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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claim 1:
Step 1:
Claims 1 and 10 are drawn to an information processing apparatus, claim 12 is drawn to a method for controlling an information processing apparatus, therefore each of claims 1, 10 and 12 falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Nonetheless, claims 1, 10, and 12 are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are directed to organizing, grouping, and presenting information in a user interface, including displaying different groups of functions based on an order, switching between screens in response to a user instruction, and displaying different qualities of settings for the same function depending on the navigation context. Such limitations constitute mental processes and methods of organization human activity, as well as presentation of information, which are recognized categories of abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Each of claims 1, 10 and 12 recites additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim merely recites generic computer components, including a “display control unit,” “display unit,” and “screens,” used to perform the abstract idea of organizing and displaying information. The claim does not recite any improvement to computer functionality, display technology, or user interface, nor does it impose any meaningful limitation beyond applying the abstract idea on generic information processing apparatus. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The additional elements and/or functions that are forms of insignificant extra-solution activities, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The recited display control unit and screens perform only well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, such as switching displays, receiving user input, and presenting information. The claim does not include any unconventional hardware, specific algorithm, or technical mechanism that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, claims 1-13 are not patent eligible.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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:
a display control unit in claims 1-7 and 10.
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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 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.
Each of Claims 1 and 12 recites “a first function group having a relatively high order among functions included in an application” and further recites “a function group having an order lower than the first function group.” The claim does not specify what constitutes “order”, nor how such order is determined. The use of the relative modifier “relatively” renders the scope of the claim subjective and dependent on an undefined comparison, thereby failing to provide objective boundaries. Additionally, Claim 1 recites “...to display a setting having a relative high order in the first function.” As with the function groups, the claim does not define how the “order” of a setting is determined, nor what distinguishes a setting of “relatively high order” from other settings of the same function. As a result, it is unclear which settings fall within the scope of the claim.
Each of Claims 1 and 12 recites “a display component indicating each function.” The term “display component” is vague and lacks structural or functional clarity, as it is unclear whether the term refers to buttons, icons, menu item, or other interface object.
Further, each of Claims 1 and 12 recites “...to display more settings of the first function than the setting of the first function displayed on the first setting screen.” The term “more settings” is a relative term lacking a clear baseline or qualifiable boundary. The claim does not specify whether “more” refers to a numerical increase, a complete set of remaining settings, rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
Finally, each of Claims 1 and 12 recites “a second screen configured to be displayed on the basis of an instruction of a user to the first screen.” The phrase “an instruction of a user” is indefinite because the claim does not specify the nature of the instruction (e.g., touch input, menu selection, gesture), and therefore does not clearly delimit the scope of the claimed interaction.
Claims 2-11 and 13 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1 and 12.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable NARIMATU et al. (US Pub. 2012/0069377 A1, hereinafter “Narimatu”) in view of Okada et al. (US 2010/0290071 A1, hereinafter “Okada”).
Claim 1: Narimatu teaches An information processing apparatus (“Narimatu”, Fig. 1, [0044], MFP 1) comprising:
a display control unit configured to be capable of switching and displaying, on a display unit (“Narimatu”, Figs, 3-4, [0044]-[0049], switching and display screen 100A-100B),
a first screen configured to display a display component indicating each function of a first function group having a relatively high order among functions included in an application (“Narimatu”, Figs, 3-4, [0046], [0082], [0106], screen 100A displays function keys e.g., 120-160 belong to the groups e.g., Basic 1, Basic 1 that has higher order),
a second screen configured to be displayed on the basis of an instruction of a user to the first screen and to display a display component indicating each function of a second function group and a function group having an order lower than the first function group (“Narimatu”, Figs, 3-4, [0046], [0081]-[0082], [0106], screen 100A displays function keys e.g., 120-160 belong to the group e.g., Application 113 that has lower order),
a first setting screen configured to be capable of receiving a setting of a first function included in the first function group displayed on the first screen and to display a setting having a relatively high order in the first function (“Narimatu”, Fig. 5, [0053]-[0054]), and
a second setting screen configured to be capable of receiving a setting of the first function included in the second function group displayed on the second screen and to display more settings of the first function than the setting of the first function displayed on the first setting screen (“Narimatu”, Fig. 8, [0065]-[0066]).
However, Narimatu does not explicitly teach the following feature taught by Okada who teaches a second screen configured to be displayed on the basis of an instruction of a user to the first screen and to display a display component indicating each function of a second function group including the first function group (“Okada”, Fig. 12, 18 and 19, [0140], [0177]-[0180]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the information processing apparatus of Narimatu with the display a display component indicating each function of a second function group including the first function group of Okada. One would have been motivated to combine these references so as to allow a user to easily select a suitable function from among a large number of functions as suggested by Okada [0003].
Claim 2: Narimatu and Okada teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the display control unit displays, on the first screen, a display component configured to receive an instruction to transition to the second screen (“Narimatu”, Figs, 3-4, [0044]-[0049], switching and display screen 100A-100B).
Claim 3: Narimatu and Okada teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the display control unit displays, on the second screen, a display component configured to receive an instruction to transition to the first screen (“Narimatu”, Figs, 3-5, [0049]-[0050]).
Claim 4: Narimatu and Okada teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the display control unit displays the first setting screen on the basis of the user selecting a display component indicating the first function in the first screen (“Narimatu”, Figs, 3-5, [0049]-[0050]).
Claim 5: Narimatu and Okada teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the display control unit displays the second setting screen on the basis of the user selecting a display component indicating the first function in the second screen (“Narimatu”, Fig. 5, [0053]-[0056]).
Claim 6: Narimatu and Okada teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the display control unit displays a display component indicating the first function in the first screen and a display component indicating the first function in the second screen in a same configuration (“Narimatu”, Figs. 3-5, [0049]-[0053]).
Claim 7: Narimatu and Okada teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the display control unit displays, on the first setting screen, a display component configured to receive an instruction to transition to the second setting screen (“Narimatu”, Fig. 5, [0053]-[0056]).
Claim 8: Narimatu and Okada teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the order is an order of a frequency of use in the application (“Narimatu”, [0067], [0082], [0106]).
Claim 9: Narimatu and Okada teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
an activation unit configured to activate the application on the basis of an instruction of a user, wherein the first screen is a screen displayed after the application is activated (“Narimatu”, [0049], [0065-[0067]).
Claim 10: Claim 10 is directed to an information processing apparatus for implementing the method steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 11: Narimatu and Okada teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein
the number of selectable settings is larger in the second setting screen than in the first setting screen (“Narimatu”, [0068], [0070]).
Claim 12: Claim 12 is directed to a method for implementing the method steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13: Narimatu and Okada teach the control method according to claim 12, wherein
the first setting screen and the second setting screen are different from each other (“Narimatu”, Figs. 7-8, [0061]-[0066]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2004/0052543 A1 (Kato) — discloses multi-function peripheral and method for control the same.
US 2007/0247642 A1 (Nakamura et al.) — discloses display control device, image processing apparatus and display control method.
Examiner has cited particular columns and line and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in 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 or disclosed by the Examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-4:00 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, 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.
/PHUONG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174