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 Office Action is in response to the application 18/579,490 filed on 01/15/2024.
As per the Preliminary Amendment filed on 01/15/2024, claims 3-4, 6, 8-12 are amended. Claims 1-12 have been examined and are pending. This action is made Non Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/15/2024, 11/23/2025, 02/19/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Agrahari et al., (“Agrahari,” US 2020/0349225), published on Nov. 05, 2020.
Regarding claim 1, Agrahari discloses an information processing device, comprising a processor (pars. 0011 and 0040), wherein the processor:
displays a plurality of items of prepared information prepared by a user (pars. 0027-0028; Fig. 1, a string label column includes ‘Price,’ ‘Payment terms,’ ‘Date,’ ‘Gold,’ and ‘Organization’) and also displays a color index for selecting a color to identify the prepared information to be priority-displayed (pars. 0030-0031; Figs. 3-4; a color code 3110);
receives a selection of the color from the color index (pars. 0030-0031; Figs. 3-4; a user selects color from the color code 3110); and
priority-displays the prepared information identified by the color received (pars. 0030-0031; Figs. 3-4; the color coded 3110 shows a priority color panel which includes color codes from highest priority to the lowest priority).
Regarding claim 4, Agrahari discloses the information processing device of claim 1, wherein the processor: in a case in which the prepared information is to be stored, displays a color identification table for selecting a color to identify prepared information to be stored; receives the color from the color identification table; and stores the color received as the color to identify the prepared information to be stored (pars. 0030-0031; Figs. 3-4; color coded 3110 includes 3111, … 3114, .3117).
Regarding claim 5, Agrahari discloses the information processing device of claim 4, wherein the processor displays the color already identifying the prepared information in the color identification table so as to be distinguished from the color not yet identifying the prepared information (pars. 0030-0031; Figs. 3-4; color coded 3110 includes 3111, … 3114, .3117).
Regarding claim 8, Agrahari discloses the information processing device of claim 1, wherein the processor:
displays a color search table for selecting the color to identify the prepared information to be searched; and displays the prepared information identified by the color received from the color search table (pars. 0034; conduct searching to obtain the corresponding ranking priority; see also pars. 0030-0031; Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 11, Agrahari discloses the information processing device of claim 1, wherein the processor:
displays the plurality of items of prepared information and the color index at a same time (pars. 0028, 0030-0034; Figs. 1 and 3-4);
receives a selection of a color from the color index (pars. 0030-0034; Figs. 3-4; the color coded 3110 includes the highest and the lowest priorities with colors from orange, yellow, green to blue); and priority-displays the prepared information identified by the color received (pars. 0028, 0030-0034; Figs. 1 and 3-4; the priority of string token in the document is identified by user selects color from a priority color panel 3110).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium associated with the information processing device claimed in claim 1; Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore 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 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 2-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrahari et al., (“Agrahari,” US 2020/0349225), published on Nov. 05, 2020, in view of Ichimi, US 2016/0092439, published on Mar. 31, 2016.
Regarding claim 2, Agrahari discloses the information processing device of claim 1.
Agrahari does not explicitly disclose in a case in which the prepared information associated with the color received is stored in different languages, receives a language after the color has been received from the color index; and priority-displays the prepared information stored in the language received.
However, Ichimi discloses a priority list control unit, wherein in a case in which the prepared information associated with the color received is stored in different languages, receives a language after the color has been received from the color index (Ichimi: pars. 0047-0052, 0058 and 0076; the font priority list controller 706 may determine the priority list 1003 based on the display languages 802); and priority-displays the prepared information stored in the language received; and priority-displays the prepared information stored in the language received (Ichimi: pars. 0047-0052, 0058 and 0076; Figs. 8; final font priority lists having different priority orders which are sorted in a case where the user display language is English; the device display language is Korean, the language type instructed by the application unit 401 is Unicode, and the font family is the default font).
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 Ichimi with the method/system of Agrahari. One would have been motivated to provide users with a font priority list which stores a priority order of languages enabling a device to display language in accordance with the priority order of the font priority list (Ichimi: par. 0006).
Regarding claim 3, Agrahari discloses the information processing device of claim 1.
Agrahari does not explicitly disclose in a case in which there are different headwords for the prepared information associated with the color received, receives a headword after the color has been received from the color index; and priority-displays the prepared information related to the headword received.
However, Ichimi discloses a priority list control unit, wherein in a case in which there are different headwords for the prepared information associated with the color received, receives a headword after the color has been received from the color index; and priority-displays the prepared information related to the headword received (Ichimi: pars. pars. 0050-0052 and 0080-0082; Fig. 10; language types 902 includes language type codes that link to the language types 803 of the display language table 801 and font priority lists 903 corresponding to the language types 902).
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 Ichimi with the method/system of Agrahari. One would have been motivated to provide users with a font priority list which stores a priority order of languages enabling a device to display language in accordance with the priority order of the font priority list (Ichimi: par. 0006).
Regarding claim 6, Agrahari discloses the information processing device of claim 1.
Agrahari further discloses wherein the processor: displays the plurality of items of prepared information such that:
the prepared information having different colors for the color for identification are arranged in sequence determined by the color (Agrahari: par. 0027; Fig. 1; in the table 1000 illustrated the strings ‘payment terms’ and ‘date’ is assigned the next level of priority 2 and color orange).
the prepared information having a same color for the color for identification are arranged in sequence (pars. 0027-0028, 0030-0034; Figs. 1 and 3-4).
Agrahari does not explicitly disclose identification are arranged in sequence determined by a language in which the prepared information is stored.
However, Ichimi discloses a priority list control unit, wherein identification are arranged in sequence determined by a language in which the prepared information is stored (Ichimi: pars. 0047 and 0058; Figs. 7).
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 Ichimi with the method/system of Agrahari. One would have been motivated to provide users with a font priority list which stores a priority order of languages enabling a device to display language in accordance with the priority order of the font priority list (Ichimi: par. 0006).
The combination of Agrahari and Ichimi further discloses
the prepared information having a same color for identification and having a same language of storage are arranged in sequence determined by a headword of the prepared information (Agrahari: par. 0027; Fig. 1; in the table 1000 illustrated the strings ‘payment terms’ and ‘date’ is assigned the next level of priority 2 and color orange; Ichimi: par. 0052; Figs. 3, 8, and 10; a priority list table 1001).
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 Ichimi with the method/system of Agrahari. One would have been motivated to provide users with a font priority list which stores a priority order of languages enabling a device to display language in accordance with the priority order of the font priority list (Ichimi: par. 0006).
Regarding claim 7, Agrahari and Ichimi disclose the information processing device of claim 6.
The combination of Agrahari and Ichimi further discloses wherein the processor receives a change to at least one sequence from among the sequence determined by the color, the sequence determined by the language, or the sequence determined by the headword (Agrahari: pars. 0027; Fig. 1; in the table 1000 illustrated the strings ‘payment terms’ and ‘date’ is assigned the next level of priority 2 and color orange. Ichimi: par. 0052; Figs. 3, 8, and 10; a priority list table 1001).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrahari et al., (“Agrahari,” US 2020/0349225), published on Nov. 05, 2020, in view of Efrati et al., (“Efrati,” US 2014/0173515), published on Jun. 19, 2014.
Regarding claim 9, Agrahari the information processing device of claim 1,
Agrahari does not explicitly disclose wherein the prepared information is information representing a contact.
However, Efrati discloses a method and apparatus for identifying and displaying a set of high priority contact, wherein the prepared information is information representing a contact (Efrati: pars. 0024-0027, 0041; Figs. 3-4, a high priority contact list 420).
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 Efrati with the method/system of Agrahari. One would have been motivated to provide users with the prepared information is information representing a contact enable users to easily identify those contacts that are closer in relationship to the user.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrahari et al., (“Agrahari,” US 2020/0349225), published on Nov. 05, 2020, in view of Nakamura, US 2009/0323143, published on Dec. 31, 2009.
Regarding claim 10 , Agrahari discloses the information processing device of claim 1.
Agrahari does not explicitly disclose wherein the prepared information is information representing a print job.
However, Nakamura disclose a print control device, wherein the prepared information is information representing a print job (Nakamura: pars. 0048, 0069-0070 and 0075; Figs. 3 and 6-9D).
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 Nakamura with the method/system of Agrahari. One would have been motivated to provide users with the prepared information is information representing a print job allows the user to select the color conversion information used for the printing process (Nakamura: par. 0013).
Conclusion
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)).
Inquiries
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