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 .
Specification
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – 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.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
a control portion of claim 1, and
a history recording portion of claim 5.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof of the claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, are:
a control portion: CPU (See Applicant’s specification at paragraph 36).
a history recording portion: secondary storage device (See Applicant’s specification at paragraph 107).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Plut US Publication 20060001658 (hereafter “Plut”).
Referring to claim 1, Plut discloses an image forming apparatus, comprising:
an operation device including an organic electro-luminescence display panel capable of displaying a color image (paragraph 30, Display device 40 displays video information, and may include an organic light emitting diode (OLED) device); and
a control portion capable of causing a plurality of predetermined target devices to shift from one of a normal state and a pause state where power consumption is smaller than that of the normal state to another one of the normal state and the pause state (paragraph 107, Process flow 200 then proceeds by altering the video information out other than the edge detection video information (204). The video information is altered such that the display device will consume less power when displaying the altered video information than an amount of power that would be required to display the video information without the alteration), wherein
when the plurality of target devices are in the normal state, the control portion causes the organic electro-luminescence display panel to display a first menu screen that includes a first background image in a color other than black and a plurality of first icon images provided on the first background image (paragraph 59, FIG. 1C illustrates display area 23 before alteration of video information in display area 23), and
when the plurality of target devices are shifted from the normal state to the pause state, the control portion further causes the organic electro-luminescence display panel to display a second menu screen that includes a second background image in black and a plurality of second icon images provided on the second background image (paragraph 59, As shown in FIG. 1D, video information in background 28 has been decreased in luminance, while edges for each icon have been preserved) (paragraph 47, As shown, luminance for video information in all pixels--other than the preserved edge detection video information--has been reduced (to black in this instance, or some other near zero luminance)).
Referring to claim 2, Plut discloses wherein
each of the plurality of first icon images includes a filled-in portion (paragraph 41, FIG. 2 illustrates this mechanism for a simple star 31), and
each of the plurality of second icon images is configured by an outline and does not include a filled-in portion (paragraph 41, This first edge detection visual processing technique reduces the amount of information sent to the brain: the internal portion 34 is not typically sent, just the edge pattern 32).
Referring to claim 3, Plut discloses wherein
each of the plurality of first icon images is an image including an outline in a predetermined specific color (paragraph 51, Many graphics-based user interfaces 42 include characteristic colors for windows, toolbars and icons, such as a color set using an appearance theme (e.g., all windows include a blue, `rose` or `teal` color in the border portion 45a)), and
each of the plurality of second icon images is an image obtained by substituting pixels of a color other than the specific color in each of the plurality of first icon images by pixels of black (paragraph 47, As shown, luminance for video information in all pixels--other than the preserved edge detection video information--has been reduced (to black in this instance, or some other near zero luminance)).
Referring to claim 4, Plut discloses wherein
each of the plurality of second icon images is an image obtained by substituting the pixels of the color other than the specific color in each of the plurality of first icon images by the pixels of black (paragraph 47, As shown, luminance for video information in all pixels--other than the preserved edge detection video information--has been reduced (to black in this instance, or some other near zero luminance)), and further substituting pixels of the specific color in each of the plurality of first icon images by pixels of an alternative color other than the specific color (paragraph 78, Altering white video information to reduce power consumption may include reducing one or more RGB values for the white video information).
Referring to claim 6, Plut discloses wherein the control portion causes the organic electro-luminescence display panel to display the second menu screen in which display positions of the plurality of second icon images are changed, every time a predetermined change condition is satisfied (paragraph 75, For example, all video information other than the edge detection video information may be turned off or turned black at a predetermined time).
Referring to claim 7, Plut discloses wherein the control portion causes the organic electro-luminescence display panel to stop display when a predetermined non-display condition is satisfied under a situation where the second menu screen is displayed on the organic electro-luminescence display panel (paragraph 75, For example, all video information other than the edge detection video information may be turned off or turned black at a predetermined time. In addition, the entire display area, including the edge detection video information, may be turned off at some second predetermined shut-off time)
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plut US Publication 20060001658 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of well known prior art.
Referring to claim 5, Plut discloses wherein the control portion selects the plurality of second icon images to be included in the second menu screen from among a plurality of predetermined candidate icon images (paragraph 59, As shown in FIG. 1D, video information in background 28 has been decreased in luminance, while edges for each icon have been preserved), but does not disclose expressly
selecting the plurality of candidate icon images according to an operation frequency of each icon.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known and obvious in the art to select icons to be displayed on a screen according to an operation frequency of each icon (See MPEP 2144.03). The motivation for doing so would have been to select the icons that the user most frequently uses in order to reduce the steps required to select a user’s most likely desired icon. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine well known prior art with Plut to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WIPO Publication 2020/189249A1
Japanese Publication 2011/137976A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER K HUNTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Benny Q Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/PETER K HUNTSINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights