DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Response received 12/18/2025 for 18582152. Claims 1-23 are pending.
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 .
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 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.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendments, the 112(f) interpretation and 112 rejections necessitated from the 112(f) interpretation of claims 1-16 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 102 rejection of claim 1 has been fully considered but are not persuasive in view of the newly cited reference Horiike, hereinafter Yoshiteru (US 20200019284 A1) being used in the current 103 rejection.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., where the predetermined area is "an area where no software key is arranged" [pg. 10:4]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, the claim recites "a predetermined area where a software key indicating any one of the plurality of functions is arranged and a predetermined area where the software key is not arranged". The "predetermined area where the software key is not arranged" only requires that the original software key is not arranged at that location and does not preclude the arrangement of another software key at the location.
Horiike discloses a display region including an individual position, interpreted as predetermined areas, where an application button, interpreted as software key, corresponding to an application function is disposed [Figs. 2A, 4A, para 0034, 0046]. Therefore, by disclosing another display position where another application button is disposed [Figs. 2A, 4A, para 0034, 0046], Horiike discloses "a predetermined area where the software key is not arranged". Claim 1 remains rejected.
Claims 17 and 18 recite similar limitations to those recited in claim 1 and remain rejected upon a similar basis as claim 1 as stated above.
Dependent claims 2-16 and 19-23 remain rejected at least based on their dependence from independent claim 1.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "history button" (claims 22-23) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities.
Claims 22 recites the limitation " a setting content is displayed is displayed on a screen" which appears to include a typographical error and has been interpreted as "a setting content [[is displayed]] is displayed on a screen".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 22 recites the newly amended limitation "a history button indicating a function executed by the information processing apparatus and a setting content is displayed". While the specification as originally filed discloses "[o]ne or a plurality of functions which the image processing apparatus 1 has executed in the past and a history of setting contents are automatically registered and displayed on a consolidated history 309 provided as a timeline area" with an example of "[t]he user can call executed functions and setting contents by pressing an area (not illustrated) describing the executed functions and the setting contents displayed on the consolidated history 309" [Specification, para 00147], it does not appear to describe "an area" in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention of a history button as recited in the newly amended limitation "a history button indicating a function executed by the information processing apparatus and a setting content is displayed".
Claim 23 recites the newly amended limitation "wherein in a case where the history button is operated, the executed function and the setting content are called". While the specification as originally filed discloses "[o]ne or a plurality of functions which the image processing apparatus 1 has executed in the past and a history of setting contents are automatically registered and displayed on a consolidated history 309 provided as a timeline area" with an example of "[t]he user can call executed functions and setting contents by pressing an area (not illustrated) describing the executed functions and the setting contents displayed on the consolidated history 309" [Specification, para 00147], it does not appear to describe "an area" in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention of operating a history button to call the executed function and the setting content as recited in the newly amended limitation "a history button indicating a function executed by the information processing apparatus and a setting content is displayed".
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 13-14, and 16-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiike (US 20160170600 A1) in view of Horiike, hereinafter Yoshiteru (US 20200019284 A1).
As to claim 1, Horiike discloses an information processing apparatus having a plurality of functions including a copy function or a scan function [Fig. 1, para 0020, 0029, apparatus controls operations including scanning and copying], comprising:
at least one memory storing a program; and at least one processor that executes the stored program, which causes the at least one processor [para 0020, 0086, apparatus includes medium storing instructions executed by processor] to:
perform display of a predetermined area where a software key indicating any one of the plurality of functions is arranged and a predetermined area where the software key is not arranged [Figs. 2A, 4D-4F, para 0034, 0046, 0053, display device displays other button position (read: predetermined area) where other application button (read: software key) is disposed (read: arranged) and initial button position (read: predetermined area) where initial application button is disposed (read: software key is not arranged, note other button position is not where other button is disposed)];
accept
a first operation for selecting the predetermined area where the software key is not arranged [Figs. 2A, 4A-4B, 4D, para 0040, 0043, 0046-0047, user performs operation pressing (read: selecting) button at initial position, note application button disposed at initial position is not other application button] and
a second operation for selecting a destination of the predetermined area where the software key is not arranged and selected through the first operation [Figs. 4B-4F, para 0045, 0049-0050, user performs drop operation of dragged button at locating position (read: destination), note other application button disposed at another position]; and
relocate the predetermined area where the software key is not arranged and selected through the first operation, to the destination selected through the second operation [para 0047-0049, relocate button position from initial position to locating position moved by drag and drop operation],
wherein in a case where a predetermined operation is performed on any one of the predetermined area where the software key is arranged and the predetermined area where the software key is not arranged, … an instruction to shift to a mode for moving at least one of the predetermined area where the software key is arranged and the predetermined area where the software key is not arranged … [Fig. 5A, para 0039-0040, 0053, set (read: shift) drag operable mode to move and locate application button when user presses (read: predetermined operation) button at initial position (read: the predetermined area where the software key is not arranged)].
However, Horiike does not specifically disclose a window for accepting an instruction to shift to a mode for moving at least one of the predetermined area where the software key is arranged and the predetermined area where the software key is not arranged is displayed.
Yoshiteru discloses a window for accepting an instruction to shift to a mode for moving at least one of the predetermined area where the software key is arranged and the predetermined area where the software key is not arranged is displayed [Fig. 6A, para 0064, 0069, 0078-0079, display context menu (read: window) including move button function to place displayed software keys into a movable state, note position where initial software key is displayed (read: is arranged) and other position where another software key that is not initial software key is displayed].
Horiike and Yoshiteru are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of menu graphical user interfaces. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the instruction to shift to a mode as disclosed by Horiike with a window for accepting an instruction to shift to a mode as disclosed by Yoshiteru with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Horiike as described above to prevent erroneous operation execution [Yoshiteru, para 0073].
As to claim 2, Horiike discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined area where the software key is not arranged is an area having a size similar to a size of the predetermined area where the software key is arranged [Figs. 4A, 4D, 4F, para 0035, 0046, display button position and other application button performing value setting (read: predetermined function) disposed at another position with same button display size].
As to claim 3, Horiike discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined area where the software key is not arranged is an area having a shape similar to a shape of the predetermined area where the software key is arranged [Figs. 4A, 4D, 4F, para 0035, 0046, 0051, display button position and other application button performing value setting (read: predetermined function) disposed at another position with same position shape, note Figure 4F shows rectangular display sizes at positions].
As to claim 4, Horiike discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the processor relocates the predetermined area where the software key is not arranged and selected through the first operation, to the destination selected through the second operation, a predetermined area where a software key is not arranged, which is different from the selected predetermined area where the software key is not arranged, and a predetermined area where a software key is arranged are also relocated [Figs. 4A, 4D, 4F, para 0035, 0046, 0051, display button position and other application button performing value setting (read: predetermined function) disposed at another position with same position shape, note Figure 4F shows rectangular display sizes at positions].
As to claim 5, Horiike discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor accepts the first operation and the second operation in a mode for relocating the predetermined area where the software key is not arranged and the predetermined area where the software key is arranged [Fig. 5A, para 0022-0023, 0039-0040, 0053-0058, input unit cooperates with processor to determine user operation contacting and dropping button position during rearrangement setting state to move application buttons].
As to claim 8, Horiike discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined area where the software key is not arranged and the predetermined area where the software key is arranged are displayed on a home screen of the information processing apparatus [Figs. 2A, 4A, para 0033-0034, 0042, display button positions in menu screen of apparatus, note menu screen displays buttons performing apparatus functions consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of a home screen as consistent with Applicant's specification including buttons for activating applications (0042)].
As to claim 9, Horiike discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor further accepts a third operation for selecting the predetermined area where the software key is [not] arranged [Figs. 2A, 4A-4B, 4D, para 0040, 0043, 0046-0047, user performs drag operation pressing button at initial position] and a fourth operation for selecting a destination of the predetermined area where the software key is [not] arranged and selected through the third operation [Figs. 4B-4F, para 0045, 0049-0050, user performs drop operation of dragged button at locating position] but not explicitly a third operation for selecting the predetermined area where the software key is arranged and a fourth operation for selecting a destination of the predetermined area where the software key is arranged and selected through the third operation.
However, Horiike teaches the predetermined area where the software key is arranged [Figs. 2A, 4A-4B, 4D, para 0040, 0043, 0046-0047, other application button disposed at position not dragged by user operation] and that a drag and drop operation may be performed on any other data [para 0082, apply drag and drop operation to any application button included in the menu screen].
Horiike is analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of menu graphical user interfaces. Thus it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention apply the teachings of Horiike performing operations selecting a predetermined area with a software key and a destination of the predetermined area to any predetermined area with a software key with a reasonable expectation of success to result in wherein the acceptance unit further accepts a third operation for selecting the predetermined area where the software key is arranged and a fourth operation for selecting a destination of the predetermined area where the software key is arranged and selected through the third operation [see MPEP 2143].
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply this teaching to Horiike to not limit user operations to specific content [Horiike, para 0082-0083].
As to claim 10, Horiike discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the processor further relocates the predetermined area where the software key is [not] arranged and selected through the third operation, to the destination selected through the fourth operation [para 0047-0049, relocate button position from initial position to locating position moved by drag and drop operation] but not explicitly wherein the relocation unit further relocates the predetermined area where the software key is arranged and selected through the third operation, to the destination selected through the fourth operation.
However, Horiike teaches the predetermined area where the software key is arranged [Figs. 2A, 4A-4B, 4D, para 0040, 0043, 0046-0047, other application button disposed at position not dragged by user operation] and that a relocation operation may be performed on any other data [para 0082, apply drag and drop operation to any application button included in the menu screen].
Horiike is analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of graphical user interface menus. Thus it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention apply the teachings of Horiike relocating a predetermined area with a software key and a destination of the predetermined area to any predetermined area with a software key with a reasonable expectation of success to result in wherein the relocation unit further relocates the predetermined area where the software key is arranged and selected through the third operation, to the destination selected through the fourth operation [see MPEP 2143].
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply this teaching to Horiike to not limit user operations to specific content [Horiike, para 0082-0083].
As to claim 13, Horiike discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the first operation is a touch operation [Figs. 4A, para 0040, 0043, user performs press operation on button position], and
the second operation is a drag-and-drop operation [Figs. 4B-4D, 4F, para 0048-0049, user performs drag and drop operation on button position].
As to claim 14, Horiike discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein
the third operation is a touch operation [Figs. 4A, para 0040, 0043, user performs press operation on button position], and
the fourth operation is a drag-and-drop operation [Figs. 4B-4D, 4F, para 0048-0049, user performs drag and drop operation on button position].
As to claim 16, Horiike discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information processing apparatus is a printer [Fig. 1, para 0020, image forming apparatus].
As to claim 17, Horiike and Yoshiteru, combined at least for the reasons above, Horiike discloses a control method of an information processing apparatus having a plurality of functions including a copy function or a scan function [Fig. 1, para 0020, 0029, apparatus controls operations (read: functions) including scanning and copying], the control method comprising: performing limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 18, Horiike and Yoshiteru, combined at least for the reasons above, Horiike discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer of an information processing apparatus having a plurality of functions including a copy function or a scan function to execute a method [Fig. 1, para 0020, 0027, 0029, memory stores program controlling operations (read: functions) including scanning and copying executed by apparatus processor], the method comprising: performing limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 19, Horiike discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined operation is a long-press operation on any one of the predetermined area where the software key is arranged and the predetermined area where the software key is not arranged [Figs. 4A, para 0040, 0043, user performs press operation for a long time on button at initial position, note other application button disposed at another position].
As to claim 20, Horiike discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where … the instruction to shift to the mode for moving at least one of the predetermined area where the software key is arranged and the predetermined area where the software key is not arranged is accepted, the information processing apparatus shifts to the mode for moving at least one of the predetermined area where the software key is arranged and the predetermined area where the software key is not arranged [Fig. 5A, para 0039-0040, 0053, set (read: shift) drag operable mode to move and locate application button when user presses (read: predetermined operation) button at initial position (read: the predetermined area where the software key is not arranged)].
However, Horiike does not specifically disclose wherein in a case where the window is displayed and the instruction to shift to the mode for moving at least one of the predetermined area where the software key is arranged and the predetermined area where the software key is not arranged is accepted.
Yoshiteru discloses wherein in a case where the window is displayed and the instruction to shift to the mode for moving at least one of the predetermined area where the software key is arranged and the predetermined area where the software key is not arranged is accepted, the information processing apparatus shifts to the mode for moving at least one of the predetermined area where the software key is arranged and the predetermined area where the software key is not arranged [Fig. 6A, para 0064, 0069, 0078-0079, select (read: accept) move button function in displayed context menu for pressed software key to set all software keys into movable state, note position where initial software key is displayed (read: is arranged) and other position where another software key that is not initial software key is displayed].
Horiike and Yoshiteru are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of menu graphical user interfaces. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify accepting the instruction to shift to a mode as disclosed by Horiike with a window accepting an instruction to shift to a mode as disclosed by Yoshiteru with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Horiike as described above to prevent erroneous operation execution [Yoshiteru, para 0073].
As to claim 21, Horiike discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the information processing apparatus shifts to the mode for moving at least one of the predetermined area where the software key is arranged and the predetermined area where the software key is not arranged, a button for accepting an instruction to end the mode for moving at least one of the predetermined area where the software key is arranged and the predetermined area where the software key is not arranged is displayed [Fig. 5A, para 0039-0040, 0053, set state to drag operable move to move and locate application button at initial position and display rearrangement button to cancel (read: end) drag operable state to move application button].
As to claim 22, Horiike discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein … a screen including the predetermined area where the software key is arranged and the predetermined area where the software key is not arranged [Figs. 2A, 4D-4F, para 0034, 0046, 0053, display device displays other button position where other application button is disposed and initial button position where initial application button is disposed].
However, Horiike does not specifically disclose a history display area where a history button indicating a function executed by the information processing apparatus and a setting content is displayed is displayed on a screen.
Yoshiteru discloses a history display area where a history button indicating a function executed by the information processing apparatus and a setting content is displayed is displayed on a screen [Fig. 4A, para 0066-0068, timeline (read: history display area) displays history button indicating processing (read: function) executed on image processing apparatus and processing setting content on home screen].
Horiike and Yoshiteru are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of menu graphical user interfaces. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the screen as disclosed by Horiike with a screen including a history display area disclosed by Yoshiteru with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Horiike as described above to reduce repetitive user input.
As to claim 23, Horiike discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 22.
However, Horiike does not specifically disclose wherein in a case where the history button is operated, the executed function and the setting content are called.
Yoshiteru discloses wherein in a case where the history button is operated, the executed function and the setting content are called [Fig. 4A, para 0067-0068, pressing history button re-executes same processing and same setting content].
Horiike and Yoshiteru are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of menu graphical user interfaces. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the screen as disclosed by Horiike with a screen where a history button is operated as disclosed by Yoshiteru with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Horiike as described above to reduce repetitive user input.
Claims 6-7, 11-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiike and Yoshiteru as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shepherd et al. (US 20140283142 A1).
As to claim 6, Horiike discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein, in the mode for relocating the predetermined area where the software key is not arranged and the predetermined area where the software key is arranged, the predetermined area where the software key is [not] arranged in a [] state is displayed in a state indicating that the software key is [not] arranged … [para 0047-0049, relocate button position from initial position (read: state) to locating position moved by drag and drop operation].
However, Horiike and Yoshiteru do not specifically disclose the predetermined area where the software key is arranged in a non-display state is displayed in a state indicating that the software key is arranged but not displayed.
Shepherd discloses the predetermined area where the software key is arranged in a non-display state is displayed in a state indicating that the software key is arranged but not displayed [Fig. 26, para 0201-0202, home screen position includes unavailable (read: non-display state) application with non-selectable icon display (read: state)].
Horiike, Yoshiteru, and Shepherd are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of menu graphical use interfaces. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the predetermined area where the software key is arranged as disclosed by Horiike and Yoshiteru with the software key in a non-display state as disclosed by Shepherd with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Horiike and Yoshiteru as described above to facilitate identifying device access modes [Shepherd, para 0197].
As to claim 7, Horiike discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 6.
However, Horiike and Yoshiteru do not specifically disclose wherein the state indicating that the software key is arranged but not displayed is a translucent state.
Shepherd discloses wherein the state indicating that the software key is arranged but not displayed is a translucent state [Fig. 26, para 0201-0202, display unavailable application as non-selectable icon with transparent display (read: translucent state)].
Horiike, Yoshiteru, and Shepherd are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of menu graphical use interfaces. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the state as disclosed by Horiike and Yoshiteru with a state indicating a software key is arranged but not displayed in a translucent state as disclosed by Shepherd with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Horiike and Yoshiteru as described above to facilitate identifying device access modes [Shepherd, para 0197].
As to claim 11, Horiike discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor further accepts
a fifth operation for selecting the predetermined area where the software key is [not] arranged in a [] state [Figs. 2A, 4A-4B, 4D, para 0040, 0043, 0046-0047, user performs drag operation pressing (read: selecting) button at initial position] and
a sixth operation for selecting a destination of the predetermined area where the software key is [not] arranged in a [] state and selected through the fifth operation [Figs. 4B-4F, para 0045, 0049-0050, user performs drop operation of dragged button at locating position (read: destination) among buttons (read: state), note other application button disposed at another position].
However, Horiike and Yoshiteru do not specifically disclose the predetermined area where the software key is arranged in a non-display state.
Shepherd discloses the predetermined area where the software key is arranged in a non-display state [Fig. 26, para 0201-0202, home screen position includes unavailable (read: non-display state) application].
Horiike, Yoshiteru, and Shepherd are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of menu graphical use interfaces. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the predetermined area as disclosed by Horiike and Yoshiteru with the predetermined area arranged with a software key in a non-display state as disclosed by Shepherd with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Horiike and Yoshiteru as described above to facilitate identifying device access modes [Shepherd, para 0197].
As to claim 12, Horiike discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the processor further relocates the predetermined area where the software key is [not] arranged in a [] state and selected through the fifth operation, to the destination selected through the sixth operation [para 0047-0049, relocate button position from initial position to locating position among buttons moved by drag and drop operation].
However, Horiike and Yoshiteru do not specifically disclose the predetermined area where the software key is arranged in a non-display state.
Shepherd discloses the predetermined area where the software key is arranged in a non-display state [Fig. 26, para 0201-0202, home screen position includes unavailable (read: non-display state) application].
Horiike, Yoshiteru, and Shepherd are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of menu graphical use interfaces. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the predetermined area as disclosed by Horiike and Yoshiteru with the predetermined area arranged with a software key in a non-display state as disclosed by Shepherd with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Horiike and Yoshiteru as described above to facilitate identifying device access modes [Shepherd, para 0197].
As to claim 15, Horiike discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 11, wherein
the fifth operation is a touch operation [Figs. 4A, para 0040, 0043, user performs press operation on button position], and
the sixth operation is a drag-and-drop operation [Figs. 4B-4D, 4F, para 0048-0049, user performs drag and drop operation on button position].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sato (US 20140368875 A1) generally discloses adding/deleting blank spaces in a multi-functional peripheral environment.
Chaudhri et al. (US 20200379615 A1) generally discloses relocating icons on a device home screen.
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 LINDA HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-5240 and email is linda.huynh@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F between 9am-5pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/LINDA HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172