DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an acquisition unit configured to” “a display control unit configured to control display” “control unit configured to” in claim 1.
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 Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “an acquisition unit configured to, if a state of the image forming apparatus transitions to a predetermined state, acquire first content that has been set;”
However in the Specification there is no support for state of the image forming apparatus transitioning from one state to another state in order to acquire first content. In paragraph 142, 145, 157 of Specification the condition for acquiring and displaying the content is based on triggering events when event notification is received and not based on transition from one state to another state.
Claim 1 recites “restoring a state of the display unit to an initial state”. However the Specification does not have support for this limitations. However in paragraph 57 of Specification it states “The auto clear processing is processing for clearing the setting values and setting states on the screen displayed on the operation unit 209 and restoring initial values”. The auto clear processing is a method for clearing values, states and restoring the initial values. It does not state that it is restored to an initial state but rather it restores initial values which does not necessarily mean an initial state. Initial state is not described in the Specification.
Claims 6-8 recite “wherein the predetermined state is a state”. However as stated above there is no support for acquiring contents based on the predetermined state. The acquiring of content is based on event notification according to the Specification and not based on the predetermined state.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the predetermined state is a state where the image forming apparatus has not been operated for a predetermined time or more” for acquiring the content of claim 1. However Specification does not have support for this limitation. In paragraph 162 of Specification, in step s426 in the NO branch, the auto-clear event is notified as requirement for triggering display of content. Therefore the requirement for acquiring content and displaying it is an auto-clear event and not based on “the image forming apparatus being in state in which it has not been operated for a predetermined time or more” as claimed in claim 7.
Claim 13 recites “if a state of the image forming apparatus transitions to a predetermined state”. However in the Specification there is no support for state of the image forming apparatus transitioning from one state to another state in order to acquire first content. In paragraph 142, 145, 157 of Specification the condition for acquiring and displaying the content is based on triggering events when event notification is received and not based on transition from one state to another state.
Claim 13 recites “restoring a state of the display unit to an initial state”. However the Specification does not have support for this limitations. However in paragraph 57 of Specification it states “The auto clear processing is processing for clearing the setting values and setting states on the screen displayed on the operation unit 209 and restoring initial values”. The auto clear processing is a method for clearing values, states and restoring the initial values. It does not state that it is restored to an initial state but rather it restores initial values which does not necessarily mean an initial state. Initial state is not described in the Specification.
Claims 2-5, 9-12 are objected based on their dependencies to objected claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Other Prior Art Cited
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190004751 to Ikeda discloses displaying setting screen for setting timing of display of contents.
US 20230012787 to Agarawal discloses printing of contents based on authentication.
JP 2004240752 to Ogawa discloses printing of second content acquired based on the displayed first content.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENIYAM MENBERU whose telephone number is (571) 272-7465. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00am-6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached on (571) 270-3438. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the customer service office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600. The group receptionist number for TC 2600 is (571) 272-2600.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
For more information about the PAIR system, see <http://pair-direct.uspto.gov/>. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Patent Examiner
Beniyam Menberu
/BENIYAM MENBERU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
09/04/2026
Prosecution Insights