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 filed 02/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to applicant’s argument that none of the references teach “control the light emitting device not to emit light, in a case where it is detected that the document is placed on the placement unit,” the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the main part of the argument is that Fukui teaches scanning a document from below and therefore is not combinable with the teachings of Yabuuchi. It is noted that the examiner did not rely on the scanning properties of Fukui with respect to scanning from below. The examiner has relied on Fukui for teaching detecting a document’s presence through the use of a light emitting device. As described in paragraphs 29 and 47, there is a light emitting unit, element 8, that is enabled when there is no document detected. As shown in Fig. 1, this LED is above the document platen, placement unit, and therefore shines down on the placement unit. When a document is detected, the LED is disabled, paragraphs 37 and 57. As Yabuuchi already teaches having lights and sensor shine from above, one of orindary skill in the art would reasonably be able to add the LED of Fukui to teach shinning a light on the document platent. Therefore, Yabuuchi in view of Fukui does teach “control the light emitting device not to emit light, in a case where it is detected that the document is placed on the placement unit.”
It is noted that the 112(f) interpretation and the objection to the title are withdrawn in view of the amendments.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, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabuuchi (US 2017/0244853) in view of Fukui (US2011/0228354).
Regarding Claim 1, Yabuuchi teaches an image processing apparatus (Paragraph 3) comprising:
a placement unit that is provided on an upper surface of a housing and on which a document is placed (Element 203 and paragraph 30, wherein the document is placed on the platen);
an imaging sensor that images the placement unit from above (Element 102 and paragraphs 32 and 33, wherein the document is scanned from above with the imaging reading device); and
a processor (Element 301a, wherein there is a CPU)
Yabuuchi does not teach a light emitting device that causes at least a part of the placement unit to emit light; and
a processor configured to:
control the light emitting device not to emit light, in a case where it is detected that the document is placed on the placement unit.
Fukui does teach a light emitting device that causes at least a part of the placement unit to emit light (Paragraphs 29 and 47, wherein the placement of the document has light from the light emitting unit); and
a processor configured to:
control the light emitting device not to emit light, in a case where it is detected that the document is placed on the placement unit (Paragraphs 37 and 57, wherein once the document is detected the light is turned off).
Yabuuchi and Fukui are combinable because they both deal with detecting presence of a document for scanning.
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 with the teachings of Fukui for the purpose of eliminating any effects from the document detection light (Fukui: Paragraph 29).
Regarding Claim 2, Fukui further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
control the light emitting device to emit light, in a case where it is not detected that the document is placed on the placement unit (Paragraph 58, wherein the detecting sensor is controlled).
Yabuuchi and Fukui are combinable because they both deal with detecting presence of a document for scanning.
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 with the teachings of Fukui for the purpose of eliminating any effects from the document detection light (Fukui: Paragraph 29).
Regarding Claim 10, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabuuchi (US 2017/0244853) in view of Fukui (US2011/0228354) further in view of official notice.
Regarding Claim 3, Yabuuchi in view of Fukui does not teach wherein light emission by the light emitting device is light emission by blinking.
Official notice is taken that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a light blink. A blinking light is a way of informing a user more easily of some operation or status of a device. In this case, it would be reasonable to establish a blinking light to not only detect a document but also guide a user to place a document.
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 Fukui with a blinking light to more easily inform the user of the light for placement of the document.
Regarding Claim 5, Yabuuchi in view of Fukui does not teach wherein the processor is configured to:
control the light emitting device not to emit light, in a case where a selection screen for selecting a function to be used in the image processing apparatus is displayed on a display unit.
Official notice is taken that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control detections light when a screen is in operation. If the user is present on the device and operating a screen, the user is not ready for a document to be detected. Therefore, it would not make sense to have a document detection light being on when there is no need to detect a document. This is similar in vain to not turning on a scanning unit when the user isn’t ready to scan.
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 Fukui with turning off the document detector when the user is operating a screen for the purpose of conserving energy for the device.
Regarding Claim 8, Yabuuchi in view of Fukui does not teach wherein the processor is configured to:
control the light emitting device not to emit light, until an authentication process of the user is completed, in a case where the image processing apparatus performs the authentication process.
Official notice is taken that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to not enable the light when the device is not ready to receiving a document. This would be in a case where the user has to log-in to the device in order to use the device. If the device cannot be used, then the light should not be on.
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 Fukui with only turning on the document detector when the device is ready to be used to allow for conservation of energy for the device.
Regarding Claim 9, Yabuuchi in view of Fukui does not teach wherein the processor is configured to:
control the light emitting device to emit light, in a case where the authentication process is completed, it is detected that the document is placed on the placement unit, and it is set to image the document without receiving an instruction from the user.
Official notice is taken that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to not enable the light when the device is not ready to receiving a document. This would be in a case where the user has to log-in to the device in order to use the device. If the device cannot be used, then the light should not be on. Once the user is logged in, then the light would be needed and should be turned on.
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 Fukui with only turning on the document detector when the device is ready to be used to allow for conservation of energy for the device.
Claim(s) 4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabuuchi (US 2017/0244853) in view of Fukui (US2011/0228354) further in view of Miki (US 2021/0127026).
Regarding Claim 4, Yabuuchi in view of Fukui does not teach wherein the processor is configured to:
control the light emitting device not to emit light, in a case where the image processing apparatus is not operated for a set time or longer.
Miki does teach wherein the processor is configured to:
control the light emitting device not to emit light, in a case where the image processing apparatus is not operated for a set time or longer (Paragraph 110, wherein a light can be turned off when the device is in power-save mode).
Fukui contains a “base” process of detecting a document with a separate light which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” in that the light can turn off during a power save mode.
Miki contains a known technique of turning off detector lights in a power save mode that is applicable to the “base” process.
Miki’s known technique of turning of the light in power save mode would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the “base” process of Fukui and the results would have been predictable and resulted in the document detection light being turned off in a power save mode which results in an improved process.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application.
Regarding Claim 6, Yabuuchi in view of Fukui does not teach wherein the processor is configured to:
control the light emitting device not to emit light, in a case where an operating state of the image processing apparatus is a power saving state.
Miki does teach wherein the processor is configured to:
control the light emitting device not to emit light, in a case where an operating state of the image processing apparatus is a power saving state (Paragraph 110, wherein a light can be turned off when the device is in power-save mode).
Fukui contains a “base” process of detecting a document with a separate light which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” in that the light can turn off during a power save mode.
Miki contains a known technique of turning off detector lights in a power save mode that is applicable to the “base” process.
Miki’s known technique of turning of the light in power save mode would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the “base” process of Fukui and the results would have been predictable and resulted in the document detection light being turned off in a power save mode which results in an improved process.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application.
Regarding Claim 7, Yabuuchi in view of Fukui does not teach wherein the processor is configured to:
control the light emitting device to emit light, in a case where the operating state of the image processing apparatus returns to a normal operating state from the power saving state, it is detected that the document is placed on the placement unit, and it is set to image the document without receiving an instruction from a user.
Miki does teach wherein the processor is configured to:
control the light emitting device to emit light, in a case where the operating state of the image processing apparatus returns to a normal operating state from the power saving state, it is detected that the document is placed on the placement unit, and it is set to image the document without receiving an instruction from a user (Paragraph 110, wherein a light can be turned off when the device is in power-save mode. This means that when the device is in normal mode and ready, the light would be on).
Fukui contains a “base” process of detecting a document with a separate light which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” in that the light can turn off during a power save mode.
Miki contains a known technique of turning off detector lights in a power save mode that is applicable to the “base” process.
Miki’s known technique of turning of the light in power save mode would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the “base” process of Fukui and the results would have been predictable and resulted in the document detection light being turned off in a power save mode which results in an improved process.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application.
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 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