CTNF 18/671,778 CTNF 84222 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: 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 . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112 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. 07-34-21 Claim limitations “a display processing portion”, “a reception processing portion", “a control processing portion” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-6 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: As seen in Figure 2, 271, 272 and 273 of applicant’s specification If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications , 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being clearly anticipated by Iwase US2017/0064105 . As per Claim 1 , Iwase teaches an information processing system, comprising: a display processing portion configured to display a first screen for receiving a remote operation of an image forming apparatus and (Iwase, [0050], “The system illustrated in FIG. 3 in which the image forming device 1 is connected to the client PC 2 through the communication line 3 is a remote panel system utilizing VNC (virtual network computing: registered trademark) being software for remotely operating a screen of another device connected to the network, for example. That is to say, a function of a remote panel is a function of remotely operating the image forming device 1 connected through the communication line 3 such as the LAN line”) a second screen for operating the image forming apparatus in one display area of an operation terminal; (Iwase, Figure 10, Paragraph [0076], “FIG. 10 is a view illustrating a display example of the second example (1) in which the operation related to the remote panel screen 32 is linked with the operation related to the user manual screen 31”) a reception processing portion capable of receiving user operations on each of the first screen and the second screen; and (Iwase, Figure 10, Paragraph [0076]-[0080]) a control processing portion configured to change display content on one screen of the first screen and the second screen to content corresponding to the user operation when the reception processing portion receives the user operation on the other screen. (Iwase, Figure 6, S13, S14 and S15 and Figure 10) As per Claim 2 , Iwase teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the first screen displayed in a first area of the display area is a setting screen that receives setting operations for setting the image forming apparatus; the second screen displayed in the second area of the display area is an operation manual screen that displays an operation manual for the image forming apparatus; and (Iwase, Figure 10, Paragraph [0076], “FIG. 10 is a view illustrating a display example of the second example (1) in which the operation related to the remote panel screen 32 is linked with the operation related to the user manual screen 31”) in a case where the reception processing portion receives a user operation to select a predetermined setting item on the first screen, the control processing portion searches for a page related to the setting item in the operation manual, and displays the searched page in the second area. Iwase, Paragraph [0080], “As an example, a case in which the corresponding page of the user manual is automatically displayed at the time of the transition to the copy applied setting screen by operation of a “copy” area R104 of the remote panel screen 32 (refer to FIG. 11) is described. FIG. 12 is a view illustrating a display example of the second example (2) in which the operation related to the user manual screen 31 is linked with the operation related to the remote panel screen 32”) As per Claim 3 , Iwase teaches the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the control processing portion executes a search process according to operation content of a user operation on the predetermined setting item, and displays search results in the second area. (Iwase, Paragraph [0089], “As described above, according to the second example, the screen of the operating unit 11 is simultaneously and automatically operated when a method of using the function is searched on the user manual screen 31, and in contrast, when the screen of the operating unit 11 is operated by using the remote panel screen 32, the corresponding page of the user manual screen 31 is automatically displayed. Therefore, it is possible to simultaneously browse the user manual being an example of the HTML content and operate the operating unit 11 without troublesome operation to alternatively perform the page operation of the user manual screen 31 and the operation of the operating unit 11”) As per Claim 7 , Claim 7 claims an information processing method utilizing the method as claimed in Claim 1. Therefore the rejection id analogous to that made in Claim 1 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase US2017/0064105 as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of Griffin et al. US2014/0283143 As per Claim 6, Iwase teaches the information processing system according to claim 2, Iwase does not explicitly teach wherein in a case where the reception processing portion receives a user operation to select a predetermined keyword included in the operation manual in the second screen, the control processing portion displays a selection screen for selecting whether or not to change a page currently displayed in the first screen to a page corresponding to the keyword, and in a case where an operation to change to a page corresponding to the keyword is received, the control processing portion causes a change to the page corresponding to the keyword. Griffin teaches wherein in a case where the reception processing portion receives a user operation to select a predetermined keyword included in the operation manual in the second screen, the control processing portion displays a selection screen for selecting whether or not to change a page currently displayed in the first screen to a page corresponding to the keyword, and in a case where an operation to change to a page corresponding to the keyword is received, the control processing portion causes a change to the page corresponding to the keyword. (Griffin, Paragraph [0037], “A user can select the menu selection mechanism 412 to access various functions for the currently-displayed page and/or manual. For example, manuals can be text-searchable, which allows the user to locate keywords or phrases within the manual. Therefore, a user can select the menu selection mechanism 412 to initiate a search on a displayed manual (e.g., by inputting one or more keywords and/or search terms). In response, the application 265 can generate a list of search results that displays relevant sections of the manual matching the search. The list of search results can be listed in page order and/or by relevancy, and a user can select a particular search result to jump to the associated section of the displayed manual”) Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Griffin into Iwase because by utilizing a search function in the user manual will allow the user to have control in what the user will like to access in the manual in order to assist the user in using the device. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the two references to obtain the invention in Claim 6 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 4-5 are 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING HON whose telephone number is (571)270-5245. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Emily Terrell can be reached on 571-270-3717. 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. /MING Y HON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/671,778 Page 2 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/671,778 Page 3 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/671,778 Page 4 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/671,778 Page 5 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/671,778 Page 6 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/671,778 Page 7 Art Unit: 2666
Prosecution Insights