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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed with the application on 7/11/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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: reception device, display device, controller in claims 1-20, calculation device in claim 2.
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.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 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 § 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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Altamura (US Patent Pub. # 2012/0158287).
As to claim 1, Altamura (Fig. 1 and 3) discloses an apparatus for processing a user interface in an image, the apparatus comprising:
a reception device (navigation device 10) configured to receive the image (image) comprising an object (a police station indicator 160, a fuel station indicator 162, a church indicator 164, a mechanic indicator 166, a restaurant indicator 168, a fishing charter indicator 170, and fixed navigation marker indicators 180 and 182) (Para 17, 18, and 105);
a display device (display 18) configured to display (display) the image (image) comprising the object (160, 162, 164, 166, 168, 170, and 180 and 182) (Para 28); and
a controller (processor 12) (Para 13) configured to:
process a variable interface (additional information 192 and pop-up window 194) and a fixed interface (160, 162, 164, 166, 168, 170, and 180 and 182) among user interfaces in the image (image) (Para 18 and 19),
control the display device (18) to display the variable interface (192 and 194) around the object (160, 162, 164, 166, 168, 170, and 180 and 182) in the image (image), when a user interaction touch (user selection) of the object (180) is determined (Para 19);
control the display device (18) to move and re-display the variable interface (192 and 194) around the object (180), when the object (180)in the image moves (Para 19 and 20); and
process the variable interface (192 and 194) not to overlap with the fixed interface (180), when the variable interface overlaps (192 and 194) with the fixed interface (180) as the object (180) moves (Para 19 and 20).
As to claim 11, this claim differs from claim 1 only in that the claim 1 is an apparatus claim whereas claim 11 is a user interface processing method claim. Thus claim 11 is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to claim 1 above.
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.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altamura (US Patent Pub. # 2012/0158287) in view of Kasatani (US Patent Pub. # 2021/0365179).
As to claim 2, Altamura teaches control the display device (18) to display the variable interface (192 and 194) around the object (160, 162, 164, 166, 168, 170, and 180 and 182). Altamura does not teach further comprising: a calculation device configured to calculate display information of the user interface based on first coordinate information of the object in the image and second coordinate information of the user interaction touch to obtain a calculated result, wherein the controller is further configured to: control the display device to display the variable interface around the object based on the calculated result. Kasatani teaches a calculation device (touch sensor controller 215) configured to calculate display information of the user interface based on first coordinate information (coordinate position) of the object in the image and second coordinate information (coordinate position) of the user interaction touch to obtain a calculated (determined) result (Para 147). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a touch sensor controller as taught by Kasatani to the navigation device of Altamura, to provide where handwriting input operability is improved (Para 7 of Kasatani).
As to claim 12, this claim differs from claim 2 only in that the claim 2 depends on claim 1 whereas claim 12 depends on claim 11. Thus claim 12 is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to claim 2 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10 and 13-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER K PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1704. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Sinh N Tran can be reached at 571-2727564. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER K PETERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637 9/25/2026
