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 Amendment filed on 02/26/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 10 and 11 are independent claims. This Office Action is made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 7 and 8 recite the limitations “… wherein in a case where the selection selects the first operation, the at least one processor sets the second display attribute to visible for all the plurality of UI screens, and uses the first display attribute to set visible or invisible of each of the UI screens, and in a case where the selection selects the second operation, the at least one processor sets the first display attribute to visible for all the plurality of UI screens, and uses the second display attribute to set visible or invisible of each of the UI screens …” and “… when the type of the operation of the present instruction is the first operation, the at least processor sets the second display attribute to visible for all the plurality of UI screens, and uses the first display attribute to set visible or invisible of each of the UI screens, and when a type of operation of the present instruction is the second operation, the at least processor sets the first display attribute to visible for all the plurality of UI screens, and uses the second display attribute to set visible or invisible of each of the UI screens …”, respectively, that lacks of antecedent basis related to the first operation associated with the first display attribute only, not with second display attribute and the second operation associated with the second display attribute only, not with first display attribute as claimed in the independent claim 1. Thus, the limitations fail to point out and distinctly claim the function of the “first operation” and the “second operation”. Therefore, the limitations are rejected as indefinite because the insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tokiwa et al. (“Tokiwa”, US PG-Pub. 2017/0353620 A1).
Re-claim 1,
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) that, upon executing the stored instructions, functions to
set, to visible, a display attribute of one UI screen among a plurality of UI screens arranged in multiple layers in a web page, and set, to invisible, the display attribute of the other UI screens (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 visibility of the pages and tabs by setting the display property/attribute of the current display page/tab to visible and hiding the other page/tab); and
control to display, on a display unit, a UI screen among the plurality of UI screens that has the display attribute set to visible, wherein in response to an instruction to switch a UI screen displayed on the display unit, the setting unit changes the display attribute of the UI screen among the plurality of UI screens displayed before switching, from visible to invisible, and changes the display attribute of a UI screen displayed after switching, from invisible to visible (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 and the other tab from visible to invisible to hide the inactive web content),
wherein upon execution the stored instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
determine a type of an operation that gives the instruction is a first operation using, as operation information, coordinate information indicating an operation position on the web page, or a second operation using operation information stored, in association with an operation input, in the at least one memory,
wherein the first operation is a touch operation by a touch panel, and
wherein in a case where the instruction is given through the touch operation, the at least one processor changes a first display attribute accompanied by turning a UI screen of invisible into an inactive state, and
wherein in a case where visible and invisible are switched by the first display attribute, an operation screen in an invisible state turns into an inactive state, and an operation item of the operation screen turns into a disabled state, and
wherein the first display attribute is a visibility attribute of CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) (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).
Re-claim 2,
in addition to what Tokiwa teaches the apparatus in claim 1, Tokiwa also teaches the apparatus, wherein the web page is obtained from an external apparatus (Fig. 1, [0035]. Tokiwa describes the web content is obtained from the server 10).
Re-claim 10,
It is a method claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 11,
It is a non-transitory storage medium claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
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 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokiwa in view of Kwong (US PG-Pub. 2012/0102402 A1).
Re-claim 5,
in addition to what Tokiwa teaches the apparatus in claim 1, Tokiwa also teaches the apparatus, wherein the stored instructions further cause the at least one processor to: select either the first operation or the second operation as a type of operation for operating the UI screen (Fig. 2, [0037- 0039, 0095, 0103]. Tokiwa describes the process of tab UI screens switching operation by user pushed a button as the first operation to switch 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).
Modified Tokiwa fails to teach:
notify of an error in a case where the type of the operation determined by the determination does not match the type of the operation selected by the selection.
However, Kwong teaches:
notify of an error in a case where the type of the operation determined by the determination does not match the type of the operation selected by the selection ([0451]. Kwong describes the concept of determining the whether the operation parameter value equal the setup value (opParam == ‘cca_setup’), return draw = true;) and if (opParam == null), returnScript = ‘alert(“error”)’).
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 operation program logic teaching of Kwong to notify application operation errors to user when user operation conflicts with application program logic.
Re-claim 6,
in addition to what Tokiwa teaches in claim 1, claim 6 is an apparatus claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 5 for activating application instead of for operating the UI screen; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokiwa in view of Kwong, and further in view of Pasquali (US PG-Pub. 2003/0069888 A1).
Re-claim 7,
Tokiwa-Kwong teaches the apparatus in claim 5, but Tokiwa fails to teach an apparatus, wherein in a case where the selection selects the first operation, the at least one processor sets the second display attribute to visible for all the plurality of UI screens, and uses the first display attribute to set visible or invisible of each of the UI screens, and in a case where the selection selects the second operation, the at least one processor sets the first display attribute to visible for all the plurality of UI screens, and uses the second display attribute to set visible or invisible of each of the UI screens.
However, Pasquali teaches:
wherein in a case where the selection selects the first operation, the at least one processor sets the second display attribute to visible for all the plurality of UI screens, and uses the first display attribute to set visible or invisible of each of the UI screens, and in a case where the selection selects the second operation, the at least one processor sets the first display attribute to visible for all the plurality of UI screens, and uses the second display attribute to set visible or invisible of each of the UI screens ([0078]. Pasquali describes the setVisibility function that can set all or any UI elements/screens to visible as a design choice).
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 operation program logic teaching of Pasquali to set any or all UI elements to visible or invisible as a design choice for a web application.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokiwa in view of Pasquali.
Re-claim 8,
Tokiwa teaches the apparatus in claim 1, but Tokiwa fails to teach an apparatus, wherein in a case where a type of an operation of a present instruction determined by the determination differs from a type of an operation of a previous instruction determined by the determination, when the type of the operation of the present instruction is the first operation, the at least processor sets the second display attribute to visible for all the plurality of UI screens, and uses the first display attribute to set visible or invisible of each of the UI screens, and when a type of operation of the present instruction is the second operation, the at least processor sets the first display attribute to visible for all the plurality of UI screens, and uses the second display attribute to set visible or invisible of each of the UI screens.
However, Pasquali teaches:
wherein in a case where a type of an operation of a present instruction determined by the determination differs from a type of an operation of a previous instruction determined by the determination, when the type of the operation of the present instruction is the first operation, the at least processor sets the second display attribute to visible for all the plurality of UI screens, and uses the first display attribute to set visible or invisible of each of the UI screens, and when a type of operation of the present instruction is the second operation, the at least processor sets the first display attribute to visible for all the plurality of UI screens, and uses the second display attribute to set visible or invisible of each of the UI screens ([0078]. Pasquali describes the setVisibility function that can set all or any UI elements/screens to visible as a design choice).
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 Pasquali to set any or all UI elements to visible or invisible as a design choice for a web application.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokiwa in view of Thomson, and further in view of Thomson et al. (“Thomson”, US PG-Pub. 2015/0052421 A1).
Re-claim 12,
Tokiwa teaches the apparatus in claim 1, but Tokiwa fails to teach an apparatus, wherein an operation input of the specific arrow key is an input for instructing a switch of UI screens, wherein the stored instructions further cause the at least one processor to: in accordance with the operation input of the specific arrow key, change the display attribute of an UI screen among the plurality of UI screens displayed before the switch, from visible to invisible, and change the display attribute of an operation screen displayed after the switch, from invisible into visible.
However, Thomson teaches:
wherein an operation input of the specific arrow key is an input for instructing a switch of UI screens, wherein the stored instructions further cause the at least one processor to: in accordance with the operation input of the specific arrow key, change the display attribute of an UI screen among the plurality of UI screens displayed before the switch, from visible to invisible, and change the display attribute of an operation screen displayed after the switch, from invisible into visible (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 to navigate the UI screens or pages. Thus, the current focus displayed screen or page is become visible and the other hidden screen or page is become invisible).
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 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 02/26/2026 with respect to amended claims 1, 10 and 11 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).
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 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