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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/23/2023, 2/20/2024 and 7/18/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted 3/23/2023 are accepted.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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:
Imaging portion in claims 1, 14 and 15 (camera, p0061);
Notification portion in claim 9 (display, p0054); and
Image forming portion in claim 16 (electrographic type utilizing toner or ink jet type utilizing ink, p0050-0051).
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first postponement time." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner notes that “predetermined first postponement time” has been instantiated in line 6.
Dependent claims 2-13 are rejected for failing to remedy the condition of claim 1. Claims 14-16 are rejected likewise to claim 1 above for same antecedent condition.
Claim 1 recites “an image” in lines 5 and 10. It is indefinite as to the intended interpretation. Is the second instantiation of “an image” intended to represent that of the first instantiation or is the second instantiation representative of a different image?
Dependent claims 2-9 are rejected for failing to remedy the condition of claim 1. Claims 14-16 are likewise rejected likewise of claim 1 above.
Claim 1 recites “a document” in lines 3, 5 and 9. Claim 1 also recites multiple instances of “the document.” It is indefinite whether the repeated instantiations are referring to a same document, two documents or three documents. The various referrals to the instantiated documents, is indefinite because there is no clear determination to which “document” the “the document” is intended to be directed towards.
Dependent claims 2-13 are rejected for failing to remedy the indefinite condition of claim 1 from which they depend.
Claims 14-16 are rejected according to claim 1 above for same indefinite condition.
Claims 2, 5, 10, 12 and 13 recites “a document.” Claims 2, 5, 10, 12 and 13 also recites “the document.” It is indefinite if the claimed document is now a fourth document or referring to at least one of the three instantiated in claim 1. The use of “the document” is indefinite because there is no clear determination to which “document” the “the document” is intended to be directed towards.
Claims 3, 4, 6 and 7 are rejected for failing to remedy the indefinite condition of dependent claims 2 and 5 from which they depend.
Claims 3, 4, 6 and 7 recite “the document.” This limitation is indefinite because there is no clear determination to which “document” the “the document” is referring to, e.g., is “the document” referring to the instantiated “document” of the immediately preceding claim or one of the three instantiations of claim 1.
Claims 2 and 5 recites the limitation "the disposed document." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The terms “possible state / impossible state” in claims 1-7 and 14-16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “possible state / impossible state” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. How is it impossible for presumably the additional document to be placed in the imaging area? Since it appears the documents are manually positioned in the imaging area, what prevents someone from stacking documents or only partially exposing one? Wouldn’t this be considered possible? What happens if someone doesn’t want the full content of the additional document imaged but want it alongside the first document in the capture? Would this be a considered impossible state though it was clearly possible when the desired documents were presented on the imaging surface? What is the restriction that makes one size immediately acceptable and another one not? What constitute a possible sized document or an impossible sized document? If an impossible state is when two same sized documents can’t be placed in the imaging area, then is it impossible to image documents where their short side combined length is less than the length of the imaging area or ever less than half of the imaging area? How is anyone to know what is possible or not possible (impossible)?
Claim 2 recites “… the impossible state …where a document that has a gap with the document (presumed by the Examiner as a second document) … not present in the imaging area.” This limitation is indefinite as presented because of ambiguity in intended interpretation. How is the user who is disposing at least one document onto the imaging area going to know that it would have a gap with a same sized document that is not even present? How would this imaginary gap be assessed? What is indicative of such gap? What are the metes and bounds of this gap? How is this condition an “impossible state” when the document is present in the imaging area within whatever boundaries? Is this limitation intending to be interpreted that two documents must be present for imaging to occur?
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 2 and failing to remedy the ambiguity of claim 5.
Claim 5 recites “… the possible state …where a document that has a gap with the document (presumed by the Examiner as a second document) … present in the imaging area.” This limitation is indefinite as presented because of ambiguity in intended interpretation. How is the user who is disposing at least two document onto the imaging area going to know that it would have a gap with a same sized document? How would this gap be assessed? What is indicative of such gap? What are the metes and bounds of this gap?
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 5 and failing to remedy the ambiguity of claim 5.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first postponement time." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner notes that “predetermined first postponement time” has been instantiated in claim 1 from which claim 8 depends.
Claims 10-13 recite “an image.” It is indefinite as to the intended interpretation. Is the plurality of instantiations of “an image” intended to represent that of the first instantiation or the second instantiation of claim 1 from which they ultimately depend or are each representative of a cascade of different images?
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arai (EP 2858340 published 20 Nov., 2019 as provided by the applicant).
Claim 1: Arai discloses a control device [Figure 1A-1C for capturing an image with output from a printing apparatus, p0014-0016] comprising:
a processor [111 of Figure 1B] configured to: perform, in a case where a document is disposed in an imaging area of an imaging portion and in a case where a state is in a possible state in which an additional disposition of a document to the imaging area is possible, a first control of capturing an image of the document, on the imaging portion after elapse of predetermined first postponement time [when an object, with a small area with respect to the reading plate 102, is placed to the side to leave a vacant portion on the reading plate 102, it is regarded that another object is likely to be further disposed. In the state 203, three more objects of the same size can be further disposed, and thus the completion level is 25. In the state 204, one more object of the same size can be further disposed, and thus the completion level is 75, p0026 – NOTE: this is a contingent limitation. When this “case” does not happen, then the remainder of the contingency does not happen either. The limitation is only cited for the convenience of the applicant as the cited reference includes sufficient structure to perform the function should the “case” occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II)]; and
perform, in a case where the document is disposed in the imaging area and in a case where the state is in an impossible state in which the additional disposition of a document to the imaging area is not possible, a second control of capturing an image of the document, on the imaging portion after elapse of second postponement time shorter than the first postponement time [In the state 204, one more object of the same size can be further disposed, and thus the completion level is 75. In the present exemplary embodiment, a shorter waiting time is set for a higher completion level. Thus, a shorter waiting time is set for the state 204 than for the state 203, p0026 – NOTE: this is a contingent limitation. When this “case” does not happen, then the remainder of the contingency does not happen either. The limitation is only cited for the convenience of the applicant as the cited reference includes sufficient structure to perform the function should the “case” occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II)].
Claim 2: Arai discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein the impossible state is a state in which in a case where the document is disposed in the imaging area, an area, where a document that has a gap with the document and that has the same size as the disposed document is capable of being disposed, is not present in the imaging area [In the state 202, an A4 document with a text being written is placed in the center of the reading plate 102. In this case, the vacancy rate on the object is low, the object is in the center of the reading plate 102, and another object of the same size cannot be further disposed. Thus, in the present exemplary embodiment, it is regarded that this single document is likely to be the reading target, whereby the completion level is set to 100, p0025 – NOTE: this is a contingent limitation dependent on a preceding contingent limitation. When the preceding “case” does not happen, then the remainder of the contingency does not happen either. The limitation is only cited for the convenience of the applicant as the cited reference includes sufficient structure to perform the function should the “case” occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II)].
Claim 3: Arai discloses the control device according to claim 2, wherein the impossible state is a state in which in a case where the document that is disposed in the imaging area and the imaging area each have a rectangular shape, and a length of a short side of the document is denoted by A and a length of a long side of the imaging area is denoted by X, A≥X/2 is satisfied [In the state 202, an A4 document with a text being written is placed in the center of the reading plate 102. In this case, the vacancy rate on the object is low, the object is in the center of the reading plate 102, and another object of the same size cannot be further disposed [interpreted to meet the claimed threshold because a same size can’t be added to the plate]. Thus, in the present exemplary embodiment, it is regarded that this single document is likely to be the reading target, whereby the completion level is set to 100, p0025 – NOTE: this is a contingent limitation dependent on a preceding contingent limitation. When the preceding “case” does not happen, then the remainder of the contingency does not happen either. The limitation is only cited for the convenience of the applicant as the cited reference includes sufficient structure to perform the function should the “case” occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II)].
Claim 4: Arai discloses the control device according to claim 2, wherein the impossible state is a state in which in a case where the document that is disposed in the imaging area and the imaging area each have a rectangular shape, and a length of a short side of the document is denoted by A and a length of a long side of the imaging area is denoted by X, X2>A≥X/3 is satisfied, and a center of gravity of the document that is disposed in the imaging area is positioned within a predetermined center area of the imaging area [In the state 202, an A4 document with a text being written is placed in the center of the reading plate 102. In this case, the vacancy rate on the object is low, the object is in the center of the reading plate 102, and another object of the same size cannot be further disposed [interpreted to meet the claimed threshold because a same size can’t be added to the plate especially when the document is centered in the imaging area]. Thus, in the present exemplary embodiment, it is regarded that this single document is likely to be the reading target, whereby the completion level is set to 100, p0025 – NOTE: this is a contingent limitation dependent on a preceding contingent limitation. When the preceding “case” does not happen, then the remainder of the contingency does not happen either. The limitation is only cited for the convenience of the applicant as the cited reference includes sufficient structure to perform the function should the “case” occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II)].
Claim 5: Arai discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein the possible state is a state in which in a case where the document is disposed in the imaging area, an area, where a document that has a gap with the document and that has the same size as the disposed document is capable of being disposed, is present in the imaging area [In the state 203, a 2L size photograph is disposed in an upper left corner of the reading plate 102. In the state 204, 2L size photographs are respectively disposed in three portions (three of four corners) of the reading plate 102. In the present exemplary embodiment, when an object, with a small area with respect to the reading plate 102, is placed to the side to leave a vacant portion on the reading plate 102, it is regarded that another object is likely to be further disposed. In the state 203, three more objects of the same size can be further disposed, and thus the completion level is 25, p0026 – NOTE: this is a contingent limitation dependent on a preceding contingent limitation. When the preceding “case” does not happen, then the remainder of the contingency does not happen either. The limitation is only cited for the convenience of the applicant as the cited reference includes sufficient structure to perform the function should the “case” occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II)].
Claim 6: Arai discloses the control device according to claim 5, wherein the possible state is a state in which in a case where the document that is disposed in the imaging area and the imaging area each have a rectangular shape, and a length of a short side of the document is denoted by A and a length of a long side of the imaging area is denoted by X, X/3>A is satisfied [in the state 202 in Fig. 2, the A4 size copy sheet, occupying half the area of the reading plate 102 of A3 size, is placed in the center of the reading plate 102. Thus, the reading plate 102 has no area left for placing another object of the same A4 size. Therefore, the occupancy rate is 100. For example, in the state 203 illustrated in Fig. 2, the 2L size photograph is placed in the corner of the reading plate 102. In this case, the reading plate 102 has an area left for three more objects of the same 2L size. Thus, the occupancy rate is one fourth, that is, 25 [indicative that the center of gravity of the document is outside the center area of the imaging area ]. In the present exemplary embodiment, as described above, even when the total area of the vacant portion on the reading plate 102 is large, it is regarded that there is no vacant portion if the object cannot actually be disposed or when small vacant portions are dispersedly arranged, p0037 – NOTE: this is a contingent limitation dependent on a preceding contingent limitation. When the preceding “case” does not happen, then the remainder of the contingency does not happen either. The limitation is only cited for the convenience of the applicant as the cited reference includes sufficient structure to perform the function should the “case” occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II)].
Claim 7: Arai discloses the control device according to claim 5, wherein the possible state is a state in which in a case where the document that is disposed in the imaging area and the imaging area each have a rectangular shape, and a length of a short side of the document is denoted by A and a length of a long side of the imaging area is denoted by X, X2>A≥X/3 is satisfied, and a center of gravity of the document that is disposed in the imaging area is positioned outside a predetermined center area of the imaging area [in the state 202 in Fig. 2, the A4 size copy sheet, occupying half the area of the reading plate 102 of A3 size, is placed in the center of the reading plate 102. Thus, the reading plate 102 has no area left for placing another object of the same A4 size. Therefore, the occupancy rate is 100. For example, in the state 203 illustrated in Fig. 2, the 2L size photograph is placed in the corner of the reading plate 102. In this case, the reading plate 102 has an area left for three more objects of the same 2L size. Thus, the occupancy rate is one fourth, that is, 25 [indicative that the center of gravity of the document is outside the center area of the imaging area, e.g., as shown in 203 & 204]. In the present exemplary embodiment, as described above, even when the total area of the vacant portion on the reading plate 102 is large, it is regarded that there is no vacant portion if the object cannot actually be disposed or when small vacant portions are dispersedly arranged, p0037 – NOTE: this is a contingent limitation dependent on a preceding contingent limitation. When the preceding “case” does not happen, then the remainder of the contingency does not happen either. The limitation is only cited for the convenience of the applicant as the cited reference includes sufficient structure to perform the function should the “case” occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II)].
Claim 8: Arai discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein the first postponement time consists of third postponement time and final postponement time, which is measured after elapse of the third postponement time, and the second postponement time consists of fourth postponement time, which is shorter than the third postponement time, and the final postponement time, which is measured after elapse of the fourth postponement time, or consists only of the final postponement time [wait times adjusted according to object adjustments as shown in at least Figures 6 & 7, e.g., The waiting time before the reading is executed is set to be shorter as the determined completion level increases. In the present exemplary embodiment, for example, the setting unit 124 sets the waiting time as follows. Specifically, the waiting time is set to 10 seconds when the completion level is 0, set to 9 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 1 to 10, set to 8 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 11 to 20, set to 7 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 21 to 30, set to 7 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 31 to 40, set to 6 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 41 to 50, set to 5 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 51 to 60, set to 4 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 61 to 70, set to 3 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 71 to 80, set to 2 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 81 to 90, and set to 1 second when the completion level is 91 or larger, p0053-0059 – NOTE: When the preceding contingent “case” does not happen such as those in claim 1, then the remainder of the contingency limitations do not happen either. The limitation is only cited for the convenience of the applicant as the cited reference includes sufficient structure to perform the function should the “case” occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II)].
Claim 9: Arai discloses the control device according to claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to: perform a control of providing a notification of a measurement status of the final postponement time, on a notification portion – NOTE: When the preceding contingent “case” does not happen such as those in claim 1, then the remainder of the contingency limitations do not happen either. The limitation is only cited for the convenience of the applicant as the cited reference includes sufficient structure to perform the function should the “case” occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II).
Claim 10: Arai discloses the control device according to claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to: remeasure the fourth postponement time in a case where a movement of the document disposed in the imaging area or the additional disposition of a document to the imaging area is performed before the elapse of the fourth postponement time; and capture an image of the document after elapse of the fourth postponement time and the final postponement time, in the second control [the reading control unit 122 determines that there is a movement on the reading plate 102. Thus, the processing returns to step S300, to be repeated on a newly acquired input image. When the reading control unit 122 determines that the space on the reading plate 102 is in the motionless state (YES in step S301), the reading control unit 122 stores information indicating time, and the processing proceeds to step S302 … wait times adjusted according to object adjustments as shown in at least Figures 6 & 7, e.g., The waiting time before the reading is executed is set to be shorter as the determined completion level increases. In the present exemplary embodiment, for example, the setting unit 124 sets the waiting time as follows. Specifically, the waiting time is set to 10 seconds when the completion level is 0, set to 9 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 1 to 10, set to 8 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 11 to 20, set to 7 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 21 to 30, set to 7 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 31 to 40, set to 6 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 41 to 50, set to 5 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 51 to 60, set to 4 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 61 to 70, set to 3 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 71 to 80, set to 2 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 81 to 90, and set to 1 second when the completion level is 91 or larger, p0029-0033 & p0053-0059 – NOTE: When the preceding contingent “case” does not happen such as those in claim 1, then the remainder of the contingency limitations do not happen either. The limitation is only cited for the convenience of the applicant as the cited reference includes sufficient structure to perform the function should the “case” occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II)].
Claim 11: Arai discloses the control device according to claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to: remeasure the fourth postponement time and the final postponement time in a case where a movement of the document disposed in the imaging area or the additional disposition of a document to the imaging area is performed after the elapse of the fourth postponement time and before elapse of the final postponement time; and capture an image of the document after elapse of the fourth postponement time and the final postponement time, in the second control [the reading control unit 122 determines that there is a movement on the reading plate 102. Thus, the processing returns to step S300, to be repeated on a newly acquired input image. When the reading control unit 122 determines that the space on the reading plate 102 is in the motionless state (YES in step S301), the reading control unit 122 stores information indicating time, and the processing proceeds to step S302 … wait times adjusted according to object adjustments as shown in at least Figures 6 & 7, e.g., The waiting time before the reading is executed is set to be shorter as the determined completion level increases. In the present exemplary embodiment, for example, the setting unit 124 sets the waiting time as follows. Specifically, the waiting time is set to 10 seconds when the completion level is 0, set to 9 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 1 to 10, set to 8 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 11 to 20, set to 7 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 21 to 30, set to 7 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 31 to 40, set to 6 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 41 to 50, set to 5 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 51 to 60, set to 4 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 61 to 70, set to 3 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 71 to 80, set to 2 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 81 to 90, and set to 1 second when the completion level is 91 or larger, p0029-0033 & p0053-0059 – NOTE: When the preceding contingent “case” does not happen such as those in claim 1, then the remainder of the contingency limitations do not happen either. The limitation is only cited for the convenience of the applicant as the cited reference includes sufficient structure to perform the function should the “case” occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II)].
Claim 12: Arai discloses the control device according to claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to: remeasure the third postponement time in a case where a movement of the document disposed in the imaging area or the additional disposition of a document to the imaging area is performed before the elapse of the third postponement time; and capture an image of the document after elapse of the third postponement time and the final postponement time, in the first control [the reading control unit 122 determines that there is a movement on the reading plate 102. Thus, the processing returns to step S300, to be repeated on a newly acquired input image. When the reading control unit 122 determines that the space on the reading plate 102 is in the motionless state (YES in step S301), the reading control unit 122 stores information indicating time, and the processing proceeds to step S302 … wait times adjusted according to object adjustments as shown in at least Figures 6 & 7, e.g., The waiting time before the reading is executed is set to be shorter as the determined completion level increases. In the present exemplary embodiment, for example, the setting unit 124 sets the waiting time as follows. Specifically, the waiting time is set to 10 seconds when the completion level is 0, set to 9 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 1 to 10, set to 8 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 11 to 20, set to 7 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 21 to 30, set to 7 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 31 to 40, set to 6 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 41 to 50, set to 5 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 51 to 60, set to 4 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 61 to 70, set to 3 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 71 to 80, set to 2 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 81 to 90, and set to 1 second when the completion level is 91 or larger, p0029-0033 & p0053-0059 – NOTE: When the preceding contingent “case” does not happen such as those in claim 1, then the remainder of the contingency limitations do not happen either. The limitation is only cited for the convenience of the applicant as the cited reference includes sufficient structure to perform the function should the “case” occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II)].
Claim 13: Arai discloses the control device according to claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to: measure the third postponement time and the final postponement time in a case where a movement of the document disposed in the imaging area or the additional disposition of a document to the imaging area is performed after the elapse of the third postponement time and before elapse of the final postponement time; and capture an image of the document after elapse of the third postponement time and the final postponement time, in the first control [the reading control unit 122 determines that there is a movement on the reading plate 102. Thus, the processing returns to step S300, to be repeated on a newly acquired input image. When the reading control unit 122 determines that the space on the reading plate 102 is in the motionless state (YES in step S301), the reading control unit 122 stores information indicating time, and the processing proceeds to step S302 … wait times adjusted according to object adjustments as shown in at least Figures 6 & 7, e.g., The waiting time before the reading is executed is set to be shorter as the determined completion level increases. In the present exemplary embodiment, for example, the setting unit 124 sets the waiting time as follows. Specifically, the waiting time is set to 10 seconds when the completion level is 0, set to 9 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 1 to 10, set to 8 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 11 to 20, set to 7 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 21 to 30, set to 7 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 31 to 40, set to 6 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 41 to 50, set to 5 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 51 to 60, set to 4 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 61 to 70, set to 3 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 71 to 80, set to 2 seconds when the completion level is in a range of 81 to 90, and set to 1 second when the completion level is 91 or larger, p0029-0033 & p0053-0059 – NOTE: When the preceding contingent “case” does not happen such as those in claim 1, then the remainder of the contingency limitations do not happen either. The limitation is only cited for the convenience of the applicant as the cited reference includes sufficient structure to perform the function should the “case” occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II)].
Claims 14-16: the program, device and apparatus herein have been executed or performed by the device of claim 1 and are therefore, likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kizaki, US Patent 7146411, discloses where it is well-known to inform a user of detailed progress of an image scanning operation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA D REINIER whose telephone number is (571)270-5082. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu 10am - 6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Benny Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/BARBARA D REINIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682