DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed 11/20/24 is acknowledged, the references therein relating to the general background of applicant’s invention.
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.
1) Claim(s) 1, 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2022/0321714 by Shimizu et al., and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2023/0305683 by Uchiyama et al.
2) Regarding claim 1, Shimizu teaches a display operation device comprising: an operation acceptor that receives an operation performed by a user a display that displays, to the user (figure 1, item 123; paragraph 47; a touch panel), a setting screen for a job (figure 5; paragraph 65; a job setting screen); and one or more controllers (figure 2, item 111; a CPU) that control the operation acceptor and the display, wherein the setting screen has a setting button that is used to receive a setting operation performed by the user and display a setting of the setting operation received (figure 5, item 13; paragraph 71; selection of copy number causes display of a number selection menu), and a job start button that receives an operation performed by the user to start the job is composed of a setting button (figure 5, item 12; paragraph 70; start button comprises the copy number setting button).
Shimizu does not specifically teach the start button that receives an operation performed by the user to start the job is composed of a plurality of the setting buttons.
Uchiyama teaches start button that receives an operation performed by the user to start the job is composed of a plurality of the setting buttons (figure 19; paragraph 112; task initiation button can contain a plurality of potential setting button areas).
NOTE: Uchiyama could modify the display of Shimizu to have a plurality of selection areas within a start button area [i.e. all of figure 19 is essentially a start button area].
Shimizu and Uchiyama are combinble because they are both from the setting selection display field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Shimizu and Uchiyama to add plural buttons. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent erroneous operation of a touch panel (paragraph 3). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Shimizu with Uchiyama to obtain the invention of claim 1.
3) Regarding claim 2, Shimizu teaches the display operation device according to claim 1, wherein when the operation acceptor receives a predetermined first operation of one of the setting buttons, the one or more controllers cause the display to display a setting change screen on which a change in setting associated with the one of the setting buttons is received (paragraph 71; selection of copy number causes number selection to pop up).
4) Regarding claim 7, Shimizu (as combined with Uchiyama in the rejection of claim 1 above) teaches an image forming apparatus comprising: the display operation device according to claim 1; and an image former that performs image formation based on a print execution command received by the operation acceptor (figure 2, item 103; an image forming unit), wherein the display displays, to the user, a setting screen related to the image formation, and the setting screen includes an image formation start button composed of a plurality of setting buttons associated with various respective predetermined image formation settings (figure 10; multiple print settings are disclosed and could be incorporated into an execution button area as described in the combination of Shimizu and Uchiyama above).
5) Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2022/0321714 by Shimizu et al., and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2023/0305683 by Uchiyama et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2019/0098152 by Nakata et al.
Shimizu does not specifically teach the display operation device according to claim 2, wherein the first operation is a predetermined swipe operation of the one of the setting buttons.
Nakata teaches the display operation device according to claim 2, wherein the first operation is a predetermined swipe operation of the one of the setting buttons (figure 4; paragraphs 38 and 39; settings can be selected with slide operations).
Shimizu and Nakata are combinble because they are both from the print setting selection field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Shimizu and Nakata to add swipe selections. The motivation for doing so would have been to “enable the user to intuitively understand … the task button” (paragraph 42). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Shimizu with Nakata to obtain the invention of claim 3.
6) Claim 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2022/0321714 by Shimizu et al., and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2023/0305683 by Uchiyama et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2023/0280897 by Shinohara.
7) Regarding claim 4, Shimizu does not specifically teach the display operation device according to claim 2, further comprising a timer that measures predetermined determination time, wherein the first operation is a long-press operation of the one of the setting buttons for the determination time or more.
Shinohara teaches the display operation device according to claim 2, further comprising a timer that measures predetermined determination time, wherein the first operation is a long-press operation of the one of the setting buttons for the determination time or more (paragraphs 34 and 52; dependent upon amount of time a button is depressed, various setting selections can be made).
Shimizu and Shinohara are combinble because they are both from the print setting selection field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Shimizu and Shinohara to add time press selections. The motivation for doing so would have been to save a user time and effort (paragraph 4). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Shimizu with Shinohara to obtain the invention of claim 4.
8) Regarding claim 5, Shinohara (as combined with Shimizu in the rejection of claim 4 above) teaches the display operation device according to claim 1, wherein when the operation acceptor receives a predetermined second operation of one of the setting buttons, the one or more controllers cause a job to be performed according to a setting associated with the one of the setting buttons (paragraph 34; short press of button can cause print start execution).
9) Regarding claim 6, Shinohara (as combined with Shimizu in the rejection of claim 4 above) teaches the display operation device according to claim 5, further comprising a timer that measures predetermined determination time, wherein the second operation is a short-press operation of the one of the setting buttons for less than the predetermined determination time (paragraph 34; short press of button can cause print start execution).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571)270-5254. 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 O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights