DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s amendment filed on March 2, 2026 is acknowledged. Currently Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1-4 and 14-15 has been amended.
The amendments to the independent claims are taught by the currently cited prior art and are reflected in the updated rejections below.
On page 7-8, the applicant alleges that in Claim 4, Yokomizo fails to disclose “device corresponding to the restore factor has occurred”
The examiner disagrees, Yokomizo teaches, “wherein, when a restore factor from the second mode to the first mode occurs, the processor is configured to control the electric power supplied to a device corresponding to the restore factor that has occurred and a device corresponding to a screen to be displayed after the restore process” Yokomizo in Paragraph [0079]-[0080] discloses the use of a sleep recovery button which is the restore factor and after the recovery process has completed as in the restore factor has occurred, “The controller 3 determines at the end of the recovery processing which job processing of function the screen indicates which is to be displayed on the operation unit 8 and registered by the user on the UI screen illustrated in FIG. 2F”
Therefore Claim 4 is taught in combination with regards to Hara and Yokomizo.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Hara US2017/0064115.
As per Claim 1, Hara teaches an information processing apparatus having apparatus modes set therein, the apparatus modes including a first mode in which the information processing apparatus is supplied with electric power to be used by the information processing apparatus for executing a process and a second mode in which the electric power supplied to the information processing apparatus is reduced such that the process is not executed, , (Hara, Figure 3, Paragraph [0037], “FIG. 3 is a table showing the types of power modes and their energizing parts in the MFP 100. In the table shown in FIG. 3, a circle ‘0’ indicates an energized state while an ‘x’ indicates a non-energized state. Items listed in the top row are major units (hereinafter referred to as a “module”) in the MFP 100 which are controlled by the above 114a to 114d. Items listed in the left column are five types of power modes provided in the MFP 100…The first idle mode is only available for the input operation unit 111 and the authentication operation unit 112, and is a mode in which power supply to the print engine is stopped. The second idle mode is available for the input operation unit 111 and the authentication operation unit 112, and is a mode in which power is supplied to the printing unit 130 and in which the print function is available. The third idle mode further allows the scan unit 120 to be power supplied and the copy function is also available. The fourth idle mode is a mode to be shifted in a case where a print job based on a print instruction for the normal printing is received under the power-saving mode, and is capable of print output while the input operation unit 111 and the authentication operation unit 112 are unavailable. A user who has performed a normal printing instruction to the MFP 100 under the power-saving mode only has to pick up a printed material discharged onto the output tray 133 and is not required to make any operation in the input operation unit 111. In this case, since there is no need to bring the input operation unit 111 in an available state by, for example, making the LCD panel 111a lit, power is not supplied to the input operation unit 111 and the authentication operation unit 112, but is only supplied to the printing unit 130. Meanwhile, since the first to third idle modes are assumed that the operator is in front of the MFP 100, the LCD panel 111a on the input operation unit 111 is being lit”)
the information processing apparatus comprising: a processor configured to:
perform control when a restore process involving restoring an apparatus mode to the first mode from the second mode is performed, the control including (Hara, Paragraph [0034], “This physical button includes a button for inputting the number of sheets to be printed and a button for performing a copy/print start instruction. The power-saving button 115 is a button for instructing a shift to the power-saving mode and a return from the power-saving mode, and is configured to be electrically separated from the input operation unit 111 so that the pressing of the button is detectable even in a state where the input operation unit 111 is powered down. By pressing this power-saving button 115, a toggle transiting of power modes in the MFP 100, that is, transiting to the power-saving mode or restoring from the power-saving mode to bring the power mode to an idle state can be achieved.” )
determining, during the restore process based on a restore factor that has occurred, a device be used in the information processing apparatus after the restore process, and supplying electric power to the determined device. (Hara, Paragraph [0034], “By pressing this power-saving button 115, a toggle transiting of power modes in the MFP 100, that is, transiting to the power-saving mode or restoring from the power-saving mode to bring the power mode to an idle state can be achieved.” The restore factor is the pressing of the button 115)
As per Claim 2, Hara teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to change a device to be supplied with the electric power during the restore process for every restore factor from the second mode to the first mode. (Hara, Figure 3, “third idle mode (copyable)” this is where all the units in the MFP are energized)
As per Claim 3, Hara teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to change a device to be supplied with the electric power during the restore process for every screen to be displayed after the restore process. (Hara, Figure 3, “third idle mode (copyable)” this is where all the units in the MFP are energized and the input operation unit is on which includes the LCD screen 111a as seen in Figure 2)
As per Claim 13, Hara teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to control the electric power supplied to all devices if a specific operation is performed on the information processing apparatus. (Hara, Figure 3, “third idle mode (copyable)” this is where all the units in the MFP are energized)
As per Claim 14, Claim 14 claims a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process for processing information (Hara, Paragraph [0120]), the computer being equipped in an apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Therefore the rejection is analogous to Claim 1.
As per Claim 15, Claim 15 claims an information processing method executable in an apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Therefore the rejection is analogous to Claim 1.
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 of this title, 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 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara US2017/0064115 as applied to Claim 2 and further in view of Yokomizo US2014/0118768.
As per Claim 4, Hara teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the device to be supplied with the electric power during the restore process is set for every restore factor, wherein the device to be supplied with the electric power during the restore process is set for every screen to be displayed after the restore process, and (Hara, Figure 3, “third idle mode (copyable)” this is where all the units in the MFP are energized and the input operation unit is on which includes the LCD screen 111a as seen in Figure 2)
Hara does not explicitly teach wherein, when a restore factor from the second mode to the first mode occurs, the processor is configured to control the electric power supplied to a device corresponding to the restore factor that has occurred and a device corresponding to a screen to be displayed after the restore process.
Yokomizo teaches wherein, when a restore factor from the second mode to the first mode occurs, the processor is configured to control the electric power supplied to a device corresponding to the restore factor that has occurred and a device corresponding to a screen to be displayed after the restore process. (Yokomizo, Figure 2A-2F, Paragraph [0079]-[0080], “If the user presses the sleep recovery button on the operation unit 8 during the sleep state (YES in step S401), in step S402, the CPU 13 of the controller 3 performs the sleep recovery processing as described above. The controller 3 determines at the end of the recovery processing which job processing of function the screen indicates which is to be displayed on the operation unit 8 and registered by the user on the UI screen illustrated in FIG. 2F indicates. Further, in step S403, the controller 3 determines which operation of the device is required by the job that can be input on the initial screen to be displayed when the power source is recovered according to the relationships between the job processing and the power supply destination as illustrated in FIG. 3 to perform the job processing function specified on the UI screen to be displayed at the time of recovery”)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Yokomizo into Hara because by providing further instructions in terms of different user interface screens to aid the user in executing functions with the MFP will allow for the efficient use of the MFP of Hara.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the two references to obtain the invention in Claim 4.
As per Claim 5, Hara in view of Yokomizo teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein, when a restore factor assumed as being an operation performed by a user occurs, the processor is configured to control the electric power supplied to the device corresponding to the restore factor that has occurred and the device corresponding to the screen to be displayed after the restore process. (Hara, Figure 3, Paragraph [0037] and Yokomizo, Figure 2A-2F, Figure 3, Paragraph [0079]-[0080])
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 4 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 6, Hara in view of Yokomizo teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein, when a restore factor assumed as not being an operation performed by a user occurs, the processor is configured to control the electric power supplied to the device corresponding to the restore factor that has occurred. (Hara, Figure 3, Paragraph [0037] and Yokomizo, Figure 2A-2F, Figure 3, Paragraph [0079]-[0080])
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 4 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 7, Hara in view of Yokomizo teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein, when a restore factor assumed as not being an operation performed by a user occurs, the processor is configured to control the electric power supplied to the device corresponding to the restore factor that has occurred. (Hara, Figure 3, Paragraph [0037] and Yokomizo, Figure 2A-2F, Figure 3, Paragraph [0079]-[0080])
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 5 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 8, Hara in view of Yokomizo teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to control the electric power supplied to a part of the device corresponding to the restore factor that has occurred. (Hara, Figure 3, Paragraph [0037] and Yokomizo, Figure 2A-2F, Figure 3, Paragraph [0079]-[0080])
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 6 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 9, Hara in view of Yokomizo teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to control the electric power supplied to a part of the device corresponding to the restore factor that has occurred. (Hara, Figure 3, Paragraph [0037] and Yokomizo, Figure 2A-2F, Figure 3, Paragraph [0079]-[0080])
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 7 has been incorporated herein.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara US2017/0064115 in view of Yokomizo US2014/0118768 as applied to Claim 9 and further in view of Ichikawa et al. US2020/0073341 hereinafter referred to as Ichikawa.
As per Claim 10, Hara in view of Yokomizo teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the restore factor that has occurred is detection of a person by a human detection sensor, and wherein the processor is configured to control the electric power supplied to the device corresponding to the screen to be displayed after the restore process and the device (Hara, Figure 3, Paragraph [0037])
Hara in view of Yokomizo does not explicitly teach corresponding to the restore factor that has occurred in accordance with a positional relationship between the detected person and the information processing apparatus.
Ichikawa teaches corresponding to the restore factor that has occurred in accordance with a positional relationship between the detected person and the information processing apparatus. (Ichikawa, Paragraph [0002], Figure 1, “MFP includes a human presence sensor for detecting a person (user) approaching the apparatus and has the function to resume a standby mode or a normal state from a power-saving state (sleep mode) by detecting a person approaching. For example, there is a determination unit configured to determine a sensor reading from a human presence sensor as a feature amount associated with the distance to a person approaching. This determination unit can be used to resume a normal state of an MFP.”)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Ichikawa into Hara in view of Yokomizo because by providing means to determine a user is within a certain distance of the MFP and activating the MFP will allow the MFP to be in a usable state by the time the user arrives at the MFP.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the three references to obtain the invention in Claim 10.
As per Claim 11, Hara in view of Yokomizo teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to control the electric power supplied to the device corresponding to the restore factor (Hara, Figure 3, Paragraph [0037]) that has occurred if a distance between the detected person and the information processing apparatus exceeds a threshold value. (Ichikawa, Paragraph [0002], Figure 1, “MFP includes a human presence sensor for detecting a person (user) approaching the apparatus and has the function to resume a standby mode or a normal state from a power-saving state (sleep mode) by detecting a person approaching. For example, there is a determination unit configured to determine a sensor reading from a human presence sensor as a feature amount associated with the distance to a person approaching. This determination unit can be used to resume a normal state of an MFP.”)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 10 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 12, Hara in view of Yokomizo teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to control the electric power supplied to the device corresponding to the restore factor that has occurred and the device corresponding to the screen to be displayed after the restore process (Hara, Figure 3, Paragraph [0037]) if a distance between the detected person and the information processing apparatus is smaller than or equal to a threshold value. (Ichikawa, Paragraph [0002], Figure 1, “MFP includes a human presence sensor for detecting a person (user) approaching the apparatus and has the function to resume a standby mode or a normal state from a power-saving state (sleep mode) by detecting a person approaching. For example, there is a determination unit configured to determine a sensor reading from a human presence sensor as a feature amount associated with the distance to a person approaching. This determination unit can be used to resume a normal state of an MFP.”)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 10 has been incorporated herein.
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 MING HON whose telephone number is (571)270-5245. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached on 571-270-3717. 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.
/MING Y HON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights