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 10/24/24 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: “scan unit configured to scan”, “acceptance unit configured to accept setting of a condition”, “transmission unit configured to transmit the generated image data”, 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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the series of steps instructing to summarize a document and post the summary on a chat, which is a achievable manually by a human user and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations only store and retrieve information in memory of a computer or server across a network, which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pat. 12,032,899 to Shoji.
Regarding claim 1. Shoji discloses an image processing apparatus (Abstract) comprising:
a scan unit configured to scan a document image and generate image data (“The image forming apparatus 2 is a document reading apparatus such as an MFP, a network scanner, a document scanner, a network facsimile machine, a printer with scanner function, or the like. The image forming apparatus 2 may execute an application software (hereinafter simply referred to as an “application”) for connecting to the server 1. In the present embodiment, the image forming apparatus 2 may be provided with a function to read (scan) a set of documents and an image forming function to print or convert documents into electronic documents. In addition, the image forming apparatus 2 may be connected to the server 1 by the intranet of network 5 or USB (Universal Serial Bus)”, column 3, lines 6-17);
an acceptance unit configured to accept setting of a condition to generate a summary based on the image data (“a summary generation unit that generates summary data from the post-revision document data, the pre-revision document data, and the detailed information acquired by the document revision acquisition unit with the relationship information acquired by the relationship acquisition unit; and wherein the summary generation unit determines number of summary characters of the summary data”, column 1, lines 48-54); and
a transmission unit configured to transmit the generated image data and information indicating the set condition (“The chat output unit 130 sends the summary data 240 to the reviewer's terminal 3B by using a chatbot, or the like, and causes it to be output via chat”, column 10, lines 58-60; “an example of the output in chat of the summary data 240 generated based on the revision of the document in FIG. 6. Specifically, it is not just a summary of the revision part, but also a message indicating the contents of the revision, such as character string of “@Mr. B Mr. A has deleted the item related to the penalty for late payment. Please check the linked document. LINK.” The “link” at the end of this character string may be embedded with a link tag, and when pressed by the reviewer, the revised document data 210 may be displayed or downloaded”, column 10, lines 61-67),
wherein the summary generated based on the transmitted information is posted to a channel on a chat service (“The chat output unit 130 outputs the summary data 240 to the reviewer in a chat format. Specifically, the chat output unit 130 can pop up the summary data 240 to the reviewer's terminal 3b via chat during the review. In this case, the chat output unit 130 may send the summary data 240 to the reviewer by using a chatbot”, column 5, lines 31-36; “the summary generation unit 120 refers to the relationship information 230 and, based on this, calculates the number of summary characters based on the relationship distance between the reviewee and the reviewer. The summary generation unit 120 may, for example, increase the number of summary characters” column 9, lines 54-59).
Regarding claim 2. Shoji discloses wherein the condition relates to a number of characters of the summary (“the summary generation unit 120 refers to the relationship information 230 and, based on this, calculates the number of summary characters based on the relationship distance between the reviewee and the reviewer. The summary generation unit 120 may, for example, increase the number of summary characters” column 9, lines 54-59).
Regarding claim 3. Shoji discloses wherein the condition relates to an expression in the summary (“the relationship acquisition unit 110 may also convert the user information into character string information. In the example in FIG. 6, for example, the user information of the reviewer is “[Mr. A, legal department, general employee]””, column 9, lines 12-16).
Regarding claim 4. Shoji discloses wherein the transmission unit is configured to transmit the information indicating the set condition to a server related to the chat service (Fig. 1, Image forming apparatus 2 & Server 1, “The server 1 is an example of a revision content summarizing apparatus that accumulates document data before and after revision and summarizes the revision content. The server 1 may be, for example, a server for pull-printing that controls the image forming apparatus 2, a server for DMS (Document Management System), a server for document management and processing to store and output documents, or the like”, column 2, lines 50-67).
Regarding claim 5. Shoji discloses further comprising a reception unit configured to receive the summary from a server that has generated the summary based on the information transmitted by the transmission unit (Fig. 1, Server 1 & Terminal 3a & 3b, “the terminals 3a and 3b can install and execute various applications including a web browser for accessing to the server 1, a device driver for image forming system X, other dedicated applications for review, or the like. This allows the reviewee and the reviewer using terminals 3a and 3b to access to server 1 or receive push notifications, review or modify documents by using UI (User Interface), and the like”, column 3, lines 25-32).
Regarding claim 6. Shoji discloses a display unit configured to display the received summary (Fig. 1, Server 1 & Terminal 3a & 3b, “the terminals 3a and 3b can install and execute various applications including a web browser for accessing to the server 1, a device driver for image forming system X, other dedicated applications for review, or the like. This allows the reviewee and the reviewer using terminals 3a and 3b to access to server 1 or receive push notifications, review or modify documents by using UI (User Interface), and the like”, column 3, lines 25-32).
Regarding claim 7. Shoji discloses wherein the summary and the image data are posted to the channel by the transmission unit transmitting the image data and the information (“The chat output unit 130 sends the summary data 240 to the reviewer's terminal 3B by using a chatbot, or the like, and causes it to be output via chat”, column 10, lines 58-60; “an example of the output in chat of the summary data 240 generated based on the revision of the document in FIG. 6. Specifically, it is not just a summary of the revision part, but also a message indicating the contents of the revision, such as character string of “@Mr. B Mr. A has deleted the item related to the penalty for late payment. Please check the linked document. LINK.” The “link” at the end of this character string may be embedded with a link tag, and when pressed by the reviewer, the revised document data 210 may be displayed or downloaded”, column 10, lines 61-67).
Regarding claim 8. Shoji discloses wherein the summary and the image data are posted to the channel in association with each other (“The chat output unit 130 sends the summary data 240 to the reviewer's terminal 3B by using a chatbot, or the like, and causes it to be output via chat”, column 10, lines 58-60; “an example of the output in chat of the summary data 240 generated based on the revision of the document in FIG. 6. Specifically, it is not just a summary of the revision part, but also a message indicating the contents of the revision, such as character string of “@Mr. B Mr. A has deleted the item related to the penalty for late payment. Please check the linked document. LINK.” The “link” at the end of this character string may be embedded with a link tag, and when pressed by the reviewer, the revised document data 210 may be displayed or downloaded”, column 10, lines 61-67).
Regarding claim 9. Shoji discloses a print unit (“The image forming apparatus 2 is a document reading apparatus such as an MFP, a network scanner, a document scanner, a network facsimile machine, a printer with scanner function, or the like. The image forming apparatus 2 may execute an application software (hereinafter simply referred to as an “application”) for connecting to the server 1. In the present embodiment, the image forming apparatus 2 may be provided with a function to read (scan) a set of documents and an image forming function to print or convert documents into electronic documents. In addition, the image forming apparatus 2 may be connected to the server 1 by the intranet of network 5 or USB (Universal Serial Bus)”, column 3, lines 6-17).
Regarding claim 10. Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons and rational as provided above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 11. Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons and rational as provided above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 12. Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons and rational as provided above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 13. Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons and rational as provided above for claim 3.
Regarding claim 14. Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons and rational as provided above for claim 14.
Regarding claim 15. Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons and rational as provided above for claim 15.
Regarding claim 16. Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons and rational as provided above for claim 16.
Regarding claim 17. Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons and rational as provided above for claim 17.
Regarding claim 18. Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons and rational as provided above for claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US PG Pub 2021/0144266 to Tsukada et al. discloses that in order to achieve designation of a talk room of a chat service to share image data generated by scanning in an image processing apparatus, the image processing apparatus that communicates with a chat server, based on received information indicating a talk room of the chat server, the chat server controlling displaying of information indicating received image data on the talk room, includes a scanning unit configured to scan an image of an original document and generate image data based on the image, a designation unit configured to designate a talk room of the chat server, and a transmission unit configured to transmit the image data generated by the scanning unit and information indicating the talk room designated by the designation unit to the chat serve.
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