DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Amendment dated 02 June 2026. Claims 1, 10 and 11 are amended. No claims have been added or cancelled. Claims 1-11 remain pending and have been considered below.
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 § 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, 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 1-7, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbello et al. (US 2023/0376699 A1) in view of Sfaelos et al. (US 2004/0085570 A1) and further in view of Ookuma (US 8,527,875 B1).
As for independent claim 1, Barbello teaches a system comprising:
a processor or a plurality of processors configured to: generate a screen that includes a second object in which predetermined information is written in a second language, based on information about a first object in which the predetermined information is written in a first language, the first object being included in an operation screen of an [image processing] apparatus [(e.g. see Barbello paragraphs 0042, 0043, 0045 and Figs. 4 and 5) ”multiple incoming chat messages 404 are displayed. Based on predefined user preferences (e.g., translation settings set in device settings), the electronic device 102 determines the chat messages 404 to be in a human language (e.g., Portuguese) that is different than a user-preferred language (e.g., English) … the electronic device 102 may generate one or more system UI overlays 408 (e.g., an overlay for each individual message or a single overlay having multiple (including all) the translated messages) on top of the chat application to re-render the chat messages 404 as translated text 410 in English … Based on a user input, the electronic device 102 translates the copied text and presents translated text 512 to the user via the display 502 (e.g., shown in the instance 502-3). In some aspects, the translated text 512 may be included in the overlay 506 with an indication of the original human language 114 and the target human language 118”].
display an operation button for superposing the screen that includes the second object on the operation screen in response to displaying the operation screen that includes the first object [(e.g. see Barbello paragraphs 0042, 0045, 0062 and Figs. 4 and 5) ”multiple incoming chat messages 404 are displayed. Based on predefined user preferences (e.g., translation settings set in device settings), the electronic device 102 determines the chat messages 404 to be in a human language (e.g., Portuguese) that is different than a user-preferred language (e.g., English) … the electronic device 102 generates an overlay 406 (e.g., system UI overlay 120 from FIG. 1), prompting the user to translate the chat messages 404 to English. If the user selects the prompt in the overlay 406, then the electronic device 102 translates the displayed chat messages 404 … the electronic device 102 may prompt the user to translate the copied text, including via the overlay 506. Based on a user input, the electronic device 102 translates the copied text and presents translated text 512 to the user via the display 502 (e.g., shown in the instance 502-3) … user input, which may be a translate command (e.g., selection of a “translate” option or button) to confirm that translation is intended”].
Barbello does not specifically teach on the image processing apparatus that is remotely operated or wherein a language setting of the operation screen of the image processing apparatus is changed by a remote operation. However, in the same field of invention, Sfaelos teaches:
on the image processing apparatus that is remotely operated [(e.g. see Sfaelos paragraph 0043) ”the above discussion generally relating to navigating menu pages with reference to FIGS. 3-7 for the purpose selecting a localized language setting for printer 104 also applies to FIG. 9. FIG. 9 illustrates another instance of the FIG. 2 embodiment where web page menus 220 having localized language setting images are accessed by a user via embedded web server (EWS) 218 on printer 104. A user operating a client computer 102 executing a browser application 206 may enter the URL (uniform resource locator) address of printer 104 into the browser. Web page menus 220 that closely parallel the previously discussed front panel menus 222 are then served up to client computer 102 by EWS 218. The web page menus 220 appear on the computer screen 900 of client computer 102 in much the same way as the previously discussed front panel menus 222 appear on the front panel display screen 224 of printer 104. Thus, the process of navigating the web page menus 220 is the same as that described above with respect to FIGS. 3-7, except that selections are made by a user from the client computer 102 through an input device”].
wherein a language setting of the operation screen of the image processing apparatus is changed by a remote operation [(e.g. see Sfaelos paragraphs 0005, 0043 and Fig. 2) ”As an example, a French-speaking employee who works in a multi-lingual office environment who wants to print a print job (e.g., a document generated within a word processing application), may need to adjust certain printer settings so that various print features will be applied to the print job. The user might physically access a printer's front menu panel to determine and alter the printer's status settings. In addition, the user may also be able to "surf" to the printer from a desktop computer, for example, by entering the printer's URL (uniform resource locator) address into a web browser. The user would then have access to the printer's status settings through a menu page served up from the printer's EWS … the above discussion generally relating to navigating menu pages with reference to FIGS. 3-7 for the purpose selecting a localized language setting for printer 104 also applies to FIG. 9. FIG. 9 illustrates another instance of the FIG. 2 embodiment where web page menus 220 having localized language setting images are accessed by a user via embedded web server (EWS) 218 on printer 104. A user operating a client computer 102 executing a browser application 206 may enter the URL (uniform resource locator) address of printer 104 into the browser. Web page menus 220 that closely parallel the previously discussed front panel menus 222 are then served up to client computer 102 by EWS 218. The web page menus 220 appear on the computer screen 900 of client computer 102 in much the same way as the previously discussed front panel menus 222 appear on the front panel display screen 224 of printer 104”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Fig 2, the user may change the language settings of the printer using a client computer (numeral 102) which is remote from the printer (numeral 104) itself.
Therefore, considering the teachings of Barbello and Sfaelos, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add on the image processing apparatus that is remotely operated and wherein a language setting of the operation screen of the image processing apparatus is changed by a remote operation, as taught by Sfaelos, to the teachings of Barbello because it allows for improved navigability of language-related menus (e.g. see Sfaelos paragraph 0024).
Barbello and Sfaelos do not specifically teach and the operation button is displayed when the predetermined information is user report information which requires an on-site operation of the image processing apparatus. However, in the same field of invention, Ookuma teaches:
and the operation button is displayed when the predetermined information is user report information which requires an on-site operation of the image processing apparatus [(e.g. see Ookuma col 6 line 62 – col 7 line 6, col 8 lines 1-24 and 6A-E) ”A status display portion 605 displays the status of a job being executed in the MFP 101 or a device of the MFP 101. The information display application 440 displays the status display portion 605. In this example, the content displayed in the content display region 602 includes a link 608 to the functional screen provided by the web application and a link 609 to the screen of the copy application 430 provided by the MFP 101. In addition, a language selection pull-down 606 to be used to select the display language of the content and a language switching instruction button 607 to be used to instruct switching to the selected display language are arranged in the upper right corner … The language switching control unit 402 thus switches the language of each functional application of the MFP 101 to the display language designated by the user … FIG. 6D shows an operation screen displayed on the operation display unit 211 in step S511 after the language switching request in step S502 … The language switching control unit 402 instructs each functional application of the MFP 101 to switch the language … FIG. 6E shows a screen displayed by pressing a link 644 to the copy application in FIG. 6D. In this example, the display language of the copy screen display region 621 also changes to English in accordance with the display language”]. Examiner notes that the operation button is already displayed by a previous limitation and this limitation does not impose a further restriction that “only” displays the button under this condition, merely that it is displayed along with information that requires on-site operation. Examiner additionally notes that, in Ookuma, the status of a job is reported to the user which accepts input for the scan/copy settings at the MFP while simultaneously providing a button that can change the language.
Therefore, considering the teachings of Barbello, Sfaelos and Ookuma, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the operation button is displayed when the predetermined information is user report information which requires an on-site operation of the image processing apparatus, as taught by Ookuma, to the teachings of Barbello and Sfaelos because it improves the convenience of operation (e.g. see Ookuma col 10 lines 49-50).
As for dependent claim 2, Barbello, Sfaelos and Ookuma teach the system as described in claim 1 and Barbello further teaches:
wherein the processor or plurality of processors is configured to: generate the screen that includes the second object, based on a position of the first object that is displayed on the operation screen [(e.g. see Barbello paragraphs 0043, 0045 and Figs. 4 and 5) ”the electronic device 102 may generate one or more system UI overlays 408 (e.g., an overlay for each individual message or a single overlay having multiple (including all) the translated messages) on top of the chat application to re-render the chat messages 404 as translated text 410 in English … the system UI overlay may be removed to display the underlying chat messages 404 in the chat application in the original human language 114 … the translated text 512 can be displayed in a separate overlay over the copied text as a re-rendering of the copied text in the target human language 118. In another example, the translated text 512 can be included in an overlay over the copied text”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Fig. 4, the translated overlays are positioned over the original messages.
As for dependent claim 3, Barbello, Sfaelos and Ookuma teach the system as described in claim 2 and Barbello further teaches:
wherein the processor or the plurality of processors is configured to: generate the screen that includes the second object, based on a character color and a background color of the first object on the operation screen [(e.g. see Barbello paragraph 0040) ”the translation-control module 316 may access the rendering models 320 to present the translated text 122 in a substantially similar style and format as that of the originally-displayed text in the original human language 114. In an example, the rendering models 320 are used to cause the translated text to substantially match one or more visual characteristics (e.g., size, font, style, format, color) of native content of the application 210”].
As for dependent claim 4, Barbello, Sfaelos and Ookuma teach the system as described in claim 3 and Barbello further teaches:
wherein the processor or the plurality of processors is configured to: generate the screen that includes the second object, based on a shape and a size of the first object on the operation screen [(e.g. see Barbello paragraph 0040) ”the translation-control module 316 may access the rendering models 320 to present the translated text 122 in a substantially similar style and format as that of the originally-displayed text in the original human language 114. In an example, the rendering models 320 are used to cause the translated text to substantially match one or more visual characteristics (e.g., size, font, style, format, color) of native content of the application 210”].
As for dependent claim 5, Barbello, Sfaelos and Ookuma teach the system as described in claim 4 and Barbello further teaches:
wherein the processor or the plurality of processors is configured to: place the second object at a position at which the second object entirely covers the first objects when the screen that includes the second object is generated [(e.g. see Barbello paragraphs 0043, 0045 and Figs. 4 and 5) ”the electronic device 102 may generate one or more system UI overlays 408 (e.g., an overlay for each individual message or a single overlay having multiple (including all) the translated messages) on top of the chat application to re-render the chat messages 404 as translated text 410 in English … the system UI overlay may be removed to display the underlying chat messages 404 in the chat application in the original human language 114 … the translated text 512 can be displayed in a separate overlay over the copied text as a re-rendering of the copied text in the target human language 118. In another example, the translated text 512 can be included in an overlay over the copied text”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Fig. 4, the translated overlays are positioned over the original messages.
As for dependent claim 6, Barbello, Sfaelos and Ookuma teach the system as described in claim 1 and Barbello further teaches:
wherein the processor or the plurality of processors is configured to: manage the operation screen that includes the first object and the screen that includes the second object that is to be superposed on the operation screen in association with each other and display the screen that includes the second object that is associated with the operation screen and that is superposed on the operation screen in response to an operation of pushing the operation button that is displayed [(e.g. see Barbello paragraphs 0042, 0045, 0062 and Figs. 4 and 5) ”the electronic device 102 generates an overlay 406 (e.g., system UI overlay 120 from FIG. 1), prompting the user to translate the chat messages 404 to English. If the user selects the prompt in the overlay 406, then the electronic device 102 translates the displayed chat messages 404 … the electronic device 102 may prompt the user to translate the copied text, including via the overlay 506. Based on a user input, the electronic device 102 translates the copied text and presents translated text 512 to the user via the display 502 (e.g., shown in the instance 502-3) … user input, which may be a translate command (e.g., selection of a “translate” option or button) to confirm that translation is intended”].
As for dependent claim 7, Barbello, Sfaelos and Ookuma teach the system as described in claim 6 and Barbello further teaches:
wherein the information that is written in the second language in the second object is information that is written in a language that is designed by a user who pushes the operation button [(e.g. see Barbello paragraph 0037) ”The system settings 212 may define the target human language 118 based on a user input that indicates the user-preferred language. The target human language 118 may be predefined (e.g., previously selected by the user 116 in the system settings 212, including during device setup) or user-selected based on a prompt presented in response to identification of a foreign language in the captured media content”].
As for independent claim 10, Barbello, Sfaelos and Ookuma teach a non-transitory computer readable medium. Claim 10 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1.
As for independent claim 11, Barbello, Sfaelos and Ookuma teach a method. Claim 11 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1. Due to the conditional nature of this claim limitation present within a method claim (e.g. “when…”), this limitation carries no patentable weight while giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, as the claimed invention can be practiced without the first condition occurring. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbello et al. (US 2023/0376699 A1) in view of Sfaelos et al. (US 2004/0085570 A1) and further in view of Ookuma (US 8,527,875 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ding et al. (US 2024/0220077 A1).
As for dependent claim 8, Barbello, Sfaelos and Ookuma teach the system as described in claim 1, but do not specifically teach wherein the processor or the plurality of processors is configured to: clear the screen that includes the second object that is displayed when a predetermined time has passed after the screen that includes the second object is displayed. However, in the same field of invention or solving similar problems, Ding teaches:
wherein the processor or the plurality of processors is configured to: clear the screen that includes the second object that is displayed when a predetermined time has passed after the screen that includes the second object is displayed [(e.g. see Ding paragraphs 0005, 0027, 0100) ”detecting that the electronic device meets a first preset condition, and displaying a first floating ball, where an identifier of a first application and first information are displayed in the first floating ball … after the floating ball is displayed for a period of time, and no operation of the user on the floating ball is detected, the electronic device may adjust the floating ball from an unfolded state to a thumbnail state, and display a countdown identifier on the floating ball in the thumbnail state, to prompt the user that the floating ball is about to disappear. If the electronic device has still not detected any operation of the user on the floating ball when the countdown identifier indicates that the countdown is over, the electronic device may confirm that the user does not need the shortcut provided by the floating ball, and then the electronic device may end the displaying of the floating ball … According to the timeliness characteristics of the services provided by different floating balls, the first electronic device may set different ending mechanisms (disappearance mechanisms) for different floating balls”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Barbello, Sfaelos, Ookuma and Ding, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the processor or the plurality of processors is configured to: clear the screen that includes the second object that is displayed when a predetermined time has passed after the screen that includes the second object is displayed, as taught by Ding, to the teachings of Barbello, Sfaelos and Ookuma because it reduces the blocking of the foreground application and avoids interference with the user (e.g. see Ding paragraph 0027).
As for dependent claim 9, Barbello, Sfaelos, Ookuma and Ding teach the system as described in claim 8 and Barbello further teaches:
wherein the processor or the plurality of processors is configured to: display a clear button for clearing the screen that includes the second object that is superposed on the operation screen and is displayed and clear the screen that includes the second object that is displayed in response to an operation of pushing the clear button even before the predetermined time has passed [(e.g. see Barbello paragraph 0043 and Fig. 4) ”the system UI overlay may be removed to display the underlying chat messages 404 in the chat application in the original human language 114. The overlay 406 can also emphasize the original human language 114 (e.g., by showing “Portuguese.fwdarw.English”) to indicate that the displayed text (e.g., the chat messages 404) is currently in Portuguese. Using the overlay 406, the user can toggle the display back and forth (e.g., between instances 402-2 and 402-3) between the target human language 118 and the original human language 114”].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 02 June 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that [“the combination of Barbello and Sfaelos fails to disclose the feature ‘wherein the operation button is displayed when the predetermined information is user report information requiring an on-site operation of the image processing apparatus’ as recited in [amended] claim 1.” (Page 7).].
The argument described above, in paragraph number 6, with respect to the newly added limitations to the independent claims has been considered, but is 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 CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI whose telephone number is (571)-270-3358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (8am-6pm).
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 Bashore can be reached at (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.
/CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights