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 .
1. This communication is responsive to the Amendment filed 8/6/2025.
2. Claims 1, 3-8 and 10-15 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 8 are independent claims. In the instant Amendment, claims 1 and 8 were amended. This action is made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1, 7-8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (JP 2008298553 A) in view of Darland et al (“Darland” US 2015/0160162) and further in view of Duarte (US 2008/0168385).
Regarding claim 1, Ogawa discloses a device for emphasizing the relation of user interface sections, the device comprising:
a first user interface section (see fig 8, dialog menu 400, function menu 300 and waveform display area 200); and
a second user interface section (see fig 8, dialog menu 400, function menu 300 and waveform display area 200);
wherein the first user interface section and the second user interface section are configured to display at least one of:
an instrument parameter, a measurement result, a waveform (e.g., “In FIG. 8, a waveform display area 200 is an area where the waveform to be measured is displayed as a waveform…The dialog menu 400 is a window for setting items selected in the function menu 300 in more detail”); and
wherein the device is configured to de-focus the second user interface section with respect to the first user interface section based on the selection of an instrument parameter in the first user interface section (e.g., “The dialog menu 400 is a window for setting items selected in the function menu 300 in more detail…FIG. 8 shows an example in which the phase shift of each channel is set. Further, since the dialog menu 400 is filled with the entire window and is not transparent, the waveform hidden behind the menu 400 cannot be visually recognized.”).
Ogawa does not expressly disclose wherein the device is further configured to blur the second user interface section to de-focus the second user interface section, and the blur disappears if the first user interface section loses focus; or wherein upon an instrument parameter in the first user interface section is selected, the second user interface section, which shows a measurement result or a waveform that is not affected by the instrument parameter, is de-focused.
However, Darland discloses wherein upon an instrument parameter in the first user interface section is selected, the second user interface section (see fig 2 and paragraphs [0057]-[0058]; e.g., display areas are dynamically linked), which shows a measurement result or a waveform that is not affected by the instrument parameter, is de-focused (see fig 2 and paragraphs [0043]-[0045], [0050], [0054]-[0055] and [0087]; e.g., highlighting linked UIs to emphasize the relationship between them. The UIs not linked are consequently de-focused). It would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the present invention to include Darland’s teachings in Ogawa’s user interface in an effort to provide a more user-friendly interface that optimizes screen display space.
Moreover, Duarte discloses wherein the device is further configured to blur the second user interface section to de-focus the second user interface section, and the blur disappears if the first user interface section loses focus (see figs 2-4 where panes 105, 110, 115 and 120 are shown; also see paragraphs [0026]-[0027]; e.g., when a pane is in focus, the other panes are blurred; and when a pane loses focus, one of the other panes’ blur disappears). It would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the present invention to include Duarte’s teachings in the modified Ogawa’s user interface in an effort to provide a more user-friendly interface that blurs de-focused (e.g., not highlighted, linked UIs as taught by Darland) sections thereby simplifying navigation of a user interface with multiple sections/panes.
Regarding claim 7, Ogawa discloses further configured to de-focus the second user interface section displaying a measurement result with respect to the first user interface section displaying an instrument parameter based on the selection of the instrument parameter in the first user interface section (see fig 8; e.g., “The user operates a mouse externally attached to the waveform measurement device, a rotary knob provided on an operation panel provided on the front surface of the waveform measurement device, and various buttons (direction keys, numeric keys, etc.), and sets a setting target from the function menu 200. The item ("Phase Shift" in FIG. 8) is selected. Alternatively, if the display screen 100 is a touch panel, a menu to be set is pressed to select a setting target. By this selection, the dialog menu 400 is displayed on the display screen 100, but the dialog menu 400 is displayed so as to overlap a part of the waveform display area 200 or the entire waveform display area 200.”).
Claims 8 and 14 are similar in scope to claims 1 and 7, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15, Ogawa discloses when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method according to claim 8 (see claim 1 above).
5. Claim(s) 3-6 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa and Darland and Duarte in view of Soo et al (US 2016/0216875).
Regarding claim 3, Ogawa does not expressly disclose reduce the size of the second user interface section to de-focus the second user interface section.
However, Soo discloses reduce the size of the second user interface section to de-focus the second user interface section (see figs 3 and 7; also see paragraph [0040]; e.g., the focused card is moved to the foreground and enlarged while non-focused cards are reduced in size and moved to background). It would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the present invention to include Soo’s teachings in Ogawa’s user interface in an effort to provide an intuitive, fast and easy way of monitoring and navigating multiple user interfaces.
Regarding claim 4, Ogawa does not expressly disclose a third user interface section, wherein the device is in particular configured to increase the size of the third user interface section to de-focus the second user interface section.
However, Soo discloses a third user interface section, wherein the device is in particular configured to increase the size of the third user interface section to de-focus the second user interface section (see figs 3 and 7; also see paragraph [0040]; e.g., the focused card is moved to the foreground and enlarged while non-focused cards are reduced in size and moved to background). It would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the present invention to include Soo’s teachings in Ogawa’s user interface in an effort to provide an intuitive, fast and easy way of monitoring and navigating multiple user interfaces.
Regarding claim 5, Ogawa does not expressly disclose a fourth user interface section, wherein the device is in particular configured to increase the size of the fourth user interface section to de-focus the second user interface section.
However, Soo discloses a fourth user interface section, wherein the device is in particular configured to increase the size of the fourth user interface section to de-focus the second user interface section (see figs 3 and 7; also see paragraph [0040]; e.g., the focused card is moved to the foreground and enlarged while non-focused cards are reduced in size and moved to background). It would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the present invention to include Soo’s teachings in Ogawa’s user interface in an effort to provide an intuitive, fast and easy way of monitoring and navigating multiple user interfaces.
Regarding claim 6, Ogawa does not expressly disclose wherein at least two of the user interface sections are non-rectangular user interface sections.
However, Soo discloses wherein at least two of the user interface sections are non-rectangular user interface sections (see fig 7, 500). It would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the present invention to include Soo’s teachings in Ogawa’s user interface in an effort to provide an intuitive, fast and easy way of monitoring and navigating multiple user interfaces.
Claims 10-13 are similar in scope to claims 3-6, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Faulkner et al (US 2022/0091722).
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHAWN N TILLERY whose telephone number is (571)272-6480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a - 5:30p.
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 L Bashore can be reached on (571) 272-4088. 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.
/RASHAWN N TILLERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174