DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communication: Amendment filed 05/01/2026. This action is made final.
Claims 1-12 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 11 and 12 are independent claims.
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 § 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 1, 2, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIMA (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0338975 hereinafter Shima) in view of Hiroyuki Washino (JP 2010-205050 hereinafter Washino (Provided by Applicant in IDS dated 3/8/23)).
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 display screen configured to display images <display screen to display images para 0063>;
an object sensor operatively connected to the display screen, and configured to detect approach or contact of an object with respect to the object sensor <touch or proximity touch is detected and sensed para 0067>;
a processor configured to <fig 3 item 50>:
detect a specific noncontact state established by a user for an operation surface of the display screen
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>.
Shima does not appear to explicitly disclose detect noncontact state. Based on output from the sensor; control the display screen to present, if the specific noncontact state is detected, an animation that moves over time.
In the same field of endeavor, Washino teaches
detect noncontact state, based on output from the sensor <see fig 3, 4, para 0015, sensor output (signal) can be detected to determine proximity contact>;
control the display screen to present, if the specific noncontact state is detected, an animation that moves over time <animation can be presented over time para 0029>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Shima, Washino before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Shima to include the teachings of Washino, in order to obtain limitations taught by Washino. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides an effective way to visualize approaching contact/noncontact positions.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shima in view of Washino 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, Washino do 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, Washino, Nakao before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Shima, Washino 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 Washino 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, Washino do not appear to explicitly disclose limitation of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Bari teaches wherein the display screen displays an explanation of the operation method that 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, Washino, Bari before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Shima, Washino 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 display screen displays an explanation that 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 Washino 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, Washino, 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, Washino, Nakao, Bari before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Shima, Washino, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 01, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights