DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 09/12/2024. Claims 1-11 are pending in the case. Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-152625, filed on 09/20/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
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. Further, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow (see In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Also, 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 U.S.P.Q.2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). The following is provided to aid the reader in understanding how at least some claim elements (also commonly referred to as claim limitations), as a whole, have been considered in the rejections below:
“when” [e.g. claim 11] = Even though the prior art rejection included below does not depend on the following technicality, it is nonetheless respectfully noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Therefore, as currently claimed, functionalities that currently depend on the “when” condition being true may not be narrowing the claims to the extent it may have been intended since, for purposes of prior art analysis, any prior art scenario showing at least one mappable instance wherein the contingency/triggering condition is not met/true would suffice to anticipate or teach these aspects. See “Contingent Limitations” in MPEP § 2111.04, subsection II and/or MPEP § 2143.03.
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.
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 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: “an operation inputter” in claims 1 and 11.
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 (see ¶ 31) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is objected to because it is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. See MPEP § 606.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3:
Line 3 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a size” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 6 of parent claim 1).
Claim 7:
Line 3 improperly reintroduces the limitation “an operation” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 3 of parent claim 1).
Claim 10:
Line 2 improperly reintroduces the limitation “information” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 4 of parent claim 9).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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)(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 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Pub. No. 2018/0004389 (hereinafter “Miyamoto”).
As to independent claims 1 and 11, Miyamoto shows a display control device and a concomitant method [Abstract], comprising:
a display that displays a first display screen including an object that is operable [a display (¶ 48) that displays a first display screen including an object/soft button 81/82 that is operable (figs. 5A-12)];
an operation inputter that receives an operation on the object [an operation inputter/touch panel that receives an operation on the object (figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 25-27)]; and
one or more controllers [¶ 29], wherein
when detecting an event in a state where the first display screen is displayed, the one or more controllers determine a size of a second display screen including a message based on the event in accordance with whether it is necessary to operate the object on the first display screen, and perform control of displaying the second display screen on the display such that the second display screen is superimposed on the first display screen [“The display position refers to a pop-up display position where the pop-up is to be displayed (in the case of animation display, a position after the pop-up is transferred). Basically, it is desirable that the pop-up is displayed in a region other than the soft buttons so that the display of the pop-up may not hinder the user's visibility and operability of the screen. Specifically, for example, a region of the display screen of the display section 21 where a predetermined important message (such as soft buttons) has already been displayed is designated as a predetermined display region and the pop-up display position is set within a region of the display screen other than the predetermined display region.” (¶ 42)
“Next is a more concrete explanation of the display manner of displaying a pop-up. In S3, as shown in FIG. 5B, under a condition where the pop-up display position is set at a location other than display regions for the soft buttons 81, 82 designated as the predetermined display region, the display control section 111 allows the display section 21 to display the message subject to the instruction in the form of a pop-up 91 on the display screen, for example, while giving a transmittance of 0% (non-transmissivity) to the background color of the pop-up 91. By displaying the pop-up 91 in this manner, it can be avoided that the user's visibility and operability of the soft buttons 81, 82 are hindered.” (¶ 54) | For further context/examples, see also figs. 5A-12; ¶¶ 35-37 & 49-52.].
As to dependent claim 2, Miyamoto further shows:
when it is unnecessary to operate the object on the first display screen, the one or more controllers determine the size of the second display screen to be a size that covers a whole of the first display screen [when it is unnecessary to operate the object on the first display screen (¶¶ 32-36), the one or more controllers determine the size of the second display screen to be a size that covers a whole of the first display screen (¶¶ 50 & 69)].
As to dependent claim 3, Miyamoto further shows:
when it is necessary to operate the object on the first display screen, the controller determines the size of the second display screen to be a size that does not include the object that needs to be operated on the first display screen [when it is necessary to operate the object on the first display screen, the controller determines the size of the second display screen to be a size that does not include the object that needs to be operated on the first display screen (¶¶ 35, 42, & 54)].
As to dependent claim 4, Miyamoto further shows:
when the second display screen is displayed such that the second display screen is superimposed on the first display screen and the object that does not need to be operated on the first display screen is displayed, the one or more controllers display the object in an unselectable manner [when the second display screen is displayed such that the second display screen is superimposed on the first display screen and the object that does not need to be operated on the first display screen is displayed, the one or more controllers display the object in an unselectable manner (¶¶ 36 & 63)].
As to dependent claim 6, Miyamoto further shows:
the one or more controllers hide the object that does not need to be operated [the one or more controllers hide the object that does not need to be operated (¶¶ 36 & 63)].
As to dependent claim 7, Miyamoto further shows:
in a case of the object that does not need to be operated, the one or more controllers perform identification display indicating that an operation is unnecessary [in a case of the object that does not need to be operated, the one or more controllers perform identification display indicating that an operation is unnecessary (¶¶ 36 & 63)].
As to dependent claim 8, Miyamoto further shows:
when detecting that a specific operation has been performed on the object that does not need to be operated, the one or more controllers receive the specific operation on the object [when detecting that a specific operation has been performed on the object that does not need to be operated, the one or more controllers receive the specific operation on the object (¶¶ 36 & 52)].
As to dependent claim 9, Miyamoto further shows:
when detecting the event, the one or more controllers acquire event information corresponding to the event, and the event information includes information regarding whether it is necessary to operate the object on the first display screen [when detecting the event, the one or more controllers acquire event information corresponding to the event, and the event information includes information regarding whether it is necessary to operate the object on the first display screen (¶¶ 32-37)].
As to dependent claim 10, Miyamoto further shows:
the event information includes information regarding the message, and the one or more controllers include, in the second display screen, the message included in the event information [the event information includes information regarding the message, and the one or more controllers include, in the second display screen, the message included in the event information (¶¶ 32-37)].
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 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto in view of US Patent Application Pub. No. 2010/0199199 (hereinafter “Kumar”).
As to dependent claim 5, Miyamoto does not appear to explicitly recite an operability to “gray out the object that does not need to be operated” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Kumar shows:
the one or more controllers gray out the object that does not need to be operated [Kumar shows an operability to gray out an object/button, behind an analogous pop-up, that does not need to be operated (Kumar: fig. 5; ¶¶ 19-21).].
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Miyamoto and Kumar before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Kumar’s graying out techniques into Miyamoto. The rationale for doing so would have been that changing a color of an object as currently claimed would have amounted to little more than opting for an alternative non-functional design choice. Moreover, by doing so, the user experience would have been improved because graying out an object would have been an intuitive means of indicating Miyamoto’s existing unnecessary/unimportant object functionalities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Miyamoto and Kumar in order to obtain the invention as recited in claim 5.
Conclusion
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO R CALDERON IV whose telephone number is (571) 272-1818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:30am - 5pm).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO R CALDERON IV/
Examiner, Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights