pages indicated by three tabs of the workflow navigator ([0099]-[0100], figs. 10-34 depict administrative screen displays rendered by an application program executing on a user interface device, according to various embodiments of the present disclosure, wherein in fig. 10, display 1000 (i.e., first page) illustrates an exemplary primary navigation menu of administrative options, upon selection of a particular option (e.g., disciplines 1090) (i.e. first tab), the application may render a line to the secondary option menu, and the user may further select an option in the secondary menu (e.g., Add 1095), which may cause the application to change the color of the icon corresponding to the selected option, [0106], fig. 16 includes display 1600 (i.e. second page), wherein, in response to the user selection of Clients 1690 and Add 1695 icons (i.e., second tab), the application displays a list 1630 of all created titles sorted alphabetically by their respective discipline assignments and by title within discipline, each title may have an associated hourly rate, [0119], fig. 26 includes display 2600 (i.e. third page), wherein, in response to the user selection of Project Types 2690 and Add 2695 icons (i.e., third tab), each portion of the duration is associated with a particular slider bar, e.g., slider bar 2642, may be repositioned by a user,
PNG
media_image6.png
446
610
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
486
661
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
490
653
media_image5.png
Greyscale
).
Inoue and Greene are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of managing parameters to ensure parameters satisfy constraints. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Inoue with the aforementioned teachings of Greene in order to produce the added benefit of graphically displaying resources for selectable periods of a project in an easily understandable, color-coded manner. [0007].
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings of Inoue and Greene teach the method of Claim 1 (as above). Further, while Inoue discloses further comprising: automatically updating, by the computer, limits for the other option parameters on the graphic user interface by preventing each … of non-set option parameters from being set to a value exceeding 50% based on option constraints associated with an option group ([0073]-[0076], in the input/output screen shown in fig. 8, when the data “60%” is input in the input field of the specification “Four-17 inch,” the composition ratio of the specification “Four-17 inch” is determined to be “60%,” and then due to the composition ratio of the specification “Four-17 inch” having being determined to be “60%,” the composition ratios of the specification “Four-15 inch” and the specification “Five-17 inch” are each automatically narrowed down to “40% to 0%” in relation to the composition ratio of the specification “Four-17 inch,”
PNG
media_image3.png
313
409
media_image3.png
Greyscale
),
Inoue does not necessarily disclose the remaining elements of the following limitation, which however, are taught by further teachings in Greene.
Greene teaches automatically updating, by the computer, limits for the other option parameters on the graphic user interface by preventing each of slide buttons of non-set option parameters from being set to a value exceeding … based on option constraints associated with an option group ([0117], [0119], fig. 26 includes, in response to the user selection of Project Types 2690 and Add 2695 icons, each portion of the duration is associated with a particular slider bar, e.g., slider bar 2642, may be repositioned by, e.g., click, hold, and drag operation, changing the portion of total hours assigned to the corresponding portion of the project duration, a total assigned percentage field 2648 is displayed and updated in response to user repositioning of the respective sliders, each 10% portion may be represented by a color-coded element, e.g., element 2644, and if repositioning of a slider (e.g., 2642) increments the total hours above 100%, the application may change the color of the displayed elements (e.g., to red) and the total assigned percentage 2648 to indicate the exceeded limit,
PNG
media_image5.png
490
653
media_image5.png
Greyscale
).
Inoue and Greene are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of managing parameters to ensure parameters satisfy constraints. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Inoue with the aforementioned teachings of Greene in order to produce the added benefit of graphically displaying resources for selectable periods of a project in an easily understandable, color-coded manner. [0007].
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings of Inoue and Greene teach the method of Claim 1 (as above). Further, while Inoue discloses wherein the graphic user interface illustrates limits for option parameters by … a portion … to indicate at what portions … may not be set ([0073]-[0076], in the input/output screen shown in fig. 8, when the data “60%” is input in the input field of the specification “Four-17 inch,” the composition ratio of the specification “Four-17 inch” is determined to be “60%,” and then due to the composition ratio of the specification “Four-17 inch” having being determined to be “60%,” the composition ratios of the specification “Four-15 inch” and the specification “Five-17 inch” are each automatically narrowed down to “40% to 0%” in relation to the composition ratio of the specification “Four-17 inch,”
PNG
media_image3.png
313
409
media_image3.png
Greyscale
),
Inoue does not necessarily disclose the remaining elements of the following limitation, which however, are taught by further teachings in Greene.
Greene teaches wherein the graphic user interface illustrates limits for option parameters by coloring a portion of a track a different color to indicate at what portions of each track that a slide button may not be set ([0117], [0119], fig. 26 includes, in response to the user selection of Project Types 2690 and Add 2695 icons, each portion of the duration is associated with a particular slider bar, e.g., slider bar 2642, may be repositioned by, e.g., click, hold, and drag operation, changing the portion of total hours assigned to the corresponding portion of the project duration, a total assigned percentage field 2648 is displayed and updated in response to user repositioning of the respective sliders, each 10% portion may be represented by a color-coded element, e.g., element 2644, and if repositioning of a slider (e.g., 2642) increments the total hours above 100%, the application may change the color of the displayed elements (e.g., to red) and the total assigned percentage 2648 to indicate the exceeded limit,
PNG
media_image5.png
490
653
media_image5.png
Greyscale
).
Inoue and Greene are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of managing parameters to ensure parameters satisfy constraints. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Inoue with the aforementioned teachings of Greene in order to produce the added benefit of graphically displaying resources for selectable periods of a project in an easily understandable, color-coded manner. [0007].
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings of Inoue and Greene teach the method of Claim 1 (as above). Further, Inoue discloses wherein the interactive element of the option parameter comprises a text input box ([0061]-[0062], fig. 6, the input/output screen (i.e. first page) of the production plan designing system 1 displays an input field for inputting the determined composition ratio, wherein, as shown in fig. 6 reproduced below depicts the input fields before the composition ratios are input, input fields for inputting the composition ratio include input fields for the grades A, B, & C, Drives, Steering wheel, Aluminum wheel, and the specifications of 2WD, 4WD, Right Handed, Left Handed, etc., [0063]-[0064], in this input/output screen (i.e. first page), as shown in Fig. 7, as reproduced below, wherein “’35%’ is input in the input field for ‘B grade’”,
PNG
media_image1.png
353
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
380
481
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 8-14, these claims are substantially similar to claim 1-7, and are, therefore, rejected on the same basis as claims 1-7. While claims 8-14 are directed toward a system comprising a computer comprising a processor and memory, Inoue discloses a system as claimed. [0006]-[0007], [0009], [0040]-[0042].
Regarding claim 15-20, these claims are substantially similar to claim 1-6, and are, therefore, rejected on the same basis as claims 1-6. While claims 15-20 are directed toward a computer-readable medium embodied with software, Inoue discloses a computer-readable medium as claimed. [0006]-[0007], [0009], [0040]-[0042].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES A GUILIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
CHARLES GUILIANO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/CHARLES GUILIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights