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. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on February 10, 2023 . It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Japanese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/03/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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 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)(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. Claim s 1, 2, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kurt T. Knodt et al (US 5513017) . Regarding claim 1, Knodt et al discloses an image processing apparatus ( Col. 9 lines 60-64 ) comprising: a processor ( Col. 8 lines 57-61 ) configured to, in a case of controlling an image capturer to image a document placed in a placement area without an instruction from a user in response to detection of placement of the document in the placement area ( Col. 7 line 62 through Col. 8 line 15 ; automatic detection and pre-scanning of document when placed on platen ) , avoid imaging of the document placed in the placement area if the document placed in the placement area is identical to a document imaged last time (Col. 21 lines 5-24 abort process when determination of duplicate image capture ) . Regarding claim 2 , Knodt et al discloses t he image processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1) , wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the document placed in the placement area is identical to the document imaged last time by using an amount of change in a position of the document in an image captured by the image capturer (Col. 18 lines 44- 64, Col. 20 line 50-59 and Col. 21 lines 9-15; sensing of document left on platen from document position detection prompts user to remove document) . Regarding claim 9, Knodt et al discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process (Col. 8 lines 57-59) comprising: avoiding, in a case of controlling an image capturer to image a document placed in a placement area without an instruction from a user in response to detection of placement of the document in the placement area, imaging of the document placed in the placement area if the document placed in the placement area is identical to a document imaged last time (see rejection of claim 1). Regarding claim 10, Knodt et al discloses an image processing method (see rejection of claim 1) comprising: avoiding, in a case of controlling an image capturer to image a document placed in a placement area without an instruction from a user in response to detection of placement of the document in the placement area, imaging of the document placed in the placement area if the document placed in the placement area is identical to a document imaged last time (see rejection of claim 1). 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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurt T. Knodt et al (US 5513017) in view of Thomas Beikirch et al (EP 0711062 A1). Regarding claim 3 , Knodt et al discloses t he image processing apparatus according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2). Knodt fails to explicitly disclose determin ing whether the document placed in the placement area is identical to the document imaged last time by using an amount of change in contents of the document in the image captured by the image capturer. Beikirch et al, in the same field of endeavor of preventing duplicate page copies in an image forming environment (Abstract), teaches determining whether the document placed in the placement area is identical to the document imaged last time by using an amount of change in contents of the document in the image captured by the image capturer (Col 9 lines 3-6 and lines 14-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the image processing apparatus as disclosed by Knodt et al comprising avoiding imaging of a document placed in the placement area if the document placed in the placement area is identical to a document imaged last time to utilize the teachings of Beikirch et al which teaches determining whether the document placed in the placement area is identical to the document imaged last time by using an amount of change in contents of the document in the image captured by the image capturer to provide an efficient detection method of sheets that have already been imaged and simplify job recovery by eliminating wasteful processing. Regarding claim 4 , Knodt et al discloses t he image processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1) , wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the document placed in the placement area is identical to the document imaged last time by using an amount of change in contents of the document in an image captured by the image capturer (see rejection of claim 3) . Claim s 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurt T. Knodt et al (US 5513017) in view of Andrew Rodney Ferlitsch (US 20100157344 A1). Regarding claim 5 , Knodt et al discloses t he image processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1) . Knodt et al fails to explicitly wherein the processor is configured to give a notification that the imaging of the document placed in the placement area is suspended if the document placed in the placement area is identical to the document imaged last time. Ferlitsch, in the same field of endeavor of minimizing re-imaging of document data (Abstract), teaches giving a notification that the imaging of the document placed in the placement area is suspended if the document placed in the placement area is identical to the document imaged last time (¶ [112-113] wherein the prompt signifies the suspension of the imaging until user input). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the image processing apparatus as disclosed by Knodt et al comprising avoiding imaging of a document placed in the placement area if the document placed in the placement area is identical to a document imaged last time to utilize the teachings of Ferlitsch which teaches giving a notification that the imaging of the document placed in the placement area is suspended if the document placed in the placement area is identical to the document imaged last time to minimize unnecessary operation of the imaging device. Regarding claim 6 , Knodt et al disclose t he image processing apparatus according to claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5) , wherein the processor is configured to cause a display to display information indicating that the imaging of the document placed in the placement area is suspended together with an operator to be used for inputting information indicating whether to continue the imaging (see rejection of claim 5 wherein the user input indicates whether previously scanned image data is to be used or rescanning or data). Regarding claim 7 , Knodt et al discloses t he image processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1) , wherein the processor is configured to cause a display to display an image other than an image captured by the image capturer and showing a current state if the document placed in the placement area is identical to the document imaged last time (see rejection of claim 5 wherein the prompt is displayed inquiring about the reuse of previously scanned image data because the previous document has not been removed from platen , which reads on “current state” information) . Regarding claim 8 , Knodt et al discloses t he image processing apparatus according to claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7) , wherein the image other than the image captured by the image capturer and showing the current state is a selection screen for prompting the user to select a function to be used or a function screen for use of an imaging function of the image capturer (see rejection of claim 5 user interface prompt for input to continue imaging) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JAMARES Q WASHINGTON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-1585 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 8:30am-4:30pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3438 . 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. /JAMARES Q WASHINGTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681 March 26, 2026