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 .
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: “an authentication management unit configured to grant” in claim 3 (limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the processor).
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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20220083299 to Sakai.
Regarding claim 1, Sakai discloses an image processing device comprising (paragraph 32 MFP 100):
an operation panel configured to be capable of displaying a main screen and a
sub-screen (paragraph 32, 34, 41, 55; display section (operation panel) displays main screen 200 and setting screen 300 (sub-screen)), the main screen including a menu region in which multiple function buttons corresponding to types of image processing are arranged (paragraph 42-44, 55; copy button 201, FAX button 202… function buttons are arranged on main screen as image processing types) and the sub-screen configured to be transitioned to from the main screen after one of the function buttons is selected (paragraph 55; when copy button 201 is selected it switches to setting screen 300 (sub-screen)) and including a reception region configured to accept an instruction for image processing related to the selected function button (Paragraph 56-57; it includes a reception region that accept instruction for setting color 301, size 302, .. for image processing related to copy function selection via button 201),
wherein in the sub-screen, a first history display region is displayed alongside the
reception region (paragraph 56; history display region 210 on sub-screen 300 next to reception region having color 301, size 302) , the first history display region configured to display multiple history buttons including information on image processing completed previously specifically for image processing corresponding to the selected function button (paragraph 61, 75; history region 210 includes multiple history item buttons 211c-e that can be selected associated with past completed copy (image processing) job that was selected function; each history item includes setting information associated with that past completed job).
Regarding Claim 2, Sakai discloses the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein in the main screen, a second history display region is displayed alongside
the menu region, the second history display region configured to display multiple history buttons including information on image processing completed previously specifically for multiple types of image processing corresponding to the function buttons in the menu region (paragraph 42, 46, 47, 50; main screen 200 includes history display region 210 (second history display region) displayed next to menu region having buttons 201-2024; the history display region 210 displays multiple history items 211a (selectable buttons) associates with different types of image processing such as FAX, PRINTING, COPY associated with buttons 201-204 for job completed in past).
Regarding claim 13, Sakai discloses the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the types of image processing include at least copying, scanning, and
Faxing (paragraph 44; copy 201, FAX 202, SCAN 203).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 3, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220083299 to Sakai in view of US 20200296238 to Nishiyama.
Regarding Claim 3, Sakai does not disclose the image processing device according to claim 1, further comprising:
an authentication management unit configured to grant each user authorization for
image processing based on results of user authentication,
wherein only the history buttons related to image processing previously
completed by a user granted authorization by the authentication management unit are displayed in the first history display region.
Nishiyama discloses an authentication management unit configured to grant each user authorization for image processing based on results of user authentication (paragraph 40-43; user logs in in s302 and authentication is granted to the user for performing copy/scan (image processing) as shown in Fig. 5a if authentication is OK in s304),
wherein only the history buttons related to image processing previously completed by a user granted authorization by the authentication management unit are displayed in the first history display region (paragraph 52-54; in integrated history group 512 (first history region) only history buttons associated copy/scan/fax processing completed in past associated with logged in user is displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Sakai as taught by Nishiyama to provide authentication when displaying history buttons.
The motivation to combine the references is to provide secure system wherein unauthorized users cannot view history buttons of other users without being authenticated and also provide convenience to authenticated users to view only their own history (paragraph 52-54).
Regarding Claim 11, Sakai discloses the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein information on image processing displayed on the history buttons includes text or a symbol image related to at least one selected from a group consisting of type of image processing, user name (see Fig. 3 having text “COPY” in the button 211c related to copy image processing; see Fig. 5 showing “WiFi Printing” processing having user name such as “Mr. A”; paragraph 47, 61). However Sakai does not disclose wherein information on image processing displayed on the history buttons includes text or a symbol image related to at least one selected from a group consisting of processing conditions, date and time of processing, and communication destination.
Nishiyama discloses wherein information on image processing displayed on the history buttons includes text or a symbol image related to at least one selected from a group consisting of processing conditions, date and time of processing, and communication destination (paragraph 50, 76, 111; see Fig. 5b showing for history button for “SEND TO MYSELF” having symbol on the integrated history which includes “A4, B&W” as processing condition, date and time and destination “isasaka”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Sakai as taught by Nishiyama to provide display of history buttons information.
The motivation to combine the references is to provide additional information on the history button that will help user select the right history by displaying processing condition, date, destination information so that they select the history that matches the desired settings from the history (paragraph 50, 76, 111).
Regarding claim 12, Nishiyama discloses the image processing device according to claim 11, wherein the processing conditions include at least one from among image quality and page layout (see Fig. 5b wherein processing condition include “COLOR”/B/W and 2-sided/1-sided (layout); paragraph 47).
Claim(s) 4, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220083299 to Sakai in view of JP 2019119139 to Sumi further in view of US 11132104 to Singh.
Regarding Claim 4, Sakai does not disclose the image processing device according to claim 2, wherein, among the history buttons, a history button selected through an operation performed by the user can be set to be fixedly displayed, and when, among the history buttons, a specific history button is set to be fixedly displayed on one screen from among the main screen and the sub-screen.
Sumi discloses wherein, among the history buttons, a history button selected through an operation performed by the user can be set to be fixedly displayed, and when, among the history buttons, a specific history button is set to be fixedly displayed on one screen from among the main screen and the sub-screen (paragraph 26, 29, 31; among history buttons one button can be pinned (fixed display) by user having mark 111 on the main screen 50 shown in Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Sakai as taught by Sumi to provide fixed display of history buttons as selected by user.
The motivation to combine the references is to provide priority display of pinned history items on the top of the screen so that they are easy to find by the user when selecting history buttons (paragraph 26, 29).
Sumi discloses history button, main screen and sub-screen (paragraph 17; home screen 50 and setting screen 60 (Sub-screen)). However Sumi does not disclose a corresponding button is automatically fixedly displayed on another screen.
Singh discloses a corresponding button is automatically fixedly displayed on another screen (see Fig. 10c wherein pinned item 1025 remains fixed on another screen of Fig. 10d; column 28, lines 56-67; column 29, lines 1-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Sakai in view of Sumi as taught by Singh to provide fixed display of items when switching screens.
The motivation to combine the references is to cause the pinned items (fixed display) to stay on the screen even when switched to another screen such that the pinned items can be used again on another application screen (column 29, lines 1-27).
Regarding claim 9, Sumi discloses the image processing device according to claim 4, wherein when the history button is fixedly displayed, information indicating that
the history button is fixedly displayed is displayed in the history button (paragraph 26, 29, 31; among history buttons one button can be pinned (fixed display) having mark 111 (information indicating) inside button 55).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220083299 to Sakai in view of JP 2019119139 to Sumi further in view of US 11132104 to Singh in view of Matter of Design Choice.
Regarding claim 8, Sumi discloses the image processing device according to claim 4, a history button, among the history buttons, that is set to be fixedly displayed is disposed (paragraph 26, 29, 31; among history buttons one button can be pinned (fixed display) by user with a mark 111 on the main screen 50 shown in Fig. 12; history buttons are disposed in top of the column). Further Singh disclose the button that is set to be fixedly displayed is disposed at a beginning or an end of the row (column 28, lines 47-67; in Fig. 10c there are multiple buttons 1025, 1035 that are pinned (fixedly displayed) in a beginning of row (pin 1025) and end of row (pin 1035)). However Sumi in view of Singh does not disclose wherein the multiple history buttons are displayed in a row.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to display the history button in a row instead of column, the purpose of doing so is to provide more space to display function buttons and other buttons in the main area by displaying the history buttons on top row of screen.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to display the multiple history buttons in a row so that the main area will have more space to display more function buttons.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220083299 to Sakai in view of US 20130326393 to Namioka.
Regarding claim 10, Sakai discloses the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein when the sub-screen is related to communication (paragraph 63; setting screen 400 sub-screen related to FAX).
However Sakai does not disclose when access information for accessing a specific communication partner is entered in the sub-screen, only history buttons, among the history buttons, that are specifically for the specific communication partner are displayed in the first history display region.
Namioka discloses when access information for accessing a specific communication partner is entered in the sub-screen, only history buttons, among the history buttons, that are specifically for the specific communication partner are displayed in the first history display region (paragraph 65-68, 71-73; user inputs destination “a” (access info) on email input screen (sub-screen) and this destination is searched in history 21 and only history having this destination “a” is displayed in Fig. 6b with button CB12; Fig. 6b shows first history display region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Sakai as taught by Namioka to provide display of history buttons matched with entered information.
The motivation to combine the references is to simplify the inputting of destination address when there is a lot of destination address group to choose from by letting the user to input desired destination information and provide display of history including destination information associated with inputted destination for selection (paragraph 4-7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Other Prior Art Cited
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20070176946 to MATOBA.
US 20200249891 to Kawakami.
US 20190379799 to Shogaki.
US 20190124212 to Hama.
US 20230418456 to ISHIBASHI.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENIYAM MENBERU whose telephone number is (571) 272-7465. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00am-6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached on (571) 270-3438. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the customer service office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600. The group receptionist number for TC 2600 is (571) 272-2600.
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.
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.
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).
Patent Examiner
Beniyam Menberu
/BENIYAM MENBERU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
02/19/2026