Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/988,514

COMMUNICATION TERMINAL, CONTROL METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 19, 2024
Examiner
OSORIO, RICARDO
Art Unit
2625
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
2 (Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
723 granted / 813 resolved
+26.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
834
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
43.1%
+3.1% vs TC avg
§102
26.1%
-13.9% vs TC avg
§112
7.0%
-33.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 813 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. Claim(s) 1 and 3-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RICOH CO LTD (JP 2014182793, Ricoh, hereafter) in view of Dibble (US 9,032,199). As to claims 1, 6 and 7, Ricoh discloses a communication terminal (Fig. 1, (Terminal (300)), comprising: a receiver configured to receive image information acquired by rendering a web page(Fig. 3, (engine web interface (102); a display configured to display an image generated based on the image information received via and from rendering the web page (303 and the projection engine (401)); a storage configured to store one or more images to be displayed (Fig.2, (600A, 600B) (Abstract, and Fig. 2 (description); and one or more processors that operate to store the generated image in the storage (Fig. 1, and 3 (100). However, Ricoh, further, does not specifically disclose to store a generated image in the storage before a display of the generated image is abnormally terminated; determine whether the display of the generated image is abnormally terminated; acquire the generated image from the storage and display the generated image after the display of the generated image is abnormally terminated to restore the display of the generated image; receive a result of operation information of the web page and determine whether the result is a termination of the web page after the display of the generated image is abnormally terminated; in a case where the web page is not terminated and after the display of the generated image is abnormally terminated; acquire an image from the storage based on the received image information acquired from rendering the web, generate a screen including the acquired image, display the generated screen including the acquired image, and store the displayed image in the storage; and in a case where a normal startup occurs or where the display of the generated image is not abnormally terminated, display another image in normal startup. Dibble discloses to store a generated image in the storage before a display of the generated image is abnormally terminated (col. 4, lines 40-55 and col. 5, line 62-col. 6, line 2); determine whether the display of the generated image is abnormally terminated (col. 4, lines 40-55 and col. 5, line 62-col. 6, line 2); acquire the generated image from the storage and display the generated image after the display of the generated image is abnormally terminated to restore the display of the generated image(col. 7, lines 13-15, and col. 14, lines 40-55); receive a result of operation information of the web page and determine whether the result is a termination of the web page after the display of the generated image is abnormally terminated (col. 7, lines 13-15, and col. 14, lines 40-55).; in a case where the web page is not terminated and after the display of the generated image is abnormally terminated (Col. 1, lines 10-15, and col. 11, lines 48-53), acquire an image from the storage based on the received image information acquired from rendering the web page (col. 4, lines 40-55 and col. 5, line 62-col. 6, line 2), generate a screen including the acquired image, display the generated screen including the acquired image(col. 4, lines 40-55 and col. 5, line 62-col. 6, line 2), and store the displayed image in the storage; and in a case where a normal startup occurs or where the display of the generated image is not abnormally terminated(Col. 1, lines 10-15, col. 11, lines 48-53, col. 7, lines 13-15, and col. 14, lines 40-55), display another image in normal startup (Col. 1, lines 10-15, and col. 11, lines 48-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to determine if the image is abnormally terminated, as taught by Dibble, in the device of Ricoh, since it is well known in the field of error detection/correction as the simple mechanism of restoring an image from a local copy in the event of a crash, or abnormal termination, of the local computing device, even if the image is not stored in the storage unit. As to claim 3, Ricoh, further, discloses the display displays the generated image acquired by adding, and displaying the generated image on or with, a predetermined user interface (UI) (Fig. 5, Graphical User Interface (311). As to claim 4, further, Ricoh, further, discloses a transmitter configured to transmit the operation information of the webpage (Fig. 3, (engine web interface (102), wherein the one or more processors (Fig. 1, and 3 (100) further operate to determine, after transmission by the transmitter, whether the image based on the image information received by the receiver is stored in the storage (Fig.2, (600A, 600B) (Abstract, and Fig. 2 (description), and, in a case where the image stored in the storage (Fig. 2, (600A, 600B), acquire the image from the storage based on the received image information acquired from rendering the web page to generate the screen (“First, when the distribution source user performs distribution setting using the terminal 500, the web service 101 of the management server 100 accepts this setting. Then, the web service 101 accesses the system storage server 600A via the DB accessor 113, and uses the user ID of the distribution source user as a key, and a list of distribution destination users or devices 400 set as the distribution destination by the distribution source user. Is acquired from the system storage server 600A. When the distribution source user instructs to add a distribution destination using the terminal 500, the web service 101 of the management server 100 accepts this instruction. Then, the web service 101 accesses the system storage server 600A via the DB accessor 113, updates the distribution information by adding the instructed distribution destination”). However, Ricoh, further, does not specifically disclose a confirmation request transmitter configured to, in a case where display of the image is abnormally terminated and the one or more processors determine that the image is not stored in the storage, transmit a confirmation information request. Dibble discloses a confirmation information request transmission unit configured to, in a case where display of the image is abnormally terminated determining that the image is not stored in the storage unit, transmit a confirmation information request (col. 4, lines 40-55 and col. 5, line 62-col. 6, line 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the request transmission unit, as taught by Dibble, in the device of Ricoh, since it is well known in the field of error detection/correction as the simple mechanism of restoring an image from a local copy in the event of a crash of the local computing device, even if the image is not stored in the storage unit. As to claim 5, further, Ricoh discloses a UI operation storage configured to store an operation to be performed on the predetermined UI (Fig. 5, (311)(“the engine web interface 102 passes the engine server ID and the load state to the engine control unit 115, and loads the load information stored in the system storage server 600A”), determine whether the operation is performed on the predetermined UI (Fig. 5, (311)(“ the engine web interface 102 receives a request from the engine server 200 and instructs the browser execution environment information control unit 121 to acquire execution environment information. The browser execution environment information control unit 121 accesses the system storage server 600A via the DB accessor 122, and acquires execution environment information related to the engine server 200 used by the user last time from the system storage server 600A. The execution environment information acquired by the browser execution environment information control unit 121 is sent to the engine server 200 via the engine web interface 102”). However, Ricoh, further, does not specifically disclose in a case where display is performed after display of the image is abnormally terminated, execute the operation stored in the UI operation storage unit. Dibble discloses, further, a UI operation execution unit configured to, in a case where display is performed after display of the image is abnormally terminated, execute the operation stored in the UI operation storage unit (col. 7, lines 13-15, and col. 14, lines 40-55). ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the user interface, as taught by Dibble, in the device of Ricoh, since it is well known in the field of error detection/correction as the simple mechanism of restoring an image from a local copy in the event of a crash of the local computing device by executing the operation stored in a user interface storage unit. As to claim 8, Ricoh, further, does not specifically disclose determine whether the normal startup occurs in a case where the display is not abnormally terminated. Dibble discloses, further, determine whether the normal startup occurs in a case where the display is not abnormally terminated (Col. 1, lines 10-15, and col. 11, lines 48-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the normal startup determination, as in Dibble, in the device of Ricoh, so that optimized restarts are provided (Col. 1, lines 10-15). As to claim 9, Ricoh, further, Ricoh discloses (“Similar to the management server 100, the system storage server 600A and the user storage server 600B can be realized as virtual machines deployed on a cloud service”). However, further, Ricoh does not specifically disclose in a case where the display of the generated image is abnormally terminated, transmit the operation information to a virtual machine, and receive the result of the operation information from the virtual machine. Dibble discloses, further, in a case where the display of the generated image is abnormally terminated (col. 4, lines 40-55 and col. 5, line 62-col. 6, line 2), transmit the operation information to a virtual machine, and receive the result of the operation information from the virtual machine (col. 6, lines 47-59, and col. 10, lines 28-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to transmit and receive information to and from a virtual machine, since a virtual machine is well known in the art as one of many different resource that can be used to read and write information (col. 10, lines 28-30). As to claim 10, further, Ricoh discloses the another image is a home screen image (“the cloud browser 204 identifies a changed part in the web content to be displayed, renders the part, updates the original browser output image with the partial image obtained thereby, and outputs the next browser output Generate an image”). As to claim 11, Ricoh, further, does not specifically disclose (i) after the display of the generated image is abnormally terminated, determine whether an operation information transmission flag is on;(ii) in a case where the operation information transmission flag is off, display the stored, generated image or display a stored screen including the generated image;(iii) in a case where the operation information transmission flag is on, transmit and/or receive a previous operation result confirmation information from a virtual machine to the one or more processors, and analyze a content of a previous operation result information; and(iv) acquire an image from the storage, and display the acquired image or a screen including the acquired image. Dibble, further, discloses (i) after the display of the generated image is abnormally terminated (col. 11, lines 47-53), determine whether an operation information transmission flag is on (col. 2, lines 49-61);(ii) in a case where the operation information transmission flag is off (co. 2, lines 49-61), display the stored, generated image or display a stored screen including the generated image (col. 2, lines 49-61) ;(iii) in a case where the operation information transmission flag is on, transmit and/or receive a previous operation result confirmation information from a virtual machine to the one or more processors, and analyze a content of a previous operation result information (col. 2, lines 49-61, and col. 11, lines 47-53); and(iv) acquire an image from the storage, and display the acquired image or a screen including the acquired image (col. 2, lines 49-61, and col. 11, lines 47-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to carry out the flag instructions, as taught by Dibble, in the device of Ricoh, since it is well known in the field of error detection/correction as the simple mechanism of restoring an image from a local copy in the event of a crash of the local computing device. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 12 and 13 are allowable since certain key features of the claimed invention are not taught or fairly suggested by the prior art. In claim 12, “(i) after the stored, generated image or the stored screen including the generated image is displayed or after the image acquired image or the screen including the acquired image is displayed, set an abnormal termination flag to off;(ii) transmit the operation information to a virtual machine, turn on an operation information transmission flag, and receive the result of the operation information from the virtual machine; and (iii) in the case where the web page is not terminated, after the display of the generated image is abnormally terminated, and after the storage of the displayed, acquired image, turn off the operation information transmission flag.”. In claim 13, “in a case where an operation is not performed on an apparatus specific screen, transmit the operation information to a virtual machine, receive the result of the operation information from the virtual machine, determine whether the result is the termination of the web page or not, and in the case where the web page is not terminated and after the display of the generated image is abnormally terminated, acquire the image from the storage, and in a case where an apparatus specific screen needs to be generated, generate the apparatus specific screen, display the generated apparatus specific screen including the acquired image, and store the displayed image in the storage”. The closest prior art of record, Dibble (US 9,032,199), discloses the control unit (Fig. 2, (201) configured to differentiate the image to be displayed between a case where the display unit displays the image after display of the image is abnormally terminated and a case where the display unit displays the image in normal startup (col. 4, lines 40-55). (see above rejection for more detailed information) However, singularly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render the above underlined limitations obvious, together with all the other limitations of the claims. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6 and 7, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICARDO OSORIO whose telephone number is (571)272-7676. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-5:30 PM. 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, LunYi Lao can be reached at 571-272-7671. 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. /RICARDO OSORIO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 19, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 09, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 17, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12585125
HEAD-MOUNTED DISPLAY, HEAD-MOUNTED DISPLAY LINKING SYSTEM, AND METHOD FOR SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578797
SWITCH ASSEMBLY WITH INTEGRATED HAPTIC EXCITER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12579943
DISPLAY APPARATUS, DISPLAY MODULE, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12562097
DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD OF DRIVING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12562085
HEAD-MOUNTED DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
89%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+8.2%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 813 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month