Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/068,166

ELECTRONIC DEVICE, DISPLAY CONTROL METHOD AND STORAGE MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 19, 2022
Examiner
ENGLISH, ALECIA DIANE
Art Unit
2625
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Casio Computer Co. Ltd.
OA Round
7 (Non-Final)
41%
Grant Probability
Moderate
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
52%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 41% of resolved cases
41%
Career Allow Rate
184 granted / 448 resolved
-20.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
489
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
64.1%
+24.1% vs TC avg
§102
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
§112
11.8%
-28.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 448 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). 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, 5-6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunch (US Patent Publication No. 2017/0249284) in view of Excel: Formulas and Functions for Dummies (hereinafter Excel) and Midorogi et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2012/0327102; hereinafter Midorogi). With reference to claims 1, 11, and 12 Bunch discloses an electronic device (180) comprising at least one processor (in teaching equation engine; see paragraph 3), and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a program that is executable by a processor of an electronic device (180) configured to perform processing (see paragraphs 28, 149; Fig. 18), and a display control method for displaying mathematical formulas on a display (180) (see paragraphs 28, 149, 155; Fig. 18) including: at least one processor configured to: input a first mathematical formula and a second mathematical formula in response to operations performed on operation keys (1960) (see paragraphs 61-62, 97, 150; Figs. 18-19), wherein the second mathematical formula (1830) is inputted before the first mathematical formula (in teaching pre-stored formulas; see paragraph 149; Figs. 17-18). While Bunch discloses a calculator for performing mathematical calculations, there fails to be disclosure of judging the inclusion of the calculation result included in the first mathematical formula as recited. Excel discloses an electronic device comprising at least one processor configured to during input of the first mathematical formula judge whether or not the operations performed on the operation keys includes citation of a calculation result of the second mathematical formula (step 1-2) in the first mathematical formula (step 3-4) (see pages 21-22); in response to judging that the operations performed on the operation keys includes citation of the calculation result of the second mathematical formula in the first mathematical formula, control the display to display the first mathematical formula in a first display form and change display of the second mathematical formula from a third display form to a second display form (in teaching colors of cells; see Figs. 1-14, 1-15); and in response to judging that the operation performed on the operation keys does not include citation of the calculation result of the second mathematical formula in the first mathematical formula, control the display to display the first mathematical formula in the first display form and maintain display of the second mathematical formula in the third display form (no color highlight of the cells; see pages 21-22; Figs. 1-14, 1-15); and receive input of an instruction to display a calculation result of the first mathematical formula including citation of the calculation results of the second mathematical formula (see pages 21-22; Figs. 1-14, 1-15); and in response to receiving the input of the instruction to display the calculation result of the first mathematical formula including citation of the calculation result of the second mathematical formula, control the display to display the calculation result of the first mathematical formula in the first display form and maintain display of the second mathematical formula in the third display form (see pages 21-22; Figs. 1-14, 1-15). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of a colored calculation result similar to that which is taught by Excel to be carried out in a calculation device similar to that which is taught by Brunch to thereby provide quick identification of calculation steps and results. Further while Excel discloses wherein the first display form is a first gray level, the second display form is a second gray level and the third display form is a third gray level, and wherein the second gray level is lighter than the first gray level and the third gray level is lighter than the second gray level (in teaching different highlights for cited equations for each cell and no color highlighting of the cells; see pages 21-22; Figures 1-14, 1-15), there fails to be specific disclosure of maintaining the display form of the second formula during calculation or changing the formula and the calculation result displayed in a same row as recited. Midorogi disclose a mathematical expression calculation apparatus including a display, a processor, and a memory for displaying mathematical expressions on the display wherein terms included in the mathematical expression displayed have different forms wherein in response to receiving the input of the instruction maintaining display of the second term in the second display form together on the display (in teaching content of the expression portions are highlighted with the same color of multiple expressions displayed at the same time; see paragraphs 92-93, 95-97; Figs. 4-7), wherein the first display form includes displaying the first mathematical formula at a first gray level and the second display form includes displaying the second mathematical formula at a second gray level lighter than the first gray level; and wherein the third display form includes displaying the second mathematical formula at a third gray level lighter than the second gray level (in teaching allowing multiple colors to be set to each parameter of the equation based on calculation; see paragraphs 65, 69-70. 75-76, 82; Figs. 3-10), and change display of the second mathematical formula and the calculation result of the second mathematical formula (see paragraphs 46. 135), and the second mathematical formula and the calculation result of the second mathematical formula are displayed in a same row in a display area of the display (see paragraphs 140, 174, 247-; Figs. 11-12, 19-20). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of maintaining forms of terms during calculation steps similar to that which is taught by Midorogi to be carried out in a system capable of performing calculations similar to that which is taught by Bunch and Excel to thereby provide a display mode of terms and mathematical expressions to the user in an easily viewable manner (see Midorogi; paragraph 5). With reference to claim 3, Bunch, Excel, and Midorogi disclose the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein Excel further discloses wherein the first display form is a first gray level, the second display form is a second gray level and the third display form is a third gray level, and wherein the second gray level is lighter than the first gray level (in teaching highlighting shades, conditional formatting-color scales). With reference to claim 5, Bunch, Excel, and Midorogi discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein Excel further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to: input a third mathematical formula in response to the operations performed on the operation keys (in teaching input cell information; see page 21); judge whether or not the operations performed on the operation keys includes citation of a calculation result of the third mathematical formula in the first mathematical formula or the second mathematical formula (see paragraph 22; Figs. 1-15); and control the display to display the first mathematical formula, the second mathematical formula and the third mathematical formula in the list, wherein, in response to judging that the operations performed on the operation keys does not include citation of the calculation result of the third mathematical formula in the first mathematical formula or the second mathematical formula and judging that the operation performed on the operation keys includes citation of the calculation result of the second mathematical formula in the first mathematical formula, control the display to display the first mathematical formula in the first display form, the second mathematical formula in the second display form and the third mathematical formula in the third display form. With reference to claim 6, Bunch, Excel, and Midorogi discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein Excel further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to: divide a display area of the display into a plurality of display areas (cells), control the display to display each of the first mathematical formula, the second mathematical formula and the third mathematical formula in the list in different display areas of the plurality of display areas (in teaching that a formula can be assigned to each cell, pages 21-22). With reference to claim 8, Bunch, Excel, and Midorogi disclose the electronic device according to claim 5, wherein Bunch further discloses the electronic device further comprising: wherein the at least one processor is configured to: control a memory to store one of a plurality of input statuses corresponding to the first display form, the second display form and the third display form in association with the first mathematical formula, the second mathematical formula and the third mathematical formula (see paragraphs 147, 148-149; Figs. 17-18); and control the display to display the first mathematical formula in the first display form, the second mathematical formula in the second display form and the third mathematical formula in the third display form based on the plurality of input statuses stored in the memory in association with the first mathematical formula, the second mathematical formula and the third mathematical formula (in teaching field border shades of grey and variants; see paragraphs 146-149, 153-155; Figs. 18-19, 22-24). With reference to claim 9, Bunch, Excel, and Midorogi disclose the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein Bunch further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to adjust a size of a display area of each of the first mathematical formula and the second mathematical formula in accordance with a display size of the first mathematical formula and a display size of the second mathematical formula (see paragraphs 157, 172; Figs. 25-26). With reference to claim 10, Bunch, Excel, and Midorogi disclose the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein Bunch further discloses wherein the electronic device is a calculator (see paragraph 3; Fig. 18). Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunch, Excel, and Midorogi as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Nakai et al. (US 5,748,798; hereinafter Nakai). With reference to claim 7, Bunch and Excel disclose the electronic device according to claim 5, however fail to specifically disclose the plurality of gray levels as recited. Nakai discloses a method which enables an application to produce character data by using levels of gray scale data (see column 14, line 53-column 15, line 3) wherein the processor (see column 14, lines 45-52; Fig. 1), when controlling the display to display at a plurality of gray levels (0-5), controls the display to display using the first gray level (1), the second gray level (2), the third gray level (3), and lights-out (5) by controlling a light of each frame of the display to be turned on and off with three frames (loops) that are sequentially displayed as one cycle (see column 15, line 66-column 16, line 6, lines 56-67; Figs. 3-13). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow producing gray levels of the display characters similar to that which is taught by Nakai to be carried out in creating gray levels of the alphanumeric data as taught by Bunch, Excel, and Midorogi to thereby provide visually appealing characters using the gray level data (see Nakai; column 3, lines 17-24). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 03/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Excel fails to disclose newly cited features of display of the second mathematical formula and the calculation result of the second mathematical formula from a third display form to a second display form, and the second mathematical formula and the calculation result of the second mathematical formula are displayed in a same row in a display area of the display. The examiner agrees that Excel fails to disclose changing of the display form. However as explained previously, the examiner finds that Excel discloses the usage of grey levels to distinguish mathematical formulas, and Midorogi discloses the feature of maintaining the grey level (or color value) from the second formula to the first formula as recited. Further, the examiner finds that providing high levels of visual feedback to the user while preforming mathematical calculations by association of colors through the calculation improves user comprehension of the mathematics being performed, as suggested by Midorogi, would be obvious and a matter of design choice to those skilled in the art (see Midorogi; paragraphs 5, 7-8, 119-122). Further, the examiner finds that Midorogi discloses displaying the mathematical formula and the calculation results of the mathematical formula are displayed in a same row as explained above. For these reasons the examiner finds that the combination of references disclose the features. Pertinent Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. NAKAYAMA et al. (US5,732,001) discloses an educational calculator which permits sequential display of equations as transformations are made to solve the equation, thus it is possible to learn step by step the respective processes of the problem solving methods of simultaneous linear equations (see abstract; Figs. 1-49). KURUMIDA (US5,506,941) discloses a pattern generation method for generating gray scale font on the basis of a bit map data generated by a binary bit map font generator wherein the gray scale levels range between 0% to 100% levels (see abstract; column 1, line 44-column 2, lines 47; Figs. 1-5). DVORAK et al. (US2023/0153518) discloses a spreadsheet application wherein color filled cells are to match color coding of the formulas to make it much easier to see how the cells work together (see abstracts; paragraphs 55-72; Figs. 12-17). BROTHERS et al. (US2011/302228) discloses creating a plurality of mathematical expressions, creating a set of links between each of the plurality of mathematical expressions to form a dynamic computational environment within the calculator (see paragraphs 54-61; Figs. 4-6). MIASNIKOV et al. (US2014/0093847) discloses a system for solving mathematical problems which employs an interface which allows user to enter their mathematical equations, wherein the system helps students learn the process of solving problems by showing logical steps (see abstract, paragraphs 41-91; Figs. 1-4). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALECIA DIANE ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 7:00am-3:00am. 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, William Boddie can be reached on 571-272-0666. 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. /ADE/Examiner, Art Unit 2625 /WILLIAM BODDIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 19, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 24, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 30, 2023
Response Filed
Jan 09, 2024
Interview Requested
Mar 09, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 19, 2024
Interview Requested
Jul 18, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 19, 2024
Interview Requested
Jul 30, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 30, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 12, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 24, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 05, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 14, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 20, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 21, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 22, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 08, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 19, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 01, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12554357
TOUCH DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12542107
SCAN CIRCUIT AND DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12541258
SENSOR FOR DETECTING PEN SIGNAL TRANSMITTED FROM PEN
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12510994
RESOURCE ALLOCATION APPARATUS AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12498820
METHOD, SENSOR CONTROLLER, AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
41%
Grant Probability
52%
With Interview (+10.7%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 448 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