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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/27/2024 & 3/5/2026, were filed before the first office action. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 8, 10-14, and 16, 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.
Claim Rejection Notes
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, and 17-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling et al. (US 20210400303 A1, published: 12/23/2021), in view of Fram (US 20170038926 A1, published: 2/9/2017), and in further view of Piemonte et al (US 10782873 B2, published: 9/22/2020).
Claim 1: Ling teaches an image processing apparatus comprising: an image processor configured to execute image processing using at least one selected from the group consisting of image printing, image scanning, and image data communication (an image service processing method performed by a digital device is provided [Linge, 0011]; a printer device [Ling, 0283]); a display having a touch panel function and configured to display an operation screen including a first display region and a second display region in which display contents related to the image processing are different from each other (the method may include receiving image information, decoding a first image based on the image information, processing the decoded first image so as to display the decoded first image in a first region on a display screen, and processing a second image so as to display the second image in a second region on the display screen [Ling, 0011]. The display (2180) may be configured as a touch screen and used as an input device in addition to the output device [Ling, 0410]); a detector configured to detect a position and a pressure level of a touch operation on the display and configured to detect the pressure level (the touch sensor may be configured to detect touch pressure as well as a touched position and area [Ling, 0339]).
Ling does not explicitly teach detect the pressure level in a stepwise manner; and a controller configured to assign, to the first display region, a[n] input mode in which an acceptable pressure level of the touch operation is set at a single level, and assign, to the second display region, a[n] input mode in which an acceptable pressure level of the touch operation is set at a plurality of levels.
However, Fram teaches detect the pressure level in a stepwise manner; and a controller configured to assign, to the first display region, a single-input mode in which an acceptable pressure level of the touch operation is set at a single level, and assign, to the second display region, a multi-input mode in which an acceptable pressure level of the touch operation is set at a plurality of levels (in block 1504, the degree of touch pressure is assessed. If the touch pressure is low, then the touch input is utilized by the normal application functions, those not associated with the menu system [Fram, 0207]. If touch pressure is high, then a graphical menu system is displayed in block 1506 [Fram, 0208]. In block 1510, the touch pressure is assessed. If the touch input is not high (low or absent), then the system moves to block 1522 in which the displayed graphical menu is turned off, with no icon selected, as none has been temporarily selected [Fram, 0210]. In block 1510, if continued high pressure is detected (e.g., detected from the monitored user input), the system moves to block 1512, in which location information of the current touch point is assessed to determine whether or not an icon should be temporarily selected [Fram, 0211]; [Fram, FIG. 15]; Examiner's Note: depending on the stepwise pressure detection, low pressure initiates one response, while high pressure initiates another one).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the touch panel with position and pressure detection invention of Ling to include different functions relative pressure feature of Fram.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for a touch input device to be mapped to different functions according to pressure, so that users may access several functions with the same input device. This would be similar to being able to keymap different keyboard keys for different functions.
The combination of Ling and Fram, does not teach a single-input mode in which an acceptable pressure level of the touch operation is set at a single level, and a multi-input mode in which an acceptable pressure level of the touch operation is set at a plurality of levels.
However, Piemonte teaches a single-input mode in which an acceptable pressure level of the touch operation is set at a single level, and a multi-input mode in which an acceptable pressure level of the touch operation is set at a plurality of levels (any available single-control mode or multi-control mode can be selected by the electronic device based on gestural input received via a touch-sensitive surface [Piemonte, 14:15-18]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the touch panel with position and pressure detection invention of the combination of Ling and Fram, to include both single and multiple touch inputs feature of Piemonte.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for a touch input device to be mapped to different functions according to the number of fingers used, so that users may access several functions with the same input device. This would be similar to being able to keymap different keyboard keys for different functions.
Claims 19 and 20, having similar elements to claim 1, are likewise rejected.
Claim 4: The combination of Ling, Fram, and Piemonte, teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to, when the detector detects the touch operation performed on a history button of the plurality of history buttons in the second display region, control the display to perform a display operation corresponding to the pressure level of the detected touch operation, among a plurality of display operations set for the respective pressure levels (Examiner's Note: the combination has already been shown to teach touch and pressure detection. History here, is just the specific use. [MPEP 2114, II]: claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim).
Claim 6: The combination of Ling, Fram, and Piemonte, teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to, when the pressure level on the history button on which the touch operation is detected is lower than a predetermined level, control the display to perform the display operation of displaying the history use screen (Examiner's Note: history here, is just the specific use. [MPEP 2114, II]: claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim).
Claim 17: The combination of Ling, Fram, and Piemonte, teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1. Piemonte further teaches wherein the controller is configured to change a setting of whether to assign the multi-input mode or the single-input mode to the first display region and/or the second display region, based on a user operation (any available single-control mode or multi-control mode can be selected by the electronic device based on gestural input received via a touch-sensitive surface [Piemonte, 14:15-18]).
Claim 18: The combination of Ling, Fram, and Piemonte, teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to control the display to display, in the second display region, first identification information indicating that the multi-input mode is assigned, and/or control the display to display second identification information indicating a display operation performed when the touch operation is performed with the pressure level equal to or higher than a predetermined level in the second display region ([Fram, FIG. 15]).
Claim(s) 2 and 3, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling et al. (US 20210400303 A1, published: 12/23/2021), Fram (US 20170038926 A1, published: 2/9/2017), and Piemonte et al (US 10782873 B2, published: 9/22/2020), and in further view of Kamisuwa et al. (US 20120327487 A1, published: 12/27/2012).
Claim 2: The combination of Ling, Fram, and Piemonte, teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1. Ling further teaches wherein the first display region is a menu area in which a plurality of function buttons corresponding to types of the image processing are arranged (displaying a first menu on a display of a computing device, the first menu having a first plurality of icons arranged in an icon region that extends substantially around an initial position of a cursor [Ling, 0007]).
The combination of Ling, Fram, and Piemonte, does not teach and the second display region is a history display region including a plurality of history buttons and indicating a history of the image processing which has been executed.
However, Kamisuwa teaches and the second display region is a history display region including a plurality of history buttons and indicating a history of the image processing which has been executed (the display section 212 is a device configured to display to the user the progress status of processing, the status of the apparatus, the history of use, and the like and displays objects for operation such as button images for the touch panel-type operating section 210 and objects for display [Kamisuwa, 0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the touch panel with position and pressure detection invention of the combination of Ling, Fram, and Piemonte, to include a history function feature of Kamisuwa.
One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow users to recall and display past commands. Such would help users to keep track of their work, and the sequence of their work.
Claim 3: The combination of Ling, Fram, and Piemonte, teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1. The combination of Ling, Fram, and Piemonte, does not teach wherein each of the plurality of history buttons is configured to indicate at least one piece of information selected from the group consisting of a type of executed image processing which has been executed, a processing condition of the executed image processing, a processing date and time of the executed image processing, an execution username of the executed image processing, and a transmission destination in the executed image processing.
However, Kamisuwa teaches wherein each of the plurality of history buttons is configured to indicate at least one piece of information selected from the group consisting of a type of executed image processing which has been executed, a processing condition of the executed image processing, a processing date and time of the executed image processing, an execution username of the executed image processing, and a transmission destination in the executed image processing (the display section 212 is a device configured to display to the user the progress status of processing, the status of the apparatus, the history of use, and the like and displays objects for operation such as button images for the touch panel-type operating section 210 and objects for display [Kamisuwa, 0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the touch panel with position and pressure detection invention of the combination of Ling, Fram, and Piemonte, to include a history function feature of Kamisuwa.
One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow users to recall and display past commands. Such would help users to keep track of their work, and the sequence of their work.
Claim(s) 5, 9, and 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling et al. (US 20210400303 A1, published: 12/23/2021), Fram (US 20170038926 A1, published: 2/9/2017), Piemonte et al (US 10782873 B2, published: 9/22/2020), and Kamisuwa et al. (US 20120327487 A1, published: 12/27/2012), and in further view of Martynov et al. (US 20140184471 A1, published: 7/3/2014).
Claim 5: The combination of Ling, Fram, Piemonte, and Kamisuwa, teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 3. The combination of Ling, Fram, Piemonte, and Kamisuwa, does not teach wherein the plurality of display operations includes a display operation of displaying a history use screen used for setting an image processing condition to be applied at a present time, the history use screen displaying, as an initial value, a past image processing condition corresponding to the history button on which the touch operation is detected.
However, Martynov teaches wherein the plurality of display operations includes a display operation of displaying a history use screen used for setting an image processing condition to be applied at a present time, the history use screen displaying, as an initial value, a past image processing condition corresponding to the history button on which the touch operation is detected (a put-to-back screenshot history of screenshots moved from the first display to the second display is selectable as a separate application icon in the first display screen [Martynov, 1038]. The device is operable to receive a user instruction to select a screenshot from the history and put it to second display from the first display screen application [Martynov, 1039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the touch panel with position and pressure detection invention of the combination of Ling, Fram, Piemonte, and Kamisuwa, to include a history time function feature of Martynov.
One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow users to recall and display past commands with the times they were employed. Such would help users to keep track of their work, and the sequence of their work.
Claim 9: The combination of Ling, Fram, Piemonte, and Kamisuwa, teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 3. The combination of Ling, Fram, Piemonte, and Kamisuwa, does not teach further comprising: a storage configured to store an image processed in the image processing which has been executed, wherein the plurality of display operations includes an image display operation of displaying an image processed in the image processing corresponding to the history button touched by the user among a plurality of the images stored in the storage.
However, Martynov teaches further comprising: a storage configured to store an image processed in the image processing which has been executed, wherein the plurality of display operations includes an image display operation of displaying an image processed in the image processing corresponding to the history button touched by the user among a plurality of the images stored in the storage (the device is operable to receive a user instruction to select a screenshot from the history and put it to second display from the first display screen application [Martynov, 1039]; Examiner's Note: a history cannot function without some storage to store said history).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the touch panel with position and pressure detection invention of the combination of Ling, Fram, Piemonte, and Kamisuwa, to include a history time function feature of Martynov.
One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow users to recall and display past commands with the times they were employed. Such would help users to keep track of their work, and the sequence of their work.
Claim 15: The combination of Ling, Fram, Piemonte, and Kamisuwa, teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 3. The combination of Ling, Fram, Piemonte, and Kamisuwa, does not teach wherein the plurality of display operations includes a detail display operation of displaying detail information indicating a past image processing condition corresponding to the history button touched by the user.
However, Martynov teaches further comprising: a storage configured to store an image processed in the image processing which has been executed, wherein the plurality of display operations includes an image display operation of displaying an image processed in the image processing corresponding to the history button touched by the user among a plurality of the images stored in the storage (the device is operable to receive a user instruction to select a screenshot from the history and put it to second display from the first display screen application [Martynov, 1039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the touch panel with position and pressure detection invention of the combination of Ling, Fram, Piemonte, and Kamisuwa, to include a history time function feature of Martynov.
One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow users to recall and display past commands with the times they were employed. Such would help users to keep track of their work, and the sequence of their work.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH A SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, 8AM-4PM MST.
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.
/Seth A Silverman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights