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) 1-10 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It is noted that the objection to the drawings and title is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “operation receiver” in claims 1, 6, and 9.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
operation receiver – paragraph 26
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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 § 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, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakai (US 2024/0114098).
Regarding Claim 1, Sakai teaches an image processing apparatus (Paragraph 20), comprising:
an operation receiver configured to receive a predetermined operation (Element 60 and paragraphs 28 and 34, wherein there is an operation screen);
a first communication interface connectable with an external device (Paragraph 59, wherein an external memory can be used);
a second communication interface connectable with a communication device (Paragraph 66, wherein an external terminal can be connected); and
a controller (Paragraph 26, wherein there is a control device) configured to:
in response to the operation receiver receiving the predetermined operation when the first communication interface is not connected with the external device, perform a first imaging process (Paragraphs 65-67, wherein it is determined if the USB and external device are connected. If they are not connected then only button one is shown and therefore processing occurs according to button one);
in response to connection of the first communication interface with the external device when the second communication interface is connected with the second communication device, assign a function to perform a second imaging process to the operation receiver in place of the function to perform the first imaging process, the second imaging process being different from the first imaging process (Paragraphs 65-67, wherein it is determined if the USB and external device are connected. If they USB device is connected than the elements of 61 are replaced with new version as shown between the differences between figs. 2-4); and
in response to the operation receiver receiving the predetermined operation when the first communication interface is connected with the external device, perform a second imaging process using the external device (Paragraphs 65-67, wherein as long as the USB memory is present, the second button is already present and determined if it is pressed to perform the functions. It is noted that the imaging process is performed in response to the predetermined operation. The predetermined operation would be the interaction with the corresponding button).
Regarding Claim 5, Sakai further teaches an original material stand, on which an original material is to be placed (Paragraph 21, wherein there is an ADF, which has to have a document stand);
a detecting sensor configured to detect the original material placed on the original material stand (Paragraph 21, wherein there is a sensor to detect if a document is placed); and
an image-reading sensor configured to read an image of the original material detected by the detecting sensor (Paragraphs 21-23, wherein the document is read by a reading unit from the ADF.),
wherein the controller is configured to, in response to the detecting sensor detecting the original material and when the first communication interface connected with the external device, perform the second imaging process including a storing process in which the controller stores image data composing the image of the original material having been read by the image-reading sensor in the external device. (Paragraph 58, wherein when the external memory is attached and the document is detected, the scanned document data can be stored in the USB memory).
Regarding Claim 6, Saki teaches an image processing apparatus (Paragraph 20), comprising:
an operation receiver configured to receive a predetermined operation (Element 60 and paragraphs 28 and 34, wherein there is an operation screen);
a first communication interface connectable with an external device (Paragraph 59, wherein an external memory can be used);
a second communication interface connectable with a communication device (Paragraph 66, wherein an external terminal can be connected),
and a controller (Paragraph 26, wherein there is a control device) is configured to:
in response to the operation receiver receiving the predetermined operation when the first communication interface is not connected with the external device, perform a first imaging process using the communication device (Paragraphs 65-67, wherein it is determined if the USB and external device are connected. If they are not connected then it can still be determined if the communication device is connected and display the button accordingly);
in response to connection of the first communication interface with the external device when the second communication interface is not connected with the communication device, assign a function to perform a second imaging process to the operation receiver in place of the function to perform the first imaging process, the second imaging process being different from the first imaging process (Paragraphs 65-67, wherein it is determined if the USB and external device are connected. If they USB device is connected than the elements of 61 are replaced with new version as shown between the differences between figs. 2-4); and
in response to connection of the first communication interface with the external device when the second communication interface is connected with the communication device, not assign the function to perform the second imaging process to the operation receiver (Paragraphs 65-67, wherein it is determined if the USB and external device are connected. If they USB device is connected than the elements of 61 are replaced with new version as shown between the differences between figs. 2-4); and
in response to the operation receiver receiving the predetermined operation when the first communication interface is connected with the external device when the second communication interface is not connected with the communication device, perform the second imaging process using the external device (Paragraphs 65-67, wherein as long as the USB memory is present, the second button is already present and determined if it is pressed to perform the functions. It is noted that the imaging process is performed in response to the predetermined operation. The predetermined operation would be the interaction with the corresponding button).
Regarding Claim 10, Sakai further teaches wherein, when the first communication interface is not connected with the external device, the function to perform the first imaging process is assigned to the operation receiver (Paragraphs 65-67, wherein as long as the USB memory is present, the second button is already present and determined if it is pressed to perform the functions. It is noted that the imaging process is performed in response to the predetermined operation. The predetermined operation would be the interaction with the corresponding button, If the USB is not present than the button is not displayed. The first button would be displayed).
Regarding Claim 12, Sakai further teaches wherein the first imaging process is assigned to the operation receiver in advance as a short-cut (Paragraphs 38-45, wherein the buttons act like short-cuts).
Regarding Claim 13, Sakai further teaches an indicator configured to indicate a current function assigned to the operation receiver (Paragraph 58, wherein the buttons are present which indicate which operations are to be performed, indications).
Regarding Claim 17, Sakai further teaches an indicator configured to indicate a current function assigned to the operation receiver (Paragraph 58, wherein the buttons are present which indicate which operations are to be performed, indications).
Regarding Claim 18, Sakai further teaches wherein the first imaging process is assigned to the operation receiver in advance as a short-cut (Paragraphs 38-45, wherein the buttons act like short-cuts).
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, 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 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai (US 2024/0114098) in view of Enomoto (US 2007/0216968).
Regarding Claim 3, Sakai does not teach wherein the controller is configured to, in response to disconnection of the first communication interface from the external device, assign the function to perform the first imaging process to the operation receiver in place of the function to perform the second imaging process.
Enomoto does teach wherein the controller is configured to, in response to disconnection of the first communication interface from the external device, assign the function to perform the first imaging process to the operation receiver in place of the function to perform the second imaging process (Paragraph 102, wherein when the removable storage is disconnected, the default mode is enabled.).
Sakai and Enomoto are combinable because they both deal with communicating with an external memory and an MFP.
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 Sakai with the teachings of Enomoto for the purpose of increasing usability of the multifunction device (Enomoto: Paragraph 5).
Regarding Claim 14, Sakai does not clearly teach wherein the controller is configured to, in response to disconnection of the first communication interface from the external device, assign the function to perform the first imaging process to the operation receiver in place of the function to perform the second imaging process.
Enomoto does teach wherein the controller is configured to, in response to disconnection of the first communication interface from the external device, assign the function to perform the first imaging process to the operation receiver in place of the function to perform the second imaging process (Paragraph 102, wherein when the removable storage is disconnected, the default mode is enabled.).
Sakai and Enomoto are combinable because they both deal with communicating with an external memory and an MFP.
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 Sakai with the teachings of Enomoto for the purpose of increasing usability of the multifunction device (Enomoto: Paragraph 5).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai (US 2024/0114098) in view of Takamiya (US 2015/0156363).
Regarding Claim 7, Sakai further teaches a printer configured to print an image on a sheet (Paragraph 24, wherein there is a printer unit).
Sakai does not teach wherein the second imaging process includes a printing process in which the controller causes the printer to print an image based on image data obtained from the external device.
Takamiya does teach wherein the second imaging process includes a printing process in which the controller causes the printer to print an image based on image data obtained from the external device (Paragraph 47, wherein the external memory can be used to print).
Sakai and Takamiya are combinable because they both deal with interfacing with a MFP and USB memory.
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 Sakai with the teachings of Takamiya for the purpose of increasing convivence for the user when using external memory (Takamiya: Paragraph 9).
Regarding Claim 8, Sakai does not teach wherein the controller is configured to, in response to one of an event that the image processing apparatus is powered on and an event that the image processing apparatus wakes up from a sleep state when the first communication interface is connected with the external device and when the second communication interface is connected with the communication device, assign the function to perform the second imaging process to the operation receiver in place of the function to perform the first imaging process.
Takamiya further teaches wherein the controller is configured to, in response to one of an event that the image processing apparatus is powered on and an event that the image processing apparatus wakes up from a sleep state when the first communication interface is connected with the external device (Paragraphs 36 and 47, wherein the external memory can trigger a power control change, which is resume from power-saving), when the second communication interface is connected with the communication device, assign the function to perform the second imaging process to the operation receiver in place of the function to perform the first imaging process (Paragraphs 46 and 47, wherein the USB memory triggers certain functions to be displayed).
Sakai and Takamiya are combinable because they both deal with interfacing with a MFP and USB memory.
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 Sakai with the teachings of Takamiya for the purpose of increasing convivence for the user when using external memory (Takamiya: Paragraph 9).
Regarding Claim 15, Sakai teaches a printer configured to print an image on a sheet (Paragraph 24, wherein there is a printer unit).
Sakai does not teach wherein the second imaging process includes a printing process in which the controller causes the printer to print an image based on image data obtained from the external device.
Takamiya does teach wherein the second imaging process includes a printing process in which the controller causes the printer to print an image based on image data obtained from the external device (Paragraph 47, wherein the external memory can be used to print).
Sakai and Takamiya are combinable because they both deal with interfacing with a MFP and USB memory.
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 Sakai with the teachings of Takamiya for the purpose of increasing convivence for the user when using external memory (Takamiya: Paragraph 9).
Regarding Claim 16, Sakai does not teach wherein in response to one of an event that the image processing apparatus is powered on and an event that the image processing apparatus wakes up from a sleep state, the controller is configured to determine an assignment for the operation receiver.
Takamiya does teach wherein in response to one of an event that the image processing apparatus is powered on and an event that the image processing apparatus wakes up from a sleep state (Paragraphs 36 and 47, wherein the external memory can trigger a power control change, which is resume from power-saving), the controller is configured to determine an assignment for the operation receiver (Paragraphs 46 and 47, wherein the USB memory triggers certain functions to be displayed).
Sakai and Takamiya are combinable because they both deal with interfacing with a MFP and USB memory.
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 Sakai with the teachings of Takamiya for the purpose of increasing convivence for the user when using external memory (Takamiya: Paragraph 9).
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai (US 2024/0114098) in view of Ito (US 2009/0019191).
Regarding Claim 9, Sakai teaches an image processing apparatus (Paragraph 20), comprising:
an operation receiver configured to receive a predetermined operation (Element 60 and paragraphs 28 and 34, wherein there is an operation screen);
a first communication interface connectable with an external device (Paragraph 59, wherein an external memory can be used);
a controller (Paragraph 26, wherein there is a control device) configured to:
in response to the operation receiver receiving the predetermined operation when the first communication interface is not connected with the external device, perform a first imaging process (Paragraphs 65-67, wherein it is determined if the USB and external device are connected. If they are not connected then only button one is shown and therefore processing occurs according to button one);
in response to connection of the first communication interface with the external device, assign a function to perform a second imaging process to the operation receiver, the second imaging process being different from the first imaging process (Paragraphs 65-67, wherein it is determined if the USB and external device are connected. If they USB device is connected than a new button is shown as shown between the differences between figs. 2-4); and
in response to the operation receiver receiving the predetermined operation when the first communication interface is connected with the external device, perform the second imaging process using the external device (Paragraphs 65-67, wherein as long as the USB memory is present, the second button is already present and determined if it is pressed to perform the functions. It is noted that the imaging process is performed in response to the predetermined operation. The predetermined operation would be the interaction with the corresponding button).
Sakai does not teach an indicator provided separately from the operation receiver, the indicator configured to indicate a predetermined notification;
control the indicator to indicate the function currently assigned to the operation receiver.
Ito does teach an indicator provided separately from the operation receiver, the indicator configured to indicate a predetermined notification (CLD1-CLD3 and paragraph 186, wherein if the USB is loaded, connected, then the lights are enabled);
control the indicator to indicate the function currently assigned to the operation receiver (CLD1-CLD3 and paragraph 186, wherein if the USB is loaded, connected, then the lights are enabled).
Sakai and Ito are combinable because they both deal with controlling connection of USB storage with an MFP.
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 Sakai with the teachings of Ito for the purpose of easily identifying proper connection of the preferred USB for the user (Ito: Paragraph 196).
Regarding Claim 19, Ito further teaches wherein the indicator is a light emitting diode (CLD1-CLD3 and paragraph 186, wherein if the USB is loaded, connected, then the lights are enabled, which are LEDs).
Sakai and Ito are combinable because they both deal with controlling connection of USB storage with an MFP.
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 Sakai with the teachings of Ito for the purpose of easily identifying proper connection of the preferred USB for the user (Ito: Paragraph 196).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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