DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-5 are currently pending.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
an acceptance processing portion,
a determination processing portion,
an output processing portion of claim 1,
a setting processing portion,
a notification processing portion of claim 3, and
an image forming portion of claim 4.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof of the claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, are the following:
A control portion 7 (See paragraph 38) which is a CPU, a ROM and a RAM or an integrated circuit ASIC (See paragraph 21).
an acceptance processing portion,
a determination processing portion,
an output processing portion of claim 1,
a setting processing portion,
a notification processing portion of claim 3.
A photoconductor drum, a charging roller, a laser scanning unit, a developing device, a transfer roller, a cleaning device, a fixing device, and a sheet discharge tray or an inkjet system (See paragraph 17).
an image forming portion of claim 4.
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii US Publication 2021/0168243 (hereafter “Fujii”) and Abaquita US Publication 2019/0230246 (hereafter “Abaquita”).
Referring to claims 1 and 5, Fujii discloses an image reading device, comprising:
a document sheet placing portion on which a document sheet is placed (paragraph 28, a platen 8 on which an original sheet is to be placed is provided);
a cover portion provided while being capable of changing its attitude between a closed attitude in which the cover portion covers the document sheet placing portion and an opened attitude in which the cover portion exposes the document sheet placing portion (paragraph 22, A cover 5 is rotatably connected to a rear-end portion of the housing 2. The cover 5 is rotatable about an axis extending in a right-left direction between an opened position and a closed position);
an acceptance processing portion which accepts a designation operation for designating a size of the document sheet placed on the document sheet placing portion (paragraph 43, Using the touch panel 4, the user can selectively set one of a manual setting and an automatic setting. When the manual setting is selected, the user can designate set information indicating the size and orientation of the original sheet placed on the platen 8 and the CIS unit 11 scans the original sheet according to the set information);
a determination processing portion which determines whether or not the size of the document sheet has been designated by the designation operation when an instruction to read an image of the document sheet placed on the document sheet placing portion is input and the cover portion is in the opened attitude (paragraph 45-46, When the manual setting has been selected, scanning of the original sheet and processing of the image data representing the scanned image are performed according to a condition corresponding to the set information of the original sheet set by the user. When the automatic setting is selected, the CPU 31 performs an original extracting process shown in FIGS. 6A, 6B and 6C in parallel with the scanning operation); and
an output processing portion which executes, when it is determined by the determination processing portion that the size of the document sheet has not been designated, first output processing for reading an image of a predetermined first region in the document sheet placing portion and outputting the document sheet region, and executes, when it is determined by the determination processing portion that the size of the document sheet has been designated (paragraph 64, After setting the type of the original sheet, the tilt angle, and the NG threshold value to the image rotation circuit 310, the CPU 31 transmits the above-processed image data representing an image of the particular number of lines to the image rotation circuit 310 (S33A). Thereafter, the CPU 31 retrieves the subsequent image data for a particular number of lines from the image data stored in the RAM 33 (S33)), second output processing for reading an image of a second region in the document sheet placing portion, that corresponds to the size designated by the designation operation, and outputting a second image obtained by the reading (paragraph 45, When the manual setting has been selected, scanning of the original sheet and processing of the image data representing the scanned image are performed according to a condition corresponding to the set information of the original sheet set by the user).
While Fujii discloses executing first output processing, Fujii does not disclose expressly correcting a tilt of each of page images and clipping a document sheet region from the corrected first image.
Abaquita discloses an output processing portion which executes, first output processing for reading an image of a predetermined first region in the document sheet placing portion, correcting a tilt of each of page images included in a first image obtained by the reading, and clipping a document sheet region from the corrected first image and outputting the document sheet region (paragraph 99, The control section 4 further executes various types of image processing such as rotation process and trimming process for the individual divided image data of the one-side area A1 and the other-side area A2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to correct a tilt of each page and clip a region of the corrected image. The motivation for doing so would have been to automatically separate a scanned double-page spread into two usable page images without requiring multiple manual page placements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Abaquita with Fujii to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1 and 5.
Referring to claim 4, Fujii discloses the image reading device according to claim 1; and
an image forming portion which forms an image on a sheet based on an image read by the image reading device (paragraph 19, The image scanning device 1 may be employed, in conjunction with a printing device, in an MFP having functions of scanning, printing and the like).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii US Publication 2021/0168243 and Abaquita US Publication 2019/0230246 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of well known prior art.
Referring to claim 2, Fujii discloses wherein in the second output processing, the second image is output (paragraph 45, When the manual setting has been selected, scanning of the original sheet and processing of the image data representing the scanned image are performed according to a condition corresponding to the set information of the original sheet set by the user).
Abaquita discloses wherein in the first output processing, the document sheet region clipped from the corrected first image is divided into two and output (paragraph 99, The control section 4 further executes various types of image processing such as rotation process and trimming process for the individual divided image data of the one-side area A1 and the other-side area A2).
While Fujii discloses setting conditions for executing the second output processing, Fujii does not disclose specifics of those conditions.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known and obvious in the art for manual settings to includes that the second image is divided into two and output (See MPEP 2144.03). The motivation for doing so would have been allow a user to customize the settings of the scanned document to their liking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine well known prior art with Fujii and Abaquita to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Referring to claim 3, Fujii discloses a setting processing portion which sets a function of the output processing portion to be effective or ineffective according to an operation of a user (paragraph 43, Using the touch panel 4, the user can selectively set one of a manual setting and an automatic setting. When the manual setting is selected, the user can designate set information indicating the size and orientation of the original sheet placed on the platen 8 and the CIS unit 11 scans the original sheet according to the set information).
While Fujii discloses setting the function of the output processing, Fujii does not disclose expressly providing a message that notifies guidance of the function of the output processing portion.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known and obvious in the art to provide a message that notifies guidance of the function of the output processing portion (See MPEP 2144.03). The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the user with useful information regarding the scan job. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine well known prior art with Fujii to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER K HUNTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Benny Q Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/PETER K HUNTSINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights