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 .
2. Claims 1,3,10,13,16-18 are pending in this amended application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claims 1,3,10,13,16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugita et al. [hereafter Sugita], US Pub 2018/0103160.
As to claim 1 [independent], Sugita teaches an information processing apparatus comprising [fig. 1, element 101; 0019 Sugita teaches that the information processing apparatus correspond to printer 101]:
a processor configured to [fig. 2, element 111]:
in a case in which a function ([figs. 3-4, element 300 or 401]) requiring setting of a destination for data transmission has been selected in a state in which the destination has not been set, display a first screen, which is a screen for setting the destination, after the function has been selected [figs. 3-4, element 300 or 401; 0028-0032 Sugita teaches that user has selected “fax function” button 302 or “scan and transmit function” button 303 to execute transmission of image data, and in response to the selection of either button 302 or 303 (e.g., related to the function “fax function” button 302 or “scan and transmit function”), the processor 111 caused the display device 116 to display first screen (e.g., fig 4b, element 407) to enter destination address and the user using address book (e.g., paras., 0031-0032)], and
in a case in which the destination has been set by a user from an address book in which the destination is stored before the function requiring setting of the destination is selected, display a second screen, which is a screen for configuring setting items of the function, without displaying the first screen before displaying the second screen [figs. 3-4, element 300 or 401 & fig. 5; 0028-0032, 0045 Sugita teaches that user has selected “fax function” button 302 or “scan and transmit function” button 303 to execute transmission of image data, and in response to the selection of either button 302 or 303 (e.g., related to the function “fax function” button 302 or “scan and transmit function”), the processor 111 caused the display device 116 to display first screen (e.g., fig 4b, element 407) to enter destination address and the user using address book (e.g., paras., 0031-0032). Then, the processor 111 caused the display device 116 to display second screen (e.g., fig 5a, element 502) to set scan & transmission settings for document to be transmitted at the destination address (e.g., fig. 5a & para., 0045), without displaying the first screen (e.g., fig 4b, element 407)].
As to claim 3 [dependent from claim 1], Sugita teaches wherein the state in which the destination has not been set includes a case where even if an operation for setting the destination has been performed by the user, the set destination is invalid [0051 Sugita teaches that the operation for setting the destination address has been performed by the user, and the set destination address become invalid when the user manually enters the destination address and fax transmission or email transmission was unsuccessful].
As to claim 10 [dependent from claim 1], Sugita teaches wherein the state in which the destination has been set is a case where a history in which the function is used has been selected by the user [fig. 4b; 0031-0032, 0051 Sugita teaches that the user has selected the address book based on history information displayed for the user (e.g., fig. 4b) to set the destination address for the certain function selected for transmitting the image data by using the fax transmission or email transmission at selected destination address].
As to claim 13 [dependent from claim 10], Sugita teaches wherein by a time when the history in which the function is used is selected, the function has been selected [fig. 4b; 0031-0032, 0051 Sugita teaches that the user has selected the address book based on history information displayed for the user (e.g., fig. 4b) to set the destination address for the certain function selected for transmitting the image data by using the fax transmission or email transmission at selected destination address].
As to claims 16-18 [independent], However, the independent claims 16-18 essentially claimed same subject matter as claimed in the independent claim 1 for/and/with other claim limitations, and are therefore the independent claims 16-18 would be rejected based on same rationale as applied to the independent claim 1.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 10, 13, 16-18 have been considered but are not persuasive.
On pages 2-3 of the REMARKS/ARGUMENTS, applicant argued that the applied art Sugita et al. (US Pub 2018/0103160) failed to disclose or suggest the claim limitations of claims 19 & 31-32 recited “in a case in which a function requiring setting of a destination for data transmission has been selected in a state in which the destination has not been set, display a first screen, which is a screen for setting the destination, after the function has been selected” & “in a case in which the destination has been set by a user from an address book in which the destination is stored before the function requiring setting of the destination is selected, display a second screen, which is a screen for configuring setting items of the function, without displaying the first screen before displaying the second screen” either alone nor in combination. Applicant further on pages 2-3, explained that all the applied prior arts listed above do not teach and provided reasons that why applied art is not suggesting the above claim limitations, particularly the prior art Sugita et al. (US Pub 2014/0282480) that it is not possible for only a single display screen 407 to satisfy the limitation of "displaying the second screen without displaying the first
screen before the second screen", in claim 1. Thus, Sugita et al. does not anticipate claim 1’s limitations, so the applied art doesn't read on the above claim limitations.
In response to the applicant’s argument, examiner would respectfully disagree with the applicant’s argument, because first of all the examiner is not bound to import specification definition or information on to the claimed invention. The examiner view or review the specification to understand the claimed invention and are bound to give broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) to the claim(s) in view of the specification and over the applied prior arts. The claim limitations recited “in a case in which a function requiring setting of a destination for data transmission has been selected in a state in which the destination has not been set, display a first screen, which is a screen for setting the destination, after the function has been selected”, is interpreted by examiner that processor causes display device to display a screen as first screen to enter destination address using address boor after selection of the function.
Applied prior art (US Pub 2018/0103160) reasonably suggesting in figs. 3-4, element 300 or 401; 0028-0032 that user has selected an image processing function that can be “fax function” button 302 or “scan and transmit function” button 303 to execute transmission of image data, and in response to the selection of either button 302 or 303 (e.g., related to the function “fax function” button 302 or “scan and transmit function”), the processor 111 caused the display device 116 to display the first screen (e.g., fig 4b, element 407) to enter destination address using address book (e.g., paras., 0031-0032).
Further, the claim limitations recited “in a case in which the destination has been set by a user from an address book in which the destination is stored before the function requiring setting of the destination is selected, display a second screen, which is a screen for configuring setting items of the function, without displaying the first screen before displaying the second screen”, is interpreted by examiner that processor causes display device to display a screen as second screen which may be different from the first screen for entering setting information.
Applied prior art (US Pub 2018/0103160) reasonably suggesting in figs. 3-4, element 300 or 401 & fig. 5; 0028-0032, 0045 that user has selected “fax function” button 302 or “scan and transmit function” button 303 to execute transmission of image data, and in response to the selection of either button 302 or 303 (e.g., related to the function “fax function” button 302 or “scan and transmit function”), the processor 111 caused the display device 116 to display first screen (e.g., fig 4b, element 407) to enter destination address and the user using address book (e.g., paras., 0031-0032). Then, the processor 111 caused the display device 116 to display second screen (e.g., fig 5a, element 502) to set scan & transmission settings for document to be transmitted at the destination address (e.g., fig. 5a & para., 0045), without displaying the first screen (e.g., fig 4b, element 407).
Thereby, Examiner has not agreed with the applicant’s argument based on the examiner given reasonable broadest interpretation to the claim(s) and would maintain prior art rejection.
Conclusion
6. 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 HARIS SABAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday/Friday from 9:00AM to 5:30PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Benny Tieu, can be reached on (571)272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The Examiner’s personal fax number is (571)270-4917.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/HARIS SABAH/Examiner, Art Unit 2682