DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Amendments and response received 08/07/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-8 are currently pending in this application. Claims 1, 2 and 7 have been amended and claim 8 newly added. Amendments and response are addressed hereinbelow.
Specification
In light of the amendment to the title of the invention, the examiner hereby withdraws the previous grounds of objection as the new title is more indicative of the invention as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shukei Kurihara (US 20220141205 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kurihara discloses an image forming apparatus (¶ [18] mobile terminal forms images; As explained in the cited paragraph, the mobile terminal simply acts as a display for the “image forming apparatus” but also reads on an image forming apparatus itself as images are formed on the mobile terminal) comprising:
one or more controllers (¶ [54] CPU); and
a display (¶ [59] operation panel display),
wherein the one or more controllers
display, when a screen corresponding to a first operation mode related to a first operation of the image forming apparatus is displayed on the display, a logout related display on the screen corresponding to the first operation mode in a first display form (¶ [64]; Fig. 8B numeral 870; First operation of the image forming apparatus related to “copy, scan, or print” functions as indicated on the display), and
display, when a screen corresponding to a second operation mode related to a second operation of the image forming apparatus is displayed on the display, the logout related display on the screen corresponding to the second operation mode in a second display form different from the first display form (¶ [52]; Fig. 8B numeral 875, logout button 879; Second operation of the image forming apparatus depicting “hardware keys” for instructing processing to be performed by the MFP).
Regarding claim 2, Kurihara discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1),
wherein the second display form has a display area smaller than a display area of the first display form (see Fig. 8B wherein screen 870 is larger than screen 877 in the hardware key display mode).
Regarding claim 3, Kurihara discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1),
wherein the logout related display is displayed using text and an icon in the first display form (Fig. 8B numeral 934 includes text on the softkey button icon), and
the logout related display is displayed using an icon in the second display form (Fig. 8B numeral 879 simply uses an icon for logging out, as space is limited in the second display form).
Regarding claim 4, Kurihara discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1),
wherein, when the screen corresponding to the second operation mode is displayed on the display, the logout related display is displayed on the screen corresponding to the second operation mode in the second display form in accordance with a margin area of the screen corresponding to the second operation mode (Fig. 8B wherein screen 877 is in the “margin area” of the total display area 875).
Regarding claim 6, Kurihara discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1),
wherein, in the first operation mode, the one or more controllers display a plurality of operation modes on the display in a selectable manner (¶ [41] and ¶ [49]), and
in the second operation mode, the one or more controllers display a screen corresponding to an operation mode selected from the plurality of operation modes in the first operation mode (¶ [52]).
Regarding claim 7, Kurihara discloses an operation method performed by an image forming apparatus including one or more controllers and a display (see rejection of claim 1), the operation method comprising:
causing the one or more controllers to
display, when a screen corresponding to a first operation mode related to a first operation of the image forming apparatus is displayed on the display, a logout related display on the screen corresponding to the first operation mode in a first display form (see rejection of claim 1), and
display, when a screen corresponding to a second operation mode related to a second operation of the image forming apparatus is displayed on the display, the logout related display on the screen corresponding to the second operation mode in a second display form different from the first display form (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara in view of Ronald Ho et al (US 20120096344 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kurihara discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4).
Kurihara fails to explicitly disclose wherein, when the screen corresponding to the second operation mode is displayed on the display, the logout related display is displayed on the screen corresponding to the second operation mode in the second display form in accordance with a comparison result between the margin area of the screen corresponding to the second operation mode and a predetermined threshold area.
Ho, in the same field of endeavor of modifying display objects to optimize display area (Abstract), teaches the known techniques of resizing objects (¶ [59]) and/or replacing objects with icons (¶ [79]) in accordance with a threshold size of a display area (¶ [12]) of known devices in the art having less than what would be considered a “full-sized” display (¶ [32]). Ho does not teach the screen mode displayed being a logout related display corresponding to a second operation mode of an image forming apparatus screen.
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was effectively filed would have recognized that applying the known technique of resizing and/or replacing larger image objects with icons in accordance with a threshold size of a display area would have yielded predictable results and would have improved the image forming apparatus screen of Kurihara when utilizing the first or second screen mode as desired to optimize the screen layout for enhanced viewing. In addition, modifying graphical icons size and placement in accordance with a threshold follows naturally and directly from Kurihara as Fig. 8B indicates the smaller viewing area of numeral 877 produces a minimized version (i.e., Fig. 8B numeral 879) of the corresponding “logout” button of Fig. 9 numeral 901.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks: Applicant respectfully submits that Kurihara fails to teach, disclose or suggest the “mobile terminal” as equating to the “image forming apparatus” having an image forming function to form an image on a recording medium, such as paper. Therefore, the mobile terminal is completely different form the image forming apparatus as recited in unamended claim 1.
Examiner’s reply: The examiner respectfully disagrees with the above assertion. First, a mobile terminal has the function of forming an image on the display of the mobile terminal as known in the art. The claims fail to explicitly limit image forming to that which is argued above as being “an image on a recording medium, such as paper”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., having an image forming function to form an image on a recording medium, such as paper) 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). Further, the prior art sets forth the function of the mobile device being that of a remote display for an MFP, wherein the devices network to form an image forming apparatus having the terminal as a display for controlling the functions of the apparatus. The claims set forth a manner in which an area of a display is maximized in accordance with icons and information displayed thereon corresponding to operation modes of the MFP. The prior art, as shown above, addresses each limitation as applied in the rejections above.
Applicant’s remarks: In rejecting “display, when a screen corresponding to a first operation mode is displayed on the display, a logout related display on the screen corresponding to the first operation mode in a first display form, and display, when a screen corresponding to a second operation mode is displayed on the display, the logout related display on the screen corresponding to the second operation mode in a second display form different form the first display form,” the Office Action asserts [Kurihara discloses the aforementioned limitations]. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Specifically, as clearly shown in FIG. 8B of Kurihara, a menu screen is for selecting one of operation modes (e.g., copy 931, scan 932, and print 933), and the menu screen 870 itself does not correspond to any one of the operation modes. The same applies to the screen.
Examiner’s reply: The prior art teaches, in Fig. 8B numeral 870 that the “operation modes” include copy 931, scan 932, print 933 and hardware key display button 851. Accessing hardware keys provide a further function of the MFP in that settings are changed, energy saving mode may be selected and an alphanumeric keypad is provided for further input instructions (e.g., username and password input). Therefore, hardware keys provide another aspect of an “operation mode” wherein the MFP is instructed to provide some type of output in accordance with the user’s input. Further, hardware key display button 851 is shown on the “first operation mode” screen (i.e., numeral 870 of Fig. 8B) as selectable; and when selected, provides a further second mode of operation screen (i.e., numeral 875 of Fig. 8B). Therefore, the examiner maintains that the prior art, as previously applied, reads on the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
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 JAMARES Q WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571) 270-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/JAMARES Q WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
October 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights