DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Independent Claim 1
Imamura and Bak fail to disclose “wherein each first link identifier respectively corresponds to a different one of the plurality of first visible links and overlaid on or in a vicinity of a corresponding first link and each first link identifier being different from other first link identifiers”
Applicant argues that Imamura displays the same objects at the top of Figure 13 as in the bottom of Figure 13 and that Imamura assigns only numerals 1 through 3 in the top of Figure 13, in which same numerals are reassigned. Applicant therefore concludes that Imamura fails to teach that a difference exists between the identifiers. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim fails to state in what manner the identifiers are different (different location or different graphic). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the location of identifiers 1-3 at the top of Figure 13 are in a different location than the location of identifiers 1-3 at the bottom of Figure 13, therefore a difference exists and since the claims fail to recite the manner in which the difference exists, these claim limitations are properly rejected using the Imamura reference.
Applicant further argues that Bak does not teach the deficiencies of Imamura, however, as rebutted by the Examiner above, Imamura teaches that the identifies are different, as claimed.
Imamura and Bak fail to disclose or suggest “upon receiving user input identical to a first link identifier, activate the corresponding first link” in claim 1.
The Examiner disagrees and notes in Figure 13 and Paragraphs 0098-0099, link identifiers can be accessed in the top image (first/“1” and second/”2”). If the first link identifier is accessed in the top image of Figure 13 (“1”), the bottom portion of Figure 13 would have third link identifiers (“1” and “3”) in different locations (see the Examiner’s rebuttal above) covering the arrows to make them selectable. If the second link identifier in the top image of Figure 13 (“2”) has been accessed, the bottom portion of Figure 13 would then have third link identifiers in different locations (see the Examiner’s rebuttal above) covering the triangles to make them selectable. Therefore, the third link identifiers are different from the first link identifiers (location) and correspond to a different one of the group of second links (the third identifiers in the bottom image of Figure 13 represent a different one of the group of second links (the visible links in the top image of Figure 13 within ) by nature of the being on a different first image (the transition from the top image in Figure 13 to the bottom image in Figure 13) and now labeling the triangles). Again, the Examiner notes the claims do not describe the manner in which a difference exists.
Iwamura and Bak fail to disclose or suggest “upon receiving user input identical to the second link identifier, overlay the first image with third link identifiers, wherein each third link identifier is different from the first link identifiers and corresponds to a different one of the group of second links” in claim 1.
Applicant reiterates the arguments from section I, stating that the assigned numbers at the top of Figure 13 are not different from the assigned numbers in the bottom of Figure 13. As rebutted by the Examiner above, the claims fail to state in what manner the identifiers are different (different location or different graphic). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the location of identifiers 1-3 at the top of Figure 13 are in a different location than the location of identifiers 1-3 at the bottom of Figure 13, therefore a difference exists and since the claims fail to recite the manner in which the difference exists.
In regards to sections B-C in Applicant’s arguments, see the Examiner’s rebuttals above.
In regards to section D(i) in Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that Imamura and Bak fail to disclose claim 2. The Examiner agrees with Applicant’s arguments regarding dependent claim 2. The Examiner has issued an objection indicating that if the limitations of dependent claim 2 were fully integrated into independent claim 1, the claims would be in condition for allowance.
In regards to section D(ii) in Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that the claims recite “in addition to”, which means that the “third link identifiers are overlaid” at the same time as “the second link identifier”. The Examiner disagrees and notes in addition to is broader than at the same time and includes drawing the third and second link identifiers at two different times. Applicant’s claim 5 provides no recitation of a time constraint.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,997,357. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are broader than the claims in the ‘357 Patent.
Referring to claims 1-6 of the instant application, see claims 1-9 of the ‘357 Patent.
Referring to claims 7-12 of the instant application, see claims 10-17 of the ‘357 Patent.
Referring to claim 13 of the instant application, see claim 18 of the ‘357 Patent.
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 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, 3-7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamura et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0342388) in view of Bak et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 9,183,832).
Referring to claim 1, Imamura discloses generating, from received data for a display page, a first image comprising at least a first part of the display page, wherein the first image comprises a plurality of first visible links (see Paragraphs 0028-0030 and Figure 13 for generating and displaying a first image with a plurality of visible links).
Imamura also discloses generating an overlaid image by overlaying the first image with first link identifiers and a second link identifier (see Paragraph 0030 and Figure 13 for overlaying the objects/links, wherein Figure 13 displays two sets of first link identifiers and a second link identifier).
Imamura also discloses that each first link identifier respectively corresponds to a different one of the plurality of first visible links and overlaid on or in a vicinity of a corresponding first link and each first link identifier being different from other first link identifiers (see Figure 13 for the top image illustrating that first link identifiers 1 and 3 correspond to a different one of the plurality of first visible links (the objects 21a-d and 21h-j), wherein link identifiers 1 and 3 are in different location and comprise different numerals).
Imamura also discloses that the second link identifier is different from the first link identifiers and wherein the second link identifier corresponds to a group of second links visible in the first image and different from the plurality of first visible links (see Figure 13 for second link identifier 2, which in different by location and numeral, that corresponds to a group of second links/objects visible in the first image and different from the first visible links in windows 1 and 3).
Imamura also discloses providing the overlaid image for display (see the top image in Figure 13).
Imamura also discloses that upon receiving user input identical to a first link identifier, activate the corresponding first link (see transitioning from the top image in Figure 13 to the bottom image in Figure 13 and Paragraph 0099).
Imamura also discloses that upon receiving user input identical to the second link identifier, overlay the first image with third link identifiers, wherein each third link identifier is different from the first link identifiers and corresponds to a different one of the group of second links (see the bottom image in Figure 13 and Paragraph 0099 for overlaying third link identifiers 1-3, which are different by location and correspond to a different one of the group of second links discussed above).
Imamura fails to teach that the display page is a web page.
Bak discloses labeling a web page with numbers that can be spoken to access an additional item using the web page display system (see Column 9, Lines 6-8 and Column 12, Lines 18-35).
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 user interface menu system, as taught by Imamura, using the web page display functionality, as taught by Bak, for the purpose of allowing a user to perceive the voice more exactly, and a method for executing a link and a method for recognizing a voice thereof (see Column 1, Lines 56-58 of Bak).
Referring to claim 2, Imamura also discloses upon receiving a user instruction to display a second part of the display page:
Imamura also discloses generate a second image comprising the further part of the display page (see Figure 16 and Paragraphs 0101-0104).
Imamura also discloses generate a second overlaid image by overlaying the second image with fourth link identifiers, each fourth link identifier respectively corresponding to different link in the second image (see Figure 16 and Paragraphs 0101-0104 for links 1-5).
and provide the overlaid second image for display (see Figure 16 and Paragraph 0101-0104).
The Examiner notes the rejection of claim 1 for Bak teaching a web page.
Referring to claim 3, Imamura also discloses that the first link identifiers and second link identifiers are numbers (see Figure 13 for the first and second link identifiers being numbered 1-3).
Referring to claim 4, Imamura also discloses that the second link identifier is overlaid in the vicinity of the group of second links (see Figure 13 for the first page displaying the number 2 in the vicinity of the group of second links 21e-21g).
Referring to claim 5, Imamura also discloses that the third link identifiers are overlaid in addition to the second link identifier (see Figure 13 for displaying the second link identifier 2 on the first page and then displaying the third link identifiers 1-3 in addition to the second link identifier displayed on the first page).
Referring to claim 6, Imamura also discloses that the third link identifiers replace the second link identifier (see the second page in Figure 13 for replacing the second link identifier 2 on the first page with third link identifiers 1-2 on the second page).
Referring to claim 7 and 9-12, see the rejection of claims 1 and 3-6, respectively.
Referring to claim 13, see the rejection of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 and 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON P SALCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7301. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30am-10:00pm M-F (Flex Schedule).
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/Jason Salce/Senior Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Jason P Salce
Senior Examiner
Art Unit 2421
March 2, 2026