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 .
Pursuant to communications filed on 01/11/2024, this is a First Action Non-Final Rejection on the Merits wherein claims 1-15 are currently pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns / lines numbers or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Examiner has also cited references in PTO-892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
1. – an acquisition part for …In claim 14.
2. – a generation part for …In claim 14.
3. – an output part …In claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1, 14 and 15 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do claims 1, 14 and 15 fall within one of the statutory categories? Claim 1 is an information output method, and claim 14 is an information output apparatus. However, claim 15 is directed to a computer-readable recording medium, wherein per the broadest reasonable interpretation of that medium includes non-statutory transitory media, or signals. As such, claim 15 is directed to a form of energy and is non-statutory.
Claim 1 will be used to illustrate the rejection with respect to all independent claims.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, specifically the mental process of collecting, analyzing, and displaying information.
Analysis: The core of the claim involves acquiring information, modifying an association (data processing), generating new information, and outputting it.
Mental Process/Mathematical Concept: Courts often view the "association" of data (linking a space ID to a device ID) and the modification of that association as a fundamental economic practice or a mental process that could be performed by a human with a pen and paper.
Information Processing: Simply collecting, analyzing, and displaying information is generally considered an abstract idea unless it solves a specific technical problem.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. The claim does not recite an inventive concept that is "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself.
Lack of Technical Solution/improvement: The claim does not describe an improvement to the internal functioning of a computer or a solution to a technical problem in the physical world; it focuses on the logical association of data points. In other words, the claim does not describe an improvement to the computer's functioning itself (e.g., faster processing, better memory management) or a technical solution to a specific building-management problem that goes beyond mere data reorganization.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Generic Computer Implementation/functions: The use of an "information processing apparatus" is considered a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer component. Simply performing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not make it patent-eligible. In other words, the claim uses a generic "information processing apparatus" to perform standard data functions: acquiring, modifying, generating, and outputting. These are "well-understood, routine, and conventional" activities in the computer field.
Routine Data Manipulation: The functions (acquiring, generating, outputting) are generic computer functions. There is no mention of a novel algorithm, improved hardware efficiency, or a specific technical implementation that goes beyond the standard data processing cycle.
CONCLUSION
The claim is "directed to" the abstract idea of data management or manipulation. Without a specific technical implementation or a result that improves a technical field, it remains in the realm of ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, appropriate correction is earnestly requested.
Dependent claims 2-13 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well understood, routine, and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
2. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. A patentable subject matter is required to be directed to one of the following four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C 101: process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is directed to computer-readable recording medium. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. Transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Therefore, Applicant should amend the claim 15 to recite for example, A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium…...
Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent, because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure.
Accordingly, appropriate correction is earnestly requested.
Examiner notes wherein the claims have been addressed below, in view of the prior art of record, as best understood by the Examiner in light of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections provided herein.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-10, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al (US20150033136-from IDS), “Sasaki” in view of Yabe et al (US20160147919-from IDS), “Yabe”.
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 15, Sasaki discloses an information output method / the associated apparatus / the associated computer-readable recording medium, by an information processing apparatus (e.g., via a method for controlling an information apparatus, the information apparatus having a display and being connected to a network, one or more target devices, which are installed in a building, being controlled over the network), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
484
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
acquiring first relevance information indicative of a relevance between space identification information identifying a space in a building and device-installation information that is indicative of a device or an installation and associated with the space identification information………….; and outputting ………... (e.g., see at least [0069] disclosing similar functionality - A method according to an aspect of the present disclosure is a method for controlling an information apparatus, the information apparatus having a display and being connected to a network, one or more target devices, which are installed in a building, being controlled over the network, the method causing a computer of the information apparatus to: display on the display one or more device type icons representing types of the respective target devices installed in the building; display on the display one or more room icons representing each of rooms included in the building; when it is determined that selection of any one of the device type icons among the one or more device type icons is detected, display one or more room icons each representing a room, in which a target device of a type corresponding to the selected device type icon is installed, in a different display mode from a display mode for one or more room icons each representing a room, in which the target device of the type corresponding to the selected device type icon is not installed; when it is determined that selection of any one of the room icons among the one or more room icons displayed in the different display mode is detected, display on the display a first operation screen for operating a controlled target device, the controlled target device being installed in a room corresponding to the selected room icon, the type of the controlled target device corresponding to the selected device type icon; and output a control command for controlling the controlled target device to the network based on an operation on the first operation screen, the controlled target device being installed in a room corresponding to the selected room icon, the type of the controlled target device corresponding to the selected device type icon.).
Sasaki teaches the claimed invention, but does not expressly teach acquiring modification information for modifying an association between the space identification information and the device-installation information in the first relevance information; generating second relevance information indicative of a new association between the space identification information and the device-installation information on the basis of the modification information; and outputting the second relevance information.
However, in the same field of endeavour or analogous art, Yabe teaches the claimed features implemented in a layout generation system for generating layout information for an electric device connected to a network in a home. Yabe further teaches the features of acquiring modification information for modifying an association between the space identification information and the device-installation information in the first relevance information; generating second relevance information indicative of a new association between the space identification information and the device-installation information on the basis of the modification information; and outputting the second relevance information. (see at least [0065] Note that a device may also be positioned in a target room by not only a drag operation (drag and drop) in the floor plan area MDA in this way, but also by a drag operation in the list area LTA. This situation is described specifically with reference to FIGS. 9A and 9B. FIGS. 9A and 9B are schematic diagrams illustrating an example of an editing screen in a case of positioning a device with a drag operation in the list area LTA. First, similarly to the above case of FIG. 8A, when any device is selected from the list LT9 of unpositioned devices and a drag operation is performed, the icon Ic is generated, and moves to follow the user's fingertip. If the drag operation is performed in the list area LTA, and the icon Ic is moved into the list LTn of one of the rooms (in this example, into the living room list LT2), the device icon positioner 253 highlights the frame of the list LT2, as illustrated in FIG. 9A. Subsequently, when the user's finger is released (when the icon Ic is dropped) at that location, the device icon positioner 253 displays “A/C” in the list LT2, and also positions the icon Ic in the corresponding room in the floor plan image MD (in this example, the living room), as illustrated in FIG. 9B. Note that, although omitted from FIG. 9B, the device icon positioner 253 also generates and displays a popup dialog DA2 prompting the user to register a device name, similarly to FIG. 8C discussed above. Note that if the drag operation ends outside the list LTn of one of the rooms in the list area LTA, or if the drag operation ends inside the list LT9 of unpositioned devices, the device icon positioner 253 removes the icon Ic, and does not position the device.).
Therefore, it is prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sasaki to include the idea of modifying an association between the space identification information and the device-installation information, and further outputting the relevance information, as taught by Yabe for the benefit of having a floor plan editor that edits a simplified floor plan of a home by individually adding a configuration of a room where an electric device is installed, in accordance with a user operation. A device icon positioner positions an icon of the electric device in each room in the floor plan edited by the floor plan editor, in accordance with the user operation. A layout generator generates layout information for the electric device in the home, based on the edited floor plan and the positioned icon.
Regarding claim 5, Sasaki discloses as discussed in claim 1. Sasaki is silent to disclose further comprising: outputting image information for displaying an image on a display screen, wherein in the output of the image information, the image information for changing a display state of device-installation information relevant to the modification information from a first state to a second state on the display screen is output. However, Yabe teaches at [0066] First, when repositioning a device with a drag operation inside the floor plan image MD, the user performs a drag operation to move and drop an already-positioned icon Ic into another room (in this example, the dining room), as illustrated in FIG. 10A. When the drag operation is received, the device icon positioner 253 positions the icon Ic in the dining room, and in addition, removes “A/C” from the living room list LT2 in the list area LTA, and instead displays “A/C” in the dining room list LT1. Next, when repositioning a device with a drag operation inside the list area LTA, the user performs a drag operation between lists to move a device into another room (in this example, the dining room), as illustrated in FIG. 10B. When the drag operation is received, the device icon positioner 253 removes “A/C” from the living room list LT2 in the list area LTA, and instead displays “A/C” in the dining room list LT1. In addition, the device icon positioner 253 moves and positions the icon Ic from the living room to the dining room in the floor plan image MD. See motivation to combine as set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Sasaki discloses as discussed in claim 5. Sasaki is silent to disclose wherein the first state is a normal display state of a graphic representing the device-installation information, and the second state is an emphasis display state of the graphic representing the device-installation information. However, Yabe teaches at [0051] Note that the floor plan image MD is an example of an initial state, and illustrates a state in which the rooms are not configured, and all devices (icons) are not positioned. In the floor plan image MD, buttons Bt1 to Bt3 for specifying the addition of a room or the like are disposed. Note that these buttons Bt1 to Bt3 are described in detail together with the control module 25 (a floor plan editor 252) discussed later. Also, in the list area LTA, lists LT1 and LT9 of the name or the like of a room added to (configured in) the floor plan image MD and the devices positioned in that room are displayed. Note that in FIG. 3, since the devices are in an unpositioned state, the room is unnamed, and the list LT1 is blank (no devices are displayed). On the other hand, all devices are displayed on the list LT9 of unpositioned devices. Note that each device on the list LT9 is acquired by a device information acquirer 251 discussed later, and displayed on the basis of device information 241 discussed later, which is stored in the data storage 24. See motivation to combine as set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Sasaki discloses as discussed in claim 1. Sasaki is silent to disclose further comprising: outputting control information for changing an operational state of a device or an installation relevant to the modification information from a first state to a second state. However, Yabe teaches at [0059] the floor plan editor 252 edits the floor plan according to operations on the input interface 23 (as an example, operations on a touchscreen) while in a state of displaying on the display 22 an editing screen like the one illustrated in FIG. 3 discussed above. Next, the buttons Bt1 to Bt3 provided in the floor plan image MD on the editing screen in FIG. 3 are described. The button Bt1 is a button for giving an instruction to add a room. When a press of the button Bt1 (touch by the user) is detected via the input interface 23, the floor plan editor 252 re-generates and displays on the display 22 the floor plan image MD with an added room. See motivation to combine as set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Sasaki discloses as discussed in claim 7. Sasaki is silent to disclose wherein the first state is one of power-on and power-off operational states of the device or installation, and the second state is the other of the power-on and power-off operational states of the device or installation. However, Yabe teaches at [0073] When an operation check for an electric device 4 is requested by the terminal device 2, the control command module 332 commands the relevant electric device 4 to execute a predetermined operation check. For example, the control command module 332 respectively generates power-on and power-off command data corresponding to the electric device 4 for which for an operation check was requested, and then transmits the command data from the communication module 31 via the home network 5 to the relevant electric device 4 to be controlled. Note that the operation check is not limited to power-on/power-off as above, and may be modified as appropriate. For example, for an electric device 4 used in an always-on state, command data commanding the electric device 4 to output a predetermined response sound or the like may be transmitted. See motivation to combine as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Sasaki discloses as discussed in claim 1. Sasaki is silent to disclose further comprising: outputting a recommendation notification indicative of a recommendable modification to the first relevance information when acquiring the modification information. However, Yabe teaches at [0060] This situation is described specifically with reference to FIGS. 7A to 7C. FIGS. 7A to 7C are schematic diagrams illustrating an example of an editing screen in a case of adding a room. First, as illustrated in FIG. 7A, when the user's finger presses the button Bt1 in the floor plan image MD, the floor plan editor 252 generates and displays on the display 22 a popup dialog DA1 prompting the user to register a room name, as illustrated in FIG. 7B. The dialog DA1 herein illustrates a case in which the user has selected “Living room” as the name of the room. Subsequently, the floor plan editor 252 generates and displays in the floor plan area MDA the floor plan image MD with an added “Living room”, as illustrated in FIG. 7C. Also, the floor plan editor 252 adds “Living room” and a corresponding list LT2 (blank) to the list area LTA. In this way, the floor plan editor 252 adds a room to the floor according to the press of the button Bt1. At this point, as the number of rooms increases, the horizontal width of the floor plan image MD is extended appropriately. See motivation to combine as set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Sasaki discloses as discussed in claim 1. Sasaki further discloses further comprising: outputting a non-recommendation notification indicating that the modification information is not recommendable, when the modification information is acquired and a modification is not recommendable (see [0283] disclosing when the state of the device 200 changes, the state change is notified to the server 300. Therefore, the server 300 is able to monitor the state change of the device 200. In addition, the server 300 to which a device state is transmitted from the device 200 notifies the state change to the home controller 100. Therefore, the home controller 100 is able to recognize the current state of the device 200. Furthermore, when the new device 200 is connected to the home network, the server 300 and the home controller 100 can add information on the new device. Therefore, an occurrence of a deviation between an actual state of the device 200 and a state of the device 200 as recognized by the home controller 100 can be prevented.).
Regarding claim 13, Sasaki discloses as discussed in claim 1. Sasaki further discloses wherein frequency information indicative of use frequency for each user in connection with the first relevance information is kept, and in a case that there is a user who has a higher use frequency than a user inputting the modification information, a confirmation notice as to whether or not to modify the first relevance information is further output. (See [0105] According to the present aspect, the first operation screen may be included in the one or more room icons for a part of the instructions to the target device, and the second operation screen can be separately displayed on the display for the remaining instructions. Therefore, for example, by including only frequently used instructions in the room icon, a size of the room icon can be reduced. Accordingly, for example, even in a case where many room icons are displayed for a target device that is installed in a large number such as an illumination device or an air conditioner, a larger number of room icons can be displayed in a limited display area. On the other hand, for example, less frequently used instructions can be accommodated by separately displaying the second operation screen for operating such instructions on the display.
Allowable Subject Matter
It appears claims 2-4, 11-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action, however, further search and consideration may be required upon the submission of claim amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaime Figueroa whose telephone number is (571)270-7620. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Wade Miles can be reached on 571-270-7777. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAIME FIGUEROA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656