DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/21/24 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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: generating unit, obtaining unit and storing unit in claim 1:
generating unit - Image processing unit generates new image by combining a mask image with scanned image Applicants Specification paragraph 0038,
obtaining unit - output confirmation screen 800 may be a screen for presenting to the user the current output contents of the output image data and obtaining a designation of the output contents from the user– Applicants Specification paragraph 0073,
storing unit - data storage unit 202 to store the mask-combined image data – Applicants Specification paragraph 0038
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
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) 1-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashimo 20160112600 in view of Ingermanson et al 20100053211.
Regarding claim 1, Mashimo 20160112600 teaches An information processing apparatus comprising:
a generating unit configured to generate second image data by executing masking processing on first image data (detecting a picture region 502, the region separating section 202 also detects location information of the picture region 502 in the image data 500 (paragraph 0029). the masking region selection receiving section 203 selects, as masking regions requested by the user to be masked, picture regions 502 corresponding to the masking candidate regions selected by the user (paragraph 0030);
Mashimo fails to teach an obtaining unit configured to separately obtain a designation of a first storage destination and a designation of a second storage destination from a user;
a storing unit configured to store the first image data in the first storage destination and the second image data in the second storage destination;
Ingermanson et al teaches an obtaining unit configured to separately obtain a designation of a first storage destination and a designation of a second storage destination from a user (GUI screen (obtaining unit) of the user chooses a source folder containing images to be processed by way of the drop-down menu entitled "Source Folder" (paragraph 0053). GUI screen (obtaining unit) the user chooses a destination folder. Preferably, the automated image processing will generate reference "mask" images and *.csv files (Excel compatible) and place these files in the folder designated here. The destination folder may be found or created using the "Destination Folder" (fig 4 and paragraph 0054);
a storing unit configured to store the first image data in the first storage destination and the second image data in the second storage destination (the images are placed in a file system storage structure, for example a folder (storing unit), by the automated image processing system (paragraph 0050). the user chooses a source folder containing images to be processed by way of the drop-down menu entitled "Source Folder" (paragraph 0053). GUI screen the user chooses a destination folder. Preferably, the automated image processing will generate reference "mask" images and *.csv files (Excel compatible) and place these files in the folder designated here. The destination folder may be found or created using the "Destination Folder" (fig 4 and paragraph 0054)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mashimo to include: an obtaining unit configured to separately obtain a designation of a first storage destination and a designation of a second storage destination from a user; a storing unit configured to store the first image data in the first storage destination and the second image data in the second storage destination
The reason of doing so would to identify storage in which image data should be stored.
Regarding claim 2, Mashimo in view of Ingermanson et al teaches wherein the information processing apparatus is included in an image forming apparatus, and the obtaining unit obtains the designation of the first storage destination and the designation of the second storage destination by using an operation unit of the image forming apparatus (Ingermanson et al: GUI screen of the user chooses a source folder containing images to be processed by way of the drop-down menu entitled "Source Folder" (paragraph 0053). GUI screen the user chooses a destination folder. Preferably, the automated image processing will generate reference "mask" images and *.csv files (Excel compatible) and place these files in the folder designated here. The destination folder may be found or created using the "Destination Folder" (fig 4 and paragraph 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mashimo to include: wherein the information processing apparatus is included in an image forming apparatus, and the obtaining unit obtains the designation of the first storage destination and the designation of the second storage destination by using an operation unit of the image forming apparatus;
The reason of doing so would to identify storage in which image data should be stored.
Regarding claim 3, Mashimo in view of Ingermanson et al teaches wherein the storing unit starts storing the first image data and storing the second image data in response a single instruction from the user (Ingermanson et al : GUI screen of FIG. 4, the user chooses a destination folder. Preferably, the automated image processing will generate reference "mask" images and *.csv files (Excel compatible) and place these files in the folder designated here (paragraph 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mashimo to include: wherein the storing unit starts storing the first image data and storing the second image data in response a single instruction from the user;
The reason of doing so would to so that a user can initiate the storage of image data should be stored.
Regarding claim 4, Mashimo in view of Ingermanson et al teaches wherein the storing unit determines a file name for at least one of the first image data and the second image data based on a folder name of a storage destination (Ingermanson et al: GUI screen of the user chooses a source folder containing images to be processed by way of the drop-down menu entitled "Source Folder" (paragraph 0053). GUI screen the user chooses a destination folder. Preferably, the automated image processing will generate reference "mask" images and *.csv files (Excel compatible) and place these files in the folder designated here. The destination folder may be found or created using the "Destination Folder" (fig 4 and paragraph 0054)..
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mashimo to include: wherein the storing unit determines a file name for at least one of the first image data and the second image data based on a folder name of a storage destination;
The reason of doing so would to so that a user can label the storage of image data should be stored.
Regarding claim 5, Mashimo in view of Ingermanson et al teaches wherein separately obtaining the designation of the first storage destination and the designation of the second storage destination from the user includes separately obtaining a designation of a first folder name and a designation of a second folder name from the user, and the storing unit in a case where a folder having the first folder name does not exist, generates a first folder having the first folder name and stores the first image data in the first folder, and in a case where a folder having the second folder name does not exist, generates a second folder having the second folder name and stores the second image data in the second folder (Ingermanson et al: GUI screen of the user chooses a source folder containing images to be processed by way of the drop-down menu entitled "Source Folder" (paragraph 0053). GUI screen the user chooses a destination folder. The destination folder may be found or created using the "Destination Folder" (fig 4 and paragraph 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mashimo to include: wherein separately obtaining the designation of the first storage destination and the designation of the second storage destination from the user includes separately obtaining a designation of a first folder name and a designation of a second folder name from the user, and the storing unit in a case where a folder having the first folder name does not exist, generates a first folder having the first folder name and stores the first image data in the first folder and in a case where a folder having the second folder name does not exist, generates a second folder having the second folder name and stores the second image data in the second folder
The reason of doing so would to so that a user can label the storage of image data should be stored.
Regarding claim 7, Mashimo in view of Ingermanson et al teaches wherein the obtaining unit provides to the user a single graphic object for obtaining an instruction to store the first image data and the second image data in a same folder from the user (Ingermanson et al: GUI screen of the user chooses a source folder containing images to be processed by way of the drop-down menu entitled "Source Folder" (paragraph 0053). GUI screen the user chooses a destination folder. Preferably, the automated image processing will generate reference "mask" images and *.csv files (Excel compatible) and place these files in the folder designated here. The destination folder may be found or created using the "Destination Folder" (fig 4 and paragraph 0054) Note: the folders are read as graphic object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mashimo to include: wherein the obtaining unit provides to the user a single graphic object for obtaining an instruction to store the first image data and the second image data in a same folder from the user
The reason of doing so would to so that a user can identify the storage of image data should be stored.
Regarding claim 8, Mashimo in view of Ingermanson et al teaches wherein the obtaining unit provides to the user a single graphic object for obtaining an instruction to store the first image data and the second image data in separate folders from the user (Ingermanson et al: GUI screen of the user chooses a source folder containing images to be processed by way of the drop-down menu entitled "Source Folder" (paragraph 0053). GUI screen the user chooses a destination folder. Preferably, the automated image processing will generate reference "mask" images and *.csv files (Excel compatible) and place these files in the folder designated here. The destination folder may be found or created using the "Destination Folder" (fig 4 and paragraph 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mashimo to include: wherein the obtaining unit provides to the user a single graphic object for obtaining an instruction to store the first image data and the second image data in a same folder from the user
The reason of doing so would to so that a user can identify the storage of image data should be stored.
Regarding claim 9, Mashimo in view of Ueno et al teaches a non-transitory storage medium that stores a program for causing a computer to function as the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (Mashimo: memory 540 (paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 10, Mashimo teaches an information processing method comprising:
generating second image data by executing masking processing on first image data (detecting a picture region 502, the region separating section 202 also detects location information of the picture region 502 in the image data 500 (paragraph 0029). the masking region selection receiving section 203 selects, as masking regions requested by the user to be masked, picture regions 502 corresponding to the masking candidate regions selected by the user (paragraph 0030);
Mashimo fails to teach separately obtaining a designation of a first storage destination and a designation of a second storage destination from a user;
storing the first image data in the first storage destination and the second image data in the second storage destination;
Ingermanson et al teaches separately obtaining a designation of a first storage destination and a designation of a second storage destination from a user (GUI screen (obtaining unit) of the user chooses a source folder containing images to be processed by way of the drop-down menu entitled "Source Folder" (paragraph 0053). GUI screen (obtaining unit) the user chooses a destination folder. Preferably, the automated image processing will generate reference "mask" images and *.csv files (Excel compatible) and place these files in the folder designated here. The destination folder may be found or created using the "Destination Folder" (fig 4 and paragraph 0054); and
storing the first image data in the first storage destination and the second image data in the second storage destination (the images are placed in a file system storage structure, for example a folder (storing unit), by the automated image processing system (paragraph 0050). the user chooses a source folder containing images to be processed by way of the drop-down menu entitled "Source Folder" (paragraph 0053). GUI screen the user chooses a destination folder. Preferably, the automated image processing will generate reference "mask" images and *.csv files (Excel compatible) and place these files in the folder designated here. The destination folder may be found or created using the "Destination Folder" (fig 4 and paragraph 0054);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mashimo to include: separately obtaining a designation of a first storage destination and a designation of a second storage destination from a user;
storing the first image data in the first storage destination and the second image data in the second storage destination;
The reason of doing so would to so that a user can identify the storage of image data should be stored.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashimo 20160112600 in view of Ingermanson et al 20100053211further in view of Parker et al US 5729734.
Regarding claim 6, Mashimo in view of Ingermanson et al teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 5
Mashimo in view of Ingermanson et al fails to teach wherein the storing unit sets access privileges for the second folder based on an account of the user when the second folder is generated.
Parker et al teaches wherein the storing unit sets access privileges for the second folder based on an account of the user when the second folder is generated (a plurality of access privilege selection icons are also provided within window 414. There is an icon entitled "Owner" 423. If the administrator selects the Owner 423 icon, the selected user, e.g., user C in sub-window 431, will be given owner-type privileges with respect to the selected item, e.g., test folder-1 (417). (column 10, lines 51-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mashimo in view of Ingermanson et al to include: wherein the storing unit sets access privileges for the second folder based on an account of the user when the second folder is generated;
The reason of doing so would to so that a user can give access the storage of image data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L BURLESON whose telephone number is (571)272-7460. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am to 5:30pm.
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, 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.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Michael Burleson
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2683
Michael Burleson
June 10, 2026
/MICHAEL BURLESON/
/AKWASI M SARPONG/SPE, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights