DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 7/30/2026.
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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-8 and 11-13 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1 and 13 are independent.
Claims 9-10 are canceled.
Claims 1 and 13 are newly amended.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida; Chikara et al. (hereinafter Yoshida – US 20150067528 A1) in view of Gil; Erez Kikin et al. (hereinafter Gil – US 20130019174 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Yoshida teaches:
An information display device comprising a processor, wherein the processor performs processing including: (e.g., information terminal, fig. 2)
collecting information related to a device; (e.g., obtaining apparatus state information, Abstract, fig. 8:S3 and ¶ 80)
acquiring priority information to prioritize for display based on the collected information; (determining operation priorities of user interface icons based on the state apparatus state information, ¶ 81)
and displaying the acquired priority information at an instruction region at an operation screen displayed on a user interface, (the operation priorities are used to resulting in a sorted display of the ¶ 81, e.g., higher priority icons are displayed on upper, left, or right side of an interface region, ¶¶ 33, 67, and 103, figs. 7A, 7B, 8 and 10)
wherein the instruction region is a region that accepts an instruction from a user to execute processing (the icons can receive input from user for executing operations, e.g., on screens 101b and 101d, ¶¶ 103 and 135 and figs. 10 and 16A-B)
[…],
wherein the priority information includes a message regarding an event caused by processing performed by a user or an event occurring in the device, and (The display of prioritized icons is based on operational states of the apparatuses, e.g., including whether the apparatuses are powered ON or OFF, ¶ 61 and fig. 4, and these apparatuses are controlled remotely by the user using the information terminal [an event caused by processing performed by a user], ¶ 78, e.g., based user initiated control signals from the terminal to the apparatuses, ¶ 83-84 and figs. 8 and 10.The display of prioritized icons is also includes displaying a list of sub-icons/buttons that include a message [the priority information includes a message], e.g., a message including a prompt for a user to perform an action and including readings of a humidity sensor, such as “Power ON the humidifier in the bedroom. A current humidity is 35%. There is someone in the bedroom”, ¶¶ 74 and 103 and fig. 10. Displaying a device's sensor information is interpreted as displaying an event occurring in the device because a "sensor" is fundamentally a physical component designed to detect changes, which are, by definition, events occurring in the device's environment or state, and the sensors are included “in” the apparatuses themselves, such as in the humidifier, [occurring in the device], ¶ 52)
[…].
Yoshida does not appear to expressly teach, but Gil teaches:
that the instruction is by a touch-and-slide operation on the instruction region (an instructional tooltip specifically directs users to "Swipe icon to execute command", ¶ 49, or "swipe on the command", ¶ 51, to trigger functions within the context-based menu, which are touch-and-slide type operations)
wherein, when it is detected that a finger of the user has touched the instruction region for a predetermined period of time or longer, the processor displays the message included in the acquired priority information in a pop-up manner in an information display region overlaid on the operation screen (system displays an instructional tooltip in a pop-up manner when a user performs a press-and-hold action on a submenu launcher for a predetermined period, ¶ 50).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Yoshida to include that the instruction is by a touch-and-slide operation on the instruction region and wherein, when it is detected that a finger of the user has touched the instruction region for a predetermined period of time or longer, the processor displays the message included in the acquired priority information in a pop-up manner in an information display region overlaid on the operation screen, as taught by Gil.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to execute operation using known touch gestures, and improving accessibility and user experience in condensed user interface spaces, by providing instructional information about interface commands, Gil ¶¶ 3 and 23.
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yoshida further teaches:
wherein the processor causes display of, as the priority information, information related to an event that occurs due to processing executed based on an operation instruction from a user. (operational states of the apparatuses include, e.g., powered ON or OFF [an event that occurs due to processing executed], ¶ 61 and fig. 4, and these apparatuses are controlled remotely by the user using the information terminal [based on an operation instruction from a user], ¶ 78, e.g., based user initiated control signals from the terminal to the apparatuses, ¶ 83-84 and figs. 8 and 10. As explained for claim 1, the icons are displayed according to priorities based on operation states [ causes display of, as the priority information, information related to an event], i.e., the display is related to events such as powering ON or OFF of apparatuses.)
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Yoshida further teaches:
wherein the processor acquires the priority information in accordance with a change of setting for the processing. (turning the apparatus from ON to OFF setting, and vice versa [acquires the priority information in accordance with a change of setting for the processing], ¶¶ 61, 78, and 83-84 and figs. 8 and 10)
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yoshida further teaches:
wherein the processor causes display of information related to an event occurring at the device as the priority information. (The display of prioritized icons includes displaying a prioritized list of sub-icons//buttons which display information related to sensor readings [information related to an event], e.g., readings of a humidity sensor, ¶¶ 74 and 103 and fig. 10. These sensors may be included in the apparatuses themselves [occurring at the device], ¶ 52.)
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Yoshida further teaches:
wherein the processor acquires the priority information in accordance with a change in setting on the device. (prioritizing occurs based on device information changes, such as turning the apparatus from ON to OFF setting [change in setting on the device], and vice versa, ¶¶ 61, 78, and 83-84 and figs. 8 and 10)
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yoshida further teaches:
wherein the processor acquires the priority information in accordance with a change of content being displayed at the operation screen (e.g., after selecting Humidifier icon on a prioritized list of sub-options for the Humidifier are displayed, see ¶¶ 103 and 135 and figs. 10 and 16A-B).
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Yoshida further teaches:
wherein the processor acquires the priority information in accordance with a screen transition operation from a user on the user interface (a selection of an option, e.g., Humidifier, transitions from one screen of to another [from 101b to 101d], see ¶¶ 103 and 135 and figs. 10 and 16A-B).
Claim 11:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yoshida further teaches:
wherein the processor acquires the priority information by cross-checking content of the collected information against a pre-established table. (based on apparatus state information a preexisting operation priority management table is updated, and/or referenced [cross-checking content of the collected information against] in order to establish display priority, ¶ 65 and fig. 6)
Claim 12:
The rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Yoshida further teaches:
wherein the processor acquires the priority information by taking into account a result of cross-checking information related to content being displayed at the operation screen. (a preexisting operation priority management table is updated, and/or referenced in order to establish display priority, ¶ 65 and fig. 6)
Independent Claim 13:
Claim(s) 13 is/are directed to a storage medium for accomplishing the functions of the device in claim 1, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 20150067528 A1) in view Gil (US 20130019174 A1), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Mak; Walter et al. (hereinafter Mak – US 20200110528 A1).
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Yoshida does not appear to expressly teach, but Mak teaches:
wherein the processor acquires the priority information in accordance with a scroll operation from the user on the user interface. (determining a rendering priority [acquires the priority information] for widgets in response to receiving a scrolling input [a scroll operation from the user on the user interface], ¶ 21 and Mak Claim 4 ).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Yoshida to include wherein the processor acquires the priority information in accordance with a scroll operation from the user on the user interface., as taught by Mak.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the versatility and rendering efficiency of the device to be adapted to handle a large amount of widgets/icons in a memory and time efficient manner, Mak ¶ 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's 103 arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the applicant attacks Yoshida for not teaching the limitation for displaying the message in a popup manner in response to touching a region for predetermined period of time, Remarks Pg(s) 6, and attacks Gil for not teaching the displaying of a messaging including priority information, and concerning an event caused by processing performed by a user or an event occurring in the device.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because:
Gil, not Yoshida, is relied upon for teaching the displaying the message in a popup manner in response to touching a region for predetermined period of time, and attacks Yoshida, not Gil, is relied upon for teaching the displaying of a message including priority information, and concerning an event caused by processing performed by a user or an event occurring in the device.
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, the applicant consequently alleges that a combination of Yoshida and Gil would only yield basic swipe operations or operational guidance tooltips, thereby failing to meet the specific requirements of claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because:
The 103 mapping is sufficient because it demonstrates that Yoshida teaches displaying of a message including priority information, and concerning an event caused by processing performed by a user or an event occurring in the device, and that Gil discloses a processor displaying a pop-up instructional tooltip upon detecting a prolonged press-and-hold touch on an instruction region, directly refuting the argument by showing that the combined references do teach the exact claimed touch-duration and pop-up message functionality.
Furthermore, the applicant has failed to adequately rebut the following combination rationale:
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to execute operation using known touch gestures, and improving accessibility and user experience in condensed user interface spaces, by providing instructional information about interface commands, Gil ¶¶ 3 and 23.
Third, the applicant relies on the 103 arguments to allege patentability for the remaining claims.
This is also unpersuasive for the same reasons presented above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
IDO; KAZUHIKO US 20200244826 A1 is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing displaying information, e.g., notifications, in order of priority, ¶¶ 109 and 165 and fig. 12.
HIGUCHI; Takeshi US 20120192113 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a device configured to determine a display priority of icons, ¶¶ 94-95.
Fukada; Shinichi et al. US 20080320406 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a method for determining priority for display objects, Abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
