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 .
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14-17 and 19-20 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.
The limitations of “a control element”, “the control element” and “control elements” cited in claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14-17 and 19-20 are confusing since is unknown which control element has been referred to. The specification disclose a plurality of control elements(550a, 550b, 1650b, 1750b)(See Figs. 16-17; [0093, 0131, 0136] in PGB 20230262158).
The limitation of “a second level” cited in claims 2, 7 is unknown whether it is the same “second level” cited in claim 1.
The limitation of “a second level” cited in claim 14 and “a level” cited in claim 12 is unknow whether it is the same “second level” cited in claim 10.
The limitation of “a second level” cited in claim 17 and “a level” cited in claims 19 and 20 is unknow whether it is the same “second level” cited in claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14-17 and 19-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Voisin et al(US 20160306508) teach first level menu(112) and the second-level menu(114) could be hidden(see Fig. 1 and [0084]).
Wang(US 20150378521) teach a display device comprising a second level and a third level menu could be hidden(see Fig. 2A, [0024]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LunYi Lao whose telephone number is (571)-272-7671. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM-6:00PM M-F.
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, LunYi Lao can be reached at (571) 272-7671. 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.
/LUNYI LAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2621