Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-9 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings received on 8/23/2024 are accepted for examination purposes.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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) 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoyama et al. (US-2012/0050822) in view of Tanimoto (US-2009/0316172).
As to Claim 1, Motoyama teaches ‘An image reading apparatus comprising: an image reader including a line sensor to read a reading object line by line, the image reader to read the reading object at a first resolution and generate image data having the first resolution; and circuitry configured to convert the image data having the first resolution into image data having a second resolution lower than the first resolution and output the image data having the second resolution [Fig 4, par 0060-0062 – for the condition of double-sided, color and 600 dpi, the set resolution and scanning resolution (i.e., first resolution) are 600 dpi and the reduction resolution (i.e., second resolution) is 300 dpi, where the image data is scanned at 600 dpi and then converted to image data of a resolution of 300 dpi]’.
Motoyama does not disclose expressly ‘wherein an exposure time per line is shorter when the reading object is read at the first resolution than when the reading object is read at the second resolution’.
Tanimoto in the proposed combination of Motoyama teaches ‘‘wherein an exposure time per line is shorter when the reading object is read at the first resolution than when the reading object is read at the second resolution [par 0097-0098, 0102-0104, 0113, 0138 – the output timing (i.e., exposure time) for light accumulation using the K line sensor at 600 dpi is half as long as the light accumulation using the RGB line sensors at 300 dpi]’.
Motoyama and Tanimoto are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image reading systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include controlling output timing based on resolution, as taught by Tanimoto. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve image image-quality when a moiré is attained. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tanimoto with Motoyama to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Further, in regards to claim 8, the image reading apparatus of claim 1 performs the image reading method of claim 8.
Further, in regards to claim 9, the image reading method of claim 8 is fully embodied on the non-transitory recording medium of claim 9.
As to Claim 2, Motoyama teaches ‘wherein the circuitry is further configured to set a resolution, wherein, when the second resolution is set, the image reader generates the image data having the first resolution, and the circuitry converts the image data having the first resolution into the image data having the second resolution [Fig 11, par 0057-0062, 0131-0133 – when a user-set resolution is less than a moiré suppressing resolution, the scanning resolution is higher than the set resolution and the reduction resolution is the set resolution]’.
As to Claim 3, Motoyama in view of Tanimoto teaches ‘wherein, when the first resolution is set, the image reader generates the image data having the first resolution, and the exposure time is shorter when the second resolution is set than when the first resolution is set [Motoyama: Fig 11, par 0057-0062 – user can set a resolution to one of 100 dpi, 200dpi, 300 dpi or 600 dpi; Tanimoto: par 0097-0098, 0102-0104, 0113, 0138 – the output timing (i.e., exposure time) for light accumulation using the K line sensor at 600 dpi is half as long as the light accumulation using the RGB line sensors at 300 dpi]’.
Motoyama and Tanimoto are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image reading systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include controlling output timing based on resolution, as taught by Tanimoto. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve image image-quality when a moiré is attained. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tanimoto with Motoyama to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
As to Claim 6, Motoyama teaches ‘wherein the image reading apparatus has a first mode and a second mode different from the first mode as an operation mode, wherein, when the second resolution is set in the first mode, the image reader generates image data having the first resolution, and the circuitry converts the image data having the first resolution into image data having the second resolution, and wherein, when the second resolution is set in the second mode, the image reader generates image data having the second resolution [Figs 4, 11, par 0058-0060, 0131-0134 – during moiré suppressing resolution (i.e., first mode), when a low resolution is set which is less than the moiré suppressing resolution, the original sheet is scanned with a resolution higher and converted to the lower resolution, otherwise (i.e., second mode) regardless of the set scanning condition, the set resolution and the scanning resolution are the same]’.
As to Claim 7, Motoyama teaches ‘wherein the circuitry is configured to correct brightness in addition to converting the image data having the first resolution into image data having the second resolution [par 0041 – shading correction corrects unevenness of brightness of the light source over the line]’.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoyama et al. in view of Tanimoto and further in view of Shimizu et al. (US-2015/0381846).
As to Claim 4, Motoyama in view of Tanimoto teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in dependent claim 2 and independent claim 1. Motoyama in view of Tanimoto does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the circuitry is further configured to control a relative movement between the reading object and the image reader, wherein the circuitry is configured to: control movement of one of the reading object and the image reader relative to the other one of the reading object and the image reader at a first moving speed when the first resolution is set; and control movement of one of the reading object and the image reader relative to the other one of the reading object and the image reader at a second moving speed higher than the first moving speed when the second resolution is set’.
Motoyama teaches user can set a resolution to one of 100 dpi, 200dpi, 300 dpi or 600 dpi [Fig 11, par 0057-0062].
While Tanimoto teaches the output timing for light accumulation using the K line sensor at 600 dpi is half as long as the light accumulation using the RGB line sensors at 300 dpi [par 0097-0098, 0102-0104, 0113, 0138].
Further, Shimizu in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the circuitry is further configured to control a relative movement between the reading object and the image reader, wherein the circuitry is configured to: control movement of one of the reading object and the image reader relative to the other one of the reading object and the image reader at a first moving speed when the first resolution is set; and control movement of one of the reading object and the image reader relative to the other one of the reading object and the image reader at a second moving speed higher than the first moving speed when the second resolution is set [par 0094, 0100-0107 – a movement speed of the CIS relative to a document page for high resolution and low resolution are different, where a speed for low resolution is higher than that for a high resolution]’.
Motoyama in view of Tanimoto are analogous art with Shimizu because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image reading systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include controlling a movement speed, as taught by Shimizu. The motivation for doing so would have been to avoiding an overlap between illumination periods while reducing current consumption during scanning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shimizu with Motoyama in view of Tanimoto to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
As to Claim 5, Shimizu in the proposed combination of Motoyama in view of Tanimoto teaches ‘wherein the circuitry is further configured to control a relative movement between the reading object and the image reader, and wherein the image reader reads the reading object at a first interval in a sub-scanning direction when the first resolution is set and reads the reading object at the first interval in the sub-scanning direction when the second resolution is set [Motoyama: Fig 11, par 0057-0062; Tanimoto: par 0097-0098, 0102-0104, 0113, 0138; Shimizu: par 0109-0113 – trigger output interval is longer as the image reading resolution becomes lower]’.
Motoyama in view of Tanimoto are analogous art with Shimizu because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image reading systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include controlling a trigger output interval, as taught by Shimizu. The motivation for doing so would have been to avoiding an overlap between illumination periods while reducing current consumption during scanning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shimizu with Motoyama in view of Tanimoto to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Publication No. 2012/0050822
b. US Publication No. 2009/0316172
c. US Publication No. 2015/0381846
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
d. US Patent No. 5,489,772
e. US Patent No. 5,373,372
f. US Publication No. 2003/0048487
g. US Patent No. 8,390,874
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA J CATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 830-530.
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 at 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.
/MIYA J CATO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights