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 .
Claims 1 – 20 are pending in this application.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/17/2023 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Applicant has provided an explanation of relevance of cited document(s) JP- 2016-001795and JP- 2022-035031A on page 1 of the specification.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1 - 14 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “An image reading device comprising: a transport section that transports a recording medium; a reading section that reads an image formed on the recording medium transported by the transport section; and a processor configured to: set a transport speed of the recording medium by the transport section based on a transport state of the recording medium transported by the transport section”.
The claim limitation of “a transport section that transports a recording medium”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the human activity but for the recitation of generic computer component. That is, other than reciting “image reading device” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically performed in human activity. For example, but for the “image reading device” and “processor” language, “transport” in the content of this claim encompass an user to carry a printed paper.
Similarly, the limitation of “a reading section that reads an image formed on the recording medium transported by the transport section”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the human activity but for the recitation of generic computer component. That is, other than reciting “image reading device” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically performed in human activity. For example, but for the “image reading device” and “processor” language, “reads” in the content of this claim encompass the user to read the printed paper in which the user is carrying.
Similarly, the limitation “set a transport speed of the recording medium by the transport section based on a transport state of the recording medium transported by the transport section”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the human activity but for the recitation of generic computer component. That is, other than reciting “image reading device” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically performed in human activity. For example, but for the “image reading device” and “processor” language, “set” in the content of this claim encompass the user, as a carrier, to speed/run after reading the printed paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using an image reading device and processor to perform the transport, reading and set steps.
The processing circuitry in first step is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processing circuitry to perform transporting, reading and setting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 limitations are: “Transport Section”, “Reading Section” and “Image forming Section” in claim 1 and 15 - 18.
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.
Transport Section is read by the Examiner as being item 412 of Fig. 4, in which corresponds to a transport roll that transport paper P, Specification on ¶0067.
Reading Section is read by the Examiner as being item 414 of Fig. 4, in which corresponds to a line sensor that read data, Specification on ¶0071.
Image Forming Section is read by the Examiner as being item 100 of Fig. 3, in which corresponds to an image forming unit, Specification on ¶0023 and/or Supplementary Note.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 15, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2022/0394147 A1, hereinafter ‘Takahashi’).
With respect to claim 1, Takahashi teaches an image reading device (i.e., an image forming apparatus, ¶0023) comprising: a transport section that transports a recording medium (e.g., conveying means configured to convey a sheet, ¶0030, ¶0036 - ¶0037); a reading section that reads an image formed on the recording medium transported by the transport section (e.g., read an image formed on the sheet conveyed by the conveying means, abstract, ¶0010, ¶0044, ¶0078 - ¶0082); and a processor (i.e., a controller, ¶0041 - ¶0043) configured to: set a transport speed of the recording medium by the transport section based on a transport state of the recording medium transported by the transport section (e.g., adjust/set conveying speed of the sheet by the conveying means based on a conveying condition of the sheet conveyed by the conveying means, ¶0076 - ¶0084, Fig. 7).
With respect to claim 2, Takahashi teaches the image reading device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: set the transport speed based on a state regarding a position of the recording medium transported by the transport section (e.g., adjust/set conveying speed of the sheet by the conveying means based on position from the conveying condition of the sheet conveyed by the conveying means, ¶0076 - ¶0084, Fig. 7).
With respect to claims 15 and 16, Takahashi teaches an image forming apparatus (i.e., an image forming apparatus, abstract) comprising: an image reading device (e.g., a sensor, abstract) that reads an image formed on a recording medium (i.e., that read a chart printed on the sheet, abstract); and an image forming section (e.g., an image forming unit, abstract) that forms an image obtained by reading of the image reading device on the recording medium (e.g., that print a chart for reading the chart on the sheet, ¶0007 - ¶0009, ¶0037), wherein the image reading device is configured by the image reading device according to claims 1 and 2, respectively.
With respect to claim 19, Takahashi notes that the invention may be realized through the execution by a CPU (e.g., a printer controller, ¶0040) of instruction codes (e.g., instructions from software, Fig. 3) stored in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (e.g., stored in a memory, ¶0038). The further limitations are met by the teachings as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
With respect to claim 20, this is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the apparatus claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 - 13, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Nomura (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2017/0104888 A1, hereinafter ‘Nomura’).
With respect to claim 3, Takahashi teaches the image reading device according to claim 2, wherein the transport section transports the recording medium in one direction, and the processor is configured to: set the transport speed based on a state regarding a position of the recording medium transported by the transport section (e.g., adjust/set conveying speed of the sheet by the conveying means based on position from the conveying condition of the sheet conveyed by the conveying means, ¶0076 - ¶0084, Fig. 7), but fails that said recording medium is transported by the transport section in a direction intersecting the one direction.
However, the aforementioned claim limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Nomura. In particular, Nomura teaches a recording medium being transported by a transport section in a direction intersecting the one direction (e.g., adjusting a conveyance speed based on a position of the sheet when the sheet is intersecting (e.g., crossing) one direction, ¶0006 with ¶0158 and Fig. 9, Fig. 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the image reading device of Takahashi as taught by Nomura since Nomura suggested within ¶0006 with ¶0158 and Fig. 9 & 13 that such modification would provide countermeasures such as retrying image position in order to avoid image quality deterioration.
With respect to claim 4, Takahashi in view of Nomura teaches the image reading device according to claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where the position of the recording medium in the intersecting direction is a specific position, set the transport speed to be reduced as compared with a case where the position is not the specific position (e.g., depending of the position of the sheet, conveyor speed is adjusted, ¶0009, ¶0031, ¶0037, ¶0076 - ¶0078)
With respect to claim 5, Takahashi in view of Nomura teaches the image reading device according to claim 4, wherein Nomura generally teaches the processor is configured to: in a case where the position of the recording medium in the intersecting direction is a position where a distance from a predetermined reference position to the recording medium is greater than a predetermined threshold value, set the transport speed to be reduced as compared with a case where the position of the recording medium in the intersecting direction is a position where the distance is not greater than the threshold value (e.g., this is simply determining a threshold in which is set by the user or factory, therefore not greater than the threshold, ¶0025 - ¶0027, ¶0106, ¶0158).
With respect to claim 6, Takahashi in view of Nomura teaches the image reading device according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where the position of the recording medium in the intersecting direction is not the specific position, set the transport speed to be increased (e.g., refer to Fig. 13, wherein determine if sheet is not positioned, then correct parameters/values, ¶0006 with ¶0163).
With respect to claim 7, Takahashi teaches the image reading device according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the transport section transports the recording medium in one direction, and the processor is configured to: set the transport speed based on a degree of a movement of the recording medium transported by the transport section in a direction intersecting the one direction.
However, the aforementioned claim limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Nomura. In particular, Nomura teaches wherein the transport section transports the recording medium in one direction, and the processor is configured to: set the transport speed based on a degree of a movement of the recording medium transported by the transport section in a direction intersecting the one direction (e.g., correct parameters/values when the sheet is intersecting (e.g., crossing) one direction, ¶0113 - ¶0114, ¶0166).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the image reading device of Takahashi as taught by Nomura since Nomura suggested within ¶0113 - ¶0114 and ¶0166 that such modification would determine if range falls into margin prior provide countermeasures such as retrying image position in order to avoid image quality deterioration.
With respect to claim 8, Takahashi in view of Nomura teaches the image reading device according to claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where ana amount of the movement of the recording medium in the intersecting direction is greater than a predetermined threshold value, set the transport speed to be reduced as compared with a case where the amount of the movement of the recording medium is not greater than the predetermined threshold value (e.g., this is simply determining a threshold in which is set by the user or factory, therefore not greater than the threshold, ¶0025 - ¶0027, ¶0106, ¶0158).
With respect to claim 9, Takahashi in view of Nomura teaches the image reading device according to claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where the amount of the movement of the recording medium in the intersecting direction is smaller than the predetermined threshold value, set the transport speed to be increased (e.g., this is simply determining whether the threshold is lower or below, in order to correct by increasing conveyance speed, ¶0025 - ¶0027, ¶0106, ¶0158).
With respect to claim 10, Takahashi teaches the image reading device according to claim 1, where Takahashi teaches everything except for a state regarding an inclination of the recording medium.
However, Nomura teaches the inclination of the recording medium (e.g., inclination of the sheet, ¶0064).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the image reading device of Takahashi as taught by Nomura since Nomura suggested within ¶0064 that such modification would provide countermeasures such as retrying image position in order to correct inclination of an image on a printed matter.
With respect to claim 11, Takahashi in view of Nomura teaches the image reading device according to claim 10, wherein Nomura teaches the processor is configured to: in a case where the inclination of the recording medium transported by the transport section is greater than a predetermined threshold value, set the transport speed to be reduced as compared with a case where the inclination is smaller than the predetermined threshold value (Fig. 9).
With respect to claim 12, Takahashi in view of Nomura teaches the image reading device according to claim 11, wherein Nomura teaches the processor is configured to: in a case where the inclination of the recording medium transported by the transport section is smaller than the predetermined threshold value, set the transport speed to be increased (Fig. 9 – if the inclination of the sheet is not above, determine shift correction parameter and magnification correction parameter, ¶0114).
With respect to claim 13, Takahashi teaches the image reading device according to claim 1, wherein Takahashi teaches everything except for whether or not the recording is in specific state.
However, Nomura teaches wherein the processor is configured to: set the transport speed to be changed in a case where the transport state of the recording medium transported by the transport section is in a specific state; and set the transport speed to return to an original transport speed in a case where the transport state of the recording medium is not in the specific state (e.g., refer to Fig. 13, wherein determine if sheet is not positioned, then correct parameters/values, ¶0006 with ¶0163).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the image reading device of Takahashi as taught by Nomura since Nomura suggested within ¶0006 and ¶0163 that such modification would determine if the sheet/paper is correctly aligned before adjusting the conveying speed.
With respect to claims 17 and 18, Takahashi in view of Nomura teaches an image forming apparatus (i.e., an image forming apparatus, abstract) comprising: an image reading device (e.g., a sensor, abstract) that reads an image formed on a recording medium (i.e., that read a chart printed on the sheet, abstract); and an image forming section (e.g., an image forming unit, abstract) that forms an image obtained by reading of the image reading device on the recording medium (e.g., that print a chart for reading the chart on the sheet, ¶0007 - ¶0009, ¶0037), wherein the image reading device is configured by the image reading device according to claims 3 – 4, respectively.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Saga (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2010/023854 A1, hereinafter ‘Saga’).
With respect to claim 14, Takahashi teaches the image reading device according to claim 1, wherein Takahashi teaches everything except for notify a user that the transport speed of the recording medium is changed, in a case where the transport speed is set to be changed.
However, in the same field of endeavor of conveying speed(s), Saga teaches notify a user that the transport speed of the recording medium is changed, in a case where the transport speed is set to be changed (e.g., if determined that a conveying speed is set to changed, at least output a warning that at least a conveying speed is changed, ¶0058 with ¶0083).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the image reading device of Takahashi as taught by Saga since Saga suggested within ¶0058 and/or ¶0083 that such modification of notifying the user would inform (display/output to) the user that the conveying speed has been changed/adjusted; thereby convenient for the user to get acknowledged.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sunada et al. (U.S PG Publication No. 2018/0048786 A1)1
Yamane (U.S PG Publication No. 2016/0159598 A1)2
Kondo (U.S Patent No. 7,775,518 B2)3
1This reference teaches when the conveyance of the original is restarted in the processing of Step S2364, the original is conveyed at a speed faster than the conveyance speed at a time of the reading processing. Therefore, the image cannot be read while the conveyance speed is maintained. The CPU 321 determines a distance to a position to start deceleration in order to reduce the conveyance speed of the original to a speed that allows the reading.
2This reference teaches a device has a rotary body rotated by a driving unit, and conveying a recording medium while holding the recording medium along a sheet conveying path. The rotary body performs primary movement by rotating obliquely in a sheet conveying direction before holding the recording medium and returning to a reference position after holding the recording medium and by moving in a width direction before holding the recording medium and returning to the reference position after holding the recording medium. Secondary movement performs rotation and moving operations after primary movement.
3This reference a technique is provided that can realize highly accurate skew correction without employing any particularly complicated device configuration. The quantity of skew of a sheet is determined in accordance with a detection result from a first pair of sensors. Driving of each of first rollers and second rollers is separately controlled to carry the sheet in such a manner as to reduce the quantity of skew determined in accordance with the detection result from the first pair of sensors. The quantity of skew of the sheet is determined in accordance with a detection result from a second pair of sensors. Driving of each of the first rollers and the second rollers is separately controlled to carry the sheet in such a manner as to reduce the quantity of skew determined in accordance with the detection result from the second pair of sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN M GUILLERMETY whose telephone number is (571)270-3481. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Benny Q TIEU can be reached at 571-272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN M GUILLERMETY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights