/CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/ DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA the first inventor to file provisions.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s arguments see remarks, filed 04/20/2026, with respect to the claim objections are persuasive due to claim amendments thus have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see remarks, filed 04/20/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 112(a) and 112(b) are persuasive and have thus been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see remarks, filed 04/20/2026, with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-13 103 rejections, have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current combinations of references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant’s arguments see remarks, filed 04/20/2026, with respect to claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, and 12-13 claim interpretation have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on page 6, “As the Office Action acknowledges, absence of the term "means" creates a rebuttable presumption that 112(f) does not apply. That presumption is not overcome here because the claims recite concrete device classes in a disclosed networked document-management architecture, not nonce placeholders devoid of structure. The claim itself structurally characterizes the first external device as one "having a scan function to scan a document," and structurally characterizes the second external device as one that "has a function to obtain the document image from the first external device and perform file transmission." The specification then gives those device classes concrete form. Paragraph [0031], describing Figure 1, states that the system "includes a mediation server 111, a business server 112, a client terminal 121, and a multi function peripheral 131," and further explains that, for the first external device, "[t]he multi function peripheral 131 is one example of an apparatus having the scan function." Paragraph [0039] likewise states that "[a] scan application 342 is an application that generates a document image by driving a scanner of the multi function peripheral 131," and that "[a] remote control client application 343 receives instructions from the remote control application 311 and drives the multi function peripheral 131."
In response, the office does not find this argument to be persuasive. Based on the breadth of the claim language the office still sees the claims are under condition for 112f interpretation see below.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8, and 12-13, recite limitations that use words like “means” (or “step”) or similar terms with functional language and do invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Claim 1; recites the limitation, “giving first instructions, via a second external device…,” [Line 6].
Claim 1; recites the limitation, “a first external device having a scan function to scan …,” [Line 6-7].
Claim 1; recites the limitation, “the second external device, having a function to obtain …,” [Line 7-8].
Claim 1; recites the limitation, “execution of the scan from the first external device….”, [Line 8].
Claim 1; recites the limitation, “to cause the second external device to perform …,” [Line 14].
Claim 4; recites the limitation, “the second external device to perform…,” [Line 5].
Claim 5; recites the limitation, “the second external device to perform …,” [Line 9].
Claim 8; recites the limitation, “the second external device to search …,” [Line 7].
Claim 12; recites the limitation, “giving first instructions, via a second external device…,” [Line 4].
Claim 12; recites the limitation, “first external device having a scan function to scan…,” [Line 4-5].
Claim 12; recites the limitation, “the second external device, having a function to obtain …,” [Line 5-6].
Claim 12; recites the limitation, “execution of the scan from the first external device….”, [Line 6].
Claim 12; recites the limitation, “the second external device to perform…,” [Line 12].
Claim 13; recites the limitation, “giving first instructions, via a second external device…,” [Line 5].
Claim 13; recites the limitation, “first external device having a scan function to scan …,” [Line 5-6].
Claim 13; recites the limitation, “the second external device, having a function to obtain …,” [Line 6-7].
Claim 13; recites the limitation, “execution of the scan from the first external device….”, [Line 7].
Claim 13; recites the limitation, “the second external device to perform…,” [Line 13].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
After a careful analysis, as disclosed above, and a careful review of the specification the following limitations in claim 1-5, 8, and 12-13:
“first external device” (Fig. 1, #Paragraph [0031] - “The multi function peripheral 131 is one example of an apparatus having the scan function, and for example, may be a scan-dedicated terminal.” Has structure associated with it of a multi-function peripheral).
“second external device” (Fig. 1, #111 Paragraph [0038] - “Each function that is provided by each application or the processing unit of the above-described mediation server 111 may be one that is provided as a cloud service. That is, the mediation server 111 may be a cloud server.” Has structure associated with it of a cloud server).
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.
The applicant argues on page 6-7, “For the second external device, paragraph [0031] explains that "the mediation server 111 has a function to receive and analyze a document image (scanned image) from a scanner. device and transmits the document image to the destination business server as a document file," and also has "a function to recognize and extract a character string described in a document by performing OCR and a function to convert the file format of a document file." Paragraph [0037] further states that "[a]n OCR processing unit 332 obtains a document image and performs OCR processing" and that "[a]n external system communication unit 334 performs processing to transmit a document file to the business server 112."
In response, the office does not find this argument to be persuasive. Based on the breadth of the claim language the office still sees the claims are under condition for 112f interpretation as for the same reason stated above and below.
The office respectfully encourages 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.
The applicant argues on page 7, “Read in light of these disclosures, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claimed "first external device" to correspond to the scanner-side device exemplified by the multi function peripheral 131, and the claimed "second external device" to correspond to the server-side device exemplified by the mediation server 111. Moreover, these terms are sued to connote structure themselves. Accordingly, 112(f) is not properly invoked.”
In response, the office does not find this argument to be persuasive base on the same reasons set forth above and the rejection below. The office respectfully encourages the applicant to 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 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.
Claim 1 and 12-13 recites limitations that use words like “means” (or “step”) or similar terms with functional language but do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Claim 1; recites the limitation, “displaying a user interface (UI) screen on a display unit……,” [Line 11].
Claim 12; recites the limitation, “displaying a user interface (UI) screen on a display unit……,” [Line 11].
Claim 13; recites the limitation, “displaying a user interface (UI) screen on a display unit……,” [Line 11].
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
(i) “display unit…” has a structure associated with it of a display.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8, and 12-13, recite limitations that use words like “means” (or “step”) or similar terms with functional language and do invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Claim 1; recites the limitation, “giving first instructions, via a second external device…,” [Line 6].
Claim 1; recites the limitation, “a first external device having a scan function to scan …,” [Line 6-7].
Claim 1; recites the limitation, “the second external device, having a function to obtain …,” [Line 7-8].
Claim 1; recites the limitation, “execution of the scan from the first external device….”, [Line 8].
Claim 1; recites the limitation, “to cause the second external device to perform …,” [Line 14].
Claim 4; recites the limitation, “the second external device to perform…,” [Line 5].
Claim 5; recites the limitation, “the second external device to perform …,” [Line 9].
Claim 8; recites the limitation, “the second external device to search …,” [Line 7].
Claim 12; recites the limitation, “giving first instructions, via a second external device…,” [Line 4].
Claim 12; recites the limitation, “first external device having a scan function to scan…,” [Line 4-5].
Claim 12; recites the limitation, “the second external device, having a function to obtain …,” [Line 5-6].
Claim 12; recites the limitation, “execution of the scan from the first external device….”, [Line 6].
Claim 12; recites the limitation, “the second external device to perform…,” [Line 12].
Claim 13; recites the limitation, “giving first instructions, via a second external device…,” [Line 5].
Claim 13; recites the limitation, “first external device having a scan function to scan …,” [Line 5-6].
Claim 13; recites the limitation, “the second external device, having a function to obtain …,” [Line 6-7].
Claim 13; recites the limitation, “execution of the scan from the first external device….”, [Line 7].
Claim 13; recites the limitation, “the second external device to perform…,” [Line 13].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
After a careful analysis, as disclosed above, and a careful review of the specification the following limitations in claim 1, 4-5, 8, and 12-13:
“first external device” (Fig. 1, #Paragraph [0031] - “The multi function peripheral 131 is one example of an apparatus having the scan function, and for example, may be a scan-dedicated terminal.” Has structure associated with it of a multi-function peripheral).
“second external device” (Fig. 1, #111 Paragraph [0038] - “Each function that is provided by each application or the processing unit of the above-described mediation server 111 may be one that is provided as a cloud service. That is, the mediation server 111 may be a cloud server.” Has structure associated with it of a cloud server).
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroyanagi (US 20190278630 A1) hereafter referenced as Kuroyanagi in view of Stokes et al. (US 20120099146 A1) hereafter referenced as Stokes and Tokita et al. (US 20190102385 A1) hereafter referenced as Tokita.
Regarding claim 1, Kuroyanagi explicitly teaches an information processing apparatus for remotely controlling an external device via a network (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0070]- Kuroyanagi discloses conventionally, when controlling a workflow including a process to be performed by the on-premises server apparatus operating as described above, an execution request of a process included in the workflow cannot be sent from the cloud workflow server apparatus to the on-premises server apparatus.),
the information processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0075]- Kuroyanagi discloses the computer 500 includes an input device 501, a display device 502, an external device interface (I/F) 503, a random access memory (RAM) 504, a read only memory (ROM) 505, a central processing unit (CPU) 506, a communication interface (I/F) 507 and a hard disk drive (HDD) 508, which are connected to one another via a bus B.);
and one or more processors executing the instructions to perform (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0075]- Kuroyanagi discloses the computer 500 includes an input device 501, a display device 502, an external device interface (I/F) 503, a random access memory (RAM) 504, a read only memory (ROM) 505, a central processing unit (CPU) 506, a communication interface (I/F) 507 and a hard disk drive (HDD) 508, which are connected to one another via a bus B. Further in Paragraph [0096]- Kuroyanagi discloses these units are functions that are implemented by or that are caused to function by operating any of the hardware elements illustrated in FIG. 3 in cooperation with the instructions of the CPU 611 according to the program or setting information expanded from the ROM 613, the NVRAM 614 and/or the HDD 615 to the RAM 612.):
the second external device having a function to obtain a document image obtained by execution of the scan from the first external device (Fig. 13a, Paragraph [0147]- Kuroyanagi discloses after receiving the image data, which is the result of the cloud workflow, the cloud workflow server apparatus 22 transmits the image data, which is the result of the cloud workflow, in response to receiving the image result acquisition request from the cloud workflow server link processing unit 112 of the image forming apparatus 12. Further in Fig. 13a Paragraph [0151]- Kuroyanagi discloses by providing a processing unit that calls a cloud workflow and acquires a result of the cloud workflow as a part of processing units of the on-premises workflow that uses the scanner unit 102, the on-premises workflow and the cloud workflow are linked with each other.)
and perform optical character recognition (OCR) processing thereon and then perform file transmission of the document image (Fig. 3, Paragraph [0098]- Kuroyanagi discloses the processing unit 82 executes processes in the cloud environment 20, such as OCR (optical character recognition) processing, file conversion processing, and transmission processing to a storage service as described later. The processing unit 82 executes specific processing content in response to a request from the cloud workflow control unit 72.);
displaying a user interface (Ul) screen on a display unit of the information processing apparatus (Fig. 29, Paragraph [0246]- Kuroyanagi discloses after the process of step S510, the scan application 100A displays a UI that receives an operation by a user on the control panel 602, for example.),
which receives a user operation for performing file transmission of the document image obtained by the scan (Fig. 13, Paragraph [0180]- Kuroyanagi discloses when all of the processes in the workflow information acquired in step S111 are completed, the cloud workflow control unit 72 transmits image data, which is a result of the cloud workflow, to the workflow request transmitter/receiver 76.);
and giving second instructions to cause the second external device, to perform file transmission of the document image to a destination (Fig. 13a, Paragraph [0147]- Kuroyanagi discloses after receiving the image data, which is the result of the cloud workflow, the cloud workflow server apparatus 22 transmits the image data, which is the result of the cloud workflow, in response to receiving the image result acquisition request from the cloud workflow server link processing unit 112 of the image forming apparatus 12.),
Kuroyanagi fails to explicitly teach giving first instructions, via a second external device, to cause a first external device having a scan function to scan a document.
However, a new prior art Stokes et al. (US 20120099146 A1) explicitly teaches giving first instructions, via a second external device, to cause a first external device having a scan function to scan a document (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0026]- Stokes discloses in response to cloud scan request 116, network scanner 108 scans one or more documents and transmits the resulting image file 118 to cloud document service 110. Network scanner 108 also provides status 120 of the scan job 302 to cloud print service 106, which forwards status 120 to user device 102.),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kuroyanagi of an information processing apparatus for remotely controlling an external device via a network, the information processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions to perform: the second external device having a function to obtain a document image obtained by execution of the scan from the first external device with the teachings of Stokes giving first instructions, via a second external device, to cause a first external device having a scan function to scan a document.
Wherein having Kuroyanagi’s system for workflow management wherein giving first instructions, via a second external device, to cause a first external device having a scan function to scan a document.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for scanning from any resource connected to the cloud, since both Kuroyanagi and Stokes are systems that scan and send document data. Wherein Kuroyanagi’s system wherein improved system efficiency, while Stokes’ system wherein improved ease of access to printing with the cloud. Please see Kuroyanagi et al. (US 20190278630 A1), Paragraph [0149] and Stokes et al. (US 20120099146 A1) Paragraph [0018-19].
Kuroyanagi in view of Stokes fails to explicitly teach fails to explicitly teach the destination being determined via the UI screen based on a user operation on a result of the OCR processing.
However, a new prior art Tokita et al. (US 20190102385 A1) explicitly teaches the destination being determined via the UI screen based on a user operation on a result of the OCR processing (Fig. 5, Paragraph [0047]- Tokita discloses the application transfer unit 424 generates a storage destination path for the scan image data based on the information received from the upload instruction unit 427. Specifically, the path is generated by adding the folder path to the file server settings (the host name of the file server 120, the start point of the folder path). As a result, a storage destination path like “¥¥server01¥Share¥2017_04_14” is generated.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kuroyanagi in view of Stokes of an information processing apparatus for remotely controlling an external device via a network, the information processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions to perform: the second external device having a function to obtain a document image obtained by execution of the scan from the first external device with the teachings of Tokita the destination being determined via the UI screen based on a user operation on a result of the OCR processing.
Wherein having Kuroyanagi’s system for workflow management wherein the destination being determined via the UI screen based on a user operation on a result of the OCR processing.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for creation of a file name using OCR, since both Kuroyanagi and Tokita are systems that scan and send document data. Wherein Kuroyanagi’s system wherein improved system efficiency, while Tokita’s system wherein improved continence for the user. Please see Kuroyanagi et al. (US 20190278630 A1), Paragraph [0149] and Tokita et al. (US 20190102385 A1) Paragraph [0004].
Regarding claim 11, Kuroyanagi in view of Stokes and Tokita teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Kuroyanagi further teaches wherein the second external device is a cloud server (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0068]- Kuroyanagi discloses the cloud environment 20, which is an example of a service provision environment, includes a cloud workflow server apparatus 22.).
Regarding claim 12, Kuroyangi explicitly teaches a control method of an information processing apparatus for remotely controlling an external device via a network (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0070]- Kuroyanagi discloses conventionally, when controlling a workflow including a process to be performed by the on-premises server apparatus operating as described above, an execution request of a process included in the workflow cannot be sent from the cloud workflow server apparatus to the on-premises server apparatus.),
the second external device having a function to obtain a document image obtained by execution of the scan from the first external device (Fig. 13a, Paragraph [0147]- Kuroyanagi discloses after receiving the image data, which is the result of the cloud workflow, the cloud workflow server apparatus 22 transmits the image data, which is the result of the cloud workflow, in response to receiving the image result acquisition request from the cloud workflow server link processing unit 112 of the image forming apparatus 12. Further in Fig. 13a Paragraph [0151]- Kuroyanagi discloses by providing a processing unit that calls a cloud workflow and acquires a result of the cloud workflow as a part of processing units of the on-premises workflow that uses the scanner unit 102, the on-premises workflow and the cloud workflow are linked with each other.)
and perform optical character recognition (OCR) processing thereon and then perform file transmission of the document image (Fig. 3, Paragraph [0098]- Kuroyanagi discloses the processing unit 82 executes processes in the cloud environment 20, such as OCR (optical character recognition) processing, file conversion processing, and transmission processing to a storage service as described later. The processing unit 82 executes specific processing content in response to a request from the cloud workflow control unit 72.);
displaying a user interface (Ul) screen on a display unit of the information processing apparatus (Fig. 29, Paragraph [0246]- Kuroyanagi discloses after the process of step S510, the scan application 100A displays a UI that receives an operation by a user on the control panel 602, for example.),
which receives a user operation for performing file transmission of the document image obtained by the scan (Fig. 13, Paragraph [0180]- Kuroyanagi discloses when all of the processes in the workflow information acquired in step S111 are completed, the cloud workflow control unit 72 transmits image data, which is a result of the cloud workflow, to the workflow request transmitter/receiver 76.);
and giving second instructions to cause the second external deviceto a destination (Fig. 13a, Paragraph [0147]- Kuroyanagi discloses after receiving the image data, which is the result of the cloud workflow, the cloud workflow server apparatus 22 transmits the image data, which is the result of the cloud workflow, in response to receiving the image result acquisition request from the cloud workflow server link processing unit 112 of the image forming apparatus 12.),
Kuroyanagi fails to explicitly teach the control method comprising the steps of: giving first instructions, via a second external device, to cause a first external device having a scan function to scan a document.
However, a new prior art Stokes et al. (US 20120099146 A1) explicitly teaches the control method comprising the steps of: giving first instructions, via a second external device, to cause a first external device having a scan function to scan a document (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0026]- Stokes discloses in response to cloud scan request 116, network scanner 108 scans one or more documents and transmits the resulting image file 118 to cloud document service 110. Network scanner 108 also provides status 120 of the scan job 302 to cloud print service 106, which forwards status 120 to user device 102.),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kuroyanagi of a control method of an information processing apparatus for remotely controlling an external device via a network, the second external device having a function to obtain a document image obtained by execution of the scan from the first external device with the teachings of Stokes the control method comprising the steps of: giving first instructions, via a second external device, to cause a first external device having a scan function to scan a document.
Wherein having Kuroyanagi’s system for workflow management wherein the control method comprising the steps of: giving first instructions, via a second external device, to cause a first external device having a scan function to scan a document.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for scanning from any resource connected to the cloud, since both Kuroyanagi and Stokes are systems that scan and send document data. Wherein Kuroyanagi’s system wherein improved system efficiency, while Stokes’ system wherein improved ease of access to printing with the cloud. Please see Kuroyanagi et al. (US 20190278630 A1), Paragraph [0149] and Stokes et al. (US 20120099146 A1) Paragraph [0018-19].
Kuroyanagi in view of Stokes fails to explicitly teach fails to explicitly teach giving first instructions, via a second external device, to cause a first external device having a scan function to scan a document.
However, a new prior art Tokita et al. (US 20190102385 A1) explicitly teaches the destination being determined via the UI screen based on a user operation on a result of the OCR processing (Fig. 5, Paragraph [0047]- Tokita discloses the application transfer unit 424 generates a storage destination path for the scan image data based on the information received from the upload instruction unit 427. Specifically, the path is generated by adding the folder path to the file server settings (the host name of the file server 120, the start point of the folder path). As a result, a storage destination path like “¥¥server01¥Share¥2017_04_14” is generated.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kuroyanagi in view of Stokes of a control method of an information processing apparatus for remotely controlling an external device via a network, the second external device having a function to obtain a document image obtained by execution of the scan from the first external device with the teachings of Tokita the destination being determined via the UI screen based on a user operation on a result of the OCR processing.
Wherein having Kuroyanagi’s system for workflow management wherein the destination being determined via the UI screen based on a user operation on a result of the OCR processing.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for creation of a file name using OCR, since both Kuroyanagi and Tokita are systems that scan and send document data. Wherein Kuroyanagi’s system wherein improved system efficiency, while Tokita’s system wherein improved continence for the user. Please see Kuroyanagi et al. (US 20190278630 A1), Paragraph [0149] and Tokita et al. (US 20190102385 A1) Paragraph [0004].
Regarding claim 13, Kuroyanagi teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform a control method of an information processing apparatus for remotely controlling an external device via a network (Fig. 5a, Paragraph [0079]- Kuroyanagi discloses the external device I/F 503 enables the computer 500 to read or write data from or to the storage medium 503a. Examples of the storage medium 503a include a flexible disc, a compact disc (CD), a digital versatile disc (DVD), a secure digital (SD) memory card, and a universal serial bus (USB) memory.),
the second external device having a function to obtain a document image obtained by execution of the scan from the first external device (Fig. 13a, Paragraph [0147]- Kuroyanagi discloses after receiving the image data, which is the result of the cloud workflow, the cloud workflow server apparatus 22 transmits the image data, which is the result of the cloud workflow, in response to receiving the image result acquisition request from the cloud workflow server link processing unit 112 of the image forming apparatus 12. Further in Fig. 13a Paragraph [0151]- Kuroyanagi discloses by providing a processing unit that calls a cloud workflow and acquires a result of the cloud workflow as a part of processing units of the on-premises workflow that uses the scanner unit 102, the on-premises workflow and the cloud workflow are linked with each other.)
and perform optical character recognition (OCR) processing thereon and then perform file transmission of the document image (Fig. 3, Paragraph [0098]- Kuroyanagi discloses the processing unit 82 executes processes in the cloud environment 20, such as OCR (optical character recognition) processing, file conversion processing, and transmission processing to a storage service as described later. The processing unit 82 executes specific processing content in response to a request from the cloud workflow control unit 72.);
displaying a user interface (Ul) screen on a display unit of the information processing apparatus (Fig. 29, Paragraph [0246]- Kuroyanagi discloses after the process of step S510, the scan application 100A displays a UI that receives an operation by a user on the control panel 602, for example.),
which receives a user operation for performing file transmission of the document image obtained by the scan (Fig. 13, Paragraph [0180]- Kuroyanagi discloses when all of the processes in the workflow information acquired in step S111 are completed, the cloud workflow control unit 72 transmits image data, which is a result of the cloud workflow, to the workflow request transmitter/receiver 76.);
and giving second instructions to cause the second external device to perform file transmission of the document image to a destination (Fig. 13a, Paragraph [0147]- Kuroyanagi discloses after receiving the image data, which is the result of the cloud workflow, the cloud workflow server apparatus 22 transmits the image data, which is the result of the cloud workflow, in response to receiving the image result acquisition request from the cloud workflow server link processing unit 112 of the image forming apparatus 12.),
Kuroyanagi fails to explicitly teach the control method comprising the steps of: giving first instructions, via a second external device, to cause a first external device having a scan function to scan a document.
However, Stokes explicitly teaches the control method comprising the steps of: giving first instructions, via a second external device to cause a first external device having a scan function to scan a document (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0026]- Stokes discloses in response to cloud scan request 116, network scanner 108 scans one or more documents and transmits the resulting image file 118 to cloud document service 110. Network scanner 108 also provides status 120 of the scan job 302 to cloud print service 106, which forwards status 120 to user device 102.),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kuroyanagi of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform a control method of an information processing apparatus for remotely controlling an external device via a network, the second external device having a function to obtain a document image obtained by execution of the scan from the first external device with the teachings of Stokes the control method comprising the steps of: giving first instructions, via a second external device, to cause a first external device having a scan function to scan a document.
Wherein having Kuroyanagi’s system for workflow management wherein the control method comprising the steps of: giving first instructions, via a second external device, to cause a first external device having a scan function to scan a document.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for scanning from any resource connected to the cloud, since both Kuroyanagi and Stokes are systems that scan and send document data. Wherein Kuroyanagi’s system wherein improved system efficiency, while Stokes’ system wherein improved ease of access to printing with the cloud. Please see Kuroyanagi et al. (US 20190278630 A1), Paragraph [0149] and Stokes et al. (US 20120099146 A1) Paragraph [0018-19].
Kuroyanagi in view of Stokes fails to explicitly teach fails to explicitly teach the destination being determined via the UI screen based on a user operation on a result of the OCR processing.
However, Tokita explicitly teaches the destination being determined via the UI screen based on a user operation on a result of the OCR processing (Fig. 5, Paragraph [0047]- Tokita discloses the application transfer unit 424 generates a storage destination path for the scan image data based on the information received from the upload instruction unit 427. Specifically, the path is generated by adding the folder path to the file server settings (the host name of the file server 120, the start point of the folder path). As a result, a storage destination path like “¥¥server01¥Share¥2017_04_14” is generated.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kuroyanagi in view of Stokes of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform a control method of an information processing apparatus for remotely controlling an external device via a network, the second external device having a function to obtain a document image obtained by execution of the scan from the first external device with the teachings of Tokita the destination being determined via the UI screen based on a user operation on a result of the OCR processing.
Wherein having Kuroyanagi’s system for workflow management wherein the destination being determined via the UI screen based on a user operation on a result of the OCR processing.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for creation of a file name using OCR, since both Kuroyanagi and Tokita are systems that scan and send document data. Wherein Kuroyanagi’s system wherein improved system efficiency, while Tokita’s system wherein improved continence for the user. Please see Kuroyanagi et al. (US 20190278630 A1), Paragraph [0149] and Tokita et al. (US 20190102385 A1) Paragraph [0004].
Claims 2 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroyanagi (US 20190278630 A1) hereafter referenced as Kuroyanagi in view of Stokes et al. (US 20120099146 A1) hereafter referenced as Stokes, Tokita et al. (US 20190102385 A1) hereafter referenced as Tokita, and Zhang et al. (US 20130294694 A1) hereafter referenced as Zhang.
Regarding claim 2, Kuroyanagi in view of Stokes and Tokita teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Kuroyanagi fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to perform: determining the destination,
However, Tokita explicitly teaches wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to perform: determining the destination (Fig. 5, Paragraph [0047]- Tokita discloses the application transfer unit 424 generates a storage destination path for the scan image data based on the information received from the upload instruction unit 427. Specifically, the path is generated by adding the folder path to the file server settings (the host name of the file server 120, the start point of the folder path). As a result, a storage destination path like “¥¥server01¥Share¥2017_04_14” is generated.),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kuroyanagi of an information processing apparatus for remotely controlling an external device via a network, the information processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions to perform: the second external device having a function to obtain a document image obtained by execution of the scan from the first external device with the teachings of Tokita wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to perform: determining the destination.
Wherein having Kuroyanagi’s system for workflow management wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to perform: determining the destination.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for creation of a file name using OCR, since both Kuroyanagi and Tokita are systems that scan and send document data. Wherein Kuroyanagi’s system wherein improved system efficiency, while Tokita’s system wherein improved continence for the user. Please see Kuroyanagi et al. (US 20190278630 A1), Paragraph [0149] and Tokita et al. (US 20190102385 A1) Paragraph [0004].
Kuroyanagi fails to explicitly teach based on a user operation to designate a character string area for the document image preview displayed on the UI screen, using results of the OCR processing for the designated character string area.
However, Zhang explicitly teaches based on a user operation to designate a character string area for the document image preview displayed on the UI screen, using results of the OCR processing for the designated character string area (Fig. 6, Paragraph [0061]- Zhang discloses the user may use a mouse to click and drag a rectangular selection box around the title zone 616. A user may utilize multiple simultaneous touches on a user interface 600 to create a rectangular selection box around the title zone 616. A user may input a set of top and left coordinates in addition to pixel height and length for the title zone 616.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kuroyanagi of an information processing apparatus for remotely controlling an external device via a network, the information processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions to perform: the second external device having a function to obtain a document image obtained by execution of the scan from the first external device with the teachings of Zhang wherein based on a user operation to designate a character string area for the document image preview displayed on the UI screen, using results of the OCR processing for the designated character string area.
Wherein having Kuroyanagi’s system for workflow management based on a user operation to designate a character string area for the document image preview displayed on the UI screen, using results of the OCR processing for the designated character string area.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for a more efficient system, since both Kuroyanagi and Zhang are systems that scan and send document data. Wherein Kuroyanagi’s system wherein improved system efficiency, while Zhang’s system wherein improved searching and categorization of the system. Please see Kuroyanagi et al. (US 20190278630 A1), Paragraph [0149] and Zhang et al. (US 20130294694 A1) Paragraph [0083].
Regarding claim 9, Kuroyanagi in view of Stokes and Tokita teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Kuroyanagi fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors further execute instructions to determine a file name in a case where a file is transmitted and stored in a storage.
However, Zhang explicitly teaches wherein the one or more processors further execute instructions to determine a file name in a case where a file is transmitted and stored in a storage (Fig. 6, Paragraph [0061]- Zhang discloses the user may use a mouse to click and drag a rectangular selection box around the title zone 616. A user may utilize multiple simultaneous touches on a user interface 600 to create a rectangular selection box around the title zone 616. A user may input a set of top and left coordinates in addition to pixel height and length for the title zone 616. Further in fig. 6, Paragraph [0066]- Zhang discloses the select destination box 702 may include a document name label 708 and a document name text box 710 into which a user may input a document title or into which a default title may be automatically input.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kuroyanagi of an information processing apparatus for remotely controlling an external device via a network, the information processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions to perform: the second external device having a function to obtain a document image obtained by execution of the scan from the first external device with the teachings of Zhang wherein the one or more processors further execute instructions to determine a file name in a case where a file is transmitted and stored in a storage.
Wherein having Kuroyanagi’s system for workflow management wherein the one or more processors further execute instructions to determine a file name in a case where a file is transmitted and stored in a storage.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for a more efficient system, since both Kuroyanagi and Zhang are systems that scan and send document data. Wherein Kuroyanagi’s system wherein improved system efficiency, while Zhang’s system wherein improved searching and categorization of the system. Please see Kuroyanagi et al. (US 20190278630 A1), Paragraph [0149] and Zhang et al. (US 20130294694 A1) Paragraph [0083].
Regarding claim 10, Kuroyanagi in view of Stokes and Tokita teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Kuroyanagi fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors further execute instructions to determine metadata attached to a file of the document image in a case where a file is transmitted and stored in a storage.
However, Zhang explicitly teaches wherein the predetermined information is metadata attached to a file of the document image in a case where a file is transmitted and stored in a storage (Fig. 6, Paragraph [0061]- Zhang discloses the user may use a mouse to click and drag a rectangular selection box around the title zone 616. A user may utilize multiple simultaneous touches on a user interface 600 to create a rectangular selection box around the title zone 616. A user may input a set of top and left coordinates in addition to pixel height and length for the title zone 616. Further in Fig. 6, Paragraph [0063]- Zhang discloses additional zones with associated metadata fields may also be selected in a similar manner.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kuroyanagi of an information processing apparatus for remotely controlling an external device via a network, the information processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions to perform: the second external device having a function to obtain a document image obtained by execution of the scan from the first external device with the teachings of Zhang wherein the one or more processors further execute instructions to determine metadata attached to a file of the document image in a case where a file is transmitted and stored in a storage.
Wherein having Kuroyanagi’s system for workflow management wherein the one or more processors further execute instructions to determine metadata attached to a file of the document image in a case where a file is transmitted and stored in a storage.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for a more efficient system, since both Kuroyanagi and Zhang are systems that scan and send document data. Wherein Kuroyanagi’s system wherein improved system efficiency, while Zhang’s system wherein improved searching and categorization of the system. Please see Kuroyanagi et al. (US 20190278630 A1), Paragraph [0149] and Zhang et al. (US 20130294694 A1) Paragraph [0083].
Claim 4, is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable Kuroyanagi (US 20190278630 A1) hereafter referenced as Kuroyanagi in view of Stokes et al. (US 20120099146 A1) hereafter referenced as Stokes, Tokita et al. (US 20190102385 A1) hereafter referenced as Tokita, and Tecu et al. (US 20050102258 A1) hereafter referenced as Tecu.
Regarding claim 4, Kuroyanagi in view of Stokes and Tokita teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Kuroyanagi fails to explicitly teach wherein after file transmission of the document image to a first destination is completed, the UI screen makes a transition into a state capable of receiving a user operation to designate a second destination different from the first destination, and the second instructions include instructions to cause the second external device to perform file transmission of the document image to the second destination designated based on a user operation to designate the second destination via the UI screen after the transition.
However, Tecu explicitly teaches wherein after file transmission of the document image to a first destination is completed (Fig. 9, Paragraph [0061]- Tecu discloses after saving the profile, the SAMF system 114 closes the Save Profile GUI 900 and returns to the previous GUI from which file parameters were selected so that the user may proceed with further actions.), the UI screen makes a transition into a state capable of receiving a user operation to designate a second destination different from the first destination (Fig. 4, paragraph [0046]- Tecu discloses the SAMF system 114 preferably creates a different filename default and/or a different location default to avoid duplicity of the same file in the same location. Further in Fig. 9, Paragraph [0061]- Tecu discloses after saving the profile, the SAMF system 114 closes the Save Profile GUI 900 and returns to the previous GUI from which file parameters were selected so that the user may proceed with further actions.),
and the second instructions include instructions to cause the second external device to perform file transmission of the document image to the second destination designated based on a user operation to designate the second destination via the UI screen after the transition (Fig. 4, Paragraph [0047]- Tecu discloses When a user has selected all file formats, corresponding file format options to which the active file is to be converted, filenames, and locations where the files are to be saved, then the user may select the "OK" button 428 in order to initiate the save operation. The command-accepting module 208 receives the "OK" or "Initiate Save" command, and in response, signals the file-saving module 210 to convert the active file into the selected file formats according to the selected file format options, name the new files with the new selected filenames, and saves the new files in the selected locations.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kuroyanagi in view of an information processing apparatus for remotely controlling an external device via a network, the information processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions to perform: the second external device having a function to obtain a document image obtained by execution of the scan from the first external device with the teachings of Tecu wherein after file transmission of the document image to a first destination is completed, the UI screen makes a transition into a state capable of receiving a user operation to designate a second destination different from the first destination, and the second instructions include instructions to cause the second external device to perform file transmission of the document image to the second destination designated based on a user operation to designate the second destination via the UI screen after the transition.
Wherein having Kuroyanagi’s system for workflow management wherein after file transmission of the document image to a first destination is completed, the UI screen makes a transition into a state capable of receiving a user operation to designate a second destination different from the first destination, and the second instructions include instructions to cause the second external device to perform file transmission of the document image to the second destination designated based on a user operation to designate the second destination via the UI screen after the transition.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for an improved file saving experience, since both Kuroyanagi and Tecu are systems that scan and send document data. Wherein Kuroyanagi’s system wherein improved system efficiency, while Tecu’s system wherein improved file saving process. Please see Kuroyanagi et al. (US 20190278630 A1), Paragraph [0149] and Tecu et al. (US 20050102258 A1) Paragraph [0050].
Claim 5, is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable Kuroyanagi (US 20190278630 A1) hereafter referenced as Kuroyanagi in view of Stokes et al. (US 20120099146 A1) hereafter referenced as Stokes, Tokita et al. (US 20190102385 A1) hereafter referenced as Tokita, and Tecu et al. (US 20050102258 A1) hereafter referenced as Tecu and Zhang et al. (US 20130294694 A1) hereafter referenced as Zhang.
Regarding claim 5, Kuroyanagi in view of Stokes, Tokita, and Tecu teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, Kuroyanagi fails to explicitly teach a second destination and the second instructions include instructions to cause the second external device to perform file transmission of the document image to the second destination.
However, Tecu explicitly teaches a second destination (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0033]- Tecu discloses the GUI of the text file parameters further includes input locations for the user's entry of filename and location.)
and the second instructions include instructions to cause the second external device to perform file transmission of the document image to the second destination (Fig. 4, Paragraph [0047]- Tecu discloses When a user has selected all file formats, corresponding file format options to which the active file is to be converted, filenames, and locations where the files are to be saved, then the user may select the "OK" button 428 in order to initiate the save operation. The command-accepting module 208 receives the "OK" or "Initiate Save" command, and in response, signals the file-saving module 210 to convert the active file into the selected file formats according to the selected file format options, name the new files with the new selected filenames, and saves the new files in the selected locations.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kuroyanagi of an information processing apparatus for remotely controlling an external device via a network, the information processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions to perform: the second external device having a function to obtain a document image obtained by execution of the scan from the first external device with the teachings of Tecu a second destination and the second instructions include instructions to cause the second external device to perform file transmission of the document image to the second destination.
Wherein having Kuroyanagi’s system for workflow management wherein a second destination and the second instructions include instructions to cause the second external device to perform file transmission of the document image to the second destination.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for an improved file saving experience, since both Kuroyanagi and Tecu are systems that scan and send document data. Wherein Kuroyanagi’s system wherein improved system efficiency, while Tecu’s system wherein improved file saving process. Please see Kuroyanagi et al. (US 20190278630 A1), Paragraph [0149] and Tecu et al. (US 20050102258 A1) Paragraph [0050].
Kuroyanagi fails to explicitly teach wherein in a case where the second destination is designated via the UI screen after the transition, the UI screen makes a transition into a state capable of selecting whether to utilize predetermined information on file transmission to the first destination as the predetermined information on file transmission to the second destination, in the determining, the predetermined information on file transmission to the second destination is determined based on a user operation on the UI screen after the transition.
However, Zhang explicitly teaches wherein in a case where the destination is designated via the UI screen after the transition (Fig. 7, Paragraph [0065]- Zhang discloses the destination box 702 enables the user to identify where files scanned using a zone template are subsequently stored.),
the UI screen makes a transition into a state capable of selecting whether to utilize predetermined information on file transmission to the first destination as the predetermined information on file transmission to the destination (Fig. 6, Paragraph [0061]- Zhang discloses the user may use a mouse to click and drag a rectangular selection box around the title zone 616. A user may utilize multiple simultaneous touches on a user interface 600 to create a rectangular selection box around the title zone 616. A user may input a set of top and left coordinates in addition to pixel height and length for the title zone 616. Further in fig. 6, Paragraph [0066]- Zhang discloses the select destination box 702 may include a document name label 708 and a document name text box 710 into which a user may input a document title or into which a default title may be automatically input.),
in the determining, the predetermined information on file transmission to the second destination is determined based on a user operation on the UI screen after the transition (Fig. 9, Paragraph [0080]- Zhang discloses finally, the electronic document is stored along with the metadata from the zones in a database 990. This storage will place the electronic document into a database along with the created XML (or other format) file (the "metadata file"), the metadata fields stored in the database according to the metadata map. The database may be hosted on a server, such as server 120 (FIG. 1) or hosted on the internet or in the cloud. Further in Fig. 9, paragraph [0082]- Zhang discloses the electronic document and metadata file may be transmitted to, for example, a Microsoft.RTM. Sharepoint.RTM. server which generates web-accessible file shares.),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kuroyanagi of an information processing apparatus for remotely controlling an external device via a network, the information processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions to perform: the second external device having a function to obtain a document image obtained by execution of the scan from the first external device with the teachings of Zhang wherein in a case where the second destination is designated via the UI screen after the transition, the UI screen makes a transition into a state capable of selecting whether to utilize predetermined information on file transmission to the first destination as the predetermined information on file transmission to the second destination, in the determining, the predetermined information on file transmission to the second destination is determined based on a user operation on the UI screen after the transition.
Wherein having Kuroyanagi’s system for workflow management wherein in a case where the second destination is designated via the UI screen after the transition, the UI screen makes a transition into a state capable of selecting whether to utilize predetermined information on file transmission to the first destination as the predetermined information on file transmission to the second destination, in the determining, the predetermined information on file transmission to the second destination is determined based on a user operation on the UI screen after the transition.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for a more efficient system, since both Kuroyanagi and Zhang are systems that scan and send document data. Wherein Kuroyanagi’s system wherein improved system efficiency, while Zhang’s system wherein improved searching and categorization of the system. Please see Kuroyanagi et al. (US 20190278630 A1), Paragraph [0149] and Zhang et al. (US 20130294694 A1) Paragraph [0083].
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroyanagi (US 20190278630 A1) hereafter referenced as Kuroyanagi in view of Stokes et al. (US 20120099146 A1) hereafter referenced as Stokes, Tokita et al. (US 20190102385 A1) hereafter referenced as Tokita, Zhang et al. (US 20130294694 A1) hereafter referenced as Zhang, and Kanada et al. (US 20190197305 A1) hereafter referenced as Kanada.
Regarding claim 6, Kuroyanagi in view of Stokes, Tokita, and Zhang teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, Kuroyanagi fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to determine a name of a folder used as a storage destination in a case where a file is transmitted and stored in a storage.
However, Kanada explicitly teaches wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to determine a name of a folder used as a storage destination in a case where a file is transmitted and stored in a storage (Fig. 7, Paragraph [0087]- Kanada discloses in step S240, the file save support unit 21 generates a folder name to be attached when saving the document image data acquired in step S200, using the results of steps S220 and S230. In this case, the file save support unit 21 generates a folder name including the specific character string detected from the character strings in the data in the search in step S220 and the date information extracted from the character strings in the data in step S230.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kuroyanagi of an information processing apparatus for remotely controlling an external device via a network, the information processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions to perform: the second external device having a function to obtain a document image obtained by execution of the scan from the first external device with the teachings of Kanada wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to determine a name of a folder used as a storage destination in a case where a file is transmitted and stored in a storage.
Wherein having Kuroyanagi’s system for workflow management wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to determine a name of a folder used as a storage destination in a case where a file is transmitted and stored in a storage.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for further improving system efficiency, since both Kuroyanagi and Kanada are systems that scan and send document data. Wherein Kuroyanagi’s system wherein improved system efficiency, while Kanada’s system wherein improved efficiency of the system. Please see Kuroyanagi et al. (US 20190278630 A1), Paragraph [0149] and Kanada et al. (US 20190197305 A1) Paragraph [0008].
Regarding claim 7, Kuroyanagi in view of Stokes, Tokita, Zhang, and Kanada teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 6, Kuroyanagi fails to explicitly teach wherein the UI screen is configured to be capable of receiving a user operation for creating a new folder as the folder used as the storage destination and in the determining, in a case where a user operation to designate creation of the new folder is received via the UI screen, a name of the new folder is determined by using results of the OCR processing for the character string area designated based on a user operation to designate the character string area for the document image preview-displayed on the UI screen.
However, Kanada explicitly teaches Kanada explicitly teaches wherein the UI screen is configured to be capable of receiving a user operation for creating a new folder as the folder used as the storage destination and in the determining (Fig. 7, Paragraph [0092]- Kanada discloses the control unit 11 detects an operation on a predetermined button (OK button 55 in the example of FIG. 8) on the folder setting screen 50, the folder name set in the folder name input field 53 at that point in time is determined as the folder name for saving the document image data acquired in step S200. That is, the user may attach the file name to the scan data (document image data) of the document read by the scanner 30 merely by visually recognizing the folder name automatically generated in step S240 in the folder name candidate field 54 (second field 54b), and selecting and approving the folder name (pressing the OK button 55). Further in Fig. 7, Paragraph [0094]- Kanada discloses the control unit 11 creates a folder to which the folder name determined in step S260 is attached (step S270), for the document image data acquired in step S200. This completes the flowchart of FIG. 7.),
in a case where a user operation to designate creation of the new folder is received via the UI screen (Fig. 5, Paragraph [0065]- Kanada discloses the user may set an appropriate file name as the file name of the scan data (document image data) of the document scanned by the scanner 30 merely by viewing the candidate file names in the file name candidate field 46 (second field 46b), selecting a file name, making a minimal edit on the file name, and approving (pressing the OK button 45).),
a name of the new folder is determined by using results of the OCR processing for the character string area designated based on a user operation to designate the character string area for the document image preview-displayed on the UI screen (Fig. 7, Paragraph [0087]- Kanada discloses in step S240, the file save support unit 21 generates a folder name to be attached when saving the document image data acquired in step S200, using the results of steps S220 and S230. In this case, the file save support unit 21 generates a folder name including the specific character string detected from the character strings in the data in the search in step S220 and the date information extracted from the character strings in the data in step S230.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kuroyanagi of an information processing apparatus for remotely controlling an external device via a network, the information processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions to perform: the second external device having a function to obtain a document image obtained by execution of the scan from the first external device with the teachings of Kanada wherein the UI screen is configured to be capable of receiving a user operation for creating a new folder as the folder used as the storage destination and in the determining, in a case where a user operation to designate creation of the new folder is received via the UI screen, a name of the new folder is determined by using results of the OCR processing for the character string area designated based on a user operation to designate the character string area for the document image preview-displayed on the UI screen.
Wherein having Kuroyanagi’s system for workflow management wherein the UI screen is configured to be capable of receiving a user operation for creating a new folder as the folder used as the storage destination and in the determining, in a case where a user operation to designate creation of the new folder is received via the UI screen, a name of the new folder is determined by using results of the OCR processing for the character string area designated based on a user operation to designate the character string area for the document image preview-displayed on the UI screen.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for further improving system efficiency, since both Kuroyanagi and Kanada are systems that scan and send document data. Wherein Kuroyanagi’s system wherein improved system efficiency, while Kanada’s system wherein improved efficiency of the system. Please see Kuroyanagi et al. (US 20190278630 A1), Paragraph [0149] and Kanada et al. (US 20190197305 A1) Paragraph [0008].
Regarding claim 8, Kuroyanagi in view of Stokes, Tokita, Zhang, and Kanada teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 6, Although Kuroyanagi in view of Zhang teaches character string area designated based on a user operation to designate the character string area for the document image preview-displayed on the UI screen (Fig. 6, Paragraph [0061]- Zhang discloses the user may use a mouse to click and drag a rectangular selection box around the title zone 616. A user may utilize multiple simultaneous touches on a user interface 600 to create a rectangular selection box around the title zone 616. A user may input a set of top and left coordinates in addition to pixel height and length for the title zone 616. Further in fig. 6, Paragraph [0066]- Zhang discloses the select destination box 702 may include a document name label 708 and a document name text box 710 into which a user may input a document title or into which a default title may be automatically input.).
Kuroyanagi in view of Zhang fails to explicitly teach wherein the UI screen is configured to be capable of receiving a user operation for searching for a folder from existing folders as the storage destination, the one or more processors further execute the instructions to perform: obtaining, in a case where a user operation to designate the search is received, search results by requesting the second external device to search for the existing folder by using results of the OCR processing for the character string area designated based on a user operation to designate the character string area for the document image preview-displayed on the UI screen, and in the determining, the folder used as the storage destination is determined based on a user operation to select a specific folder via the UI screen on which the search results are displayed.
However, Kanada explicitly teaches wherein the UI screen is configured to be capable of receiving a user operation for searching for a folder as the storage destination from existing folders (Fig. 4, Paragraph [0052]- Kanada discloses the user may set an arbitrary folder (an existing folder or a newly created folder) in the folder setting field 42 by operating the operation receiving unit 13 or the like. In addition, in response to a predetermined operation (for example, a display instruction of a pull-down menu) on the folder setting field 42 by the user, the display control unit 22 displays a folder candidate field 44 in the vicinity of the folder setting field 42, as illustrated in FIG. 4.),
the one or more processors further execute the instructions to perform: obtaining, in a case where a user operation to designate the search is received, search results by requesting the second external device to search for the existing folder by using results of the OCR processing for the character string area designated to designate the character string area for the document image preview-displayed on the UI screen (Fig. 7, Paragraph [0087]- Kanada discloses the file save support unit 21 generates a folder name to be attached when saving the document image data acquired in step S200, using the results of steps S220 and S230. In this case, the file save support unit 21 generates a folder name including the specific character string detected from the character strings in the data in the search in step S220 and the date information extracted from the character strings in the data in step S230.),
and in the determining, the folder used as the storage destination is determined based on a user operation to select a specific folder via the UI screen on which the search results are displayed (Fig. 8, Paragraph [0089]- Kanada discloses the folder setting field 52 is an input field for setting a folder (for example, a folder in the storage unit 15) as a save destination of the document image data acquired in step S200. The user may set an arbitrary folder (an existing folder or a newly created folder) in the folder setting field 52 by operating the operation receiving unit 13 or the like.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kuroyanagi of an information processing apparatus for remotely controlling an external device via a network, the information processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions to perform: the second external device having a function to obtain a document image obtained by execution of the scan from the first external device with the teachings of Kanada wherein the UI screen is configured to be capable of receiving a user operation for searching for a folder as the storage destination from existing folders, the one or more processors further execute the instructions to perform: obtaining, in a case where a user operation to designate the search is received, search results by requesting the second external device to search for the existing folder by using results of the OCR processing for the character string area designated based on a user operation to designate the character string area for the document image preview-displayed on the UI screen, and in the determining, the folder used as the storage destination is determined based on a user operation to select a specific folder via the UI screen on which the search results are displayed.
Wherein having Kuroyanagi’s system for workflow management wherein the UI screen is configured to be capable of receiving a user operation for searching for a folder as the storage destination from existing folders, the one or more processors further execute the instructions to perform: obtaining, in a case where a user operation to designate the search is received, search results by requesting the second external device to search for the existing folder by using results of the OCR processing for the character string area designated based on a user operation to designate the character string area for the document image preview-displayed on the UI screen, and in the determining, the folder used as the storage destination is determined based on a user operation to select a specific folder via the UI screen on which the search results are displayed.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for further improving system efficiency, since both Kuroyanagi and Kanada are systems that scan and send document data. Wherein Kuroyanagi’s system wherein improved system efficiency, while Kanada’s system wherein improved efficiency of the system. Please see Kuroyanagi et al. (US 20190278630 A1), Paragraph [0149] and Kanada et al. (US 20190197305 A1) Paragraph [0008].
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroyanagi (US 20190278630 A1) hereafter referenced as Kuroyanagi in view of Stokes et al. (US 20120099146 A1) hereafter referenced as Stokes, Tokita et al. (US 20190102385 A1) hereafter referenced as Tokita, and and Neville et al. (US 20140253945 A1) hereafter referenced as Neville.
Regarding claim 14, Kuroyangi in view of Stokes and Tokita teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Kuroyangi in view of Stokes and Tokita fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to perform: reading a registration code displayed on the first external device having the scan function to extract a device ID of the first external device, and wherein the first instructions are given to the first external device identified based on the registration code via an application on the second external device.
However, Neville explicitly teaches wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to perform: reading a registration code displayed on the first external device having the scan function to extract a device ID of the first external device (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0134]- Neville discloses more specifically, each time the virtual printer interface node needs to communicate with a cloud based service; the virtual printer interface node would create an authentication code based on current conventional non-cloud-ready printer connected thereto),
and wherein the first instructions are given to the first external device identified based on the registration code via an application on the second external device (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0136]- Neville discloses the virtual printer interface node intercepts communications between the cloud-based service and the conventional non-cloud-ready printer and provides the appropriate conversion so that the cloud-based service and the conventional non-cloud-ready printer can effectively communicated therebetween.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kuroyanagi of an information processing apparatus for remotely controlling an external device via a network, the information processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions to perform: the second external device having a function to obtain a document image obtained by execution of the scan from the first external device with the teachings of Kanada wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to perform: reading a registration code displayed on the first external device having the scan function to extract a device ID of the first external device, and wherein the first instructions are given to the first external device identified based on the registration code via an application on the second external device.
Wherein having Kuroyanagi’s system for workflow management wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to perform: reading a registration code displayed on the first external device having the scan function to extract a device ID of the first external device, and wherein the first instructions are given to the first external device identified based on the registration code via an application on the second external device.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for further improving security of the system, since both Kuroyanagi and Neville are systems that scan and send document data. Wherein Kuroyanagi’s system wherein improved system efficiency, while Neville’s system wherein improved system security. Please see Kuroyanagi et al. (US 20190278630 A1), Paragraph [0149] and Neville et al. (US 20140253945 A1) Paragraph [0114].
Conclusion
Listed below are the prior arts made of record and not relied upon but are considered
pertinent to applicant`s disclosure.
Matsumoto et al. (US 20190065843 A1)- In a situation of setting a file name and the like by using a character string obtained by performing OCR processing to a scan image, appropriate conditions can be set according to a character string to be scanned so as to increase a character recognition rate. There is provided an apparatus for performing a predetermined process to a scan image obtained by scanning a document, including: a display control unit configured to display a UI screen for performing the predetermined process, the UI screen displaying a character area assumed to be one continuous character string in the scan image in a selectable manner to a user; and a setting unit configured to determine a condition for OCR processing based on selection order of a character area selected by a user via the UI screen and a format of supplementary information for the predetermined process, perform OCR processing by using the determined condition for OCR processing to the selected character area, and set supplementary information for the predetermined process by using a character string extracted in the OCR processing....................Please see Fig. 1. Abstract.
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 LUCIUS C.G. ALLEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5987. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-5pm (EST).
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571)272-9752. 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.
/LUCIUS CAMERON GREEN ALLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2673
/CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights