Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/493,727

DISPLAY APPARATUS, CONTROL METHOD FOR DISPLAY APPARATUS AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Oct 24, 2023
Examiner
PHAM, LINH K
Art Unit
2174
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Seiko Epson Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
521 granted / 644 resolved
+25.9% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
658
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.7%
-30.3% vs TC avg
§103
47.7%
+7.7% vs TC avg
§102
28.3%
-11.7% vs TC avg
§112
7.3%
-32.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 644 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 responsive to the Amendment filed on 09/02/2025. In the Instant Amendment, claims 1-11 have been amended; claims 1. 9, 10, and 11 are independent claims. Claims 1-11 have been examined and are pending in this application. This Action is made FINAL. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph: 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 of carrying out his invention. Claims 1, 9, 10, and 11 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. “a second display area for displaying a page image of a subset of the pages contained in the document file.” The Examiner respectfully requests the Applicant to point out where in the specification support can be found for the limitation in question above. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action. Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112 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: “control section configure to” and “display section displays/to display,” recited in claim 1-9. 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. Response to Arguments Applicants’ arguments in the instant Amendment, filed on 09/02/2025, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. 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 of this title, 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 1-2, 6-7, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikura, US 20210027749, published on 01/28/2021, in view of Jong et al., (“Jong,” US 2014/0250391). Regarding claim 1, Ishikura discloses display apparatus comprising: a touch screen configured to receive user-initiated touch operations (Ishikura: par 0048; Fig. 1; an input 7A-7F receives an operation); a display section (Ishikura: Fig. 1, a touch panel 7G); and a control section controlling configured to control the display section to display a display window on the touch screen, the display window including a first display area for displaying a bundle of reduced images of respective pages contained in a document file (Ishikura: Fig. 2B shows a thumbnail image bundle) and a second display area for displaying a page image of a subset of the pages contained in the document file (Ishikura: par. 0048, Fig. 2 shows a bundle of images of reduced images is displayed on bottom of a touch panel 7G and a partially enlarged plan view is displayed on top of the touch panel 7G; and also see pars. 0179-0182, 0184-0186, 0193-0198; Fig. 5; Step S101-S105); and displays such that the bundle of reduced images displayed in the first display area is augmented to include a images containing a reduced image of the page image of the additional page in the first display area (Ishikura: pars. 0112-0122, 0030-0031; Figs. 11 and 25-26 describe the method for displaying a thumbnail image bundle with the width thereof reduced). Ishikura discloses all limitations above, but does not explicitly disclose the control section is further configured such that when an instruction to add a page is received is received by the touch screen and the control section displays a page image of an additional page not previously contained within the document file, such that the page image is displayed in the second display area. However, Jong discloses a method/system for operating a page, wherein the control section is further configured such that when an instruction to add a page is received is received by the touch screen (Jong: pars. 0090-0092; a thumbnail image 614 for adding a page). the control section displays a page image of an additional page not previously contained within the document file, such that the page image is displayed in the second display area (Jong: pars. 0090-0091; Fig. 6; a page indicator 610 includes a thumbnail image functions/menus, which does include document image); Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jong with the method/system of Ishikura to provide users can easily be aware of a structure of the corresponding image page. Regarding claim 2, Ishikura and Jong disclose the display apparatus according to claim 1. Jong further discloses wherein the control section is configured to that the instruction to add a page represents a selection of a blank page, a copy of the page image of the page contained in the document file, or an externally input captured image as the additional page (Jong: par. 0103; Fig. 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jong with the method/system of Ishikura to provide users can easily be aware of a structure of the corresponding image page. Regarding claim 6, Ishikura and Jong disclose the display apparatus according to claim 1. Ishikura further discloses the control section displays is configured to display the page image of the additional page anterior or posterior to the page selected by the operation received by the touch screen (Ishikura: pars. 0109, 0113-0122; Fig. 10A). Regarding claim 7, Ishikura and Jong disclose the display apparatus according to claim 1. Ishikura further discloses the control section is configured such that when displaying the bundle of images containing the reduced image of the page image of the additional page in the first display area, the control section does not attach a page number to the reduced image of the page image of the additional page (Ishikura: 0081-0082, 0085). Regarding claim 9, Ishikura discloses display apparatus comprising: a touch screen configured to receive user-initiated touch operations (Ishikura: par 0048; Fig. 1; an input 7A-7F receives an operation); a display section (Ishikura: Fig. 1, a touch panel 7G); and a control section configured to control the display section to display a display window on the touch screen, the display window including a first display area for displaying a bundle of reduced images of respective pages contained in a document file (Ishikura: Fig. 2B shows a thumbnail image bundle) and a second display area for displaying a page image of a subset of the pages contained in the document file (Ishikura: par. 0048, Fig. 2 shows a bundle of images of reduced images is displayed on bottom of a touch panel 7G and a partially enlarged plan view is displayed on top of the touch panel 7G; and also see pars. 0179-0182, 0184-0186, 0193-0198; Fig. 5; Step S101-S105), superimposes and displays the reduced page image on a page image of a page selected by the operation received by the touch unit in the second display area (Ishikura: pars. 0112-0122; Fig. 11), and displays the reduced page image of the additional page in the first display area (Ishikura: pars. 0112-0122; Fig. 11). Ishikura discloses all limitations above, but does not explicitly disclose the control section is further configured such that wherein the control section is further configured such that when an instruction to add a page is received by the touch screen; the control section displays a page image of an additional page not previously contained within the document file, such that the page image is displayed. However, Jong discloses a method/system for operating a page, wherein the control section is further configured such that when an instruction to add a page is received is received by the touch screen (Jong: pars. 0090-0092; a thumbnail image 614 for adding a page). the control section displays a page image of an additional page not previously contained within the document file, such that the page image is displayed (Jong: pars. 0090-0091; Fig. 6; a page indicator 610 includes a thumbnail image functions/menus, which does include document image); Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jong with the method/system of Ishikura to provide users can easily be aware of a structure of the corresponding image page. Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is directed to control method associated with the system claimed in claim 1; Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium associated with the system claimed in claim 1; Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikura and Jong applied claim 1, and in view of Kwon et al., (“Kwon,” US 2020/0358896), published on 11/12/2020. Regarding claim 3, Ishikura and Jong disclose the display apparatus according to claim 2. Ishikura discloses wherein the control section sets an aspect ratio of the additional page based on an aspect ratio of the page contained in the document file (Ishikura: pars. 0109, 0124-0128; Fig. 6, 10A-10C, 13), and when the [[captured]] image is selected as the additional page, the control section sets an aspect ratio of the additional page based on an aspect ratio of the [[externally input captured]] image (Ishikura: pars. 0109, 0124-0128; Fig. 6, 10A-10C, 13). Jong further disclose wherein when the a copy of the page image of the page contained in the document file is selected as the additional page (Jong: pars. 0101-0103; Fig. 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jong with the method/system of Ishikura to provide users can easily be aware of a structure of the corresponding image page. Ishikura and Jong discloses all limitations above, but do not explicitly disclose a capture image by external capture image. However, Kwon discloses a method/system for generating a stack image from a mobile device, wherein a capture image by external capture image (Kwon: pars. 0117; a mobile terminal 100 include a camera 121). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the camera of Kwon with the method/system of Ishikura and Jong to provide users with a means for adding capture image(s) into currently stack/bundle image). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 5, and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but claims 4 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In addition, the claim 5 must be further amended to depend on claim 2. 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 extension fee 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. The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action. 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)) Inquiry Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINH K PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3230. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM (EST). 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 L Bashore can be reached on (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. /LINH K PHAM/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2174
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 24, 2023
Application Filed
May 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Sep 02, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 30, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597504
AUTOMATIC SELECTION AND DISPLAY LAYOUT OF MEDICAL IMAGES FROM CLINICAL DESCRIPTIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12568027
Providing Emulated Access to a Remotely Managed Storage System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12566542
Systems and Methods for Providing Field Views Including Enhanced Agricultural Maps Having a Data Layer and Image Data
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12559906
Work Machine Control Method, Work Machine Control Program, Work Machine Control System, And Work Machine
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12554333
Hand-Gesture Activation of Actionable Items
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+28.4%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 644 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month