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
Response to Amendment
This communication is responsive to RCE filed on 06/29/2026.
Claims 13-23 are pending in this application. Claims 13, 22 and 23 are independent claims. This Office Action is made Non-Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 13, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 13, 22 and 23 recite “…the display state and the operation acceptance state being managed independently of each other; …”. However, the specification is silent about the feature of “the display state and the operation acceptance state being managed independently of each other”.
Claims 14-21 are also being rejected under similar rationale since they are depended on the rejected independent claim 13.
Examiner Notes
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references 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 that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their 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.
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 13-18 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokiwa et al. (“Tokiwa”, US PG-Pub. 2017/0353620 A1) in view of Zhou (US PG-Pub. 2016/0364370 A1).
Re-claim 13,
Tokiwa teaches an information processing apparatus comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor (Figs. 1, 4, [0060, 0061]. Tokiwa describes the device 20 having CPU 211, ROM memory 213 and HDD memory 215) configured to execute the instructions to:
manage, for each of a plurality of UI screens arranged in overlapping layers within a single web page,
(i) a display state indicating whether the UI screen is visually presented (Fig. 5, [0073, 0093, 0095]. Tokiwa describes the Screen Information 1000 is a Web content including various kinds of information such as Javascript, CSS and HTML configuration files that configure the display visibility state of the pages and tabs by setting the display property/attribute of the current display page/tab to visible and hiding (i.e. display attribute = invisible) the other page/tab), and
(ii) an operation acceptance state indicating whether an operation on the UI screen is enabled (Fig. 2, [0037- 0039, 0095, 0103]. Tokiwa describes the process of tab UI screens switching between tabs G111 and G121 that changes each tab from invisible to visible to display the active web content (i.e. operation acceptance state is enable) and the other tab from visible to invisible to hide the inactive web content (i.e. operation acceptance state is disable));
display, on a display unit, one of the plurality of UI screens selected as a current screen by setting the display state of the current screen to a visible state and the display states of remaining UI screens to a non-visible state (Fig. 5, [0073, 0093, 0095]. Tokiwa describes the Screen Information 1000 is a Web content including various kinds of information such as Javascript, CSS and HTML configuration files that configure the display visibility state of the pages and tabs by setting the display property/attribute of the current display page/tab to visible and hiding (i.e. display attribute = invisible) the other page/tab);
detect an instruction to switch the current screen based on a user operation, and identify a type of the user operation as either:
(a) a coordinate-based operation specifying a position on the web page, in response to the instruction being given by the coordinate-based operation, switch the display state of the UI screens and set the operation acceptance state of each UI screen that becomes non-visible to a disabled state (Fig. 2, [0037- 0039, 0051, 0073, 0095, 0103]. Tokiwa describes the process of tab UI screens switching between tabs G111 and G121 that changes each tab from invisible to visible to display the active web content and the other tab from visible to invisible to hide the inactive web content. Thus, the visible tab displays the active content, and the invisible or hidden tab turning the content into the inactive state and the operation item of the invisible or hidden tab or screen turn into a disable state. Tokiwa also describes the display property or attribute in the CSS can be set to visible or none (as hidden). In addition, paragraph [0051] describes the user can use the touch panel and the like to input various operations that indicates the coordinate-based user operation); or
(b) a non-coordinate operation corresponding to a physical input associated with stored operation information, in response to the instruction being given by the non-coordinate operation, switch the display state of the UI screens while maintaining the operation acceptance state of at least one UI screen that becomes non-visible as an enabled state (This feature does not have to be considered because the claim claims either scenario. Please see non-cited prior art references of either Yano, Thomson et al. or Bargmann mention in the Conclusion section of this Office Action).
Tokiwa does not specifically teaches:
the display state and the operation acceptance state being managed independently of each other.
However, Zhou teaches:
the display state and the operation acceptance state being managed independently of each other ([0031, 0032, 0035]. Zhou describes the visibility display attribute, the opacity display attribute, the operation position and the operation input in CSS. Thus, the display state (i.e. is set by the visibility display attribute) and the operation acceptance state (i.e. is set by the operation input attribute) are being managed or set independently of each other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tab switching operation of the web page teachings of Tokiwa with the operation program logic teaching of Zhou to set the display attribute for the UI element and operation action parameter as a design choice for a web application.
Re-claim 14,
in addition to what Tokiwa-Zhou teaches the apparatus in claim 13, Tokiwa also teaches the apparatus, wherein the web page is obtained from an external apparatus via a network (Fig. 1, [0035]. Tokiwa describes the web content is obtained from the server 10).
Re-claim 15,
in addition to what Tokiwa-Zhou teaches the apparatus in claim 13, Tokiwa also teaches the apparatus, wherein the display state is controlled using a visibility attribute defined by Cascading Style Sheets ([0073, 0095]. Tokiwa describes the display property or attribute in the CSS can be set to visible or non (as hidden)).
Re-claim 16,
Tokiwa-Zhou teaches the apparatus in claim 13, but Tokiwa fails to teach an apparatus, wherein the display state is controlled using an opacity attribute while the UI screen remains present in a document object model structure of the web page.
However, Zhou teaches:
wherein the display state is controlled using an opacity attribute while the UI screen remains present in a document object model structure of the web page ([0031, 0032, 0035]. Zhou describes the visibility display attribute, the opacity display attribute, the operation position and the operation input in CSS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tab switching operation of the web page teachings of Tokiwa with the operation program logic teaching of Zhou to set the display attribute for the UI element and operation action parameter as a design choice for a web application.
Re-claim 17,
in addition to what Tokiwa-Zhou teaches the apparatus in claim 13, Tokiwa also teaches the apparatus, wherein the operation acceptance state indicates whether an operation item included in the UI screen is enabled or disabled (Fig. 2, [0037- 0039, 0095, 0103]. Tokiwa describes the process of tab UI screens switching between tabs G111 and G121 that changes each tab from invisible to visible to display the active web content (i.e. operation acceptance state is enabled) and the other tab from visible to invisible to hide the inactive web content (i.e. operation acceptance state is disable)).
Re-claim 18,
in addition to what Tokiwa-Zhou teaches the apparatus in claim 13, Tokiwa also teaches the apparatus, wherein the coordinate-based operation is a touch operation performed on a touch panel ([0051]. Tokiwa describes the user can use the touch panel and the like to input various operations that indicates the coordinate-based user operation).
Re-claim 22,
It is a method claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 13; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 23,
It is a non-transitory storage medium claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 13; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokiwa in view of Zhou, and further in view of Thomson et al. (“Thomson”, US PG-Pub. 2015/0052421 A1).
Re-claim 19,
Tokiwa-Zhou teaches the apparatus in claim 13, but Tokiwa fails to teach an apparatus, wherein the non-coordinate operation is an operation of a physical input device that is different from a touch panel.
However, Thomson teaches:
wherein the non-coordinate operation is an operation of a physical input device that is different from a touch panel (Figs. 4B, 5, [0031, 0035]. Thomson describes the concept of using either touch screen (i.e. swipe left and/or swipe right) or arrow keys on a keyboard (i.e. as non-coordinate operation by a physical input device) to navigate the UI screens or pages).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tab switching operation of the web page teachings of modified Tokiwa with the multiple type operations program logic teaching of Thomson to provide different type of operations convenient to users to navigate and operate the user interface.
Re-claim 20,
Tokiwa-Zhou-Thomson teaches the apparatus in claim 19, but Tokiwa fails to teach an apparatus, wherein the physical input device is a specific directional key used to instruct switching of the UI screens.
However, Thomson teaches:
wherein the physical input device is a specific directional key used to instruct switching of the UI screens (Figs. 4B, 5, [0031, 0035]. Thomson describes the concept of using either touch screen (i.e. swipe left and/or swipe right) or arrow keys on a keyboard (i.e. as specific direction key) to navigate the UI screens or pages).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tab switching operation of the web page teachings of modified Tokiwa with the multiple type operations program logic teaching of Thomson to provide different type of operations convenient to users to navigate and operate the user interface.
Re-claim 21,
Tokiwa-Zhou teaches the apparatus in claim 13, but Tokiwa fails to teach an apparatus, wherein the non-coordinate operation is identified based on operation information stored in association with the physical input in the memory.
However, Thomson teaches:
wherein the non-coordinate operation is identified based on operation information stored in association with the physical input in the memory (Figs. 4B, 5, [0031, 0035]. Thomson describes the concept of using either touch screen (i.e. swipe left and/or swipe right) or arrow keys on a keyboard (i.e. as non-coordinate operation physical input key associated with operation information stored in the memory) to navigate the UI screens or pages).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tab switching operation of the web page teachings of modified Tokiwa with the multiple type operations program logic teaching of Thomson to provide different type of operations convenient to users to navigate and operate the user interface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/29/2026 with respect to the new claims 13, 22 and 23 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure including Yano (US 2011/0154189 A1, paragraph [0063]), Thomson et al. (US 2015/0052421 A1, Figs. 4B, 5, paragraphs [0031, 0035]) and Bargmann (US 2011/0047461 A1, Figs. 1, 4, 5, paragraphs [0029, 0030])).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7612. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached 571-272-4034. 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.
/TUAN S NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights