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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to: Amendments filed on July 6th, 2026
This action is made Final.
Claims 1-10 are pending claims.
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 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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shozaki (US 2010/0231946 A1) in view of Singh (US 6,208,331 B1).
As for independent claim 1:
Shozaki discloses information processing apparatus comprising circuitry configured to (0057-0058, 0066):
issue a request to switch display of the screen, in response to occurrence of an error after the operation is disabled (0101-0102, 0117, Shozaki discloses an error generation notification from the system controller and outputs a request for an error screen to the error error handling function section and outputs a request for a determination as to screen switching to the application sections see 0131);
switch the display of the screen in accordance with an urgency level of the error to permit or forbid an operation on an error screen (0125, 0128, 0133, Shozaki discloses panel managers conducts an error assessment and prompting a user to take action urgency and then controls switching of a display a screen, see error generated by a sheet jam as low urgency and error generated by cooling fan/ physical damage of storage device as high urgency, see 0133 and 0135).
Shozaki does not disclose generate a screen on a display for disabling operations, disable an operation on the screen in accordance with an instruction from a user. Singh discloses generate a screen on a display for disabling operations, disable an operation on the screen in accordance with an instruction from a user in 2:37-56 and 3:6-22. In the cited sections Singh discloses a clean touch screen button, when activated does not register any individual touches of the display touch screen. Singh further discloses touch screen changes the display to a light or white color upon the activation of the clean touch screen mode. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the apparatus of Shozaki to incorporate operation disabling screen and clean touch screen button as discloses by Singh, thus allow disabling operation on a screen to allow the user to effectively clean the screen without registering any individual touches (Singh, 2:37-56 and 3:6-22).
As for dependent claim 5:
Shozaki - Singh discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to: set a switching condition for switching display of the screen, the switching condition including the urgency level; and switch the screen in accordance with the switching condition that is set (Shozaki discloses a plurality of error level and screen switching determination set by the panel manager in 0128, 0132)
As for dependent claim 6:
Shozaki - Singh discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising an engine to execute an image processing function (Shozaki 0057, discloses image reading unit and operation features in 0075).
As for independent claim 7:
Claim 7 contains substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 1 and is respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
As for independent claim 9:Claim 9 contains substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 1 and is respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 10:Claim 10 contains substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 1 and is respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shozaki (US 2010/0231946 A1) in view of Singh (US 6,208,331 B1) and in further view of Kittaka (US 2015/0156348 A1).
As for dependent claim 2:
Shozaki - Singh does not disclose information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to: display the error screen on the display in response to the occurrence of the error, the error screen including a predetermined screen; and hide the predetermined screen or make the predetermined screen transparent, in accordance with the urgency level of the error. Kittaka discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to: display the error screen on the display in response to the occurrence of the error, the error screen including a predetermined screen; and hide the predetermined screen or make the predetermined screen transparent, in accordance with the urgency level of the error in 0173-0175. In the cited sections, Kittaka discloses error information that was displayed on the related screen is hidden on the unrelated screen. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the apparatus of Shozaki - Singh to incorporate the teaching by Kittaka, thus allow disabling operation on a screen and less information on the user interface, hiding button (0163-0165 Kittaka).
As for dependent claim 4:
Shozaki - Singh does not disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to: display the error screen on the display in response to the occurrence of the error, the error screen including a button; and hide the button, in accordance with the urgency level of the error. Kittaka discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to: display the error screen on the display in response to the occurrence of the error, the error screen including a button; and hide the button, in accordance with the urgency level of the error in 0163-0165, 0173-0175. In the cited sections, Kittaka discloses hiding button and information of related and unrelated level of error of the displayed screen. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the apparatus of Shozaki - Singh to incorporate the teaching by Kittaka, thus allow disabling operation on a screen and less information on the user interface, hiding button (0163-0165 Kittaka).
Claims 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shozaki (US 2010/0231946 A1) in view of Singh (US 6,208,331 B1) and in further view of Sasakuma (US 2018/0183955 A1).
As for dependent claim 3:
Shozaki - Singh does not disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to: display the error screen on the display in response to the occurrence of the error, the error screen including a button; and change, in accordance with the urgency level of the error, a response condition under which the button responds. Sasakuma discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to: display the error screen on the display in response to the occurrence of the error, the error screen including a button; and change, in accordance with the urgency level of the error, a response condition under which the button responds in 0073-0074. In the cited sections, Sasakuma discloses error and button display and guidance button to obtain guidance information. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the apparatus of Shozaki - Singh to incorporate the teaching by Sasakuma of provide the user with specific operations needed to clear the error, thus allow navigating guidance information (0010 and 0073, Sasakuma).
As for dependent claim 8:
Shozaki - Singh does not disclose the information processing system according to claim 7, further comprising: a first apparatus including the display to display the screen that receives an operation, and the circuitry; and one or more second apparatuses to implement one or more functions operated by the first apparatus via the screen. Sasakuma discloses a first apparatus including the display to display the screen that receives an operation, and the circuitry; and one or more second apparatuses to implement one or more functions operated by the first apparatus via the screen in 0069-0074. In the cited sections, Sasakuma discloses detecting an error on an image processing device and display screen with error information. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the apparatus of Shozaki - Singh to incorporate the teaching by Sasakuma of provide the user with specific operations needed to clear the error, thus allow navigating guidance information (0010 and 0073, Sasakuma).
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
The Examiner notes MPEP § 2144.01, that quotes In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) as stating “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” Further MPEP 2123, states that “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
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 DAVID PHANTANA ANGKOOL whose telephone number is (571)272-2673. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-3:30 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.
/David Phantana-angkool/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights