DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. The specification is objected to for the following:
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.
3. The claims 1-18 and 20 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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: a display control unit …, a setting unit that sets…, changing unit that performs… the setting unit changes setting of the fixed corner in claims 1 and 20; the setting unit sets at least… in clam 4; the setting unit further sets… in clam 5; the setting unit changes setting…in claims 6-7; the setting unit sets at least… in claim 11; the setting unit further sets… in claim 12; the setting unit changes setting… in clam 13; the display control unit highlights… in claim 14; the display control unit performs… in claim 17; the display control unit counts… in claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing 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: Applicants describe the device as being a computer (e.g., a terminal device 10) including a CPU in paragraph [0024]-[0025] and [0032]of specification. Therefore, there is sufficient corresponding structure in the form of a personal computer.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Independent Claim 20 recites a program. The claim discloses a software program (e.g. system) with no readable medium on which to run. Computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035. Accordingly, it is important to distinguish claims that define descriptive material per se from claims that define statutory inventions.
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.
5. Claims 1, 14, and 19- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawaguchi, Kimitaka (US 2009/0164936 A1).
As in Claim 1, Kawaguchi teaches an information processing apparatus comprising (FIG. 1A, par. 50, an information processing apparatus 1):
a display control unit that displays a window which is resizable on a touch panel display (FIGS. 12A-12B and 13A-13B, pars. 30-31 and 161-168, a display control section 3 (FIG. 1, par. 50) for displaying a windows Sw which is resizable on a touch panel 16 (par. 77); further see FIG. 8);
a setting unit that sets adjustment areas for size adjustment of the window through a touch operation at positions of at least four corners of the window (FIGS. 8 and 12-13, pars. 166-168, the apparatus sets selection/setting icons Si1 to Si4 (or size alteration icons or size change icons) for size change of the window through touch input at positions of at least four corners of the window Sw), and sets one of the four corners of the window as a fixed corner for the size adjustment (FIGS. 12A-12B, pars. 166-168, the apparatus sets one of the selection/setting icons Si4 (the upper left vertex in this instance) as a fixed selection/setting icon as the user touches the size alteration icon Si4 at the lower right corner of the window Sw);
changing unit that performs processing for the size adjustment of the window in response to a touch operation of a user in an adjustment area associated with a diagonal corner of the fixed corner (FIGS. 12-13, pars. 166-168, as shown in FIGS. 12A-12B, a user slides the size change icon Si4 in a desired direction (diagonal direction in this instance) for adjusting size of the window while the vertex diagonal relative to the position of the size alteration icon Si4 (the upper left vertex) on the window Sw is fixed),
wherein, when the user slides a touch position to an adjustment area associated with another corner, the setting unit changes setting of the fixed corner to a diagonal corner of the other corner (FIGS. 12-13, at least pars. 166-168, the user may select any selection/setting icon, and the fixed corner can be changed).
As in Claim 14, Kawaguchi teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Kawaguchi does not teach that a position of the initial fixed corner changes in accordance with a position of the window of an original size on the touch panel display (FIGS. 8-9 and 12-13, pars. 166-168, the window Sw can be moved in a desired direction or to a desired position, allowing the vertex serving as the fixed to be repositioned).
Claims 19 and 20 are substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
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.
6. Claims 2-5, 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi, Kimitaka (US 2009/0164936 A1) in view of Tonisson, Alan Valev (US 2005/0094206 A1).
As in Claim 2, Kawaguchi teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Kawaguchi does not teach that setting of a minimum size window is provided in the window, and the minimum size window is located in a fixed area in an area of the window of an original size.
However, in the same field of the invention, Tonisson teaches that setting of a minimum size window is provided in the window (FIGS. 6A-6C, par. 231, container 601 comprises a minimum extents frame 602 with control points 603 placed at each vertex and optionally at the center of each edge, and a maximum extents frame 604 with control points 605 placed at each vertex and optionally at the center of each edge; further see pars. 232-246), and the minimum size window is located in a fixed area in an area of the window of an original size (see FIGS. 6A-6C, pars. 231-246).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for adjusting the size of the window by sliding selection/setting icons, as taught by Kawaguchi, and to provide the minimum extents frame in the container/window, as taught by Tonisson. The motivation is to prevent the window from becoming too small, ensuring that all essential GUI elements remain visible and usable.
As in Claim 3, Kawaguchi-Tonisson teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Kawaguchi further teach that the minimum size window is located in an area obtained by reducing the window of an original size to a minimum size with an initial fixed corner as an anchor (Tonisson, see FIGS. 6A-6C, pars. 231-246).
As in Claim 4, Kawaguchi-Tonisson teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Kawaguchi-Tonisson further teaches that a plurality of the adjustment areas is set for one window, and the setting unit sets at least:
a first adjustment area that corresponds to an adjustment area associated with an upper left corner of the window and that is located in an upper left direction of an area where the minimum size window is located (Tonisson, see FIGS. 6A-6C, pars. 231-246);
a second adjustment area that corresponds to an adjustment area associated with an upper right corner of the window and that is located in an upper right direction of the area where the minimum size window is located (Tonisson, see FIGS. 6A-6C, pars. 231-246);
a third adjustment area that corresponds to an adjustment area associated with a lower left corner of the window and that is located in a lower left direction of the area where the minimum size window is located (Tonisson, see FIGS. 6A-6C, pars. 231-246); and
a fourth adjustment area that corresponds to an adjustment area associated with a lower right corner of the window and that is located in a lower right direction of the minimum size window (Tonisson, see FIGS. 6A-6C, pars. 231-246).
As in Claim 5, Kawaguchi-Tonisson teaches all the limitations of Claim 4. Kawaguchi-Tonisson further teaches that the setting unit further sets:
a fifth adjustment area that corresponds to an adjustment area associated with an upper side of the window and that is located in an upper direction of an area where the minimum size window is located (Tonisson, see FIGS. 6A-6C, pars. 231-246);
a sixth adjustment area that corresponds to an adjustment area associated with a left side of the window and that is located in a left direction of the area where the minimum size window is located (Tonisson, see FIGS. 6A-6C, pars. 231-246);
a seventh adjustment area that corresponds to an adjustment area associated with a right side of the window and that is located in a right direction of the area where the minimum size window is located (Tonisson, see FIGS. 6A-6C, pars. 231-246); and
an eighth adjustment area that corresponds to an adjustment area associated with a lower side of the window and that is located in a lower direction of the area where the minimum size window is located (Tonisson, see FIGS. 6A-6C, pars. 231-246).
As in Claim 7, Kawaguchi-Tonisson teaches all the limitations of Claim 5. Kawaguchi-Tonisson further teaches that when the user slides a touch position to an adjustment area associated with another corner, the setting unit changes setting of the fixed corner to a diagonal corner of the other corner, which is one of four corners of the window of an original size (Kawaguchi, FIGS. 12-13, pars. 161-168).
As in Claim 8, Kawaguchi teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Kawaguchi does not teach that setting of a minimum size window is provided in the window, and a position of the minimum size window changes in an area of the window of an original size with a change of the fixed corner.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Tonisson teaches that setting of a minimum size window is provided in the window, and a position of the minimum size window changes in an area of the window of an original size with a change of the fixed corner (Tonisson, see FIGS. 6A-6C, pars. 231-246).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for adjusting the size of the window by sliding selection/setting icons, as taught by Kawaguchi, and to provide the minimum extents frame in the container/window, as taught by Tonisson. The motivation is to prevent the window from becoming too small, ensuring that all essential GUI elements remain visible and usable.
As in Claim 9, Kawaguchi-Tonisson teaches all the limitations of Claim 8. Kawaguchi-Tonisson further teaches that the adjustment area changes with a change in position of the minimum size window (see FIGS. 6A-6C, pars. 231-246, the minimum extents frame 602 can be moved to any position within the maximum extents frame 604 (pars. 204-241).
As in Claim 10, Kawaguchi-Tonisson teaches all the limitations of Claim 8. Kawaguchi-Tonisson further teaches that an area of the minimum size window is located in an area obtained by reducing the window of an original size to a minimum size with the current fixed corner as an anchor (Tonisson, see FIGS. 6A-6C, pars. 231-246).
As in Claim 11, Kawaguchi-Tonisson teaches all the limitations of Claim 10. Kawaguchi-Tonisson further teaches that wherein a plurality of the adjustment areas is set for one window, and the setting unit sets at least:
a first adjustment area that corresponds to an adjustment area associated with an upper left corner of the window and that is located in an upper left direction of an area where the minimum size window is located (Tonisson, see FIGS. 6A-6C, pars. 231-246);
a second adjustment area that corresponds to an adjustment area associated with an upper right corner of the window and that is located in an upper right direction of the area where the minimum size window is located (Tonisson, see FIGS. 6A-6C, pars. 231-246);
a third adjustment area that corresponds to an adjustment area associated with a lower left corner of the window and that is located in a lower left direction of the area where the minimum size window is located (Tonisson, see FIGS. 6A-6C, pars. 231-246); and
a fourth adjustment area that corresponds to an adjustment area associated with a lower right corner of the window and that is located in a lower right direction of the area where the minimum size window is located (Tonisson, see FIGS. 6A-6C, pars. 231-246).
As in Claim 12, Kawaguchi-Tonisson teaches all the limitations of Claim 11. Kawaguchi-Tonisson further teaches that the setting unit further sets:
a fifth adjustment area that corresponds to an adjustment area associated with an upper side of the window and that is located in an upper direction of an area where the minimum size window is located (Tonisson, see FIGS. 6A-6C, pars. 231-246);
a sixth adjustment area that corresponds to an adjustment area associated with a left side of the window and that is located in a left direction of the area where the minimum size window is located (Tonisson, see FIGS. 6A-6C, pars. 231-246);
a seventh adjustment area that corresponds to an adjustment area associated with a right side of the window and that is located in a right direction of the area where the minimum size window is located (Tonisson, see FIGS. 6A-6C, pars. 231-246); and
an eighth adjustment area that corresponds to an adjustment area associated with a lower side of the window and that is located in a lower direction of the area where the minimum size window is located (Tonisson, see FIGS. 6A-6C, pars. 231-246).
As in Claim 13, Kawaguchi-Tonisson teaches all the limitations of Claim 12. Kawaguchi-Tonisson further teaches that wherein, when the user slides a touch position to an adjustment area associated with another corner, the setting unit changes setting of the fixed corner to a diagonal corner of the other corner, which is one of four corners of the window of an original size (Kawaguchi, FIGS. 12-13, pars. 161-168).
7. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi, Kimitaka (US 2009/0164936 A1) in view of Baumann, Andreas (US 2007/0074129 A1).
As in Claim 15, Kawaguchi teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Kawaguchi does not teach that the display control unit highlights the current fixed corner.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Baumann teaches that the display control unit highlights the current fixed corner (par. 15, claim 5, a user-controllable corner of the frame can be visually highlighted. Examiner notes that the limitation is afforded no additional patentable weight, as this is a design choice. Although, the system highlights one of the corners, they perform equally as well as the claimed invention. These descriptive design elements will not distinguish the claimed invention from Baumann in terms of patentability. See Cf. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); See Ex parte Clapp, 227 U.S.P.Q. at 973 (BPAI 1985)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for adjusting the size of the window by sliding selection/setting icons, as taught by Kawaguchi, and to visually highlight the corner of the frame, as taught by Baumann. The motivation is to make a point or corner more noticeable and easier to discover.
8. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi, Kimitaka (US 2009/0164936 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2013/0227458 A1).
As in Claim 16, Kawaguchi teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Kawaguchi does not teach that the display control unit highlights two sides sandwiching a diagonal corner of the current fixed corner among four sides of the window.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Kim teaches that the display control unit highlights two sides sandwiching a diagonal corner of the current fixed corner among four sides of the window (FIGS. 9A-9B and 10, pars. 98-101, the system can increase thickness of a side or sides when a user selects a vertex of the window. Examiner notes that the limitation is afforded no additional patentable weight, as this is a design choice. Although, the system highlights one of the sides or three sides, they perform equally as well as the claimed invention. These descriptive design elements will not distinguish the claimed invention from Kim in terms of patentability. See Cf. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); See Ex parte Clapp, 227 U.S.P.Q. at 973 (BPAI 1985)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for adjusting the size of the window by sliding selection/setting icons, as taught by Kawaguchi, and to highlight sides/borders of the vertex (e.g., increasing thickness of the side/border), as taught by Kim. The motivation is to make the sides of a window more visible and easier to identify for quick and intuitive window resizing.
As in Claim 17, Kawaguchi teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Kawaguchi does not teach that when the window is displayed on the touch panel display, the display control unit performs guidance display for notifying a user of a method of adjusting a size of the window in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied.
However, in the same field of the invention, Kim teaches that when the window is displayed on the touch panel display, the display control unit performs guidance display for notifying a user of a method of adjusting a size of the window in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied (pars. 70, 79, 80, 91-92, the system displays guidelines indicating a changed size o the display window during the resizing the display window with the user input).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for adjusting the size of the window by sliding selection/setting icons, as taught by Kawaguchi, and to display the guidelines during the resizing the window, as taught by Kim. The motivation is to guide the user in changing the size of the display window by visually indicating the changed or intended size during the resizing operation..
9. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi, Kimitaka (US 2009/0164936 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2013/0227458 A1) and further in view of Ise, Toshimichi (US 2019/0182432 A1).
As in Claim 18, Kawaguchi-Kim teaches all the limitations of Claim 17. Kawaguchi does not teach that the display control unit counts a number of predetermined operations of a user related to the window, and when the window is displayed on the touch panel display, performs guidance display for notifying a user of a method of changing a size of the window in a case where the predetermined operations are performed a predetermined number of times.
However, in the same field of the invention, Ise teaches that the display control unit counts a number of predetermined operations of a user related to the window, and
when the window is displayed on the touch panel display, performs guidance display for notifying a user of a method of changing a size of the window in a case where the predetermined operations are performed a predetermined number of times (pars. 72-75, a guidance (e.g., focus guide frame 801 in this instance) can be displayed in the center of the enlarged display when movement of enlarging area exceeds a predetermined number of times).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for adjusting the size of the window by sliding selection/setting icons, as taught by Kawaguchi, and to display the guide frame when the predetermined operation amount is exceeded, as taught by Ise. The motivation is to provide a guide frame when the operation for moving the area exceeds a predetermined number of times, thereby guiding the user after repeated operations.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in an 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 Rinna Yi whose telephone number is (571) 270-7752 and fax number is (571) 270-8752. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RINNA YI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights