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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed 3/14/24 is acknowledged, the reference therein relating to the general background of applicant’s invention.
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.
The following title is suggested: “MFP with a display panel that rotates based upon the face position of a user”.
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: “a panel rotation unit … a face position information acquisition unit … a control unit” in claim 1.
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. Inspection of the specification reveals that a motor (item 61 of figure 2) corresponds to the panel rotation unit; a camera (item 71 of figure 2) corresponds to the face position information acquisition unit; and a CPU (figure 3, item 81) corresponds to the control unit.
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
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.
1) Claim(s) 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. patent application publication 2019/0098145 by Ii.
2) Regarding claim 1, Ii teaches a recording device (figure 1, item 10; an MFP) including a movable panel unit provided in an angle adjustable manner and configured to be used to perform various operations (figure 1, item 13; a movable display panel), the recording device comprising: a panel rotation unit configured to rotate the movable panel unit to change an angle of the movable panel unit (figure 2, item 134; paragraph 33; panel adjustment motor moves the display to different angles); a face position information acquisition unit configured to acquire information about a position of a face of a user (figure 2, item 133; paragraph 44; human sensor determines angle of human head and eyes [i.e. a face]); and a control unit, wherein the control unit rotates the panel rotation unit to adjust the angle of the movable panel unit based on the information acquired by the face position information acquisition unit (paragraph 47; figure 5, Act5; processor controls the angle adjustment motor to put display at an optimal angle to face a user).
3) Regarding claim 2, Ii teaches the recording device according to claim 1, wherein the face position information acquisition unit is provided at the movable panel unit (figure 3, item 133; human sensor is a part of the movable display unit).
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.
4) Claim(s) 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2019/0098145 by Ii as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2018/0157449 by Nobutani et al.
5) Regarding claim 3, Ii teaches the recording device according to claim 2, further comprising a sensor configured to detect the user that uses the recording device (paragraph 42; sensor detects a person approach the MFP), wherein when the motion sensor detects the user, the control unit changes the face position information acquisition unit from an OFF state to an ON state (figure 4; paragraph 43; once human approach is detected the optimal angle acquisition through sensor 133 is activated in Act3 [i.e. turned to an ON state]).
Ii does not specifically teach a motion sensor.
Nobutani teaches a motion sensor (paragraphs 36 and 38; human sensor detection of movement can cause power to be supplied to other MFP units including a facial recognition camera).
Ii and Nobutani are combinable because they are both from the MFP human sensor field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Ii with Nobutani to add a motion sensor. The motivation for doing so would have been to be able to sense movement from an MFP low power mode (paragraph 36). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Ii with Nobutani to obtain the invention of claim 3.
6) Regarding claim 4, Ii teaches the recording device according to claim 3, wherein when the motion sensor detects the user, the control unit rotates the movable panel unit to move the face position information acquisition unit to a position at which the information is acquirable by the face position information acquisition unit (figure 4; paragraphs 44-47; after approach of user is detected, panel automatically rotates to a position facing the eyes of the user).
7) Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2019/0098145 by Ii as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2017/0180578 by Nimura.
8) Regarding claim 5, Ii does not specifically teach the recording device according to claim 1, wherein when information indicating that a load equal to or greater than a certain level is detected is sent while the panel rotation unit is driven to automatically adjust the angle of the movable panel unit, the control unit stops driving the panel rotation unit.
Nimura teaches the recording device according to claim 1, wherein when information indicating that a load equal to or greater than a certain level is detected is sent while the panel rotation unit is driven to automatically adjust the angle of the movable panel unit, the control unit stops driving the panel rotation unit (paragraphs 49 and 51; figure 7; automatic tilting motor is stopped [item S206] after tilt operation is detected in an error state [i.e. item in the way as per paragraph 47], “load” could be item in the way or just the timer).
Ii and Nimura are combinable because they are both from the MFP rotating display field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Ii with Nimura to add motor monitoring. The motivation for doing so would have been to notify a user of a tilting operation error. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Ii with Nimura to obtain the invention of claim 5.
9) Regarding claim 6, Nimura (as combined with Ii in the rejection of claim 5 above) teaches the recording device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to select an automatic adjustment mode in which the angle of the movable panel unit is automatically adjusted and a manual adjustment mode in which the angle of the movable panel unit is manually adjusted without using the automatic adjustment mode (paragraph 51; automatic mode can be set to manual mode when error is detected).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571)270-5254. 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.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683