DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 02/05/2026.
Claims 1-6, 8-10 and 12-16 are pending in the case.
Claims 7 and 11 have been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 1, 8 and 16 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent Claim 8:
Claim 8 recites “display, in a case which another first index is selected after the second indices.” The conditional limitation is incomplete, it does not include what is being displayed nor does it recite what state of the second indices triggers the condition (e.g. after the second indices are displayed or after a second index is selected). The scope of the limitation cannot be determined since the limitation is incomplete. Accordingly, claim 8 is indefinite. For the purpose of prior art analysis, Examiner will consider the display of any information in response to selecting another first index after the second indices are displayed to meet the requirements of the claim.
Claims 9 and 10:
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected for fully incorporating the deficiency of their respective base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2016/0070425 A1, published 03/10/2016, hereinafter “Song”) in view of Baudisch (US 2006/0112347 A1, published 05/25/2006, hereinafter “Baudisch”) and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2015/0234938 A1, published 08/20/2015, hereinafter “Zhang”).
Independent Claim 8:
Song discloses a device comprising:
a processor (Song: fig. 1, ¶ [0048], [0050]),
wherein the processor is configured to:
display a plurality of first indices of a database stored in a storage unit, in a first direction of a display area of a display unit (The display shows a first index UI 401 (plurality of first indices) of a phone book (database) provided by an application, the first index is displayed in a vertical direction, Song: Fig. 4A, ¶ [0073]. The first application is stored in memory 130, Song: Fig. 1, ¶ [0051].);
display, upon detecting a user's selection operation for a first index, a plurality of second indices, corresponding to the first index, in a straight line in a second direction intersecting or parallel to the first index (The user can select a first index, Song: Fig. 4B, ¶ [0078]-[0079]. In response to the selection a second index UI 420 is displayed, Song: Fig. 4C, ¶ [0080]. The second index UI can be displayed in a straight line in a horizontal direction or parallel to the first index UI, Song: Figs. 7D and 7E, ¶ [0093]); and
determine that a second index is selected in a case in which it is detected that a second index display area displaying the second index has been selected, and also in a case in which it is detected that a selection area set other than the second index display area has been selected (The user can select an index in the second index UI by providing input to an area of the screen that is displaying the index in the second index UI, Song: Figs. 4C and 7L, ¶ [0080], [0108]);
display the second index in a case in which a predetermined condition is satisfied (The second index is displayed when the user selects a first index, Song: Figs. 3-4C, ¶ [0079]-[0080]).
display, in a case in which another first index is selected after the second indices (The user can select a first index, Song: Fig. 4B, ¶ [0078]-[0079]. In response to the selection a second index UI 420 is displayed, Song: Fig. 4C, ¶ [0080]. It is clear that the user can select another first index after a second index is selected.).
Song does not appear to expressly teach a device wherein the selection is determined in a case in which it is detected that a selection area set other than the second index display area has been selected.
However, Baudisch teaches a device wherein the selection is determined in a case in which it is detected that a selection area set other than the display area of a set of selectable object icons (The selection can occur in an expanded target area corresponding to tiles 412-416 (selection area set) instead of just the area wherein the selectable object icons 402-406 are displayed, Baudisch, Fig. 4, abstract, ¶ [0022].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Song wherein the selection is determined in a case in which it is detected that a selection area set other than the display area of a set of selectable object icons, as taught by Baudisch.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by better assisting the user in selecting target GUI elements (Baudisch: ¶ [0002]-[0008]).
In implementing the expanded target feature of Baudisch into the invention of Song, the selectable object icons (as taught by Baudisch) would correspond to a second index display area since the selectable objects correspond to a second index display area in the invention of Song. Accordingly, in combination, Song in view of Baudisch teaches a device wherein the selection is determined in a case in which it is detected that a selection area set other than the second index display area has been selected.
Baudisch teaches that “The expanded targets are generated such that each expanded target does not impinge on or overlap the location of another target” (Baudisch: ¶ [0009]). The interface of Song shows that the first and second indexes overlap the target areas of the set of data items (Song: Figs. 4A-4C). However, other arrangements for data items and indexes are known in the art wherein the indexes do not overlap the data items and therefore would provide space for target expansion. For example, Zhang provides an arrangement wherein the first and second indexes do not overlap the target area of the data items (Zhang: Fig. 3, ¶ [0040]-[0041].). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the arrangement of Song so that the first and second indexes do not overlap the target area of the data items (as taught by Zhang) in order to improve the user’s experience by implementing the expanded target feature of Baudisch.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Baudisch, further in view of Zhang and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2010/0298034 A1, published 11/25/2010, hereinafter “Shin”).
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Song in view of Baudisch and further in view of Zhang does not appear to expressly teach a device wherein the predetermined condition is that selection of one of the first indices is held for a predetermined time.
However, Shin teaches a device wherein the predetermined condition is that selection of one of the first indices is held for a predetermined time (Shin: Fig. 2, ¶ [0058]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device wherein the predetermined condition is that selection of one of the first indices is held for a predetermined time, as taught by Shin.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’ experience by enabling the user to selectively display the second index when he/she requires it (Shin: Fig. 2, ¶ [0058]).
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Song in view of Baudisch and further in view of Zhang does not appear to expressly teach a device wherein the predetermined condition is selecting one of the first indices and then sliding to the second index display area in which the second indices are displayed.
However, Shin teaches a device wherein the predetermined condition is selecting one of the first indices and then sliding to the second index display area in which the second indices are displayed (Shin: Fig. 2, ¶ [0058]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Song in view of Baudisch and further in view of Zhang wherein the predetermined condition is selecting one of the first indices and then sliding to the second index display area in which the second indices are displayed, as taught by Shin.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’ experience by enabling the user to selectively display the second index when he/she requires it (Shin: Fig. 2, ¶ [0058]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 12-16 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1 and 16 and cancellation of claims 7 and 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1-7 and 11-16 are respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 8, Applicant argues that claim 8 is in condition for allowance because it includes all of the limitations of previously filed claim 1 and includes the allowable subject matter of claim 11 (Remarks: page 8). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant only incorporated part of the subject matter of claim 11 into independent claim 8. As presented above, the portion of claim 11 incorporated into claim 8 resulted in a 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection.
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 DANIEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30 am - 2:30 pm.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/DANIEL RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178