DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Oath/Declaration
3. The receipt of Oath/Declaration is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawing(s) filed on 10/24/2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
6. Claims 1-8 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
10. Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michimura et al. (US 2018/0091669 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Michimura discloses an image forming apparatus (Michimura: Fig. 1 ‘image forming apparatus 12’) comprising:
a display that displays an operational screen of the image forming apparatus (Michimura: Fig. 1 ‘operation unit 26 implemented as a touch panel’); and
one or more controllers that control execution of an input job (Michimura: Fig. 1 ‘controller 22’ controls execution and monitoring of jobs. The controller displays application buttons and receives user operation instructions through the operation unit. (Michimura: ¶¶ [0043-0049], Figs. 1 and 2A-2C). Michimura further teaches that a fax reception includes receiving fax data and printing the fax data using the printer module, and expressly identifies the resulting operation as a printing job during fax reception (¶ [0040]), wherein
when a printing job is input, the one or more controllers determine a display form of an operational object for receiving a stop instruction for that printing job, and display, on the operational screen, the operational object that is based on determined the display form (Michimura teaches that when received fax data ready for a print job is present, controller 22 automatically pops up a screen for the received fax data together with a "stop" button, and upon selection of the stop button ultimately stops the print job. See Michimura ¶ [0079]. Michimura additionally teaches that the display form of the stop button is not fixed. The stop button may blink, may be highlighted, and its display form may be dynamically changed. See Michimura ¶ [0088]. Thus, Michimura teaches controlling execution of an input printing job and determining and displaying a display form of an operational object adapted to receive an instruction to stop the printing job.).
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected over Michimura.
Regarding Claim 8: (drawn to a method)
The proposed rejection of apparatus claim 1, over Michimura is similarly cited to reject the steps of the method of claim 8 because these steps occur in the operation of the device as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
14. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
15. Claims 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michimura et al. (US 2018/0091669 A1) in view of Sueishi (US 2016/0188263 A1).
Regarding Claim 2:
Michimura discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operational screen includes a first display area,
the one or more controllers display, on the first display area, the operational object that is based on the determined display form.
Michimura teaches receiving and controlling execution of jobs, automatically displaying on the touch panel information identifying a job together with a stop button, and stopping the job in response to operation of the stop button. See Michimura, Figs. 2A-2C, 3, 4A-4D, and 5.
Michimura does not disclose expressly wherein the operational screen includes a first display area, and a second display area which is larger, in display area, than the first display area.
Sueishi discloses wherein the operational screen includes a first display area, and a second display area which is larger, in display area, than the first display area.
Sueishi teaches a user interface 5 for an image forming apparatus having a present status display area 11, a screen transition menu display area 12, and a various information display area 13. Sueishi explicitly identifies present status display area 11 as an example of a first region and the other working areas as examples of a second region. See Sueishi ¶¶ [0034-0037], [0099] and Fig. 1A.
Sueishi further teaches that the first present status display area 11 includes a job information display part 102 and a job reception stop button 103, together with other status/operation objects. See Sueishi ¶¶ [0101-0105]. The job information display part 102 displays the job name, progress status, elapsed time, and remaining time for a currently executing print job. See Sueishi ¶ [0103]. Fig. 1A depicts present status area 11 as a narrow status strip and the various information area 13 as a substantially larger working region.
Michimura in view of Sueishi are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g., both teach user interface and display control for printing apparatuses, including the presentation of print job status and operator controls on a display.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Michimura’s operational screen according to Sueishi’s known status area layout, such that Michimura’s stop operational object is displayed in a first present status area while a larger second area remains available for other operational information.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to keep job status and stop controls accessible while preserving a larger portion of the display for job settings, previews, and other operational content. Sueishi discloses that keeping the present status area visible allows the operator to constantly observe the status of the image forming apparatus. (Sueishi ¶¶ [0035-0038], [0113-0114]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Michimura with Sueishi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding Claim 7:
The proposed combination of Michimura in view of Sueishi further discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the first display area has a display area that is 20% or less of a total display area of the operational screen.
Sueishi does not expressly state the numerical limitation “20% or less.” However, Sueishi recognizes and controls the relative size of the present status area as a display design parameter. In particular, Sueishi defines the total UI height as Hu and the height of the present-status display area 11 as Hs, and calculates the remaining displayable area using Height = Hu - Hs. See Sueishi ¶¶ [0134-0140] and Figs. 9A-9D. Thus, reducing Hs directly increases the display area available for other content.
Fig. 1A of Sueishi shows present status area 11 as a narrow strip occupying substantially less of the overall UI than the remaining working area. Fig. 1A corroborates Sueishi’s teaching that the status region is intended to be relatively small while remaining persistently visible.
Michimura in view of Sueishi are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g., both teach user interface and display control for printing apparatuses, including the presentation of print job status and operator controls on a display.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein the first display area has a display area that is 20% or less of a total display area of the operational screen.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to keep job status and stop controls accessible while preserving a larger portion of the display for job settings, previews, and other operational content. Sueishi discloses that keeping the present status area visible allows the operator to constantly observe the status of the image forming apparatus. (Sueishi ¶¶ [0035-0038], [0113-0114]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Michimura with Sueishi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
16. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michimura in view of Tani et al. (US 2011/0235110 A1).
Regarding Claim 3:
Michimura discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more controllers determine, as the display form of the operational object,
Michimura displays the stop operational object as a button bearing the textual object name “stop.” Michimura additionally teaches that the display form of the stop button is not fixed. The stop button may blink, may be highlighted, and its display form may be dynamically changed. See Michimura ¶ [0088].
Michimura does not disclose expressly wherein the one or more controllers determine, as the display form of the operational object, any of an operational object name, an icon, or a combination of the operational object name and the icon.
Tani discloses wherein the one or more controllers determine, as the display form of the operational object, any of an operational object name, an icon, or a combination of the operational object name and the icon.
Tani an image-forming-apparatus touch-panel UI in which operational functions may be displayed in an icon mode, in which only icons are displayed, or in a regular mode, in which function names/text are displayed together with icons. See Tani, discussion of system area 1000 and function selecting area 2000, including icon mode and regular mode at ¶¶ [0096-0098]; see also Fig. 7. Tani explains that icons can communicate information in a smaller display area, thereby preserving a larger area for other information ¶¶ [0041-0043].
Michimura in view of Tani are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g., both disclose operation panel and user interface display control for image forming apparatuses, including display of job status, operational controls, icons, text, and software buttons on touch-panel displays.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine, as the display form of the operational object, any of an operational object name, an icon, or a combination of the operational object name and the icon.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so as Tani explains, is that icons can communicate information in a smaller display area, thereby preserving a larger area for other information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Michimura with Tani to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4:
The proposed combination of Michimura in view of Tani further discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 3, wherein when the image forming apparatus is executing a specific job, the one or more controllers determine the display form of the operational object, to be the icon (Michimura teaches that the stop operational object may change display form dynamically based on job related conditions and that the availability/visibility of the stop control changes with the state of the job. See Michimura ¶ [0082-0084; 0088; 0030]), and
when the image forming apparatus is not executing a specific job, the one or more controllers determine the display form of the operational object, to be the operational object name (Tani teaches using compact icon only display forms when screen area is to be conserved and using a regular display form in which function names and text are displayed together with icons when more display information is appropriate. Tani also teaches that the status of a currently executing job is indicated by an icon and that a software button for stopping the selected job may be displayed in association with job status. Tani, Fig. 7 shows system area 1000, area 1106/1112, ¶¶ [0041-0045]).
Michimura in view of Tani are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; e.g., both disclose operation panel and user interface display control for image forming apparatuses, including display of job status, operational controls, icons, text, and software buttons on touch-panel displays.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Tani’s known compact descriptive display strategy to Michimura’s dynamically changeable stop operational object such that the compact icon form is used while a specific job is executing and consuming operational screen resources, and the more descriptive operational object name form is used when that specific job is not executing and additional display area is available. The suggestion/motivation for doing so as Tani explains, is that icons can communicate information in a smaller display area, thereby preserving a larger area for other information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Michimura with Tani to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5:
The proposed combination of Michimura in view of Tani further discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the specific job is a job related to transmission of image information (Michimura discloses a facsimile transmission job in which an original is scanned, converted to image data, subjected to image processing, and transmitted to a specified destination (¶ [0040])).
17. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michimura in view of Hirakawa (US 2009/0040546 A1).
Regarding Claim 6:
Michimura discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein when no operation is performed via the operational screen, the one or more controllers display a message screen including the operational object, on the operational screen.
Hirakawa discloses wherein when no operation is performed via the operational screen, the one or more controllers display a message screen including the operational object, on the operational screen (Hirakawa: Fig. 2 shows a printing apparatus having a display unit and a control unit that controls the display according to whether an operation is received through the operation unit. In particular, Hirakawa teaches displaying a default screen when an operation is not received for a predetermined time, and also teaches receiving a stop instruction for stopping a print operation through the operation unit. See Hirakawa, claim 1; see also claim 11. ¶¶ [0054-0057]).
Michimura in view of Hirakawa are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; both display and control interfaces for image forming apparatuses, including screens used during print job execution and user controls for stopping print operations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein when no operation is performed via the operational screen, the one or more controllers display a message screen including the operational object, on the operational screen.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so that when no user operation is occurring the apparatus displays a more relevant screen.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Michimura with Hirakawa to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Conclusion
18. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
VAN VLIEMBERGEN et al. (US 2011/0123214 A1) describes a print system includes a print engine for printing on sheets of receiving material. A user interface unit includes a display. A plurality of holders each hold one type of receiving material and deliver the material to the print engine. A receiver receives jobs, a job being an order for printing information on sheets of receiving material of a type as specified in the order. A control system plans jobs, wherein the jobs are placed in a print queue in a sequence of finishing, the control system also being provided with a device configured to establish the types of receiving material required for printing the respective jobs in the print queue. The control system is adapted to establish, for a type of receiving material, a shortage quantity, if any, of that receiving material, for completely printing the jobs, and to indicate the shortage quantity on the display of the user interface.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL R MCLEAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6AM - 4PM, PST.
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.
/NEIL R MCLEAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights