Response to Amendments and Arguments
Amendments and arguments filed on 07/13/2026 have been fully considered and are not found to place the application in a condition for allowance.
The applicant has provided an “intended use” for the display device and has provided arguments that Imai does not teach applying the display device as previously claimed to “an industrial machine”. The applicant has further provided new dependent claims with limitations pointing to the details of such an industrial machine.
The Office finds the arguments non-persuasive. A display device is an industrial machine per BRI, because a display device has industrial use. The mere use of a display device for controlling an industrial machine does not change the function of the display device which will continue to provide a user interface for a user while being controlled to refresh different parts of the display device based on load information as taught by Imai. Therefore, the arguments are not found persuasive and Imai is found to teach the limitations of the independent claim. Furthermore, the new dependent claims are withdrawn from consideration based on “restriction based on original presentation”.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 10-19 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the new claims 10-19 are drawn towards details of various forms of “industrial machines” while the original claims 1-9 are drawn toward details regarding a display device which are different species having mutually exclusive characteristics.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 10-19 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2, 5-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Imai et al., US 2014/0310336 A1, hereinafter “Imai”.
Regarding claim 1, Imai teaches a controller (fig. 4, elements 12-16, ¶ 46-49) for controlling an industrial machine (for example a “fixed terminal” may be considered an industrial machine because such a system has industrial use), the controller comprising: a processor (¶ 48-49, CPU) configured to: control the industrial machine (¶ 48-49, the display section is controlled), acquire load information indicating a load related to information processing (fig. 4, element 106, ¶ 62), determine whether the load is high (fig. 10, step 286, ¶ 91), and in response to determining that the load is high, adjust an update timing of at least one screen part among a plurality of screen parts displayed on a display screen (fig. 10, steps 292-298, ¶ 95-97 and figs. 11A-11C wherein multiple screen parts or mesh-squares are identified based on update times and adjusts only those regions with the highest load or update time requirement to be updated at high frequency (adjusted update timing)); and cause the at least one screen part to be displayed on the display screen based on the update timing (fig. 4, element 82, ¶ 55; also see fig. 11A-C, screen 240 wherein adjusted update timing is displayed).
Regarding claim 2, Imai teaches that the processor is configured to adjust the update timing by changing an update cycle (fig. 11A-C, ¶ 95-97, update cycle is changed for mesh-squares based on their update times).
Regarding claim 5, Imai teaches a memory storing, for each of the plurality of screen parts, a number of times adjustment has been performed wherein the processor is configured to adjust the update cycle based on the number of times the adjustment has been performed (fig. 15, ¶ 115 and ¶ 119; note that a portion of the memory holds such data).
Regarding claim 6, Imai teaches a memory storing a history of the update cycle adjusted by the processor, wherein the processor is configured to adjust the update cycle based on the history stored in the memory (fig. 15, ¶ 115 and ¶ 119; note that a “history storage unit” or a portion of the memory holds such data as the number of times of updates which is a history of the update cycles).
Regarding claim 8, Imai teaches that the load information includes at least one of information indicating a load on the processor, information indicating an amount of access to a storage device, or information indicating an amount of communication with an external device (¶ 62: “The processing load detection section 106 uses load of the CPU 20 of the gateway 16 to detect load data of the gateway 16”).
Regarding claim 9, Imai teaches that the processor is configured to compare a predefined threshold value with the load or a rate of increase in the load to determine whether the load is high (¶ 91).
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai, in view of Von Hippel et al., US 11,574,576 B1, hereinafter “Von Hippel”.
Regarding claim 3, Imai does not specifically teach that the processor is configured to adjust the update cycle within a maximum update cycle defined for each of the multiple screen parts.
Von Hippel teaches that the processor is configured to adjust the update cycle within a maximum update cycle defined for each of the multiple screen parts (fig. 6, col. 21, lines 6-9 and 31-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Imai in view of Von Hippel. The references teach determining portions of display devices to be updated at high frequencies. Von Hippel further teaches taking into consideration that certain display portions may be updated based on the maximum frequency that is made possible by the display device. Accordingly, one would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to drive the high frequency portions at a rate “consistent with” the “capability” of the display device on which the high frequency driving is required, thereby achieving the highest possible quality that may be achieved.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai, in view of Santoro et al., US 2003/0020671 A1, hereinafter “Santoro”.
Regarding claim 4, Imai does not specifically teach that the processor is configured to adjust the update cycle based on a priority level defined for each of the multiple screen parts.
Santoro teaches that the processor is configured to adjust the update cycle based on a priority level defined for each of the multiple screen parts (¶ 85 wherein “tiles” or screen parts “are categorized into a number of levels, arranged hierarchically so that tiles in each level have priority over those in other levels. Such a priority indicates that tiles with highest priority will refresh most frequently”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Imai in view of Santoro. The references teach assigning display portions different update times and Santoro further teaches that display portions with higher priorities are refreshed more often. Accordingly, one would have been motivated to make such a combination because Santoro further teaches that display portions “within a given [priority] level can be set up to compete equally for available system resources and bandwidth”, thereby ensuring that the highest priority content is provided with appropriate resources to be driven at a desired frequency.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai, in view of Inada et al., US 2015/0205563 A1, hereinafter “Inada”.
Regarding claim 7, Imai does not teach that the processor is configured to adjust the update timings by staggering the update timing of at least one of the multiple screen parts.
Inada teaches that the processor is configured to adjust the update timings by staggering the update timing of at least one of the multiple screen parts (fig. 1, see multiple screen parts 11 and 12, also see fig. 7-8, ¶ 74-79).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Imai in view of Inada. The references teach controlling refresh cycles of display portions and Inada further teaches staggering the update timing of display parts. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because Inada clearly teaches that according to such staggering “a peak of consumption power of the whole display device (portable terminal) 100 is suppressed” (see ¶ 80, fig. 9).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SEPEHR AZARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7903. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11AM-7PM.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at (571) 272-7764. 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.
/SEPEHR AZARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights