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 .
Notice as to Grounds of Rejection and Pre-AIA or AIA Status
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11 and 12
Claim 1 recites an information processing apparatus and is one of the statutory categories.
Claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium and is one of the statutory categories.
Claim 12 recites a method and is one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following, for which the bolded items are interpreted to encompass steps that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion.
An information processing apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to:
detect a specific noncontact state established by a user for an operation surface; and.
present, if the specific contact state is detected, an explanation of an operation method used for the operation surface or a function of an object displayed on the operation surface.
More specifically, the whole limitation may be practically performed in the human mind. For example, a human can mentally detect a noncontact surface and can write an explanation about the operation for the noncontact surface.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites additional elements/limitations “a processor configured to …”.
With regards to the additional element/limitation “a processor” this additional element is considered as merely reciting the words ‘apply it’ with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer/sensor, or merely using a computer/sensor as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The courts have identified this type of limitation is insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, these additional elements identified above when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, there are no additional elements.
Claims 2-10
With regards to claims 2-10, they recite additional elements of displaying information using gesture and positioning of display are determined to be insiginificant limitations as necessary data gathering/outputting. The courts have found limitations that add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Thus, when considered, individually and in combination, these additional elements fail to amount to ‘significantly more’.
Claims 11, 12 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 11 and 12 recite “present[ing] if the specific contact state is detected…” “the specific contact state” lacks antecedent basis” and it is not clear which specific contact state is being referred to? For the purpose of examination, examiner has interpreted to “the specific noncontact state”.
Dependent claims 2-10 are rejected incorporating the deficiencies of claims 1, 13 and 20 respectively upon which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 2, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SHIMA (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0338975 hereinafter Shima)
With regard to claims 1, 11, 12, Shima teaches an information processing apparatus, a non-transitory computer readable medium, a method for processing information, respectively, comprising:
a processor configured to <fig 3 item 50>:
detect a specific noncontact state established by a user for an operation surface; and <proximity (non-contact) operation is detected on a touch panel para 0077>.
present, if the specific contact state is detected, an explanation of an operation method used for the operation surface or a function of an object displayed on the operation surface <button information is displayed upon detection of a proximity information para 0079, 0082, figs 8b, 9b item 11>.
With regard to claim 2, this claim depends upon claim 1, which is rejected above. In addition, Shima teaches wherein the specific noncontact state is a state where proximity to the operation surface has been detected for a certain period of time but an operation has not been performed on the object displayed on the operation surface <predetermined time is used to detect proximity touch para 0082>.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shima in view of Nakao et al (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0123592 A1 hereinafter Nakao).
With regard to claim 3, this claim depends upon claim 1, which is rejected above. Shima does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Nakao in combination of Shima teaches wherein the explanation differs depending on a trajectory of detection of the proximity to the operation surface <based upon the vertical direction (trajectory) and proximity state appropriate button can be selected para 0173-0179, fig 13a, 13b>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Shima, Nakao before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Shima to include the teachings of Nakao, in order to obtain limitations taught by Nakao. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides convenience for a user to correctly select a button for operation.
Claims 4-7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shima in view of Bari et al (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0220247 A1 hereinafter Bari).
With regard to claim 4, this claim depends upon claim 1, which is rejected above. Shima does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Bari teaches wherein the explanation of the operation method is an explanation of a method for performing a gesture operation based on a movement of the user with respect to the operation surface <see fig 3C where information about performing operations is provided upon proximity input and gesture operation can be performed para 0070, 0089>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Shima, Bari before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Shima to include the teachings of Bari, in order to obtain limitations taught by Bari. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides convenience for a user to use gesture to perform operations and is well known in the art.
With regard to claim 5, this claim depends upon claim 4, which is rejected above. In addition, Bari teaches wherein the explanation of the operation method is an explanation of a method for performing a gesture operation based on a movement of the user performed without contact with the operation surface <see fig 3C where information about performing operations is provided upon proximity input (without touch) and gesture operation can be performed para 0070, 0089>.
With regard to claim 6, this claim depends upon claim 1, which is rejected above. Shima does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Bari teaches wherein the explanation is displayed outside an area where proximity to the operation surface has been detected <see fig 3C item 330 is shown outside of the area of proximity operation>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Shima, Bari before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Shima to include the teachings of Bari, in order to obtain limitations taught by Bari. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides better visualization of the information provided as a result of proximity operation.
With regard to claim 7, this claim depends upon claim 2, which is rejected above. Shima does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Bari teaches wherein the explanation is displayed outside an area where proximity to the operation surface has been detected <see fig 3C item 330 is shown outside of the area of proximity operation>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Shima, Bari before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Shima to include the teachings of Bari, in order to obtain limitations taught by Bari. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides better visualization of the information provided as a result of proximity operation.
With regard to claim 9, this claim depends upon claim 4, which is rejected above. Shima does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Bari teaches wherein the explanation is displayed outside an area where proximity to the operation surface has been detected <see fig 3C item 330 is shown outside of the area of proximity operation>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Shima, Bari before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Shima to include the teachings of Bari, in order to obtain limitations taught by Bari. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides better visualization of the information provided as a result of proximity operation.
With regard to claim 10, this claim depends upon claim 5, which is rejected above. Shima does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Bari teaches wherein the explanation is displayed outside an area where proximity to the operation surface has been detected <see fig 3C item 330 is shown outside of the area of proximity operation>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Shima, Bari before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Shima to include the teachings of Bari, in order to obtain limitations taught by Bari. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides better visualization of the information provided as a result of proximity operation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shima in view of Nakao in view of Bari et al (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0220247 A1 hereinafter Bari).
With regard to claim 8, this claim depends upon claim 3, which is rejected above. Shima, Nakao do not appear to explicitly disclose limitation of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Bari teaches wherein the explanation is displayed outside an area where proximity to the operation surface has been detected <see fig 3C item 330 is shown outside of the area of proximity operation>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Shima, Nakao, Bari before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Shima, Nakao to include the teachings of Bari, in order to obtain limitations taught by Bari. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides better visualization of the information provided as a result of proximity operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANIL K BHARGAVA whose telephone number is (571)270-3278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at 571-272-4140. 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.
/ANIL K BHARGAVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172