Patent Application 18260871 - INFORMATION DISPLAY METHOD AND APPARATUS AND

Title: INFORMATION DISPLAY METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
Application Information

Invention Title: INFORMATION DISPLAY METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
Application Number: 18260871
Submission Date: 2025-05-19T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2023-07-10T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2023-07-10T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 705
National Sub-Class: 026620
Examiner Employee Number: 96438
Art Unit: 3626
Tech Center: 3600
Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 1
103 Rejections: 1
Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.
Office Action Text


    DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA  or AIA  Status
       The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The office action is being examined in response to the application filed by the applicant on July 10, 2023.
Claims 1 - 22 were cancelled, while claims 23 - 39 were added.
Claims 23 - 39 are pending and have been examined. 
This action is made NON-FINAL.
The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Ivonnemary Rivera González.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN2021100329841, filed on November, 19, 2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
        The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 10, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.  Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA  as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). 
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
At least claims 23 and 38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 20 of Co-pending Application No. 18/506,689 (reference application referred as ‘689 hereafter). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences between the claims are considered to be obvious as set forth below: 
Instant claims
Co-pending or reference claims
(18/506,689)
Claims 23 and 38: A method for displaying information, comprising: (claim 23)
acquiring item information of a target user from at least one document, wherein the item information of the target user comprises an item for which the target user is a creator and/or executor; and
displaying the acquired item information on an associated page of a current page of the document or in a preset area on a current page. 
Claim 1: An information processing method, comprising:
receiving first task information; and
display the received first task information at an interface for a first user;
displaying second task information in a task interface after a first preset control in the displayed first task information is triggered by an operation of the first user, wherein participant information of the first task information and participant information of the second task information are different, and display regions for participants of corresponding task information are different from display regions for executors or creators of the corresponding task information,
wherein each of the participants of the corresponding task information is a user with a participant role associated with the corresponding task, each of the executors of the corresponding task information is a user with an executor role associated with the corresponding task, and each of the creators of the corresponding task information is a user with a creator role associated with the corresponding task, and
wherein a difference between the participant information of the first task information and the participant information of the second task information for a first user, wherein the first user is without the executor role and the creator role associated with the first task information and without the executor role and the creator role associated with the second task information;
and, wherein the difference comprising one of the following:
the participant information of the first task information does not include information for the first user, and the participant information of the second task information includes the information for the first user, or the participant information of the first task information includes the information for the first user, and the participant information of the second task information does not include the information for the first user. 

(Claim 23 cont.): displaying the acquired item information on an associated page of a current page of the document or in a preset area on a current page.
Claim 20: An information processing method, comprising:
after a first preset control in first task information in a document interface is triggered by an operation of a first user, displaying second task information in the document interface, where participant information of the first task information and participant information of the second task information are different, and…

  
Consequently, for instant claims 23 and 38 are covered by reference claims 1 and 20 of ‘689 application. Thus, these instant claims are obvious by the patent refence claims 1 and 20 because both applicant’s pending application and the reference patent cover every feature claim in which the instant claims are broadly recited and encompass the same disclosed technology. Moreover, both the instant claims and the reference claims share similar invention titles which are directed to a method and a system that generally identify and display item information to a target or assigned user in order to providing “users to view their own item information, so that the user can deal with an item in time, thereby improving the efficiency of the user in acquiring information and dealing with items” (see ¶0008 from instant specs). In other words, as the reference system claimed discloses, a system for information processing to provide “an instant messaging tool or document capable of, e.g., task creation and management is desired to have a function that informs the managers or relevant colleagues about the progress of relevant tasks without increasing burden on all parties” (see ¶0003 from reference specs). Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), this invention scope in the instant claims 23 and 38 are covered by the independent reference claims 1 and 20 from ‘689 application (see MPEP 804 (II)(B)(2) for more details).

At least claims 23 and 38  are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 2 of Co-pending Application No. 18/288,074 (reference application referred as ‘074 hereafter). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences between the claims are considered to be obvious as set forth below: 
Instant claims 
Co-pending or reference claims
(18/288,074)
Claims 23 and 38: A method for displaying information, comprising: (claim 23)
acquiring item information of a target user from at least one document, wherein the item information of the target user comprises an item for which the target user is a creator and/or executor; and
displaying the acquired item information on an associated page of a current page of the document or in a preset area on a current page. 
Claim 1: An information processing method, comprising:
acquiring at least one piece of first task information in response to a first operation event on a first control or a second control in the interface; and
creating a first content page based on content information and type information of the first task information;
wherein the first content page is configured to carry association information of the first task information; and
the type information comprises first type information and/or second type information, and the second type information has an associated relationship with the first type information.
(Claim 23 cont.): displaying the acquired item information on an associated page of a current page of the document or in a preset area on a current page.
Claim 2: The method of claim 2, wherein, in response to that the type information of the first task information comprises the first type information and the second type information, displaying content information corresponding to the first type information in a first sub-region of the content block, and displaying content information corresponding to the second type information in a second sub-region of the content block.

  
Consequently, for instant claims 23 and 38 are covered by reference claims 1 and 2 of ‘074 application. Thus, these instant claims are obvious by the patent refence claims 1 – 2 because both applicant’s pending application and the reference patent cover every feature claim in which the instant claims are broadly recited and encompass the same disclosed technology. Moreover, both the instant claims and the reference claims share similar invention titles which are directed to a method and a system that generally identify and display item information to a target or assigned user in order to providing “users to view their own item information, so that the user can deal with an item in time, thereby improving the efficiency of the user in acquiring information and dealing with items” (see ¶0008 from instant specs). In other words, as the reference system claimed discloses, a system for information processing to “report the progress of the task or to summarize the task” during “the performance of a task” (see ¶0003 from reference specs). Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), this invention scope in the instant claims 23 and 38 are covered by the independent reference claims 1 and 2 from ‘074 application (see MPEP 804 (II)(B)(2) for more details).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.

The following is a quotation of pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.

 Claims 33 - 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.  Because claim 33 have dependency of cancelled claim 1. Further, claims 34 – 36 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) based on their dependency to claim 33. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. To advance compact prosecution and to provide clarity in this record the Examiner has interpreted claim 33 as being dependent of claim 23.  
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.

Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the limitation directed to a "computer-readable medium" disclosed in the claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) as it encompasses both transitory and non-statutory subject matter ("signal per se", see MPEP § 2106, subsection I). Finally, following the applicant specifications in ¶0176 which discusses that the system’s “computer program product includes a computer program carried on a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, an amendment to claim 39 is suggested to clarify and specify that such “computer-readable medium” (CRM) is not a “signals per se” by amending the claim with a “non-transitory” CRM.
Claims 23 - 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, although the above mentioned claim(s) failed step 1, all claims were further evaluated for the purpose of advancing compact prosecution. Firstly, it should be stated that claims 23 and 38 are addressed separately and claim 23 represents independent claim 38 and claim 39. At, Step 2A Prong 1: the abstract idea is defined by the elements (e.g. steps) of claim 23 (representative of claim 38 and claim 39): 
acquiring item information of a target user from at least one document, wherein the item information of the target user comprises an item for which the target user is a creator and/or executor; and 
displaying the acquired item information on an associated page of a current page of the document or in a preset area on a current page.

These limitations, describe a method and a system for identifying and categorizing item information to display the item information in a page of a document or in a preset area of the page. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. Thus, these limitations are directed to the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity in the form of mental process as these claims recite the steps of acquiring item information from a document that is from a user creator and is displayed on an associated page of the document or in an area on the page which clearly encompass concepts performed in the human mind or with a pen and paper, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). As disclosed in the specification in ¶0009, this invention allows that “item information scattered in various documents can be automatically collected, reducing the time spent by the user on sorting out the item information” and reflects the convenience for “users to view their own item information, so that the user can deal with an item in time, thereby improving the efficiency of the user in acquiring information and dealing with items.”

Although these steps are implemented by a computer, the “[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).

Step 2A Prong 2: For independent claims 23 38 and 39, This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Because the claims steps and their additional feature element(s) of at least one processor and at least one memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor (from claim 38), individually and in combination, merely is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). These element features including the computer and are recited at a high level of generality and are performed generally to apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how these steps are performed distinctively from generic computer components and without having each function to generally “apply it” to a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).

As for the “acquiring item information” and “displaying the acquired item information” steps in all claims are really nothing more than links to computer for implementing the use of ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components (refer to MPEP 2106.05 f (2)).

Thus, these limitations are also “merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, this is indicative of the fact that the claim set has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore, the claims are found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.

Step 2B: For independent claims 23 38 and 39, The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because the steps and their additional element(s) recited of at least one processor and at least one memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor (from claim 38) are not sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. Meaning, that there are no additional element(s) claimed in the dependent claims that could be significantly more than the judicial exception, but rather, further recites the abstract idea. As indicated in Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element(s) in the claims are merely, using a generic computer device or computing technologies and/or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea that does not constitute a practical application and only amounts to a mere instruction to practice the invention. Thus, these elements do not render the claims as being eligible (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h)). This is because the claimed invention must improve “upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art” (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above is also applicable and re-evaluated in step 2B. Therefore, this rationale is sufficient for its rejection basis as it is not patent eligible and no comments are necessary as it is also consistent with the MPEP 2106.

For dependent claims 24-37, these claims cover or fall under the same abstract idea of a method of organizing human activity and mental processes. They describe additional limitations steps of:
Claims 24 - 37: further describes the abstract idea of the method for displaying information and the determination of the item information created through a first or second creation operation to search a document in different formats, displaying a page for document access information, determining and indicating due or expiring times per item information, displaying item information states or status in a first and second display area in a determined order based on categories of null value or time point from a queue that include rankings wherein first states of time point category is ranked before the ones belonging to the null category. Also, the limitations further describe displaying recording an item in a document page and a display area, jumping to a location in where the item information is recorded to further display it which includes the display of determining if target user has access to the item being recorded and is moving the item to a display area. Thus, being directed to the abstract idea group of mental processes as these steps encompass concepts performed in the human mind or with a pen and paper, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. But also, is directed to a method of organizing human activity because it falls under “managing personal interactions between people” when at least determining if target user has access to the item being recorded and is moving the item to a display area.

Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: For dependent claims 35 and 37, these claims recite the additional elements: a permission application interface (from claim 35), an application program (from claim 37)  which are also recited to be merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea to permit access to a user based on user’s “facts” or requests as well as acquiring the item information in the respective app program. Thus, it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, these claim limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and or computing technologies (e.g. that are merely deployed to be used as a tool; see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). 

Also, these elements and their limitations are “merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.

Therefore, the additional elements previously mentioned above, are nothing more than descriptive language about the elements that define the abstract idea, and these claims remain rejected under 101 as well. 
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
       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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

     Claims 23 - 27, 33 - 36 and 38 - 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zaveri (U.S. Pub No. 20140372539 A1).
Regarding claims 23 and 38: 
This independent claim set is represented by claim 38
Zaveri teaches:
at least one processor; and at least one memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and storing instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor cause the apparatus to: (In ¶0099; Fig. 1 (104); Fig. 2A (204 and 104): teaches that “the access server module 204 may be operable to track and manage resources for the ASP system 104, which may involve monitoring/managing computer resource utilization (e.g., memory utilization, processor utilization, or network bandwidth utilization) by various components of the ASP system 104 or cloud-based services (e.g., SaaS, PaaS, or IaaS) utilized by various components of the ASP system 104.”)
acquire item information of a target user from at least one document, wherein the item information of the target user comprises an item for which the target user is a creator and/or executor; and (In ¶0173; Fig. 7 (702 – 704): teaches that “the capture module 404 may be configured to capture contextual information relating to the event detected by the event module 402” wherein the “event may be one resulting from an action performed on the data content object through the ASP system 104 at a request of a first user at the client 102” (see ¶0172).)
display the acquired item information on an associated page of a current page of the document or in a preset area on a current page.  (In ¶0175; Fig. 7 (706 – 708); Figs. 12, 14 and 16: teaches “at step 708, the ASP system 104 may present captured contextual information through an event card presented through a workspace being provided by the workspace module 214 or through a dashboard presented by the dashboard module 216” wherein the reference provided may be “presented in the event card, thereby permitting the second user to select the reference for traversal to the event location”, in accordance to ¶0034 – 35 from applicant specifications. Refer to ¶0204 for a “screenshot of an example interface 1200 for accessing a data content object that is a file and presenting context” as shown in Fig. 12, refer to ¶0207 for “a screenshots of example interfaces 1500, 1502, and 1504 each respectively accessing portions 1404, 1406, and 1408 of content shared by a user through the interface 1400 of FIG. 14” by using “different means of access” such as “word processing application” and refer to ¶0208 for more Fig. 16 details.)

Regarding claim 39: 
Zaveri further teaches:
A computer-readable medium, storing a computer program that, when being executed by a processor, implements the method according to claim 23. (In ¶0226; Fig. 22 (2204 and 2206): teaches “Both the memory system 2204 and the storage system 2206 comprise computer readable media which may store instructions or programs that are executable by a computer processor including the processor 2202”. Refer to ¶0037 and ¶0065 for general details of the system being implemented in the “digital device”)

Regarding claim 24: 
Zaveri, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 23.
Zaveri further teaches:
wherein acquiring item information of a target user from at least one document comprises: determining, in response to detection of a first item creation operation performed by the target user in the document, item information created through the first item creation operation as the item information of the target user; or, (In ¶0111; Fig. 8 (802 – 804) Fig. 20  (2008): teaches that an “event may be a result of an action performed on the data content object through the ASP system 104 at a request of a first user at the client 102” and “based on the detect event, the workspace module 214 may inform a second user (e.g., at another client) of the event, where the second user may be associated with the workspace”, in accordance to ¶0045 from applicant specs. Refer to ¶0214 for more details about lists of tasks that all users can see per event as shown in Fig. 20 and ¶0170 – 171 wherein the “presentation module 608 may be configured to visually arrange the event cards in the dashboard (e.g., tiling event cards, stack event cards, arranging event cards in columns or rows) according to card categories and/or relevance to the user perceiving the dashboard”.)
determining, in response to detection of a second item creation operation with the target user as the executor in the document, item information created through the second item creation operation as the item information of the target user; or, (In ¶0112; Fig. 8 (808): teaches “workspace module 214 may, at the request of the first user at the client 102, delegate a task to another user (e.g., the second user) in association with at least a portion of content in the data content object” and the “workspace module 214 may, subsequently, receive a response to the task from the other user (e.g., the second user), and integrate the response into the portion of content” which can “inform the first user at the client 102 regarding the response received from the other user (e.g., the second user), and may further inform the first user of the integration of the response into the portion of content originally delegated”, in accordance to ¶0048 – 49 from applicant specs. Refer to ¶0151 – 152 and ¶0181 – 182 for more task delegation details.)
searching for the item information of the target user from item information recorded in a document to be searched, (In ¶0201; Fig. 11 (1102 – 1110); Figs. 12 – 13: teaches that when “the client 302 is requesting a listing of activities for a certain section (e.g., page N) of the selected file rather than for the entirety of the selected file, the access server 312 may need to filter and provide the listing of activities accordingly, particularly after the OT engine has updated the position information”.)
wherein the document to be searched comprises at least one of a text document and a table document, and the item information recorded in the document to be searched comprises at least one of item information recorded in text of the text document, item information recorded in a table inserted in the text document, and item information recorded in a cell of the table document; (In ¶0014; Figs. 12 – 13, 15 and 19 : teaches that the file or “data content object can be a document file, such a word processing file, a spreadsheet file, a presentation file, or a post-script document file” which under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is directed to include text documents with tables and cells in a table, in accordance to ¶0052 from applicant specs. Refer to ¶0133 wherein details of each file and their format and path are stored in the database.)
and acquiring the item information of the target user found from the search. (In ¶0201; Fig. 11 (1108 – 1110): teaches “the access server 312 facilitate this update, the access server 312 may fetch all activities and changes relating to the selected file, and pass all activities and changes to the OT engine”, in accordance to ¶0053 from applicant specs.)

Regarding claim 25: 
Zaveri, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 23.
Zaveri further teaches:
wherein the associated page comprises a page for displaying document access information of the target user, wherein the displaying the acquired item information on an associated page of a current page of the document or in a preset area on a current page comprises: displaying the acquired item information on the page for displaying the document access information of the target user. (See Fig. 7 (706 – 708) and Figs. 12, 14 and 16: teaches, specifically in Fig. 16 which displays relevant updates that directs to a specific file that is requested to be fixed and that the user needs to click “Edit the File” to access and open the document, in accordance to ¶0057 – 58 and ¶0151 from applicant specs. Refer to ¶0208 for more Fig. 16 details.)

Regarding claim 26: 
Zaveri, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 23.
Zaveri further teaches:
wherein the displaying the acquired item information comprises: determining due item information that expires within a preset time period according to an item deadline and a current time; and (In ¶0146 – 147; Fig. 16 (see “Summary…More” from element 1602): teaches under BRI, that “the event notification module 506 may include an event card comprising a unit of summarized information regarding the event in association with the data content object” wherein the card may include “a secondary action (e.g., call of action) configured to be performed an operation with respect to the card at the request of the user perceiving the card (e.g., the percipient user)” wherein the secondary action can be “deferring presentation of the first card (e.g., defer based on time, date, or another event)” and the summary can also include “a date stamp for when the card was presented and/or when the event occurred” (see ¶0147 and ¶0167). Refer to ¶0129 wherein the system connected to “the application can push an indication and/or information regarding an event to the capture module 404, possibly as the event is occurring at the application or soon after” and can “receive event indications and/or information according to a schedule, based on satisfaction of certain conditions (e.g., occurrence of a specific type of event), or some combination thereof” as well as “indications and/or information for events other than those relating to changes to a data content object” which under BRI can include indications of item deadlines and current times.)
indicating the due item information among the displayed item information by predefined indication information. (see Fig. 16 (see “Summary…More” from element 1602): wherein the display of due item information may be in “Summary…More” from element 1602, as further disclosed in ¶0146 – 147 and ¶0129.)

Regarding claim 27: 
Zaveri, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 23.
Zaveri further teaches:
further comprising: displaying, in response to a document access operation, a page of the document indicated by the document access operation; (See Fig. 16 (see “Edit the File” from element 1602). Refer to ¶0208 for more Fig. 16 details. See Fig. 19 also.)
acquiring item information of the document indicated by the document access operation, wherein the item information comprises an item executed and/or created by any user; and (In ¶0211; Figs. 16 and 19: teaches “properties pane 1902 includes a section 1904 that provides general information regarding the workspace, such workspace name, cumulative data size of the data content objects associated with the workspace, the creator of the workspace, and the date of creation”.)
displaying the item information of the document indicated by the document access operation on a current page of the accessed document. (See Figs. 12 and 16: teaches in Fig. 16 shows user access that is indicated for a particular document by clicking “Edit the File” to open the document wherein, further Fig. 12 shows an example of the opened file wherein the user can still see notifications related to the document in a separate pane. Refer to ¶0204 for more Fig. 12 details.)

Regarding claim 33: 
Zaveri, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim [23].
Zaveri further teaches:
further comprising: displaying, in response to detection of a trigger operation on the displayed item information, a document page recording the item information. (In ¶0100; Figs. 2B, 12 and 16; Fig. 10 (1002 – 1008): teaches that when “the user requests access to data content objects (e.g., files) stored using a third-party data storage service, the storage module 206 may establish a connection with the third-party data storage service using the stored access parameters” such as “password” and/or “encryption key, signature file identifier, navigation address, third-party storage identifier”. Then the data content objects requested are accessed by the user in order to “open, view, or edit a file” of the content object which directed to displaying a document page recording the item information as shown in Figs. 12 and 16, in accordance to ¶0126 from applicant specs. Refer to ¶0104 and ¶0208 for more Figs. 12 and 16 details, respectively.)

Regarding claim 34: 
Zaveri, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 33.
Zaveri further teaches:
further comprising at least one of: jumping to a location where the item information is recorded on the document page to display the item information; and (In ¶0084; Fig. 7 (706 – 712); Fig. 11 (1112 – 1114): teaches that “the ASP system 104 can present one or more users with a reference to a location in the data content object that relates the event” which “can result in the ASP system 104 providing the client 102 with access to an application that is executing on behalf of the client 102 and that is accessing the content of the data content object at the location referenced”. Refer to ¶0109, ¶0138 and ¶0199 for more details.)

Regarding claim 35: 
Zaveri, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 33.
Zaveri further teaches:
wherein the displaying, in response to detection of a trigger operation on the displayed item information, a document page recording the item information comprises: displaying a permission application interface in response to a fact that the target user does not have access to the document recording the triggered item information; (In ¶0100; Fig. 2A (208 and 210): teaches under BRI, that “when the user requests to review a listing of data content objects (e.g., files) stored on the third-party data storage service or when the user chooses to access data content objects (e.g., open, view, or edit a file) using an application provided by the ASP system 104 (e.g., through the application module 210)” directed to permission application interface, in accordance to ¶0128 from applicant specs. Also, in ¶0102 “virtualization module 208 may be configured to establish, monitor, maintain, or otherwise manage execution of an instance of an application in a virtual computing environment (hereafter, also referred to as a “virtualized application instance”) for access by the user at the client 102” wherein “an instance of the application may be executed in a virtual computing environment in association with an application session established for access by the user at the client 102” which is also directed to permission application interface. Refer to ¶0031 wherein the system can “determine one or more other users authorized and designated to receive a notification about the one or more particular events”)
sending a permission application request based on an operation performed on the permission application interface by the target user; and displaying, in response to determination that the target user has obtained the access to the document based on the permission application request, the document recording the triggered item information (In ¶0100; Figs. 2B, 12 and 16; Fig. 10 (1002 – 1008): teaches under BRI that when “the user requests access to data content objects (e.g., files) stored using a third-party data storage service, the storage module 206 may establish a connection with the third-party data storage service using the stored access parameters” such as “password” and/or “encryption key, signature file identifier, navigation address, third-party storage identifier” directed to using a permission application interface to log in credentials. Then the data content objects requested are accessed by the user in order to “open, view, or edit a file” of the content object which directed to displaying a document page recording the item information as shown in Figs. 12 and 16, in accordance to ¶0126 – 127 from applicant specs. Refer to ¶0104 and ¶0208 for more Figs. 12 and 16 details, respectively.)

Regarding claim 36: 
Zaveri, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 33.
Zaveri further teaches:
wherein displaying, in response to detection of a trigger operation on the displayed item information, a document page recording the item information comprises: displaying, in response to the detection of the trigger operation on the displayed item information, the document page recording the item information and a display area for displaying the item information together. (See Fig. 12 and Fig. 16 (see “Summary…More” from element 1602): teaches in Fig. 16 document file before clicking “Edit the File” with item information such as “relevant updates” and in Fig. 12 shows the document page and a display area directed to the “notifications area” with item information, in accordance to ¶0129 – 131 from applicant specs. Refer to ¶0104 and ¶0208 for more Figs. 12 and 16 details, respectively.)

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 28 - 32 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaveri (U.S. Pub No. 20140372539 A1) in view of Mouawad (U.S. Patent No. 11144854 B1).
Regarding claim 28: 
Zaveri, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 26.
Zaveri teaches that the system can receive task responses from other users assigned such as an “action with respect to the task” and the “first user's status of the task will be updated accordingly” wherein such response “comprises content (e.g., copied content portion as revised)” (see ¶0151 – 152 and ¶0182; Zaveri). However, Zaveri does not explicitly teach the ability of specifically displaying item information in a first/second state or status in a corresponding display area. However, Mouawad teaches:
wherein the displaying the acquired item information comprises at least one of: displaying item information in a first state in a first display area; and displaying item information in a second state in a second display area. (In C14; L7 – 13; Figs. 7A, 23, 26A, 26B, 26G, 26I and 28: teaches specifically in “FIG. 7A provides a flow chart demonstrating managing task flow and project status changes” wherein “requestors or assignors and assignees associated with a task may change the status of the task via a user interface similar to that described in connection with FIG. 5” such  as clicking “Complete” button for “completing a task” directed to the second state, in accordance to ¶0094 – 95 from applicant specs. Refer to C14; L31 – 45 wherein tasks can be deemed “In Progress” status directed to the first state.)

It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaveri to provide the ability of displaying item information in a first/second state or status in a corresponding display area, as taught by Mouawad in order to “provide improved task management for future projects or tasks (i.e. assigning the right task to the right person based on previous performance)” and to “provide reminders and summaries to participants involved, freeing valuable time and manual follow-up” (C1; L19 – 22 and L47 – 49 ; Mouawad).

Regarding claim 29: 
The combination of Zaveri and Mouawad, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 28.
Zaveri further teaches:
wherein an order in which the item information is displayed in the first display area is determined through a first order determination step, and the first order determination step comprises: determining, based on first time information associated with the item information in the first state, an order in which the item information in the first state is to be displayed. (In ¶0220; Fig. 20 (2008 and 2010): teaches that “each column may provide event cards from an order based on relevance (e.g., most relevant to least relevant)” and “each column may provide a count indicating the number of event cards that need to be addressed by the user (e.g., by way of a second action associated with an event card)” which is directed to the item information in the first state since a second action can be “entering a comment in association with the first card (e.g., liking an event, liking an existing comment, or replying to a an existing comment)” by a second user (see ¶0146). Also, the order based on relevance can include “did the user recently create the data content object, did the user recently change the data content object; has the user commented on the data content object; has the user reviewed the content of the data content object; and has the user collaboratively worked with another user that has changed or otherwise accessed the data content object” (see ¶0216). Refer to ¶0170 for more details about event cards arrangement based on “card categories and/or relevance to the user perceiving the dashboard” and refer to ¶0128 wherein the system capture contextual information related to events detected such as user performing actions that are provided as “a listing of changes implemented to the data content object” by an application wherein the changes can be “sorted according to time of implementation (e.g., oldest to most recent change)”.)

Regarding claim 30: 
The combination of Zaveri and Mouawad, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 29.
Zaveri does not explicitly teach the abilities of having a null value or a time point as a category to determine the order to display item information in the first state, generate a queue for it and determine the order of item information of the time point category in the first state being ranked before the item information of the null category in the first state. However, Mouawad further teaches:
wherein content indicated by the first time information comprises at least one of: a null value or a time point, wherein the determining, based on the first time information associated with the item information in the first state, the order in which the item information in the first state is to be displayed comprises: determining, based on the content indicated by the first time information, a category that the item information in the first state falls into, wherein the category that the item information in the first state falls into comprises at least one of: a null category and a time point category; (In C15; L61 – 67; Fig. 15: teaches that “task management pane may keep track of active tasks and/or task status” for “tasks in process, tasks completed, and/or tasks that are overdue” (directed to the null value or time point) wherein “a visual indicator may be given for each total category” such as “a color representative of the category/task status” and a “number that indicates the number of tasks in each category”. Also, the category for item information in the first state or “in process” tasks is reflected in the “task status board includes tasks board 1502 that provides a visual representation of a breakdown of a plurality of tasks into categories according to their statuses” such as “(1) in process, used to indicate work in progress within active target date;” (directed to time point category) “(2) overdue, used to indicate work in progress beyond the target date” and “(3) completed, used to indicate work that assignee completed and/or returned to requestor (waiting to be closed, e.g., by the requestor)” which is directed to null category (see C27; L1 – 20), in accordance to ¶0101 – 102 from applicant specs. Refer to C12; L21 – 27 for more “default values” or null values and “default timeframes” or time point value given to task information.)
generating a queue of the item information in the first state; and (In C13 - 14; L66 – 17 and L1 – 2; Figs. 10, 11A, 23, 28, 39 – 41 and 45: teaches the generation of a queue, when “the assignee” is “provided with an option to order the list of assignments assigned to the assignee” wherein the order can be based on many filters such as “by requestor, project, task, due date, messages, or any other parameters” and any other factors.)
determining, based on the queue of the item information in the first state, the order in which the item information in the first state is to be displayed, wherein in the queue of the item information in the first state, the item information of the time point category in the first state is ranked before the item information of the null category in the first state. (In C40; L37 – 67; Figs. 28 and 45: teaches that the system can determine the order in which the item information in the first state is to be displayed, specifically since the system allows the user to use “one, two, or more sort filters” via a “droplist or other similar control” implemented in a “Task Feed” as shown in Figs. 28 and 45. Wherein such filters can be a first filter for first state or “in process” tasks to appear and be sorted based on “target date” (directed to time point category) and then a second filter for “in process” tasks based on or sort by “recent date” (directed to the null category) in order to provide the user with the most urgent or “earliest target date” tasks first, in accordance to ¶0106 from applicant specs )

It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaveri to provide the abilities of having a null value or a time point as a category to determine the order to display item information in the first state, generate a queue for it and determine the order of item information of the time point category in the first state being ranked before the item information of the null category in the first state, as taught by Mouawad in order to “provide improved task management for future projects or tasks (i.e. assigning the right task to the right person based on previous performance)” and to “provide reminders and summaries to participants involved, freeing valuable time and manual follow-up” (C1; L19 – 22 and L47 – 49 ; Mouawad).

Regarding claim 31: 
The combination of Zaveri and Mouawad, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 30.
Zaveri does not explicitly teach the ability of determining a ranking based on a time point indicated for the item information in the first state in the queue. However, Mouawad further teaches:
wherein the generating a queue of the item information in the first state comprises: determining, based on a time point indicated by the first time information associated with the item information in the first state, a ranking of the item information of the time point category in the first state in the queue of the item information in the first state. (In C40; L37 – 67; Figs. 28 and 45: teaches that the system can generate a queue (see C13 - 14; L66 – 17 and L1 – 2 and Fig. 45) and  can determine the order in which the item information in the first state is to be displayed, specifically for a time point indicated such as selecting a deadline or “target date option” which “may cause” the “in process” tasks of the first state to be “sorted according to target date” when implemented in a “Task Feed” as shown in Figs. 28 and 45.)

It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaveri to provide the ability of determining a ranking based on a time point indicated for the item information in the first state in the queue, as taught by Mouawad in order to “provide improved task management for future projects or tasks (i.e. assigning the right task to the right person based on previous performance)” and to “provide reminders and summaries to participants involved, freeing valuable time and manual follow-up” (C1; L19 – 22 and L47 – 49 ; Mouawad).

Regarding claim 32: 
The combination of Zaveri and Mouawad, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 28.
Zaveri does not explicitly teach the ability of specifically determining second time information in the second state or “completed” status (according to ¶0094 – 95 from applicant specs) to display item information in the second state in an order. However, Mouawad further teaches:
wherein an order in which the item information in the second state is to be displayed in the second display area is determined through a second order determination step, and the second order determination step comprises: determining, based on second time information associated with the item information in the second state, the order in which the item information in the second state is to be displayed. (In C40; L40 – 52; Fig. 28: teaches that the system can determine an order for item information in a second state or “completed status” as shown in Fig. 28 wherein “the status filter 2802 may be implemented using a droplist or other similar control that contains textual and/or graphical representation of various task status or substatuses such as “Active Tasks” which may further include sub tasks statuses such as “In Progress,” “Completed,” and “Overdue.” Refer to Figs. 39 – 40 wherein boards and their tasks can be listed in any order) 


It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaveri to provide the ability of specifically determining second time information in the second state or “completed” status (according to ¶0094 – 95 from applicant specs) to display item information in the second state in an order, as taught by Mouawad in order to “provide improved task management for future projects or tasks (i.e. assigning the right task to the right person based on previous performance)” and to “provide reminders and summaries to participants involved, freeing valuable time and manual follow-up” while the user have a sneak peak of how the tasks look like in the board (C1; L19 – 22 and L47 – 49 ; Mouawad).

Regarding claim 37: 
Zaveri, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 23.
Zaveri does not explicitly teach the ability of moving the item information to a display area of a state indicated or switching a state of the item information in an application program. However, Mouawad further teaches:
further comprising: moving, in response to detection of a state switch operation on the item information, the item information targeted by the state switch operation to a display area corresponding to a state indicated by the state switch operation; or, switching, in response to detection of a state switch operation on the item information, a state of the item information in the document recording the item information; and/or switching a state of the item information in an application program that has acquired the item information; or, switching, in response to detection of a state switch operation on item information recorded in a document page, a state of corresponding item information in a display area where the item information is displayed. (In C15; L58 – 65; Figs.5, 7A and 25: these conditional limitations are satisfied by this prior art since the prior art teaches that “the assignee may click a “Complete” button at the top of the task detail pane and the status of the task may change from “In Progress” or “Overdue” to “Complete”” which is directed to switching a state of the item information which is reflected in a display area, in accordance to ¶0134 – 135 and ¶0141 from applicant specs. Refer to Figs. 25 and 26A wherein the tasks marked as “in progress” and/or “completed” are displayed in a calendar and other sections.)

It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaveri to provide the ability of moving the item information to a display area of a state indicated or switching a state of the item information in an application program, as taught by Mouawad in order to “provide improved task management for future projects or tasks (i.e. assigning the right task to the right person based on previous performance)” and to “provide reminders and summaries to participants involved, freeing valuable time and manual follow-up” (C1; L19 – 22 and L47 – 49 ; Mouawad).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 
Gauger (U.S. Pub No. 20070192156 A1) is pertinent because it is “a project monitoring apparatus and method which enables easy, interaction between authorized individuals in all phases of the project sequence, which minimizes notifications to individual about project issues, tasks, changes, etc., where such notifications are not necessary, and provides project documentation which can be archived for future reference.”
Madisetti (U.S. Pub No. 20210081367 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to real-time collaboration and annotation-based task creation and management.”
Howell (U.S. Pub No. 20150309978 A1) is pertinent because it “relates generally to tools and techniques for data management, and more specifically, to systems and methods for annotating electronically-stored data with user-viewable, machine-readable, persistent, electronic tick marks.”
Kagawa (U.S. Pub No. 20090235182 A1) is pertinent because it “generally relate to information processing technologies for assisting collaborative activity, and particularly relate to a collaborative-activity assisting apparatus, a collaborative-activity assisting system, a collaborative-activity assisting method, and a recording medium having a collaborative-activity assisting program embodied therein for providing an environment in which a plurality of users can share activity contexts indicative of shared information and activity statuses.”
Bellet (U.S. Pub No. 20210110327 A1) is pertinent because it “relates generally to tools and methods for managing workflow, and specifically to tools for providing users with directions for starting a new task.”
Hull (U.S. Pub No. 20150317073 A1) is pertinent because it “pertains generally to data processing systems, and more particularly, but not by way of limitation, to a platform for workplace collaboration.”

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ivonnemary Rivera Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-6158. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.





/IVONNEMARY RIVERA GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3626                                                                                                                                                                                                        
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626