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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to the Application filed on 9/27/2024, with priority to JP 2023-166456 Filing Date 09/27/2023.
Claim(s) 1-6 are pending for examination. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 is/are independent claim(s).
Title of the Invention
37 C.F.R. 1.72(a) states: "The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible" (emphasis added). Thus, the title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive.
A new title is required that is more clearly and more specifically indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “screen display unit that displays” and “enlarging display unit that, …, enlarges” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
112 Means analysis:
There is a presumption of not invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) when the terms “means for” or “step for” is not used. However, the claims are interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) using the 3-prong analysis in MPEP § 2181:
(A) - Fist prong - The term “means” is not used, however, the term(s) “unit” is/are used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholders, or nonce term(s), for performing the claimed function;
(B) - Second prong - The term “means” or the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “displays”, “enlarges” and linked with the transition word, or linking phrase, “that”; and
(C) - Third prong - The generic placeholder(s) is/are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. No hardware or structure, material, or acts are claimed. Therefor there is no “structure” or “material” in the claim(s).
This shows that the presumption of not invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is overcome.
Further, because 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is invoked the written description must disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Applicant should keep in mind that the “structure, material, or acts” recited in the written description must be more than “general purpose computer” or general computer components.
See MPEP 2181 (II)(B) “Computer-Implemented Means-Plus-Function Limitations” describes what is required for these claims (emphasis by examiner):
“In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.”
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Tecarro; Jaireh et al. US Pub. No. 2014/0380247 (Tecarro).
Claim 1:
Tecarro teaches:
An information processing system comprising:
a screen display unit that displays a document image representing document data including a plurality of pages on a screen [¶ 0045] (page flipping a magazine); and
an enlarging display unit that, when a pointer is located on the document image, enlarges one of the plurality of pages of the document data and changes the page to be displayed according to a movement of the pointer on the displayed page [¶ 0046] (FIGS. 5d-e mimics the experience of flipping through a physical magazine or book. When the user moves the right thumb toward the right, the magazine pages begin flipping, thus exposing the subsequent pages, the main page displayed could be the “enlarged” page),
wherein the enlarging display unit determines the page to be displayed based on which section the position of the pointer falls within, the sections being obtained by dividing a range from one end to the other end of the enlarged display frame in a left-right direction or a top-bottom direction by the number of pages [¶ 0014-15, 51] (paginated or otherwise similarly divided) [¶ 0046] (FIG. 5e, the user lands on page 6 of the magazine after performing the fast flip gesture. In this specific example, after landing on page 6 the edges of a number of previous pages may be displayed on the left edge of page 6).
Claim 2:
Tecarro teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 1, comprising:
a concatenated image creation unit that generates a page image showing each of the plurality of pages included in the document data, and creates a concatenated image in which the generated page images are aligned in one direction [¶ 0046] (FIG. 5e, the user lands on page 6 of the magazine after performing the fast flip gesture. In this specific example, after landing on page 6 the edges of a number of previous pages may be displayed on the left edge of page 6),
wherein the enlarging display unit displays one page image cut out from the concatenated image when the pointer is located on the document image, and changes the page image to be cut out from the concatenated image according to movement of the pointer on the displayed page image [¶ 0046] (FIGS. 5d-e mimics the experience of flipping through a physical magazine or book. When the user moves the right thumb toward the right, the magazine pages begin flipping, thus exposing the subsequent pages, the “concatenated image” could be the previous and subsequent magazine pages).
ALTERNATE REJECTION:
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Mander, Richard et al. US Pub. No. 2002/0080180 (Mander).
Claim 1:
Mander teaches:
An information processing system comprising:
a screen display unit that displays a document image representing document data including a plurality of pages on a screen [¶0049-50] (graphical representations e.g. icons, of the piles or collections of documents); and
an enlarging display unit that, when a pointer is located on the document image, enlarges one of the plurality of pages of the document data and changes the page to be displayed according to a movement of the pointer on the displayed page [¶ 0056] (a view cone 162 with a proxy 161 in order to allow the user to browse through the documents in the collection of documents comprising the pile),
wherein the enlarging display unit determines the page to be displayed based on which section the position of the pointer falls within [¶ 0058] (the user moves from document to document while browsing e.g. by moving the mouse up and down through the pile), the sections being obtained by dividing a range from one end to the other end of the enlarged display frame in a left-right direction or a top-bottom direction by the number of pages [¶ 0049] (FIGS. 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d show various embodiments of the graphical representations (e.g. icons) of the piles or collections of documents).
Claim 2:
Mander teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 1, comprising:
a concatenated image creation unit that generates a page image showing each of the plurality of pages included in the document data, and creates a concatenated image in which the generated page images are aligned in one direction [¶ 0049] (FIGS. 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d show various embodiments of the graphical representations (e.g. icons) of the piles or collections of documents, the stacked images could be a “concatenated image”),
wherein the enlarging display unit displays one page image cut out from the concatenated image when the pointer is located on the document image, and changes the page image to be cut out from the concatenated image according to movement of the pointer on the displayed page image [¶ 0057-58] (cursor positioned over selected document, proxy 175 of that document can be seen at the end of the view cone 176).
ALTERNATE REJECTION:
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Freeman, Eric et al. US Pub. No. 2002/0046220 (Freeman).
Claim 1:
Freeman teaches:
An information processing system comprising:
a screen display unit that displays a document image representing document data including a plurality of pages on a screen [¶ 0048] (pages on a screen); and
an enlarging display unit that, when a pointer is located on the document image, enlarges one of the plurality of pages of the document data and changes the page to be displayed according to a movement of the pointer on the displayed page [¶ 0060, 69-70] ("browse cards" 100 are employed so that when the user touches a document in the stream-display with the cursor, a browse card appears),
wherein the enlarging display unit determines the page to be displayed based on which section the position of the pointer falls within, the sections being obtained by dividing a range from one end to the other end of the enlarged display frame in a left-right direction or a top-bottom direction by the number of pages [¶ 0048] (interface is based on a visual representation of the stream metaphor 5. Users can slide the mouse pointer 10 over the document representations to "glance" at each document, stacked pages top to bottom of screen).
Claim 2:
Freeman teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 1, comprising:
a concatenated image creation unit that generates a page image showing each of the plurality of pages included in the document data, and creates a concatenated image in which the generated page images are aligned in one direction [¶ 0072] (the stream is in the form of a receding stack of upright rectangles, framed in such a way that only the top line of each document is visible),
wherein the enlarging display unit displays one page image cut out from the concatenated image when the pointer is located on the document image, and changes the page image to be cut out from the concatenated image according to movement of the pointer on the displayed page image [¶ 0060, 69-70] ("browse cards" 100 are employed so that when the user touches a document in the stream-display with the cursor, a browse card appears).
Claims 3-6:
Claim(s) 3, 5 is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim 3 is a “method” claim, claim 1 is a “system” claim and claim 5 is a “medium” claim, but the steps or elements of each claim are essentially the same.
Claim(s) 4, 6 is/are substantially similar to claim 2 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
Evidence of the level skill of an ordinary person in the art for Claim 1:
Robert; Julien et al. US 20120084688 Figs. 2A-2D, selected file, preview content.
Robert; Julien et al. US 20120084644 Fig. 4B, preview can be user interactable in that it can allow a user to page through or scroll through.
OISHI; Kuniko et al. US 20220308723 FIG. 5B, the enlargement instruction image 411a on the document icon 410a is designated by a mouse over operation of the cursor 200, and the enlarged thumbnail image 420a enlarged from the thumbnail image corresponding to the document icon 410a is displayed.
Khoo; Justin et al. US 20070038718 Fig. 2b -a preview activated, as by the user placing his mouse cursor over a triggering icon 232 of an e-mail 231, and has the associated preview content 233 displayed.
MacLaurin, Matthew B. et al. US 20050210416 Fig. 4, 6, user moves a mouse cursor over a collection icon and a small preview image of the first document or page in the collection is shown.
Citations to Prior Art
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968". In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323,75 USPQ2d 1213,1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264,23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807,10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385,1390,163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-3825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:00 - 7:30 EST.
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.
/Benjamin Smith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172 Direct Phone: 571-270-3825
Direct Fax: 571-270-4825
Email: benjamin.smith@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights