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 .
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.
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: “image forming unit” in claim 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:
image forming unit – page 8, lines 1-5
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 § 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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama (US 2013/0222858) in view of Shirato (JP 2010220076).
Regarding Claim 1, Yokoyama teaches an image reading apparatus (Paragraph 2) comprising:
a white reference plate (Element 43, wherein there is a white reference plate);
a reading unit to read the white reference plate (Paragraphs 43, wherein the sensor is used to read the plate); and
circuitry configured to:
cause the reading unit to read the white reference plate under a first reading condition before shipment of the image reading apparatus to obtain a first reading value (Paragraph 49, wherein the white reference plate is read before shipping); and
cause the reading unit to read the white reference plate under a second reading condition same with the first reading condition after replacement of a part of the image reading apparatus after the shipment to obtain a second reading value (Paragraph 100, wherein the white reference plate is read after it is replaced).
Yokoyama does not teach adjust a gray balance coefficient based on the first reading value and the second reading value.
Shirato does teach adjust a gray balance coefficient based on the first reading value and the second reading value (Paragraph 25, wherein the gray balance coefficient is adjusted based on the reading values).
Yokoyama and Shirato are combinable because they both deal with making corrections 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 Yokoyama with the teachings of Shirato for the purpose of accurately performing gray scale adjustments (Shirato: Paragraph 12).
Regarding Claim 2, Shirato further teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to:
cause the reading unit to read an original document to obtain a third reading value (Paragraph 33, wherein the sheet is read);
perform a shading compensation on the third reading value of the original document using the gray balance coefficient adjusted by the circuitry (Paragraph 34, wherein the shading compensation can be performed).
Yokoyama and Shirato are combinable because they both deal with making corrections 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 Yokoyama with the teachings of Shirato for the purpose of accurately performing gray scale adjustments (Shirato: Paragraph 12).
Regarding Claim 3, Yokoyama further teaches a light source to emit light (Element 53, wherein there is a light source); and
a sensor to detect the light (Paragraphs 77 and 78, wherein there are sensors to detect the light),
wherein the first reading condition has:
a light quantity of the light source (Paragraph 78, wherein the reflectivity is measured); and
the circuitry is further configured to:
adjust a light quantity of the light source of the second reading condition to be same with the first reading condition (Paragraph 87, wherein an adjustment is made); and
cause the reading unit to read the white reference plate to obtain the second reading value under the second reading condition (Paragraph 87, wherein the reading is done based on the adjustments).
Yokoyama does not teach a sensitivity of the sensor,
adjust a sensitivity of the sensor of the second reading condition to be same with the first reading condition.
Shirato does teach a sensitivity of the sensor (Paragraph 42, wherein there is a gain adjustment),
adjust a sensitivity of the sensor of the second reading condition to be same with the first reading condition (Paragraphs 42-44, wherein the gain can be adjusted accordingly).
Yokoyama and Shirato are combinable because they both deal with making corrections 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 Yokoyama with the teachings of Shirato for the purpose of accurately performing gray scale adjustments (Shirato: Paragraph 12).
Regarding Claim 4, Yokoyama further teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to:
adjust the light quantity of the light source in response to an input receipt by an operation unit (Paragraph 62, wherein the user can perform an adjustment of values); and
adjust the sensitivity of the sensor in response to the input receipt by the operation unit (Paragraph 62, wherein the user can perform an adjustment of values. This would include the sensitivity of Shirato as all values can be adjusted based on what is needed).
Yokoyama and Shirato are combinable because they both deal with making corrections 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 Yokoyama with the teachings of Shirato for the purpose of accurately performing gray scale adjustments (Shirato: Paragraph 12).
Regarding Claim 5, Yokoyama further teaches a storing unit to store the light quantity of the light source and the sensitivity of the first reading value (Paragraph 49, wherein the values are stored),
wherein the circuitry is configured to:
read the light quantity of the first reading condition from the storing unit (Paragraphs 72 and 87, wherein an adjustment is made in terms of the comparison);
adjust a light quantity of the second reading condition to be same as the first reading condition and cause the reading unit to obtain the second reading value (Paragraphs 72 and 87, wherein an adjustment is made in terms of the comparison).
Yokoyama does not teach a storing unit to store the sensitivity of the first reading value,
read the sensitivity of the first reading condition from the storing unit; and
adjust a sensitivity of the second reading condition to be same as the first reading condition and cause the reading unit to obtain the second reading value.
Shirato does teach a storing unit to store the sensitivity of the first reading value (Paragraph 43, wherein the reference value is stored),
read the sensitivity of the first reading condition from the storing unit (Paragraph 43, wherein the reference value is read); and
adjust a sensitivity of the second reading condition to be same as the first reading condition and cause the reading unit to obtain the second reading value (Paragraphs 42-44, wherein the gain can be adjusted accordingly).
Yokoyama and Shirato are combinable because they both deal with making corrections 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 Yokoyama with the teachings of Shirato for the purpose of accurately performing gray scale adjustments (Shirato: Paragraph 12).
Regarding Claim 6, Yokoyama further teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to cause the reading unit to read the second reading value in response to the input receipt by an operation unit (Paragraph 62, wherein the user can perform an adjustment of values).
Regarding Claim 7, Yokoyama further teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to:
cause the sensor to detect a light quantity of light reflected from a surface of the white reference plate, and cause the storage to store the light quantity in a storing unit as the first reading condition (Paragraph 78, wherein the reflectivity is measured and would be stored); and
adjust the light quantity of the light reflected from the surface of the white reference plate under the second reading condition to be same as the first reading condition, and cause the reading unit to obtain the second reading value (Paragraph 87, wherein an adjustment is made).
Regarding Claim 8, Yokoyama further teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to:
detect the replacement of the part of the image reading apparatus (Paragraph 100, wherein the reference plate can be replaced); and
cause the reading unit to obtain the second reading value in response to a detection of the replacement of the part of the image reading apparatus (Paragraph 100, wherein the adjustment is made as a result of replacement).
Regarding Claim 9, Yokoyama further teaches an image forming apparatus (Paragraph 2) comprising:
the image reading apparatus according to claim 2; and
an image forming unit to form an image based on the third reading value on which a shading compensation is performed by the circuitry (Paragraph 31, wherein there is an image forming unit).
Yokoyama and Shirato are combinable because they both deal with making corrections 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 Yokoyama with the teachings of Shirato for the purpose of accurately performing gray scale adjustments (Shirato: Paragraph 12).
Regarding Claim 10, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional cited prior art of A-C, E, and F all relate to dealing with adjustments to make to calibration after shipment of the device.
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