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 .
The Preliminary amendment of 10/22/24 is accepted:
Claims 2-16 are canceled.
Claim 1 is pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/22/24 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 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: “near field communication unit configured to perform” 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub 2016/0211888 to Funakawa in view of US PG Pub 2014/0253949 to Tsujimoto.
Regarding claim 1. Funakawa discloses an input device (FIG. 1
20 and FIG. 2 – element 300, an operation panel 300 representing a part of the
MFP …) comprising:
a touch panel (FIG. 1 – element 350 touch sensor …) configured to receive an operation from a user (“wherein operation panel 300 includes a display 320 and a touch sensor 350 provided on display 320 …”, paragraphs 42-44);
a detection surface (FIG. 1 – element 360, touch area {interpretation: wherein the touch area corresponds to applicant claimed limitation of 25 detection surface …} …) configured to face a mobile device which is brought close to the input device and serves as an object to which near field communication is to be performed (“wherein touch area 360 is shown, for example, as a frame printed on a housing of operation panel 300. As shown in FIG. 1, touch area 360 is arranged in the vicinity of touch sensor 350. Thus, the user can have the terminal communicate with the MFP while the user views display 320 …”, paragraph 44),
wherein the detection surface is arranged adjacent to the touch panel so that the mobile device facing the detection surface overlaps the touch panel (FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 – wherein the detection surface (i.e. touch area 360) arranged adjacent to the touch panel (element 350) and the mobile terminal (element 400 of Fig. 2) facing the touch area 360 overlaps the touch panel 350 as showing on Fig. 2 …); and
a near field communication unit (FIG. 8 – element 390, near field communication portion 390 …) configured to perform the near field communication with the mobile device facing the detection surface (wherein Operation panel 300 contains a near field communication portion 390 which is a communication unit made use of in near field communication…”, paragraph 48),
Funakawa does not disclose wherein the detection surface is inclined with respect to a panel surface of the touch panel so that a distance between the mobile device, which faces the detection surface for performing the near field communication and overlaps the touch panel, and the touch panel is larger than a distance between the mobile device which faces the detection surface for performing the near field communication and the detection surface.
However, Tsujimoto in the same area of MFP/printer discloses wherein the detection surface is inclined with respect to a panel surface of the touch panel so that a distance between the mobile device, which faces the detection surface for performing the near field communication and overlaps the touch panel (Fig. 10, see at least element 70 wherein the NFC board is inclined/tilted with respect to the operation keys K …”, paragraph 94),
and the touch panel is larger than a distance between the mobile device which faces the detection surface for performing the near field communication and the detection surface (“wherein printer 200 including a housing 210 having a right upper surface 220R on which the NFC board 70 is provided at a central portion thereof in a front and rear direction. Also, the operation keys K may not be provided on the front end portion of the housing 210. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 10, the housing 210 further has a left upper surface 220L on which the operation keys K may be provided at a central portion thereof in the front and rear direction …”, paragraph 94).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Funakawa's image processing apparatus/MFP/printer to include: wherein the detection surface is inclined with respect to a panel surface of the touch panel so that a distance between the mobile device, which faces the detection surface for performing the near field communication and overlaps the touch panel, and the touch panel is larger than a distance between the mobile device which faces the detection surface for performing the near field communication and the detection surface.
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Funakawa’s image processing apparatus/MFP/printer by the teaching of Tsujimoto because of the following reasons: (a) for preventing a communication apparatus from performing an operation unintended by a user, (paragraph 3, Tsujimoto); and (b) to avoid start of near field communication with a terminal against user's intention while an operation for starting near field communication with the terminal is facilitated in an image processing apparatus, as taught by Funakawa at paragraph 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US PG Pub 2015/0263411 to Asai discloses an image forming apparatus includes a housing, a communication board, and a display device. The housing has an upper end portion, a front end portion, and a rear end portion. The front end portion and the rear end portion define a frontward/rearward direction. The communication board is provided on the upper end portion and includes an antenna for near field wireless communication. The display device is provided on the upper end portion. The display device and the antenna are arrayed on a straight line extending in the frontward/rearward direction such that the antenna is positioned frontward of the display device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER D. WAIT, Esq. whose telephone number is (571)270-5976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30- 6:00.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at 571 270-5254. 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.
CHRISTOPHER D. WAIT, Esq.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/CHRISTOPHER WAIT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights