DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitations use 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:
an operation detecting portion,
an operation sound output portion,
a control portion of claim 1,
a sheet placement operation detecting portion,
a sheet detection portion of claim 2.
Because these claim limitations 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.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof of the claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, are:
an operation detecting portion: The operation buttons 41 and the touch panel 42 are each an example of an operation detecting portion that detects a human operation (paragraph 45).
an operation sound output portion: The buzzer driver 45 and the buzzer 46 are examples of an operation sound output portion that outputs the operation sound in response to input of the ringing signal RS1 (paragraph 62).
a control portion: The panel control processor 43 is an example of a control portion in the operation detecting device 4 (paragraph 60).
a sheet placement operation detecting portion: The sheet placement operation detecting portion 47 includes a document sensor 47a and a one-shot circuit 47b (paragraph 73).
a sheet detection portion: the document sensor 47a is an example of a sheet detection portion (paragraph 73).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the operation" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the content" in line 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunio Japanese Publication 1995172032 (hereafter “Kunio”) and Kenji Japanese Publication 2006243346 (hereafter “Kenji”).
Referring to claim 1, Kunio discloses an operating detecting device comprising:
an operation detecting portion configured to detect human operations (page 4, manual operation panel);
an operation sound output portion configured to output a sound corresponding to the operation when a ringing signal is input (page 4, the sound signal transmitting means transmits to a buzzer);
a control portion capable of outputting a ringing command signal in a normal state (page 4, Regarding the buzzer notification during online, switching is performed by the online / offline switching section as shown in FIG. 5), and configured to transition to a paused state with lower power consumption than the normal state when a pause condition is satisfied in the normal state (page 3, in a printer provided with an energy saving function of turning off the heater power of the printer engine when there is no printing for a certain period of time); and
an OR circuit configured to output a logical OR signal of an operation detection signal and the ringing command signal to the operation sound output portion as the ringing signal (page 4, If a state i satisfying the determination condition is generated in the state determination means 30 among 32 to 32, the sound notification function effectiveness determination means 33 determines whether or not to notify the state as a sound).
While Kunio discloses an operation detecting portion, Kunio does not disclose expressly outputting a sound in response to operation buttons.
Kenji discloses outputting an operation detection signal of the operation detecting portion as the ringing signal (page 7, The common specification setting 603 is whether or not a buzzer sounds when the user touches the touch panel LCD panel with a finger).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to output sound in response to operation buttons. The motivation for doing so would have been to notify the user that the button has been pushed to reduce misunderstanding the user’s intent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kenji with Kunio to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Referring to claim 3, Kunio discloses wherein the paused state is a state in which power is not supplied, and
the control portion, in the normal state, transmits operation data representing the content of the operation detection signal to a host device via communication when the operation detection signal is input, and outputs the ringing command signal corresponding to the ringing data to the OR circuit when ringing data is received from the host device via communication (page 1, This deciding condition is designated selectively by a command from a manual operating panel or a host device through a sound informing function selective device 34).
While Kunio discloses the paused state is a state in which power is not supplied, Kunio does not disclose expressly paused state is a state in which power is not supplied to the control portion.
Kenji discloses wherein the paused state is a state in which power is not supplied to the control portion (page 3, the copying machine is turned off).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a state in which power is not supplied to the control portion. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase power efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kenji with Kunio to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Referring to claim 4, Kunio discloses an image forming apparatus, comprising:
a printing device configured to form an image on paper (page 3, Engine 21 of FIG. 1); and
the operating detecting device according to claim 1 (page 3, controller 1 of FIG. 3).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunio Japanese Publication 1995172032 and Kenji Japanese Publication 2006243346 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukui US Publication 2018/0101210 (hereafter “Fukui”) Britton US Patent 4,228,952 (“Britton”).
Referring to claim 2, Kunio discloses the operation detecting portion, but does not disclose expressly wherein the operation detecting portion includes a sheet placement operation detecting portion configured to detect an operation of placing a sheet on a sheet tray.
Fukui discloses wherein the operation detecting portion includes a sheet placement operation detecting portion configured to detect an operation of placing a sheet on a sheet tray (paragraph 108, The manual insert detection unit 433 causes an interrupt signal to be generated in accordance with a sheet being placed on the manual feed tray); and
the sheet placement operation detecting portion includes:
a sheet detection portion configured to detect the sheet placed on the sheet tray; and
a circuit configured to output a signal as the operation detection signal when a sheet detection signal of the sheet detection portion changes from a negative state to an active state (paragraph 108, The manual insert detection unit 433 causes an interrupt signal to be generated in accordance with a sheet being placed on the manual feed tray).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to detect sheets placed at a manual tray of a printer. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the printer to initiate feeding the sheet in order to scan and or print onto the sheet.
While Fukui discloses outputting a signal when detecting the sheet placed on the sheet tray, Fukui does not disclose expressly using a one-shot circuit too output a pulse signal.
Britton discloses a one-shot circuit configured to output a pulse signal as the operation detection signal when a sheet detection signal of the sheet detection portion changes from a negative state to an active state (col. 9, lines 1-3, Another feed control that can be used is to trigger a pulse from a one-shot pulse generator when detector 155 first sees a sheet).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a one shot circuit to output a pulse signal. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the costs of components by incorporating simple low cost components into the printer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fukui and Britton with Kunio to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER K HUNTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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.
/PETER K HUNTSINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682