DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. The specification is objected to for the following:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
3. The claims 1-2 and 4-6 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 operator display control unit that displays…, an object display control unit that…in claim 1; the operator display control unit displays…, the object display control unit performs… in claim 2; the object display control unit enlarges… in claim 4; the operator display control unit displays… in claim 5; a processing execution unit… in claim 6.-2, 4-6
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 as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Applicants describe information processing device as being a computer including a CPU in paragraph [0034]-[0035] and [00300462]of specification. Therefore, there is sufficient corresponding structure in the form of a personal computer.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 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.
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.
4. Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 2011/0164062 A1) in view of Pearce, Nigel (US 2014/0149889 A1).
As in Claim 1, Nakamura teaches an information processing device (FIG. 1, par. 76, a navigation device 1 (an example of an information processing device)), comprising:
an operator display control unit that displays a plurality of first operators corresponding to each of a plurality of objects displayed on a screen, near a first end of the screen and near a second end of the screen opposite the first end (FIG. 9, pars. 110-111, the divide displays an AV region on the left side and a navigation region on the right side of the touch panel 21, wherein the AV region displays a source selection region including selectable operation buttons and the navigation region displays a predetermined first region including selectable buttons; further see FIGS. 20-22, pars. 117-119 and 127-131); and
Nakamura does not appear to explicitly teach an object display control unit that, when a first touch operation is performed on the first operator near the first end, moves the first object corresponding to the first operator on which the first touch operation is performed closer to the first end, and when the first touch operation is performed on the first operator near the second end, moves the first object closer to the second end.
However, in the same field of the invention, Pearce teaches an object display control unit that, when a first touch operation is performed on the first operator near the first end, moves the first object corresponding to the first operator on which the first touch operation is performed closer to the first end, and when the first touch operation is performed on the first operator near the second end, moves the first object closer to the second end (FIGS. 1(a)-1(c), pars. 88-92, a token (or icon) 102c can be dragged to the left edge, and the token 102b can be dragged to the right edge of the touch sensitive surface; Further see FIGS. 9(a)-9(e) and pars. 171-172, tokens (e.g., 202a and 202b) can be dragged to different sides or edges of the screen).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying selectable operation buttons on each side of the touch panel of the navigation device, as taught by Nakamura, and to drag the icons/tokens to either side of the screen, as taught by Pearce. The motivation is to keep the icons within easy reach on either the left or right side of the screen while maximizing the available screen space for other content and tasks.
As in Claim 2, Nakamura-Pearce teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Nakamura-Pearce further teaches that the operator display control unit displays a second operator at a position adjacent to the first operator on which the first touch operation is performed when the first touch operation is performed on the first operator (Nakamura, FIG. 9-12, 20-22, pars. 110-111, operation buttons can be displayed when the user selects one of the source buttons. For, example, the radio source is selected, the radio frequency and radio operation buttons (e.g., AM/FM and selection buttons) can be displayed; further see pars. 117-119 and 127-131), and the object display control unit performs display control corresponding to the second operator on the first object when a second touch operation is performed on the second operator (Nakamura, FIG. 9-12, 20-22, pars. 110-111, operation buttons can be displayed when the user selects one of the source buttons; further see pars. 117-119 and 127-131, an operation can be executed or performed when the user selects one of these operation buttons, such as AM/FM switching; further see pars. 117-119 and 127-131).
As in Claim 3, Nakamura-Pearce teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Nakamura-Pearce further teaches that the first operator is displayed at a position adjacent to the edge of the screen (Nakamura, FIG. 9, pars. 110-111), and the first touch operation is an operation of dragging the first operator to the edge (Pearce, FIGS. 1(a)-1(c), pars. 88-92, the user can select the icon/token and moved to either side of the screen; Further see FIGS. 9(a)-9(e) and pars. 171-172).
As in Claim 5, Nakamura-Pearce teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Nakamura-Pearce further teaches that the operator display control unit displays the plurality of first operators in an order corresponding to the plurality of objects displayed on the screen (Nakamura, FIG. 9, pars. 110-111, the selectable buttons are arranged in an order).
As in Claim 7, Nakamura-Pearce teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Nakamura-Pearce further teaches that the information processing device is installed in a vehicle, a row of seats including a first seat located near the first end and a second seat located near the second end is installed in the vehicle, and the screen is positioned in front of the row of seats and extends in the width direction of the vehicle (Nakamura, pars. 19-20, 76-77, 110-111, the navigation device 1 is installed around the center of the vehicle dashboard where both the driver and front passenger can easily reach it. The touch panel 21 divides the display into the AV region and navigation region, with the navigation region positioned on the driver’s side and the AV region on the front passenger’s side).
Claim 8 is substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
5. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 2011/0164062 A1) in view of Pearce, Nigel (US 2014/0149889 A1) and further in view of Cheng at al. (US 2015/0253970 A1).
As in Claim 4, Nakamura-Pearce teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Nakamura-Pearce does not teach that the object display control unit enlarges the first object moving closer to the first end or the second end relative to other objects.
However, in the same field of the invention, Cheng teaches that the object display control unit enlarges the first object moving closer to the first end or the second end relative to other objects (FIGS. 3-4, pars. 18, 22-24, the device enlarges/magnifies a first image filter icon when detecting a triggering and moving event for the icon).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying selectable operation buttons on each side of the touch panel of the navigation device, as taught by Nakamura, in view of Pearce’s teachings, and to magnify the dragged icon, as taught by Cheng. The motivation is to visually highlight the moving icon, allowing the user to easily recognize and interact with it.
6. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 2011/0164062 A1) in view of Pearce, Nigel (US 2014/0149889 A1) and further in view of Hwang, Hoyoung (US 2010/0122195 A1)
As in Claim 6, Nakamura-Pearce teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Nakamura-Pearce does not teach a processing execution unit that executes processing related to the objects, wherein: the first touch operation is an operation of dragging second information within a second object to the first operator corresponding to the first object, and the processing execution unit executes processing related to the first information based on the second information when the operation of dropping the second information onto the first information within the first object is performed.
However, in the same field of the invention, Hwang teaches a processing execution unit that executes processing related to the objects, wherein:
the first touch operation is an operation of dragging second information within a second object to the first operator corresponding to the first object , and the processing execution unit executes processing related to the first information based on the second information when the operation of dropping the second information onto the first information within the first object is performed (at least FIGS. 6(a)-(c), par. 115; FIGS. 8A-8D, pars. 123-127; FIGS. 9A-9D, pars. 128-130; FIGS. 13A-13E, pars. 140-144, for example, the user can drag image 211b from image list 211 to the user image field 203, then the device transmits the image to the recipient and may replace the user image with 211b as shown in FIGS. 8A-8D. For another example, the user drags phonebook data “Albert” from phonebook list 231 to user image field 203, then the device transmits the data to the recipient and mya replace the user image with the selected data as shown in FIGS. 9A-9D. For another example, the user drags “Albert” to recipient field 241 to designate the recipient, then drags file 251a to attachment field 242 to attach the file to the message as shown in FIGS. 11A-11E. For another example, the user drags “Google” to address window 261 to access the website, the drags “Dokdo” to search window 263 to perform a search as shown in FIGS. 13a-13E).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying selectable operation buttons on each side of the touch panel of the navigation device, as taught by Nakamura, in view of Pearce’s teachings, and to drop information of the object/icon/window into another object/icon/window for performing actions, as taught by Hwang. The motivation is to easily perform actions by simply dropping information of one icon/object/window into another object/icon/window.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rinna Yi whose telephone number is (571) 270-7752 and fax number is (571) 270-8752. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RINNA YI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights