Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/864,775

INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 14, 2022
Examiner
SHIBEROU, MAHELET
Art Unit
2171
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Fujifilm Business Innovation Corp.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
409 granted / 561 resolved
+17.9% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+27.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
592
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.1%
-28.9% vs TC avg
§103
63.7%
+23.7% vs TC avg
§102
8.1%
-31.9% vs TC avg
§112
8.4%
-31.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 561 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 12/23/2025. Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 13-16 are pending in the case. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1, 3, 6-8,10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash (US 20190294587 A1 – Cite No. 1 on IDS 6/26/2023) in view of Nishiyama et al. (US 20030113040 A1, hereinafter Nishiyama) and Combs et al. (US 20020075324 A1, hereinafter Combs). As to independent claim 1, Prakash teaches an information processing device comprising a processor configured to: calculate a number of pieces of data in each of a plurality of states that the data may take from among data stored in a storage location (“the disclosed invention incorporates a rule-based modification of presentation attributes of associated filesystem artifacts. The Customized Browser disclosed herein offers the ability to change these presentation attributes after the passage of prescribed period of time or upon the happening of a prescribed contingency. Thus, if the user so specifies with by associating a rule based on the size of a file or folder, its icon style would change, or its name style would change when the file size increases beyond a threshold. Similarly, if the file contains some time sensitive content, its presentation attributes could change when the file remains unopened for a pre-specified number of days” paragraph 0036, “A system for customized display of a computer filesystem artifact is disclosed comprising a display surface; an artifact having a name, an icon, a create time, an access time and an update time defined by a computer clock where create time, the access time and the update time is each a number, a stored content having an associated size, a storage space where the storage space is allocated for storing the artifact's saved content in the computer filesystem, and a visual representation” paragraph 0059); and execute a process for displaying the calculated number of pieces of data in each state in association with a representative image that represents the storage location (“FIG. 2 illustrates the use custom color codes for folders where multiple color codes are used for a folder. Users of computer systems decide what color (or colors) they wish to give to a folder. Options of several colors are provided. User is also permitted to make customized colors from a rainbow of colors. User can also prescribe multicolored folders. As an illustration for this functionality, indigo color 204 can be used to denote all cases that are currently active for that client, yellow 202 to denote all cases under consideration, blue to show concluded cases 206, green to show correspondence 208, and red 210 to denote cases where settlements were reached. Such a user may give a particular folder more than one color if that folder contains files or sub-folders relevant to more than one such annotation.” Paragraph 0061, “Computer systems usually maintain files and folders in secondary storage (such as disks, tapes, floppies, pen drives, cloud etc.). File management systems maintain a file allocation table or a directory structure that includes the names of the files or folders, a pointer to the actual file, and additional descriptive attributes including permissions granted to the file or folder.” Paragraph 0082), Prakash does not appear to expressly teach wherein the processor is configured to further execute, in response to an operation from a user, a process for displaying a summary window in which representative images respectively representing each piece of data stored in the storage location are classified and arranged according to the state, and in the summary window, the representative images respectively representing each piece of data are arranged in a coordinate system in which the plurality of states are assigned to respective positions on a first axis and values of a temporal attribute of the data are assigned to respective positions on a second axis that is perpendicular to the first axis. Nishiyama teaches the processor is configured to further execute, in response to an operation from a user, a process for displaying a summary window in which representative images respectively representing each piece of data stored in the storage location are classified and arranged according to the state (“The image database apparatus includes an image database 4 storing image data representing a number of color images (or monochrome images). Data representing the characteristics of the image data also is stored in the image database 4 in correspondence with the image data that has been stored. The characteristics of the image data include the percentage of color in an image, the average lightness of an image, the average saturation of an image and the date of photography of the image. An output signal from an input unit 3 such as a keyboard or mouse is applied to the CPU 2. The input unit 3 outputs a signal representing an image search command, a signal indicative of the fact that a specific image has been designated, etc….The image database apparatus according to this embodiment is such that a plurality of images having different characteristics are displayed on the display screen of the display unit 6 as representative images from among the number of images that have been stored in the image database 4…..As mention above, the image database apparatus according to this embodiment is such that a plurality of representative images are displayed on the display screen of the display unit 6. The representative images selected for this display have various characteristics. The representative images are displayed as follows, by way of example: Consider multidimensional space in which the image characteristics are placed along the coordinate axes. In such case the images are disposed in this multidimensional space.” paragraph 0029-0034), and in the summary window, the representative images respectively representing each piece of data are arranged in a coordinate system in which the plurality of states are assigned to respective positions on a first axis and values of a temporal attribute of the data are assigned to respective positions on a second axis Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Prakash to comprise the processor is configured to further execute, in response to an operation from a user, a process for displaying a summary window in which representative images respectively representing each piece of data stored in the storage location are classified and arranged according to the state, and in the summary window, the representative images respectively representing each piece of data are arranged in a coordinate system in which the plurality of states are assigned to respective positions on a first axis and values of a temporal attribute of the data are assigned to respective positions on a second axis. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve managing or organizing a plurality of files on the computer by providing a display that ensures easier visual grasp of the characteristics of data. Prakash and Nishiyama do not appear to expressly teach the second axis is perpendicular to the first axis. However, Combs [0032] discloses “The present invention allows the user to specify exactly which picture characteristics to use for the scatter plots, and which dimension to correspond to a given picture characteristic. A change or update in one dimension automatically updates the other two picture dimensions.”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Prakash and Nishiyama to comprise the values of a temporal attribute of the data are assigned to respective positions on a second axis that is perpendicular to the first axis. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve readability to the viewer. As to dependent claim 3, Prakash teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, Prakash does not appear to expressly teach wherein the processor is configured to execute, in response to as operation or setting from the user, a process for switching between displaying the summary window and displaying a window indicating a list of the data in the storage location provided by an operating system of the information processing device. Nishiyama teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute, in response to as operation or setting from the user, a process for switching between displaying the summary window and displaying a window indicating a list of the data in the storage location provided by an operating system of the information processing device (“As shown in FIG. 5, the display screen 21 is split into a left-half area that serves as a coordinate area 24 and a right-half area that serves as a detailed-image display area 25.” Paragraph 0044) Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Prakash to comprise wherein the processor is configured to execute, in response to as operation or setting from the user, a process for switching between displaying the summary window and displaying a window indicating a list of the data in the storage location provided by an operating system of the information processing device. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve managing or organizing a plurality of files on the computer by providing a display that ensures easier visual grasp of the characteristics of data. As to dependent claim 6, Prakash teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, Prakash further teaches wherein the temporal attribute of the data is at least one of a storage date when the data was first stored in the storage location or an elapsed time since the data changed to the current state of the data (“An "attribute" may be a characteristic of a file or a parameter used as a reference for comparison with another file, which may include the date of file preparation or updating,” paragraph 0010, “FIG. 6 illustrates a customization of a folder and file color in a time dependent manner where the color, size, or shape or other attributes changes when the file is not worked upon for a predefined period of time.” Paragraph 048). As to dependent claim 8, Prakash teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, Prakash further teaches wherein the state is a state indicating a progress of a workflow related to the data (“FIG. 2 illustrates the use custom color codes for folders. As an illustration for this functionality, indigo color 204 can be used to denote all cases that are currently active for that client, yellow 202 to denote all cases under consideration, blue to show concluded cases 206, green to show correspondence 208, and red 210 to denote cases where settlements were reached.” Paragraph 0061). Claims 7 and 10,13-16 are substantially the same as claims 1, 6 and 8 and are therefore rejected for the same rationale as above. Response to Arguments Applicant's prior art arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection presented above. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Masuda et al. US 20130132890 A1 teaches displaying representative image data of each of a plurality of content files in association with a creation time of the content file on a time-axis range of a calendar. Gardenforms US 20140040747 A1 teaches method for displaying content items on an electronic device based upon a property defined for each of the content items. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHELET SHIBEROU whose telephone number is (571)270-7493. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-5:00 PM Eastern Time. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Ell can be reached on 571-270-3264. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MAHELET SHIBEROU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 14, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 02, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 25, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 22, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 23, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 30, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596535
Editing User Interfaces using Free Text
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591348
ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR CONTROLLING DISPLAY OF MULTIPLE WINDOW, OPERATION METHOD THEREOF, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591419
Prompt Based Hyper-Personalization of User Interfaces
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12578845
CUSTOMIZED GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE GENERATION GRAPHICALLY DEPICTING ICONS VIA A COMPUTER SCREEN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572270
USER INTERFACE FOR DISPLAYING AND MANAGING WIDGETS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+27.8%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 561 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month