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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 9-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1 and 14-15 U.S. Patent Application No. 18/625901 (hereinafter “APP901”).
Regarding Claim 1, the Instant Application is directed to an image processing apparatus, comprising circuitry configured to: acquire capability information relating to conveyance processing, image-capturing processing, or image processing of an image reading apparatus.
Both applications are claiming common limitations, except APP901 claim “setting information” instead of “capability information”.
Therefore, claim 1 of instant application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in claim 1 of APP901. This aspect of the claim is identified as a difference.
However, using the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, the difference is caused by the implementation of the invention (such as, capability information) can be reasonably resolved, because the difference is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application. It is known technique for a skilled artisan to implement steps of using “capability information” as claimed in the instant application are well-known in the art, so that a skilled artisan would have been able motivated to implement image processing app apparatus from a known method with a reasonable expectation of success. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim 9-10 of instant application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in claims 14-15 in the PAT149, are rejected for the same reason as 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.
Claims 1-2, 7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanada et al. (US 20220286573) in view of Kondo (US 20090128844).
Regarding claim 1, Kanada teaches an image processing apparatus, comprising circuitry configured to: acquire capability information relating to conveyance processing, image-capturing processing, or image processing of an image reading apparatus, and a storage destination of a file that is generated by the image reading apparatus (p0006:pecifies the storage destination folder as a storage destination of read data); identify characteristic information of an existing file present in the storage destination (p0006:acquires the reading setting information from the storage destination folder, a setting unit that sets a reading condition based on the reading setting information and p0120:the storage control unit 122 stores the first unique reading setting information 233A as the first reading setting information 131A in the first folder 131);
Kanada does not teach determine whether the capability information of the image reading apparatus corresponds to the characteristic information and generate a determination result; and notify user of information relating to the determination result in a case where the determination result indicates that the capability information does not correspond to the characteristic information.
Kondo teaches determine whether the capability information of the image reading apparatus corresponds to the characteristic information and generate a determination result (p0082:Based on the received capability information, the server SRV decides whether there is any item related to the capability not supported by the image forming apparatus MFP in the read customizing information (step S64); and notify user of information relating to the determination result in a case where the determination result indicates that the capability information does not correspond to the characteristic information (p0088:If the customizing information is not valid (NO at step S70), the image forming apparatus MFP displays an image on touch panel 122 in a predetermined display mode).
Kanada and Kondo are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kanada with the teaching of Kondo for purpose for providing a customizable user interface.(p0003).
Regarding claim 2, Kanada in view of Kondo teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information relating to the determination result indicates that the image reading apparatus is not appropriate (fig. 6: s70-s74).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 9, The structural elements of apparatus claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 9. Thus, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Kanada’s further teaching on: A computer-readable memory that contains instructions, which when executed by a processor perform steps in a method (p0032).
Regarding claim 7, Kanada in view of Kondo teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to further notify the user of a recommended value of a setting relating to the conveyance processing, the image-capturing processing, or the image processing within a range of a capability indicated in the capability information based on the characteristic information (Kondo: fig. 6: S74).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Claims 3-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanada in view of Kondo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sesek et al. (US 20040042033).
Regarding claim 3, Kanada in view of Kondo does not tech the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the image reading apparatus includes software installed therein, and the circuitry is configured to: further acquire capability information of other image reading apparatuses or other software different from the software; and notify the user of information relating to an image reading apparatus or software having a capability corresponding to the characteristic information.
Sesek teaches wherein the image reading apparatus includes software installed therein, and the circuitry is configured to: further acquire capability information of other image reading apparatuses or other software different from the software; and notify the user of information relating to an image reading apparatus or software having a capability corresponding to the characteristic information (p0001: default printer:not have the capability to print a given user's job and p0003:routes an image-forming-related job from an intended image-forming device to an alternate image-forming device. Fig. 2: 210-216).
Kanada in view of Kondo and Sesek are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kanada in view of Kondo with the teaching of Sesek for provide the user-friendly printing system (p0002).
Regarding claim 4, Kanada in view of Kondo and Sesek teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to: in the case where the determination result indicates that the capability information of the image reading apparatus does not correspond to the characteristic information, acquire the capability information of the other image reading apparatuses or the other software; and notify the user of the information relating to the image reading apparatus or the software having the capability corresponding to the characteristic information among the other image reading apparatuses or the other software (Sesek: Fig. 2: 210-216).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 3 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 5, Kanada in view of Kondo and Sesek teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to: determine whether the capability information satisfies a predetermined criterion for the characteristic information and generate another determination result; and notify the user that the image reading apparatus is inefficient in a case where the determination result indicates that the capability information corresponds to the characteristic information and said another determination result indicates that the capability information does not satisfy the predetermined criterion for the characteristic information(Sesek: Fig. 2: 210-216).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 3 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 6, Kanada in view of Kondo and Sesek teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the image reading apparatus includes software installed therein, and the circuitry is configured to: in a case where said another determination result indicates that the capability information does not satisfy the predetermined criterion for the characteristic information, acquire the capability information of other image reading apparatuses or other software different from the software; and notify the user of information relating to an image reading apparatus or software having the capability information satisfying the predetermined criterion for the characteristic information among the other image reading apparatuses or the other software(Sesek: Fig. 2: 210-216).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 3 has been incorporated herein.
.
Regarding claim 8, Kanada in view of Kondo and Sesek teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the image reading apparatus includes software installed therein, and the circuitry is configured to: set setting information of a second image reading apparatus, wherein the second image reading apparatus is different from the image reading apparatus, and the setting information of the second image reading apparatus is set in advance and relating to the conveyance processing, the image-capturing processing, or the image processing (Sesek:An alternate image-forming device to which to route the job is then selected from these other devices), and in a case where the setting information in the second image reading apparatus does not correspond to the characteristic information, further acquire the capability information of other image reading apparatuses or other software different from the software and notify the user of information relating to an image reading apparatus or software having a capability corresponding to the characteristic information among the other image reading apparatuses or the other software (Sesek does not explicitly disclose selecting third image reading apparatus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to select third image reading apparatus of the second image reading apparatus does not correspond to the characteristic information, because Sesek already teaches select second image reading apparatus of the first image reading apparatus does not correspond to the characteristic information).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 3 has been incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN Q ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1600. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
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, Merouan, Abderrahim can be reached on (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.
HELEN ZONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/HELEN ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683