DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s remarks received on 06/02/2026 with respect to the amended independent claims have been acknowledged and are moot in view of a new ground of rejection necessitated by the corresponding amendment. Currently claims 1-3, 6, and 7 are rejected and claims 4 and 5 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f)
3. 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 storage device, a voice reception device, a job command generation device, a control device, and a job command generator in claims 1 and/or 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.
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 § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. Claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (US Pub: 2020/0304663) and in further view of Tian (CN Pub: 105895103) and Thomson et al (US Pub: 2020/0175961).
Regarding claim 1 (currently amended), Kubota teaches: A job command generation device, comprising: a storage device that stores correspondence information indicating a correspondence relationship between user identification information and a type of a voice reception device that converts, through voice recognition, voice data indicating received voice into text data [p0076-p0078],
and a control device including a processor, and configured to act, when the processor executes a job command generation program, as a job command generator [p0055-p0058] that: corrects the error in the text data received from the voice reception device [p110], and generates a job command that an image forming apparatus can interpret, on a basis of the text data in which the error has been corrected [p0087, p0099-p0103, p0142-p0144].
Kubota stores smart speaker ID and target printer and corrects interpretation in [p0061, p0088, and p0110]. In the same field of endeavor, Tian corrects initial text using stored user information and store terminal ID associated with user info: stores error correction information for correcting an error in the voice recognition for each type of the voice reception device [page 3: p01].
Kubota in view of Tian does not identify type of voice reception device. In the same field of endeavor, Thomson et al teaches: a storage device that stores correspondence information indicating a correspondence relationship between user identification information and a type of a voice reception device [p0377: table 5: 3]; identifies, upon receiving the text data and the user identification information from the voice reception device, the type of the voice reception device based on the correspondence information [p0377: table 5: 3].
Therefore, given Kubota’s teaching on converting voice to text, interpretation, and generating printer job command, Tian’s teaching on correcting text after speech to text conversion based on stored user info, and Thomson et al’s disclosure on associating a device type to a user account and selecting a speech processing using the device type, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to identify user associated voice reception device type and using the error correction information corresponding to the identified type of the voice reception device to correct recognized text.
Regarding claim 3 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Kubota further teaches: The job command generation device according to claim 1, further comprising a communication device that transmits the job command generated by the job command generator, to the image forming apparatus [fig 8: S8 and S9].
Claim 6 (currently amended) has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Kubota’s further teaching on: A computer-readable non-transitory recording medium, having a job command generation program stored therein, the job command generation program being configured to cause a computer to act as a job command generator [p0304].
Claim 7 (currently amended) has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Kubota’s further teaching on: A voice operation system comprising: a voice reception device that converts voice data representing a received voice into text data, through voice recognition [fig. 8, p0096].
6. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (US Pub: 2020/0304663), Tian (CN Pub: 105895103), and Thomson et al (US Pub: 2020/0175961); and in further view of Lee et al (US Pub: 2015/0019221).
Regarding claim 2 (currently amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Kubota in view of Tian and Thomson et al does not explicitly specify rewriting error correction info. In the same field of endeavor, Lee et al teaches: The job command generation device according to claim 1, wherein the error correction information stored in the storage device can be rewritten [p0029]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all so that stored error correction information is rewritable for increased flexibility.
Conclusion
7. There is a new ground of rejection necessitated by the corresponding amendment presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP 706.07(a).
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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 Tieu can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights