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: setting unit, detection unit, notification unit, original size detection unit, display control unit in claims 1-14.
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.
In published specification paragraphs [0023]-[0024] the units include a CPU.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safonov et al. (US 2011/0141534 A1) in view of Asakawa et al. (US 2018/0367694 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Safonov’534 shows an image formation apparatus (figure 10 image forming apparatus), comprising:
a setting unit configured to set a layout method applied in a case where a combined image, which is obtained by integrating two scanned images corresponding to two original surfaces obtained by scanning a specific original, is generated (figure 3 S301 adjusting layout, figure 11 S1110 adjusting layout for copying both sides of two-sided card);
a detection unit configured to detect a position of the specific original placed on a platen glass for the scanning (paragraph [0053] selectable positions of the first and second sides, figure 4); and [ ].
Safonov’534 does not specifically show a notification unit configured to notify of a warning message in a case where the position of the specific original detected by the detection unit is different from a position of the specific original according to the layout method set by the setting unit.
Asakawa’694 shows a notification unit configured to notify of a warning message in a case where the position of the specific original detected by the detection unit is different from a position of the specific original according to the layout method set by the setting unit (paragraph [0079] error reporting unit image scanning determining unit determines that the plurality of documents are improperly arranged in the plurality of areas, the error reporting unit may report error information, paragraph [0156]-[0161] display error information requesting the user to place properly the cards in predetermined areas).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify Safonov’534 to include a notification unit configured to notify of a warning message in a case where the position of the specific original detected by the detection unit is different from a position of the specific original according to the layout method set by the setting unit method taught by Asakawa’694. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the system’s ability to be able to avoid errors on scanning placement of cards in a platen of a scanner (paragraph [00161]).
With respect to Claim 2, the combination of Safonov’534 and Asakawa’694 shows the image formation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit detects the position of the specific original based on image data obtained by pre-scanning the specific original placed on the platen glass (in Asakawa’694: figure 7 S5 requesting preview/pre-scan to be displayed when the preview shows no error then S7 OK key is pressed and S8 generate image data).
With respect to Claim 3, the combination of Safonov’534 and Asakawa’694 shows the image formation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit detects the position of the specific original based on image data obtained by scanning the specific original placed on the platen glass (in Asakawa’694: figure 7 S5 requesting preview/pre-scan to be displayed to verify the position of the card).
With respect to Claim 4, the combination of Safonov’534 and Asakawa’694 shows the image formation apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: an original size detection unit configured to detect an original size of an original placed on the platen glass, wherein the detection unit detects the position of the specific original based on a detection result detected by the original size detection unit (in Safonov’534: paragraph [0016] and figure 2 scanning what is in the scanner as it is (original size) and then doing adjustments as necessary).
With respect to Claim 5, the combination of Safonov’534 and Asakawa’694 shows the image formation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit detects the position of the specific original by checking a range determined in advance on the platen glass (in Asakawa’694: paragraph [0156] display error information requesting the user to place properly the plurality of cards in the predetermined/(in advance) areas/range).
With respect to Claim 6, the combination of Safonov’534 and Asakawa’694 shows the image formation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the notification unit notifies of the warning message and an operation procedure to continue the processing (in Asakawa’694: paragraph [0156] display error information requesting the user to place properly the plurality of cards in the predetermined areas).
With respect to Claim 7, the combination of Safonov’534 and Asakawa’694 shows the image formation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the notification unit presents a correct position of the specific original placed on the platen glass for scanning to a user (in Asakawa’694: paragraph [0156] display error information requesting the user to place properly the plurality of cards in the predetermined areas, figure 19 shows proper placement).
With respect to Claim 8, the combination of Safonov’534 and Asakawa’694 shows the image formation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the notification unit presents both a current position of the specific original placed on the platen glass and a correct position of the specific original placed on the platen glass for the scanning to a user (in Asakawa’694: paragraph [0156] display error information requesting the user to place properly the plurality of cards in the predetermined areas, figure 18 shows improper card layout on the platen).
With respect to Claim 9, the combination of Safonov’534 and Asakawa’694 shows the image formation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the notification unit notifies of a warning for first scanning of the specific original and a warning for second scanning of the specific original using different designs (in Asakawa’694: paragraph [0079] error reporting unit image scanning determining unit determines that the plurality of documents are improperly arranged in the plurality of areas, the error reporting unit may report error information, paragraph [0156]-[0161] display error information requesting the user to place properly the cards in predetermined areas, figure 7 S7 and figure 8 S12 both times where the preview for each scanning is checked).
With respect to Claim 10, the combination of Safonov’534 and Asakawa’694 shows the image formation apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a display control unit while there are a plurality of the layout methods, the display control unit being configured to display a UI screen to set one layout method out of the plurality of the layout methods, wherein the setting unit sets the one layout method based on a user operation via the UI screen displayed by the display control unit (in Safonov’534: paragraphs [0019], [0024] adjusting the layout of the card using figure 4 shows user interface to adjust the layout).
With respect to Claim 11, the combination of Safonov’534 and Asakawa’694 shows the image formation apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the plurality of the layout methods are each associated with the position of the specific original placed on the platen glass for the scanning (in Asakawa’694: paragraphs [0062]-[0063] an output layout setting unit that sets a layout for outputting the plurality of pieces of image data, and the image data processing unit may associate the plurality of pieces of image data with each other in accordance with the layout that is set by the output layout setting unit).
With respect to Claim 12, the combination of Safonov’534 and Asakawa’694 shows the image formation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the layout method is applied in a case where a combined image, which is obtained by integrating two scanned images corresponding to two original surfaces obtained by scanning a front surface and a back surface of the specific original, is generated (in Safonov’534: figure 2 shows first and second scanning passes for front and back of the card, and putting both images together, paragraphs [0019], [0024] adjusting the layout of the card using figure 4 shows user interface to adjust the layout).
With respect to Claim 13, the combination of Safonov’534 and Asakawa’694 shows the image formation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the layout method is applied in a case where a combined image (in Safonov’534: figure 2 shows scanning of the card, and putting images together, paragraphs [0019], [0024] adjusting the layout of the card using figure 4 shows user interface to adjust the layout), which is obtained by integrating two scanned images corresponding to two original surfaces obtained by scanning a front surface of each of two specific originals, is generated (in Asakawa’694: paragraph [0034] scanning the front surfaces of the cards, paragraph [0151] shows front surfaces of cards 1 through 4 and the layout in Figure 27A, also figure 31B shows the front surfaces in the layout).
With respect to Claim 14, the combination of Safonov’534 and Asakawa’694 shows the image formation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the specific original is an ID card (in Safonov’534: figure 2 shows the scanned item being an ID card).
With respect to Claim 15-16, rejection analogous to those presented for claim 1, are applicable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vaught et al. (US 2022/0318529 A1): identifying items not corrected positions when scanned by a RFID scanner, different than current application in that the scanning is not in scanner with a glass platen. See paragraph [0018] and figure 5 S513 error correction component, which can be stored in the memory of a computing device, operates in an unconventional manner by using particular signal properties of RFID tag data, received from a RFID scanner, to identify items that are correctly located in a location and correct the location of items that are not correctly located. In this manner, the computing device is used in an unconventional way and allows item tags to be associated not only with an item, but with a particular location for displays and other areas within a retail environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRIANA CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3246. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6.
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 M. 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.
/IRIANA CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights