DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Specification
The title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. See MPEP § 606.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al., US 2014/0181735 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a display apparatus comprising:
A display that displays an operation screen containing one or more objects. Lee teaches an electronic device comprising a display screen displaying a user interface including target items. Lee ¶ 16, fig. 1 (display screen 11).
One or more controllers that, based on a user operation made with respect to at least one of the one or more objects, control a display of an additional display corresponding to the at least one of the one or more objects. Lee teaches the electronic device comprising a processor. Lee ¶ 16, fig. 1 (processor 13). Lee teaches, in response to a user selection of a target item in the user interface, displaying a tooltip in an initial display location. Id. ¶¶ 21-22, figs. 2 (steps S21, S22), 4 (tooltip 21).
Wherein the one or more controllers change a display mode of the additional display when the display of the additional display overlaps a restricted region that restricts the display of the additional display. Lee teaches if the tooltip overlaps the selected target item, repositioning the tooltip so that it does not overlap the selected target item. Lee ¶¶ 27, 31, 34, figs. 2 (steps S28, S29, S32, S35), 7, 8.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Lee discloses wherein the restricted region includes a display region of one or more protected objects among the one or more objects in which a display is protected, and the one or more controllers protect a display of the one or more protected objects by changing the display mode of the additional display. Lee teaches a restricted region corresponding to a selected target item. Lee ¶ 27, fig. 2 (steps S28, S29).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Lee discloses wherein the one or more controllers change the display mode of the additional display by changing a display position of the additional display from a reference display position. Lee teaches repositioning the tooltip from an initial display location. Lee ¶ 22, fig. 2 (step S22).
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Lee discloses wherein the reference display position has an operation position by the user with respect to at least one of the one or more object as a reference point, and is provided outside a predetermined region centered at the reference point, and the one or more controllers change the display mode of the additional display such that the display of the additional display does not overlap the predetermined region. Lee teaches if the tooltip overlaps the selected target item, repositioning the tooltip so that it does not overlap the selected target item. Lee ¶¶ 27, 31, 34, figs. 2 (steps S28, S29, S32, S35), 7, 8.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 4, Lee discloses wherein the one or more controllers change the display mode of the additional display by moving the display position of the additional display along the predetermined region. Lee teaches repositioning the tooltip so that it is alongside the selected target item. Lee ¶¶ 31, 34, fig. 2 (steps S32, S35), 7, 8.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 5, Lee discloses wherein the one or more controllers change the display mode of the additional display by moving the display position of the additional display in an anticlockwise direction along the predetermined region. Lee teaches repositioning the tooltip so that it is in the negative x-axis direction (i.e., to the right side) relative to the selected target item. Lee ¶ 31, fig. 2 (step S32).
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 1, Lee discloses wherein the additional display includes a tooltip. Lee teaches displaying a tooltip. Id. ¶¶ 17, fig. 4 (tooltip 21).
Claim 10 is drawn to an image processing apparatus that performs similar functions to the display apparatus recited in claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected for substantially the same reasons as indicated in the above rejection of the corresponding claim.
Claim 11 is drawn to a method for performing the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected for substantially the same reasons as indicated in the above rejection of the corresponding claim. Of note, the limitation “changing a display mode of the additional display when the display of the additional display overlaps a restricted region that restricts the display of the additional display” is a contingent limitation. The limitation is contingent because it need only be performed when the display of the additional display overlaps a restricted region that restricts the display of the additional display. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not include this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., US 2014/0181735 A1, in view of Carr, US 5,428,733 A.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Lee does not explicitly disclose, but Carr discloses wherein the one or more controllers change the display mode of the additional display by changing a number of lines of a display character string of the additional display from a reference number of lines. Carr teaches adjusting the number of lines displayed in an additional display relative to an initial number of lines. Carr 6, fig. 4 (step 120).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee’s process of displaying an additional display with Carr’s process of adjusting the number of lines displayed in an additional display. Such a modification would allow for a more aesthetically pleasing display of information. See Carr 1.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 7, Carr discloses wherein the one or more controllers change the display mode of the additional display by increasing or decreasing above or below the number of lines of the display character string of the additional display to or from the reference number of lines. Carr teaches increasing the number of lines displayed in an additional display relative to an initial number of lines. Carr 6, fig. 4 (step 120).
Conclusion
Although particular portions of the prior art may have been cited in support of the rejections, the specified citations are merely representative of the teachings. Other passages and figures in the cited prior art may apply. Accordingly, Applicant should consider the entirety of the cited prior art for potentially teaching all or part of the claims.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Dearman et al., US 2011/0314376 A1, discloses displaying a tooltip at a size and location so as to not overlap an input element.
McKee et al., US 2018/0329801 A1, discloses dynamically detecting and correcting graphical user interface anomalies.
Griffin, US 2018/0018398, discloses dynamically positioning content in a graphical user interface based on available display space.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Asher D Kells whose telephone number is (571)270-7729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 8 a.m. - 4 p.m..
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 at 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 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.
Asher D. Kells
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/Asher D Kells/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights