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 – 10 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 02/23/2024 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-2022-026815 on page 2 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 – 10 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “a processing device comprising: a detection unit configured to detect, from paper, paper information that reflects a feature of the paper; and a setting unit configured to set at least one of a plurality of print control parameters that are used to print on the paper as information to be registered in a paper database, based on the paper information detected by the detection unit”.
The claim limitation of “detect, from paper, paper information that reflects a feature of the paper”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human activity or mind but for the recitation of generic computer component. That is, other than reciting “processing device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically performed in human activity or mind. For example, but for the “processing device” language, “detecting” in the content of this claim encompass the user to recognize and/or collect property or characteristics of a paper.
Similarly, the limitations of “set at least one of a plurality of print control parameters that are used to print on the paper as information to be registered in a paper database, based on the paper information detected by the detection unit”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human activity but for the recitation of generic computer component. For example, but for the “processing device” language, “set” in the context of this claim encompass the user to set by arranging or placing the recognized property/characteristics of the paper into a tray/feeder to be stored. If a claim limitations, 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 a processing device to perform the detecting and set steps.
The processing device in first step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic control unit detecting and setting) 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 device to perform detecting 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 claim is 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 limitation(s) is/are: Detection Unit, Setting Unit, First Detection Unit, Second Detection Unit and Printing Unit in claims 1, 2 and 4 – 7.
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.
Detection Unit is read by the examiner as being item 270 of Fig. 4, described as a media sensor 270 controlled by a CPU 110, Specification on ¶0036, ¶0041 - ¶0043.
Setting Unit is read by the examiner as being a combination of items 140 and 501 of Figs. 1 and 5A, described as a instruction/display unit 140 controlled by the CPU, Specification on ¶0067 and ¶0048.
First Detection Unit is read by the examiner as being item 221 of Fig. 4, described as a sensor provided by a manual feed tray 221 that detect that the paper is placed on the manual feed tray, specification on ¶0028, ¶0042 and ¶0078.
Second Detection Unit is read by the examiner as being item 170 of Fig. 1, described as an image unit 170 controlled by the CPU 110, Specification on ¶0024 and ¶0089.
Printing Unit is read by the examiner as being item 230 of Fig. 2, described as an image forming unit 230 also controlled by the CPU, Specification on ¶0038,
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 - 3 and 8 - 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsujimoto et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2023/0188658 A1, hereinafter ‘Tsujimoto’).
With respect to claim 1, Tsujimoto teaches a processing device (e.g., an image forming apparatus, Fig. 2) comprising: a detection unit (e.g., a sensor, ¶0018) configured to detect, from paper, paper information that reflects a feature of the paper (e.g. configured to detect, from sheet, sheet type that represents physical property of the sheet, ¶0018, ¶0056); and a setting unit (e.g., a sheet type setting screen, ¶0056) configured to set at least one of a plurality of print control parameters that are used to print on the paper as information to be registered in a paper database, based on the paper information detected by the detection unit (e.g., set at least one of a plurality of parameters that are used to print on the sheet as information to be learned (e.g., for new type) and/or recorded/stored in a table, ¶0056 - ¶0057, ¶0068 - ¶0071, ¶0090, ¶0109, Figs. 7A/7B).
With respect to claim 2, Tsujimoto teaches the processing device according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit includes a first detection unit configured to detect the paper information from the paper after the paper is fed and before the paper is printed (e.g., said sensor is configured to detect the sheet type from the sheet after the sheet is fed (loaded) and before the sheet is printed, Fig. 1, ¶0089, Fig. 8).
With respect to claim 3, Tsujimoto teaches the processing device according to claim 2, wherein the setting unit identifies a type of the paper based on the paper information detected by the first detection unit and sets at least one of the print control parameters for paper of the type (e.g., via the sheet type setting screen finds a type of the sheet based on sheet based on grammage detected by the se sensor and sets/correct/adjusts parameters for type of sheet, ¶0055 - ¶0057 with ¶0070 - ¶0071, ¶0091 - ¶0092).
With respect to claim 8, Tsujimoto teaches the processing device according to Claim 1, wherein the print control parameter is set for each of the types of paper, and wherein the print control parameter set by the setting unit is a print control parameter used to print on another paper of the same type as the paper having the paper information detected by the detection unit (e.g., from the sheet type setting screen, the user eventually can set and then execute printing on another sheet of a same sheet type, Fig. 7A – Fig. 7B, ¶0111 - ¶0112).
With respect to claim 9, this is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the apparatus claim 1.
With respect to claim 10, Tsujimoto notes that the invention may be realized through the execution by a CPU (Fig. 2 - CPU 111) of instruction codes (e.g., system programs and other programs executable on the system programs, ¶0063) stored in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (e.g., stored in a ROM 113 (e.g., as an example of a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium ¶0063). The further limitations are met by the teachings as previously discussed with respect to 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 4 - 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujimoto in view of Nakama (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2022/0337713 A1, hereinafter ‘Nakama’).
With respect to claim 4, Tsujimoto teaches the processing device according to Claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the detection unit includes a second detection unit configured to detect the paper information by optically reading print information printed on the paper.
However, the mentioned claimed limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Nakama. In particular, Nakama teaches wherein the detection unit includes a second detection unit (e.g., a reader 20, ¶0025) configured to detect the paper information by optically reading print information printed on the paper (e.g. a detection means configured to detect/read an adjustment chart by reading/scanning a test image printed on the media, ¶0034, ¶0056 - ¶0058, ¶0066, ¶0071 - ¶0073 - ¶0078 and ¶0087).
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 processing device of Tsujijmoto as taught by Nakama since Nakama suggested within ¶0056 - ¶0058 and/or ¶j0073 - ¶0078 that such modification would scan/read color measurement in order to perform correction based on result of adjustment chart obtained by the image reading unit 300; thereby improving detection accuracy of the media characteristic (type).
With respect to claim 5, Tsujimoto in view of Nakama teaches the processing device according to claim 4, wherein Nakama further teaches comprising: a printing unit (e.g., an image forming unit 17, abstract, ¶0033, Fig. 2), wherein said printing unit print the print information on the paper (e.g., wherein an image forming unit 17 print the adjustment chart or the test image on the medium, ¶0056).
With respect to claim 6, Tsujimoto teaches the processing device according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit includes a first detection unit configured to detect the paper information from the paper after the paper is fed and before the paper is printed (e.g., said sensor is configured to detect the sheet type from the sheet after the sheet is fed (loaded) and before the sheet is printed, Fig. 1, ¶0089, Fig. 8), but fails to teach a second detection unit configured to detect the paper information by optically reading print information printed on the paper, and wherein the second detection unit detects, as the paper information, print information printed on the paper from which the paper information is detected by the first detection unit.
However, in the same field of endeavor of detecting type of medium/paper/sheet and adjusting setting (parameters), Nakama teaches a second detection unit configured to detect the paper information by optically reading print information printed on the paper (e.g., obtain media information while reading adjustment chart by reading/scanning a test image printed, ¶0034, ¶0056 - ¶0058, ¶0066, ¶0071 - ¶0073 - ¶0078 and ¶0087), and wherein the second detection unit detects, as the paper information, print information printed on the paper from which the paper information is detected by the first detection unit (e.g., where an image ready unit detects, as the media information, adjustment chart printed on the media which the media information is detected by the sensor, ¶0066, ¶0071 - ¶0073, ¶0076, ¶086).
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 processing device of Tsujijmoto as taught by Nakama since Nakama suggested within ¶0066 and ¶0073 - ¶0078 that such modification would scan/read color measurement in order to perform correction based on result of adjustment chart obtained by the image reading unit 300; thereby improving detection accuracy of the media characteristic (type).
With respect to claim 7, Tsujimoto in view of Ogushi teaches the processing device according to claim 6, wherein Nakama further teaches comprising: a printing unit, wherein the printing unit prints, on the paper, the print information based on the print control parameter set by the setting unit based on the paper information detected by the first detection unit (e.g., said image forming unit 17 keeps printing results, test image(s) or adjustment chart for calibration corresponding to the at least the type of media, ¶0066, ¶0073, Fig. 11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mamura et al. (U.S PG Publication No. 2015/0281492 A1)1
Maeda (U.S PG Publication No. 2016/0162762 A1)2
Oguchi (U.S PG Publication No. 2020/0016907 A1)3
Kikuchi et al. (U.S PG Publication No. 2022/0053104 A1)4
1This reference teaches a paper type detection apparatus includes a surface-property detection unit, a thickness detection unit, and a paper-type setting unit. The surface-property detection unit detects a surface property of paper by performing image processing on image data of the paper read by an image reading unit. The thickness detection unit causes the image reading unit to read the image data of the paper over which a reference chart with a predetermined black density is laid. The thickness detection unit detects the thickness of the paper based on the difference between the black density of the reference chart and the black density appearing on the image data through the paper. The paper-type setting unit sets the type of the paper associated with the detected surface property and thickness of the paper.
2This reference teaches a control method in a printing apparatus includes printing, by a printing unit, an adjustment image for adjusting a printing position on a sheet, conveying, by a conveying unit, the sheet on which the adjustment image is printed, reading, by a reading unit, an image to generate image data, the reading unit being executable to perform reading by a first reading method for reading an image of a sheet without conveying the sheet or a second reading method for reading the image of the sheet while conveying the sheet, and determining, based on that a type of the sheet on which the adjustment image is to be printed is a specific type, to read the adjustment image by the first reading method.
3This reference teaches a predetermined test image (e.g., patterns) is formed by the image forming operator 14 on the medium M for which the physical property was measured, and the test image is read by a reader 20. The type of medium M is then specified on the basis of the reading result of the reader 20 from among the candidates of medium type which were obtained by narrowing the type of medium M on the basis of the measurement result by the physical property measurer 13.
4This reference may be another closest prior art, wherein teaches an image forming apparatus is provided. the apparatus comprises a sheet feeding unit to supply a plurality of types of sheets; an image forming unit to form an image on a sheet; a detection unit to detect an image formed on the sheet; and a controller that causes correction information for each sheet type to be saved in a storage, and under set conditions, causes a specified type of sheet to be supplied by the sheet feeding unit, causes a chart for gradation correction to be formed by the image forming unit, and causes the correction information to be generated based on image information for which the formed chart for gradation correction was detected by the detection unit, and saves the correction information in the storage.
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