DETAILED ACTION
I. Introduction
This Office action addresses U.S. reissue application number 18/735,542 (“542 reissue application” or “instant application”), having a filing date of 6 June 2024. Because the instant application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the statutory provisions of the America Invents Act (“AIA ”) will govern this proceeding.
The instant application is a reissue of U.S. Patent 11,355,106 (“’106 patent”) titled “INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, METHOD OF PROCESSING INFORMATION AND STORAGE MEDIUM COMPRISING DOT PER INCH RESOLUTION FOR SCAN OR COPY”, which issued to Yutaka Nakamura on 7 June 2022 with claims 1-11 (“issued claims”). The application resulting in the ‘106 patent was filed on 13 March 2019 and assigned U.S. patent application number 16/351,629 (“’629 application”).
II. Other Proceedings
After review of Applicant’s statements as set forth in the instant application, and the examiner's independent review of the ‘106 patent itself and its prosecution history, the examiner has failed to locate any current ongoing litigation. The examiner has likewise failed to locate any previous reexaminations (ex parte or inter partes), supplemental examinations, or other post issuance proceedings.
III. Priority
The ‘629 application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) to Japanese application JP2018-069819, filed 30 March 2018, and JP2018-248441, filed 28 December 2018.
As a reissue application, the instant application is entitled to the priority date of the ‘106 patent, the patent being reissued. Thus, the instant reissue application has a presumed priority date of at least 28 December 2018, and as early as 30 March 2018, the filing date of the Japanese priority documents.
The Office acknowledges the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d), but notes that the priority claim has not been perfected through the filing of certified English language translations of the Japanese priority documents, which would establish enablement and written description support for the claims, as well as establishing the precise priority date for any given feature/limitation/claim. See MPEP § 2136(a)(II).
The priority date will be determined on a claim-by-claim basis, as necessary.
Because the effective filing date of the instant application is after March 16, 2013, the pre-AIA ‘First to Invent’ provisions do not apply. Instead, the AIA First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions will apply.
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 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.
IV. Claim Construction
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2111 et seq.
Upon review of the original specification and prosecution history, the examiner has found no instances of lexicographic definitions, either express or implied, that are inconsistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the respective terms. Therefore, for the purposes of claim interpretation, the examiner concludes that there are no claim terms for which applicant is acting as their own lexicographer. See MPEP § 2111.01(IV).
If applicant intended lexicographic definitions that have not been identified as such by the examiner, they are asked to note the term and the location in the specification or prosecution history supporting the lexicographic definition in response to this Office action.
Additionally, upon review of the pending claims, the examiner finds no instances where the claim terms explicitly include functional language which invokes the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
V. Applicant’s Response
Applicant’s response (“Response”), filed 10 June 2026, has been received, entered into the record, and considered.
The response included a new reissue declaration, a new application data sheet (ADS), and amendments of the claims. Specifically, claims 1-11 were amended, claims 12-20 were canceled, and new claim 22 was added. Claim 21 was previously withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a separate invention than that of claims 1-20.
Claims 1-11, 21, and 22 are currently pending. Claim 21 is withdrawn from consideration.
The amendment is objected to, however.
With respect to the claim amendment, claims 9 and 11 have status indicators of “Original.” However, the claims have been amended, and the status markings should therefore be “Currently Amended.”
In addition, the amendment is objected to because it fails to comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.173(d).
Specifically, in a reissue application, subject matter to be omitted must be enclosed within brackets. However, in claim 3, the term that applicant presumably wishes to omit, “acquires”, is preceded by an open bracket, with no corresponding closing bracket.
In addition, claims 3 and 4 include an open bracket that appears to also be underlined; for example, in claim 3:
PNG
media_image1.png
128
196
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This could potentially cause problems at the time of publication.
VI. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response included several arguments. They are addressed in turn below.
Application Data Sheet
Receipt of applicant’s corrected ADS is acknowledged. In view of the corrected ADS, the applicant of the instant reissue application has been corrected to be the assignee, Ricoh Company, Ltd.
Reissue Declaration
Applicant has filed a new reissue declaration to correct the error statement.
While the error statement provided on the new reissue declaration is compliant, the declaration itself remains defective.
Specifically, if a reissue applicant (in this case, Ricoh Company, Ltd.) is a juristic entity, the reissue declaration must be signed by an official of the applicant who has a title that carries apparent authority to act on behalf of the juristic entity. The new reissue declaration, however, was submitted on form PTO/AIA /05, “Reissue Declaration by Inventor,” and was signed by the inventor. In order to be compliant, a reissue declaration must be submitted by applicant (e.g., form PTO/AIA /06, “Reissue Declaration by Assignee”) and must be signed by an official of the applicant having a title that carries apparent authority to act on behalf of the applicant. See MPEP §§ 1414.01 and 325.
Recapture
In view of the cancelation of claims 12-20, the pending rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 251 for recapture are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
In view of the amendments to claims 2-9 and 16, the pending rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
In view of the amendments to claims 1, 10, and 11, the pending rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further review of the prior art of record, new grounds of rejection are presented below.
VII. Reissue Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because it was signed by the inventor, and not by an official of the applicant, a juristic entity, having a title that carries apparent authority to act on behalf of the juristic entity. In order to be compliant, a new reissue declaration must be submitted by applicant (e.g., form PTO/AIA /06, “Reissue Declaration by Assignee”) and must be signed by an official of the applicant having a title that carries apparent authority to act on behalf of the applicant. See MPEP §§ 1414.01 and 325.
VIII. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 251
Claims 1-22 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR § 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
IX. Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 20, and 21 are objected to, because they use the terms “remote target apparatus” and “target apparatus” interchangeably. In order to provide proper antecedent basis for all claim terms, the terms should be consistent throughout the claim set.
Appropriate corrected is required.
X. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6, 8-11, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,686,951 to Jacek Joseph Matysiak et al. (“Matysiak”) in view of U.S. Patent 10,643,235 to Sundar Balasubramanian et al. (“Balasubramanian”).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Matysiak teaches an information processing apparatus comprising circuitry (see mobile device 108, Figs. 1 and 3; see also disclosure that mobile device 108 can comprise a cellular telephone, smartphone, tablet, or similar mobile device, col. 9, lines 45-53) configured to:
a) acquire audio information via the information processing apparatus to be used for executing an information processing capability of a remote target apparatus (see disclosure that using mobile device 108 a user can interact with MFP 112 [i.e., the remote target apparatus] through a sequence of natural language text and/or voice messages, col. 10, lines 8-10);
b) recognize the audio information (this feature is inherent in the disclosed information processing apparatus, since it is disclosed that the audio information is pre-processed to extract audio data from received voice messages, col. 10, lines 60-64; the audio information must be recognized as such before it can be pre-processed);
c) transmit audio data representing the audio information to at least one remote server (see disclosure that the received voice messages can be pre-processed to extract audio data from the received messages, and that data can be provided to the cloud-based services 305 for further processing by the NLP applications 325, col. 10, lines 60-64, col. 13, lines 14-19, and col. 14, lines 64-66; this pre-processing can identify portions of the natural language expression in the received voice message that are relevant and/or particularly directed to access or to control the printing and/or scanning functions of the MFP, col. 15, lines 1-17);
d) receive specific text instruction information corresponding to the acquired audio information from the at least one remote server that includes a job type and a job setting value indicating specific information processing to be instructed to the target apparatus based on a recognition result of the acquired audio information (see disclosure that at step 520, the one or more servers receive the audio data, and at step 525, the one or more servers can perform natural language processing on the audio data to generate one or more entities or intents, which are returned to the MFP, col. 14, lines 24-31; see also disclosure that intents can comprise information identifying an action the user wishes to perform or request, e.g., a command to be initiated, a function to be performed, etc., while entities can comprise information identifying, defining, or clarifying a subject of or context for an action, col. 14, lines 32-51);
e) convert the received specific text instruction information into specific operation execution information described in an information format interpretable by the remote target apparatus based on the job type and the job setting value included in the specific text instruction information (see disclosure that the received intents and entities [i.e., specific text instruction information] can be processed to determine one or more functions [i.e., specific execution information] related to the voice message, and after the settings, functions, or options have been confirmed by the user, the one or more functions can be performed, col. 14, lines 1-3, col. 15, lines 29-33 and 60-65); and
f) wherein the circuitry is configured to provide verbal feedback comprising dot per inch resolution for scan or copy (see disclosure that MFPs offer the ability to print, scan, fax, and otherwise process documents in a wide variety of formats and in a number of different ways, including printing or scanning with various levels of resolution, etc., and that control of the functions of MFPs were typically performed manually through a control panel, but navigating menus can be daunting and time consuming, and thus there is a need for improved methods and systems for accessing and controlling the functions of an MFP, col. 1, lines 19-46; see also disclosure that when a desired function has been identified, and after a user has provided identity information, preference information can be accessed to identify personalized settings, functions, or options [e.g., dot per inch resolution] for using the MFP, and an indication of these personalized settings, functions, or options can be provided to the user at the mobile device, where the user can either confirm the settings, functions, or options, or may request one or more different settings, functions, or options, col. 13, lines 44-67, and col. 15, lines 34-59).
Matysiak does not explicitly teach an information processing apparatus whereby the conversion of received specific text instruction information is performed by the mobile device, and the resulting specific operation execution information is transmitted to the remote target apparatus [i.e., the MFP].
However, Matysiak does teach that the functions carried out by the disclosed system can be implemented on various components of the system. For instance, it is disclosed at col. 13, lines 8-22, that the conversion of voice messages into intents and entities can be implemented in a remote NLP application, or can alternately be performed locally on the MFP.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to implement the conversion of received specific text instruction information on the mobile device, and then transmit the resulting specific operation instruction information to the remote target apparatus [i.e., the MFP], since this would remove a significant processing workload from the MFP, allowing the MFP to utilize a simpler architecture and software, limited to the operation of the MFP itself.
In addition, the relocation of the conversion operation from the MFP to the mobile device would have been obvious to try, since there are a limited number of platforms within the claimed system (e.g., the mobile device, the at least one remote server, the remote target device) that could host the claimed conversion functionality.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement the conversion functionality on any of the platforms, since (1) the conversion functionality would have been necessary in order to implement a voice-based user interface for an MFP, (2) the three possible platforms on which the functionality could be implemented would be the mobile device, the MFP [i.e., remote target device] itself, or a remote server, and (3) the conversion functionality could be implemented on any of these platforms by a POSITA with a reasonable expectation of success, since the software implementing it could be similarly executed by a processor hosted by any of the above-cited platforms, and the system disclosed by Matysiak implements the transfer of information that would be necessary to implement the conversion functionality on different platforms.
Matysiak does not explicitly disclose transmitting a device ID identifying the information processing apparatus with the audio data to at least one remote server.
Matysiak does disclose, however, the transmission of information to identify the user to the at least one remote server (see disclosure that a user may be asked to submit identifying information, e.g., enter login information, swipe or scan an ID card, provide biometric information such as a picture for facial recognition, etc., col. 11, lines 11-18), as well as the fact that each user is associated with a mobile device (see disclosure that each mobile device may be limited to interacting with only one MFP for which the user associated with the mobile device 108 is authorized, col. 12, lines 37-43).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention that since each user is associated with a mobile device (i.e., the claimed information processing apparatus), information identifying a user would be synonymous with information identifying the associated mobile device (i.e., a device ID).
In addition, although Matysiak does not explicitly disclose identifying the target apparatus based on the device ID identifying the information processing apparatus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to do so, for the following reasons.
As discussed immediately above, Matysiak discloses the transmission of information to identify the user to the at least one remote server, and the information to identify the user is synonymous with information identifying the information processing apparatus.
Matysiak further discloses that the environment can include more than one MFP, but that each user may be limited to interacting with only one or a few MFPs for which the user is authorized (col. 12, lines 37-43).
In the case where there are multiple MFPs, but the user is authorized to interact with only one, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to have the remote server identify the MFP (i.e., the claimed target apparatus) based on the user ID (synonymous with the user’s mobile device 108, and therefore analogous to the claimed device ID identifying the information processing apparatus), because doing so would save the user from being required to enter the destination MFP each time they submit a job, even though they are only authorized to interact with a single MFP.
This would simplify the process of submitting jobs to the MFP by the user by eliminating the need to repeatedly select the only MFP for which the user is authorized.
To the extent that Matysiak fails to explicitly teach the transmission of device ID information with the audio data, Balasubramanian teaches an information processing apparatus that transmits audio data with a device ID identifying the information processing apparatus (see disclosure that a user driving a car submits a voice command via audio data, said audio data being transmitted wirelessly along with metadata identifying the user/mobile phone/car to a server, col. 22, lines 48-65).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing data of the invention to include device ID information with the audio data, because this information could be used at the server to help interpret and process the user command through the use of user profile data, such as by providing targeted content that is related to the interest elements in response to the user’s inquiry (Balasubramanian, col. 23, lines 27-29), or by providing recommendations unique to the user, provide personalized options and/or settings, anticipate needs, and proactively make suggestions to allow for faster and more user-friendly operation (Matysiak, col. 11, lines 24-35).
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, Matysiak teaches a method of processing information, the method comprising:
a) acquiring audio information via the information processing apparatus to be used for executing an information processing capability of a remote target apparatus (see disclosure that using mobile device 108 a user can interact with MFP 112 [i.e., the remote target apparatus] through a sequence of natural language text and/or voice messages, col. 10, lines 8-10);
b) recognizing the audio information (this feature is inherent in the disclosed information processing apparatus, since it is disclosed that the audio information is pre-processed to extract audio data from received voice messages, col. 10, lines 60-64; the audio information must be recognized as such before it can be pre-processed);
c) transmitting audio data representing the audio information to at least one remote server (see disclosure that the received voice messages can be pre-processed to extract audio data from the received messages, and that data can be provided to the cloud-based services 305 for further processing by the NLP applications 325, col. 10, lines 60-64, col. 13, lines 14-19, and col. 14, lines 64-66; this pre-processing can identify portions of the natural language expression in the received voice message that are relevant and/or particularly directed to access or to control the printing and/or scanning functions of the MFP, col. 15, lines 1-17);
d) receiving specific text instruction information corresponding to the acquired audio information from the at least one remote server that includes a job type and a job setting value indicating specific information processing to be instructed to the target apparatus based on a recognition result of the acquired audio information (see disclosure that at step 520, the one or more servers receive the audio data, and at step 525, the one or more servers can perform natural language processing on the audio data to generate one or more entities or intents, which are returned to the MFP, col. 14, lines 24-31; see also disclosure that intents can comprise information identifying an action the user wishes to perform or request, e.g., a command to be initiated, a function to be performed, etc., while entities can comprise information identifying, defining, or clarifying a subject of or context for an action, col. 14, lines 32-51);
e) converting the received specific text instruction information into specific operation execution information described in an information format interpretable by the remote target apparatus based on the job type and the job setting value included in the specific text instruction information (see disclosure that the received intents and entities [i.e., specific text instruction information] can be processed to determine one or more functions [i.e., specific execution information] related to the voice message, and after the settings, functions, or options have been confirmed by the user, the one or more functions can be performed, col. 14, lines 1-3, col. 15, lines 29-33 and 60-65); and
f) providing verbal feedback comprising dot per inch resolution for scan or copy (see disclosure that MFPs offer the ability to print, scan, fax, and otherwise process documents in a wide variety of formats and in a number of different ways, including printing or scanning with various levels of resolution, etc., and that control of the functions of MFPs were typically performed manually through a control panel, but navigating menus can be daunting and time consuming, and thus there is a need for improved methods and systems for accessing and controlling the functions of an MFP, col. 1, lines 19-46; see also disclosure that when a desired function has been identified, and after a user has provided identity information, preference information can be accessed to identify personalized settings, functions, or options [e.g., dot per inch resolution] for using the MFP, and an indication of these personalized settings, functions, or options can be provided to the user at the mobile device, where the user can either confirm the settings, functions, or options, or may request one or more different settings, functions, or options, col. 13, lines 44-67, and col. 15, lines 34-59).
Matysiak does not explicitly teach an information processing method whereby the conversion of received specific text instruction information is performed by the mobile device, and the resulting specific operation instruction information is transmitted to the remote target apparatus [i.e., the MFP].
However, Matysiak does teach that the functions carried out by the disclosed system can be implemented on various components of the system. For instance, it is disclosed at col. 13, lines 8-22, that the conversion of voice messages into intents and entities can be implemented in a remote NLP application, or can alternately be performed locally on the MFP.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to implement the conversion of received specific text instruction information on the mobile device, and then transmit the resulting specific operation execution information to the remote target apparatus [i.e., the MFP], since this would remove a significant processing workload from the MFP, allowing the MFP to utilize a simpler architecture and software, limited to the operation of the MFP itself.
In addition, the relocation of the conversion operation from the MFP to the mobile device would have been obvious to try, since there are a limited number of platforms within the claimed system (e.g., the mobile device, the at least one remote server, the remote target device) that could host the claimed conversion functionality.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement the conversion functionality on any of the platforms, since (1) the conversion functionality would have been necessary in order to implement a voice-based user interface for an MFP, (2) the three possible platforms on which the functionality could be implemented would be the mobile device, the MFP [i.e., remote target device] itself, or a remote server, and (3) the conversion functionality could be implemented on any of these platforms by a POSITA with a reasonable expectation of success, since the software implementing it could be similarly executed by a processor hosted by any of the above-cited platforms, and the system disclosed by Matysiak implements the transfer of information that would be necessary to implement the conversion functionality on different platforms.
Matysiak does not explicitly disclose transmitting a device ID identifying the information processing apparatus with the audio data to at least one remote server.
Matysiak does disclose, however, the transmission of information to identify the user to the at least one remote server (see disclosure that a user may be asked to submit identifying information, e.g., enter login information, swipe or scan an ID card, provide biometric information such as a picture for facial recognition, etc., col. 11, lines 11-18), as well as the fact that each user is associated with a mobile device (see disclosure that each mobile device may be limited to interacting with only one MFP for which the user associated with the mobile device 108 is authorized, col. 12, lines 37-43).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention that since each user is associated with a mobile device (i.e., the claimed information processing apparatus), information identifying a user would be synonymous with information identifying the associated mobile device (i.e., a device ID).
In addition, although Matysiak does not explicitly disclose identifying the target apparatus based on the device ID identifying the information processing apparatus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to do so, for the following reasons.
As discussed immediately above, Matysiak discloses the transmission of information to identify the user to the at least one remote server, and the information to identify the user is synonymous with information identifying the information processing apparatus.
Matysiak further discloses that the environment can include more than one MFP, but that each user may be limited to interacting with only one or a few MFPs for which the user is authorized (col. 12, lines 37-43).
In the case where there are multiple MFPs, but the user is authorized to interact with only one, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to have the remote server identify the MFP (i.e., the claimed target apparatus) based on the user ID (synonymous with the user’s mobile device 108, and therefore analogous to the claimed device ID identifying the information processing apparatus), because doing so would save the user from being required to enter the destination MFP each time they submit a job, even though they are only authorized to interact with a single MFP.
This would simplify the process of submitting jobs to the MFP by the user by eliminating the need to repeatedly select the only MFP for which the user is authorized.
To the extent that Matysiak fails to explicitly teach the transmission of device ID information with the audio data, Balasubramanian teaches an information processing apparatus that transmits audio data with a device ID identifying the information processing apparatus (see disclosure that a user driving a car submits a voice command via audio data, said audio data being transmitted wirelessly along with metadata identifying the user/mobile phone/car to a server, col. 22, lines 48-65).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing data of the invention to include device ID information with the audio data, because this information could be used at the server to help interpret and process the user command through the use of user profile data, such as by providing targeted content that is related to the interest elements in response to the user’s inquiry (Balasubramanian, col. 23, lines 27-29), or by providing recommendations unique to the user, provide personalized options and/or settings, anticipate needs, and proactively make suggestions to allow for faster and more user-friendly operation (Matysiak, col. 11, lines 24-35).
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, Matysiak teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more instructions that, when performed by one or more processors (inherent in a computerized system; see also claim 1; col. 4, lines 25-67; col. 9, lines 20-39), cause the one or more processors to execute a method of processing information, the method comprising:
a) acquiring audio information via the information processing apparatus to be used for executing an information processing capability of a remote target apparatus (see disclosure that using mobile device 108 a user can interact with MFP 112 [i.e., the remote target apparatus] through a sequence of natural language text and/or voice messages, col. 10, lines 8-10);
b) recognizing the audio information (this feature is inherent in the disclosed information processing apparatus, since it is disclosed that the audio information is pre-processed to extract audio data from received voice messages, col. 10, lines 60-64; the audio information must be recognized as such before it can be pre-processed);
c) transmitting audio data representing the audio information to at least one remote server (see disclosure that the received voice messages can be pre-processed to extract audio data from the received messages, and that data can be provided to the cloud-based services 305 for further processing by the NLP applications 325, col. 10, lines 60-64, col. 13, lines 14-19, and col. 14, lines 64-66; this pre-processing can identify portions of the natural language expression in the received voice message that are relevant and/or particularly directed to access or to control the printing and/or scanning functions of the MFP, col. 15, lines 1-17);
d) receiving specific text instruction information corresponding to the acquired audio information from the at least one remote server that includes a job type and a job setting value indicating specific information processing to be instructed to the target apparatus based on a recognition result of the acquired audio information (see disclosure that at step 520, the one or more servers receive the audio data, and at step 525, the one or more servers can perform natural language processing on the audio data to generate one or more entities or intents, which are returned to the MFP, col. 14, lines 24-31; see also disclosure that intents can comprise information identifying an action the user wishes to perform or request, e.g., a command to be initiated, a function to be performed, etc., while entities can comprise information identifying, defining, or clarifying a subject of or context for an action, col. 14, lines 32-51);
e) converting the received specific text instruction information into specific operation execution information described in an information format interpretable by the remote target apparatus based on the job type and the job setting value included in the specific text instruction information (see disclosure that the received intents and entities [i.e., specific text instruction information] can be processed to determine one or more functions [i.e., specific execution information] related to the voice message, and after the settings, functions, or options have been confirmed by the user, the one or more functions can be performed, col. 14, lines 1-3, col. 15, lines 29-33 and 60-65); and
f) providing verbal feedback comprising dot per inch resolution for scan or copy (see disclosure that MFPs offer the ability to print, scan, fax, and otherwise process documents in a wide variety of formats and in a number of different ways, including printing or scanning with various levels of resolution, etc., and that control of the functions of MFPs were typically performed manually through a control panel, but navigating menus can be daunting and time consuming, and thus there is a need for improved methods and systems for accessing and controlling the functions of an MFP, col. 1, lines 19-46; see also disclosure that when a desired function has been identified, and after a user has provided identity information, preference information can be accessed to identify personalized settings, functions, or options [e.g., dot per inch resolution] for using the MFP, and an indication of these personalized settings, functions, or options can be provided to the user at the mobile device, where the user can either confirm the settings, functions, or options, or may request one or more different settings, functions, or options, col. 13, lines 44-67, and col. 15, lines 34-59).
Matysiak does not explicitly teach a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more instructions that, when performed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to execute a method of processing information, whereby the conversion of received specific text instruction information is performed by the mobile device, and the resulting specific operation instruction information is transmitted to the remote target apparatus [i.e., the MFP].
However, Matysiak does teach that the functions carried out by the disclosed system can be implemented on various components of the system. For instance, it is disclosed at col. 13, lines 8-22, that the conversion of voice messages into intents and entities can be implemented in a remote NLP application, or can alternately be performed locally on the MFP.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to implement the conversion of received specific text instruction information on the mobile device, and then transmit the resulting specific operation execution information to the remote target apparatus [i.e., the MFP], since this would remove a significant processing workload from the MFP, allowing the MFP to utilize a simpler architecture and software, limited to the operation of the MFP itself.
In addition, the relocation of the conversion operation from the MFP to the mobile device would have been obvious to try, since there are a limited number of platforms within the claimed system (e.g., the mobile device, the at least one remote server, the remote target device) that could host the claimed conversion functionality.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement the conversion functionality on any of the platforms, since (1) the conversion functionality would have been necessary in order to implement a voice-based user interface for an MFP, (2) the three possible platforms on which the functionality could be implemented would be the mobile device, the MFP [i.e., remote target device] itself, or a remote server, and (3) the conversion functionality could be implemented on any of these platforms by a POSITA with a reasonable expectation of success, since the software implementing it could be similarly executed by a processor hosted by any of the above-cited platforms, and the system disclosed by Matysiak implements the transfer of information that would be necessary to implement the conversion functionality on different platforms.
Matysiak does not explicitly disclose transmitting a device ID identifying the information processing apparatus with the audio data to at least one remote server.
Matysiak does disclose, however, the transmission of information to identify the user to the at least one remote server (see disclosure that a user may be asked to submit identifying information, e.g., enter login information, swipe or scan an ID card, provide biometric information such as a picture for facial recognition, etc., col. 11, lines 11-18), as well as the fact that each user is associated with a mobile device (see disclosure that each mobile device may be limited to interacting with only one MFP for which the user associated with the mobile device 108 is authorized, col. 12, lines 37-43).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention that since each user is associated with a mobile device (i.e., the claimed information processing apparatus), information identifying a user would be synonymous with information identifying the associated mobile device (i.e., a device ID).
In addition, although Matysiak does not explicitly disclose identifying the target apparatus based on the device ID identifying the information processing apparatus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to do so, for the following reasons.
As discussed immediately above, Matysiak discloses the transmission of information to identify the user to the at least one remote server, and the information to identify the user is synonymous with information identifying the information processing apparatus.
Matysiak further discloses that the environment can include more than one MFP, but that each user may be limited to interacting with only one or a few MFPs for which the user is authorized (col. 12, lines 37-43).
In the case where there are multiple MFPs, but the user is authorized to interact with only one, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to have the remote server identify the MFP (i.e., the claimed target apparatus) based on the user ID (synonymous with the user’s mobile device 108, and therefore analogous to the claimed device ID identifying the information processing apparatus), because doing so would save the user from being required to enter the destination MFP each time they submit a job, even though they are only authorized to interact with a single MFP.
This would simplify the process of submitting jobs to the MFP by the user by eliminating the need to repeatedly select the only MFP for which the user is authorized.
To the extent that Matysiak fails to explicitly teach the transmission of device ID information with the audio data, Balasubramanian teaches an information processing apparatus that transmits audio data with a device ID identifying the information processing apparatus (see disclosure that a user driving a car submits a voice command via audio data, said audio data being transmitted wirelessly along with metadata identifying the user/mobile phone/car to a server, col. 22, lines 48-65).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing data of the invention to include device ID information with the audio data, because this information could be used at the server to help interpret and process the user command through the use of user profile data, such as by providing targeted content that is related to the interest elements in response to the user’s inquiry (Balasubramanian, col. 23, lines 27-29), or by providing recommendations unique to the user, provide personalized options and/or settings, anticipate needs, and proactively make suggestions to allow for faster and more user-friendly operation (Matysiak, col. 11, lines 24-35).
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, Matysiak teaches an information processing apparatus wherein the circuitry is configured to:
a) convert the audio information into text information (see disclosure that the received voice messages can be pre-processed to extract audio data from the received messages, and that data can be provided to the cloud-based services 305 for further processing by the NLP applications 325, col. 10, lines 60-64, col. 13, lines 14-19, and col. 14, lines 64-66; this pre-processing can identify portions of the natural language expression in the received voice message that are relevant and/or particularly directed to access or to control the printing and/or scanning functions of the MFP, col. 15, lines 1-17); and
b) obtain the specific text instruction information from the text information (see disclosure that at step 520, the one or more servers receive the audio data, and at step 525, the one or more servers can perform natural language processing on the audio data to generate one or more entities or intents [i.e., the specific text instruction information], which are returned to the MFP, col. 14, lines 24-31; see also disclosure that intents can comprise information identifying an action the user wishes to perform or request, e.g., a command to be initiated, a function to be performed, etc., while entities can comprise information identifying, defining, or clarifying a subject of or context for an action, col. 14, lines 32-51).
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, Matysiak teaches an information processing apparatus wherein the circuitry is configured to output, together with the specific operation execution information, an electronic mail address used as a transmission destination of image information generated by the target apparatus (see disclosure that in one example, an intent can be “Scan” and an entity can comprise “To email” and possibly another entity identifying an email address, col. 13, lines 33-35 and col. 14, lines 38-40).
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, Matysiak teaches an information processing apparatus wherein the circuitry is configured to:
a) transmit audio data of the acquired audio information to the at least one remote server (see disclosure that the received voice messages can be pre-processed to extract audio data from the received messages, and that data can be provided to the cloud-based services 305 for further processing by the NLP applications 325, col. 10, lines 60-64, col. 13, lines 14-19, and col. 14, lines 64-66; this pre-processing can identify portions of the natural language expression in the received voice message that are relevant and/or particularly directed to access or to control the printing and/or scanning functions of the MFP, col. 15, lines 1-17); and
b) transmit an audio-to-text conversion request to the at least one remote server (see disclosure that at step 520, the one or more servers receive the audio data, and at step 525, the one or more servers can perform natural language processing on the audio data to generate one or more entities or intents [i.e., text data], which are returned to the MFP, col. 14, lines 24-31; see also disclosure that intents can comprise information identifying an action the user wishes to perform or request, e.g., a command to be initiated, a function to be performed, etc., while entities can comprise information identifying, defining, or clarifying a subject of or context for an action, col. 14, lines 32-51; the Office notes that the conversion of audio data to one or more entities or intents renders the claimed audio-to-text request inherent).
Claim 22
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Matysiak and Balasubramanian teaches an information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Neither Matysiak nor Balasubramanian explicitly disclose identifying the target apparatus based on the device ID of the target apparatus associated with the device ID identifying the information processing apparatus. However, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to do so, for the following reasons.
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Matysiak discloses the transmission of information to identify the user to the at least one remote server, and the information to identify the user is synonymous with information identifying the information processing apparatus.
Matysiak further discloses that the environment can include more than one MFP, but that each user may be limited to interacting with only one or a few MFPs for which the user is authorized (col. 12, lines 37-43).
In the case where there are multiple MFPs, but the user is authorized to interact with only one, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to have the remote server identify the MFP (i.e., the claimed target apparatus) based on the device ID of the target apparatus associated with a user ID (synonymous with the user’s mobile device 108, and therefore analogous to the claimed device ID identifying the information processing apparatus), because doing so would save the user from being required to enter the destination MFP each time they submit a job, even though they are only authorized to interact with a single MFP.
This would simplify the process of submitting jobs to the MFP by the user by eliminating the need to repeatedly select the only MFP for which the user is authorized.
Claims 2-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,686,951 to Jacek Joseph Matysiak et al. (“Matysiak”) in view of U.S. Patent 10,643,235 to Sundar Balasubramanian et al. (“Balasubramanian”), as applied to claims 1, 6, 8-11, and 22 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 9,652,190 to Keisuke Fukushima (“Fukushima”).
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Matysiak and Balasubramanian teaches an information processing apparatus substantially as claimed.
The combination of Matysiak and Balasubramanian fails to explicitly teach an information processing apparatus wherein target apparatus capabilities are detected and the user is prompted to modify the settings of the specific text instruction information when the target apparatus is not capable of executing the requested instruction.
Fukushima, however, teaches an information processing apparatus,
a) wherein the circuitry is configured to detect information processing capability of the target apparatus including identifying the target apparatus and available print job/information processing capabilities of the target apparatus (see illustration of the display of information about printing device 606 [i.e., the target apparatus] in pop-up box 642, Fig. 6D and col. 15, lines 29-41);
b) wherein the circuitry is configured to generate modification information to be used for prompting a modification of the specific text instruction information indicating the specific information processing so that the specific information processing indicated by the specific text instruction information is executable at the target apparatus using the detected information processing capability of the target apparatus (see disclosure that when a print job is directed to a printer device that is incompatible with the print job settings, the user interface may prompt the user to request confirmation that one or more print job settings will be modified or ignored, col. 22, lines 37-49); and
c) wherein the circuitry is configured to output a message for prompting the modification of the specific text instruction information based on the generated modification information (see disclosure that when a print job is directed to a printer device that is incompatible with the print job settings, the user interface may prompt the user to request confirmation that one or more print job settings will be modified or ignored, col. 22, lines 37-49).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to prompt the user to confirm modification of the settings of the instruction, since the user may wish to cancel execution of the job when the capabilities of the target device would produce an unsuitable result, or may confirm the changed print settings if the changed settings are satisfactory to the user.
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, Matysiak teaches an information processing apparatus additionally comprising a speaker (inherent in a mobile device that is a cellular telephone or smartphone) and an interface configured to connect with the microphone and the speaker (inherent in a mobile device that is a cellular telephone or smartphone), wherein the circuitry is configured to:
a) acquire the audio information from the microphone via the interface (see disclosure that using mobile device 108 a user can interact with MFP 112 [i.e., the remote target apparatus] through a sequence of natural language text and/or voice messages, col. 10, lines 8-10; the Office notes that a microphone is inherent in a cellular telephone or smartphone, and also that a microphone would be necessary to receive the disclosed voice message); and
b) output audio of the message for prompting the modification of the specific text instruction information from the speaker via the interface (see disclosure that MFPs offer the ability to print, scan, fax, and otherwise process documents in a wide variety of formats and in a number of different ways, including printing or scanning with various levels of resolution, etc., and that control of the functions of MFPs were typically performed manually through a control panel, but navigating menus can be daunting and time consuming, and thus there is a need for improved methods and systems for accessing and controlling the functions of an MFP, col. 1, lines 19-46; see also disclosure that when a desired function has been identified, and after a user has provided identity information, preference information can be accessed to identify personalized settings, functions, or options [e.g., dot per inch resolution] for using the MFP, and an indication of these personalized settings, functions, or options can be provided to the user at the mobile device, where the user can either confirm the settings, functions, or options, or may request one or more different settings, functions, or options, col. 13, lines 44-67, and col. 15, lines 34-59).
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, Fukushima teaches an information processing apparatus wherein the circuitry is configured to:
a) determine whether the specific text instruction information is insufficient for operating the remote target apparatus (see disclosure that a determination is made that the user has attempted to direct a print job having one or more print job settings that are incompatible with the selected printing device, col. 22, lines 37-39);
b) output an instruction for prompting an input of the specific text instruction information determined to be insufficient (see disclosure that when a print job is directed to a printer device that is incompatible with the print job settings, the user interface may prompt the user to request confirmation that one or more print job settings will be modified or ignored, col. 22, lines 37-49); and
c) in response to an input of all of the specific text instruction information required for operating the remote target apparatus, the circuitry is configured to:
i) confirm the input of all of the specific text instruction information required for operating the remote target apparatus (see disclosure that the user confirms the print job despite that change in settings, col. 22, lines 42-49); and
ii) convert the specific text instruction information to the specific operation execution information for operating the remote target apparatus (see disclosure that the user confirms the change in settings for the print job, and when confirmed, the print job is executed with the new settings, col. 22, lines 37-49).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to prompt the user to confirm modification of the settings of the instruction, since the user may wish to cancel execution of the job when the capabilities of the target device would produce an unsuitable result, or may confirm the changed print settings if the changed settings are satisfactory to the user.
None of Matysiak, Balasubramanian, nor Fukushima explicitly teaches an apparatus whereby the conversion of received specific text instruction information is performed by the mobile device, and the resulting specific operation instruction information is transmitted to the remote target apparatus [i.e., the MFP].
However, Matysiak does teach that the functions carried out by the disclosed system can be implemented on various components of the system. For instance, it is disclosed at col. 13, lines 8-22, that the conversion of voice messages into intents and entities can be implemented in a remote NLP application, or can alternately be performed locally on the MFP.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to implement the conversion of received specific text instruction information on the mobile device, and then transmit the resulting specific operation execution information to the remote target apparatus [i.e., the MFP], since this would remove a significant processing workload from the MFP, allowing the MFP to utilize a simpler architecture and software, limited to the operation of the MFP itself.
In addition, the relocation of the conversion operation from the MFP to the mobile device would have been obvious to try, since there are a limited number of platforms within the claimed system (e.g., the mobile device, the at least one remote server, the remote target device) that could host the claimed conversion functionality.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement the conversion functionality on any of the platforms, since (1) the conversion functionality would have been necessary in order to implement a voice-based user interface for an MFP, (2) the three possible platforms on which the functionality could be implemented would be the mobile device, the MFP [i.e., remote target device] itself, or a remote server, and (3) the conversion functionality could be implemented on any of these platforms by a POSITA with a reasonable expectation of success, since the software implementing it could be similarly executed by a processor hosted by any of the above-cited platforms, and the system disclosed by Matysiak implements the transfer of information that would be necessary to implement the conversion functionality on different platforms.
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, Fukushima teaches an information processing apparatus wherein the circuitry is configured to acquire information indicating a type and a function of the remote target apparatus for which communication has been established (see illustration of the display of information about printing device 606 [i.e., the target apparatus] in pop-up box 642, Fig. 6D and col. 15, lines 29-41).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to acquire information indicating the type and function of a remote target apparatus, since this would allow the system to determine whether a user-requested action is directed to a target apparatus having the capability to carry out the requested action.
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, Matysiak and Fukushima teach an information processing apparatus wherein the circuitry is configured to obtain print target information instructed by the specific text instruction information from a memory (see disclosure that the user device 108 can interact with MFP 112, rendering the obtaining of print target information inherent, Matysiak, col. 10, lines 8-10; see also disclosure of network topology generation unit 210 that formulates a network topology and/or generates a network printing map, Fukushima, col. 8, lines 36-55).
None of Matysiak, Balasubramanian, nor Fukushima explicitly teaches an apparatus whereby the conversion of received specific text instruction information is performed by the mobile device, and the resulting specific operation instruction information is transmitted to the remote target apparatus [i.e., the MFP].
However, Matysiak does teach that the functions carried out by the disclosed system can be implemented on various components of the system. For instance, it is disclosed at col. 13, lines 8-22, that the conversion of voice messages into intents and entities can be implemented in a remote NLP application, or can alternately be performed locally on the MFP.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to implement the conversion of received specific text instruction information on the mobile device, and then transmit the resulting specific operation execution information to the remote target apparatus [i.e., the MFP], since this would remove a significant processing workload from the MFP, allowing the MFP to utilize a simpler architecture and software, limited to the operation of the MFP itself.
In addition, the relocation of the conversion operation from the MFP to the mobile device would have been obvious to try, since there are a limited number of platforms within the claimed system (e.g., the mobile device, the at least one remote server, the remote target device) that could host the claimed conversion functionality.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement the conversion functionality on any of the platforms, since (1) the conversion functionality would have been necessary in order to implement a voice-based user interface for an MFP, (2) the three possible platforms on which the functionality could be implemented would be the mobile device, the MFP [i.e., remote target device] itself, or a remote server, and (3) the conversion functionality could be implemented on any of these platforms by a POSITA with a reasonable expectation of success, since the software implementing it could be similarly executed by a processor hosted by any of the above-cited platforms, and the system disclosed by Matysiak implements the transfer of information that would be necessary to implement the conversion functionality on different platforms.
XI. Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent 10,757,148 to Steven Nelson (“Nelson”) discloses the integration of mobile devices into electronic meetings conducted over computer networks, wherein a meeting manager manages different types of data used to manage electronic meetings, including device information and user information (see col. 84, lines 25-36), and whereby audio packets are translated to generate recognized text by isolating the speech of a particular participant (see disclosure that voice data for a speaker, such as participant P3, can be determined based on a correspondence between the mobile device and participant P3, with an identification of participant P3 included in the audio packets, col. 92, lines 43-64).
In accordance with MPEP § 1406, the examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited or of record in the original prosecution of the ‘106 patent. Applicants are reminded that a listing of the information cited or of record in the original prosecution of the ‘106 patent need not be resubmitted in this reissue application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this reissue application.
Applicant(s) are reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR § 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which ‘106 patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, other post-grant proceedings in the Office, and litigation.
Applicant(s) are further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant(s) are also reminded that any amendments to the claims must comply with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph, having clear support and antecedent basis in the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke S. Wassum whose telephone number is (571) 272-4119. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 AM-5 PM, alternate Fridays off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Fuelling can be reached on 571-270-1367. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9900.
In addition, INFORMAL or DRAFT communications may be faxed directly to the examiner at 571-273-4119. Such communications must be clearly marked as INFORMAL, DRAFT or UNOFFICIAL.
Patent Center
Patent Center is available to all users for electronic filing and management of patent applications. For more information, please visit the Patent Center information page at www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center.
/LUKE S WASSUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/Stephen J. Ralis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 Michael Fuelling
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3992
lsw
8 July 2026
Prosecution Insights