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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
It is noted that the 112(a) rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
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, 2, and 7-10, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabuuchi (US 2017/0244853) in view of Schirdewahn (US 2012/0001999) further in view of Saeda (US 2021/0218853).
Regarding Claim 1, Yabuuchi teaches an image processing apparatus (Paragraph 3) comprising:
a housing;
a placement unit that is provided on an upper a top surface of the housing and on which a document is placed (Element 203 and Paragraph 30, wherein there is a document platen to place the document on);
a column that is provided on the top surface of housing and on a rear edge of an upper surface of the placement unit (Element 204, paragraph 30, wherein there is a support member);
an imaging unit that comprises a charge coupled device install above the placement unit and configured to image the placement unit from above (Paragraphs 31 and 35, wherein there is a top shot scanner), wherein the imaging unit is attached to an end portion of the column (Paragraph 31 and Fig. 2A, wherein the area sensor is supported by the support member); and
an operation panel;
a processor (Paragraph 37, wherein there is a CPU) configured to:
display guidance information on the operation panel to indicate that the document to be imaged by the imaging unit is to be placed on the placement unit (Paragraphs 53, 54, and 58, wherein information can be obtained about the document upon placing the document on the platen for scanning).
Yabuuchi does not teach clearly teach an operation panel that includes a display and input screen and that is installed on the column between the placement unit and the imaging unit and is configured to receive an instruction from a user through the display and input screen;
display an operator for executing a function, on the operational panel, together with the guidance information.
Schirdewahn does teach an operation panel that includes a display and input screen and that is installed on the column between the placement unit and the imaging unit (Paragraph 30 and Fig. 5 and 6, wherein the document camera can be placed above the display, wherein the display is shown to be between the document placement area and the camera, on the support for the camera.).
Yabuuchi contained a device which differed from the claimed process by the substitution of the display being on the main body, the lower housing. Schirdewahn teaches the substituted step of having the display being placed on the support between the document placement area and the camera and their functions were known in the art to enable a more compact apparatus and allow for more easily readable, displaying, of information to a user. Yabuuchi’s display could have been substituted with Schirdewahn’s display being on the support and the results would have been predictable and resulted in enabling a more compact apparatus and allowing for more easily readable, displaying, of information to a user.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application.
Yabuuchi in view of Schirdewahn does not clearly teach an operation panel is configured to receive an instruction from a user through the display and input screen;
display an operator for executing a function, on the operational panel, together with the guidance information.
Saeda does teach an operation panel is configured to receive an instruction from a user through the display and input screen (Paragraph 93, wherein the user can operate the screen);
display an operator for executing a function, on the operational panel, together with the guidance information (Fig. 7, element 130b, and paragraphs 91-94, wherein the guidance screen also includes the function key).
Yabuuchi and Saeda are combinable because they both deal with guidance for a user as it relates to scanning.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Yabuuchi in view of Schirdewahn with the teachings of Saeda for the purpose of improving operability of the GUI (Saeda: Paragraph 5).
Regarding Claim 2, Yabuuchi further teaches wherein the guidance information includes information on an orientation in a case where the document is placed (Paragraphs 50, 51, 62 and 63, wherein orientation information is determined and added to the display).
Regarding Claim 7, Yabuuchi further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
detect whether or not the document is placed on the placement unit, by using an image captured by the imaging unit, in a case where the guidance information is displayed on the operation panel (Paragraph 77 and 78, wherein a document detection unit detects if the document is within the frame. This would detect document placement).
Regarding Claim 8, Yabuuchi further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
stop displaying the guidance information on the operation panel, and display an image representing a current state captured by the imaging unit, on the operation panel, in a case where the document is placed on the placement unit (Paragraph 71, wherein the document is continuously displayed prior to scanning).
Regarding Claim 9, Yabuuchi further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
stop detection of whether or not the document is placed on the placement unit, in a case where a selection screen for selecting a function to be used is displayed on the operation panel (Paragraph 57, wherein the document is not detected until the scanner mode is selected. Therefore, if the function selection is displayed, the document is not detected).
Regarding Claim 10, Yabuuchi further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
stop an operation of the imaging unit while the detection is stopped (Paragraph 71, wherein once scanning starts, the document is no longer displayed).
Regarding Claim 12, Yabuuchi further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
first display, on the operation panel, the guidance information or a selection screen for selecting a function to be used, in at least one situation among after start-up of the image processing apparatus, after return from a power saving state of the image processing apparatus, or after authentication of a user who uses the image processing apparatus (Paragraph 58, wherein the user can select the scanning mode prior to displaying the document).
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabuuchi (US 2017/0244853) in view of Schirdewahn (US 2012/0001999) further in view of Saeda (US 2021/0218853) further in view of Imaoka (US 2018/0183952).
Regarding Claim 3, Yabuuchi in view of Schirdewahn further in view of Saeda does not clearly teach wherein the operator comprises an operator for transitioning to a selection screen for selecting a function to be used, from among functions including at least one of a function of using the imaging unit, a function of using a document scanning unit, a function of using a document output unit, a function of setting the image processing apparatus, or a function of editing a destination table, together with the guidance information.
Imaoka does teach wherein the operator comprises an operator for transitioning to a selection screen for selecting a function to be used, from among functions including at least one of a function of using the imaging unit, a function of using a document scanning unit, a function of using a document output unit, a function of setting the image processing apparatus, or a function of editing a destination table, together with the guidance information (Fig. 5A and 5B and paragraphs 48-51, wherein the preview image is generated. The function options can be switched while the preview image is shown).
Yabuuchi and Imaoka are combinable because they both deal with scan preview images.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Yabuuchi in view of Schirdewahn further in view of Saeda with the teachings of Imaoka for the purpose of ensuring desired processing is occurring without undergoing multiple screens (Imaoka: Paragraph 54).
Regarding Claim 4, Imaoka further teaches wherein a function that is to be selected on the selection screen includes the function of using the imaging unit (Element d4 and paragraph 42, wherein there is a scan function), and
the processor is configured to:
display the guidance information on the operation panel, in a case where the function of using the imaging unit is selected on the selection screen (Paragraph 47, wherein when the desired function is used, the appropriate settings are displayed accordingly).
Yabuuchi and Imaoka are combinable because they both deal with scan preview images.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Yabuuchi in view of Schirdewahn further in view of Saeda with the teachings of Imaoka for the purpose of ensuring desired processing is occurring without undergoing multiple screens (Imaoka: Paragraph 54).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabuuchi (US 2017/0244853) in view of Schirdewahn (US 2012/0001999) further in view of Saeda (US 2021/0218853) further in view of Kato (US 2016/0255212).
Regarding Claim 5, Yabuuchi in view of Schirdewahn further in view of Saeda does not teach wherein the processor is configured to:
control the imaging unit to image the document, without receiving an instruction from the user, in a case where a position of the document placed on the placement unit does not change for a set time or more.
Kato does teach wherein the processor is configured to:
control the imaging unit to image the document, without receiving an instruction from the user, in a case where a position of the document placed on the placement unit does not change for a set time or more (Paragraphs 40-43, wherein scanning occurs after a time period).
Yabuuchi and Kato are combinable because they both deal with scanning control.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Yabuuchi in view of Schirdewahn further in view of Saeda with the teachings of Kato for the purpose of ensuring users proper placement of the document (Kato: Paragraph 40).
.
Regarding Claim 6, Yabuuchi further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
change a time until the document is imaged since the document is placed on the placement unit, in response to an instruction from the user (Paragraphs 58 and 78, wherein based on user’s manipulation of the document the time to capture, even the preview image, is adjusted. This would correspond to user’s operation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS PACHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-3433. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4.
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, George Eng can be reached at 571-272-7495. 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.
/NICHOLAS PACHOL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights