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 limitations are: “the communication unit is configured to communicate” in claims 7 and 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kano et al., US Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0290974 A1 (herein “Kano”).
Regarding claim 1, Kano teaches an image forming apparatus comprising (Kano figs. 1 and 16, ¶¶188–189, image communication apparatus 70 arranged to include the functions also of image communication apparatus 10): a communication unit (Kano figs. 16 and 1, ¶¶57–58, communication section 26); a display configured to display an operation image (Kano figs. 1, 16, ¶51, display section 20 composed of a liquid crystal display and providing a display function to display information on image communication (operation image));
a transmission processor configured to transmit display information based on the operation image displayed on the display (Kano figs. 1 and 16, CPU 11, ¶¶48, 50, central processing unit (CPU) is a control section for administrative control and is connected to the display (based on the operation image displayed on the display), operation section, image processing section, where ¶58 teaches the communication section calculates and outputs various data about the image currently being processed (operation image), ¶63 teaches the CPU displays information about network quality, and figs. 8 and 12, ¶¶140–144, 147 and 160 teach network quality data being displayed on the display regarding transmission of image data and an alteration screen for modifying image data for transmission) to a terminal device via the communication unit (Kano figs. 1 and 16, CPU 11, ¶¶48, 50, CPU connected to communication section (transmit display information via the communication unit), where ¶¶94–95 teaches the network quality data being obtained by communication with a measurement server on a receiving end LAN including a receiver terminal 45 (terminal device), and ¶¶90–91 teaching transmission of a measurement command via LAN 42, shown in fig. 1 that the LAN is connected to the communication unit which is connected to the CPU); and
a reception processor configured to receive first information related to a communication time necessary for communication for the terminal device to acquire the display information from the terminal device via the communication unit (Kano figs. 1 and 16, CPU 11, ¶¶48, 50, CPU connected to operation section, image processing section, recording section, and communication section (received first information via the communication unit), where ¶63 teaches the CPU displays information about network quality (related to time necessary for communication for the terminal device to acquire any information over the network, including display information)), and where ¶¶90–92 teaches the measurement data for calculating network quality is received from the measurement server (from the terminal) and that the measurement data is calculated to determine packet delay (related to a communication time necessary for communication), where fig. 16 shows the LAN connection through the communication section, connected to the CPU, and fig. 4, ¶¶106, 111 and 115 teaching a communication time displayed on the display according to the network quality data calculations),
wherein the transmission processor is configured to transmit, to the terminal device, image information based on image quality information related to an image quality corresponding to the first information as the display information (Kano ¶¶128–131, a user selects attribute alteration, the attribute alteration is executed and transmission of the image (to the receiver terminal 45 – see ¶123) continues, where ¶160 teaches execution of the attribute alteration changes the transmitted image according to a user set image quality as image resolution, where the user selects the attribute alteration to change image quality according to network quality (first information)).
Regarding claim 3, Kano teaches wherein the reception processor is configured to receive, from the terminal device, information including the communication time as the first information (Kano ¶¶90–92, measurement data 53 received from the receiver terminal (from the terminal device), including packet data with timestamps indicating timestamps of time of generation which provides information on delay (communication time)).
Regarding claim 7, Kano teaches wherein the communication unit is configured to communicate with the terminal device via at least one information processing device (Kano figs. 1 and 16, ¶¶48–50, 62–63, 70, CPU as a control section is connected to communication section 26 where the CPU also has a network quality grasping section grasping information obtained according to the control signal exchanged between the communication section 26 and the receiver terminal, and where ¶¶184–185 teach that when the network quality grasped is poor, the communication section receives commands from user input (via the CPU) to send for example an EOM signal to the receiver terminal).
Regarding claim 15, Kano teaches a method of transmitting information comprising (Kano figs. 1 and 16, ¶¶188–189, functions of image communication apparatus 10, shown in fig. 15 as including transmissions):
executing, by an image forming apparatus (Kano figs. 1 and 16, ¶¶188–189, image communication apparatus 70) including a communication unit (Kano figs. 16 and 1, ¶¶57–58, communication section 26) and a display configured to display an operation image (Kano figs. 1, 16, ¶51, display section 20 composed of a liquid crystal display and providing a display function to display information on image communication (operation image)), transmission processing of transmitting display information based on the operation image displayed on the display (Kano figs. 1 and 16, CPU 11, ¶¶48, 50, central processing unit (CPU) is a control section for administrative control and is connected to the display (based on the operation image displayed on the display), operation section, image processing section, where ¶58 teaches the communication section calculates and outputs various data about the image currently being processed (operation image), ¶63 teaches the CPU displays information about network quality, and figs. 8 and 12, ¶¶140–144, 147 and 160 teach network quality data being displayed on the display regarding transmission of image data and an alteration screen for modifying image data for transmission) to a terminal device via the communication unit (Kano figs. 1 and 16, CPU 11, ¶¶48, 50, CPU connected to communication section (transmit display information via the communication unit), where ¶¶94–95 teaches the network quality data being obtained by communication with a measurement server on a receiving end LAN including a receiver terminal 45 (terminal device), and ¶¶90–91 teaching transmission of a measurement command via LAN 42, shown in fig. 1 that the LAN is connected to the communication unit which is connected to the CPU); and
executing, by the image forming apparatus, reception processing of receiving first information related to a communication time necessary for communication for the terminal device to acquire the display information from the terminal device via the communication unit (Kano figs. 1 and 16, CPU 11, ¶¶48, 50, CPU connected to operation section, image processing section, recording section, and communication section (received first information via the communication unit), where ¶63 teaches the CPU displays information about network quality (related to time necessary for communication for the terminal device to acquire any information over the network, including display information)), and where ¶¶90–92 teaches the measurement data for calculating network quality is received from the measurement server (from the terminal) and that the measurement data is calculated to determine packet delay (related to a communication time necessary for communication), where fig. 16 shows the LAN connection through the communication section, connected to the CPU, and fig. 4, ¶¶106, 111 and 115 teaching a communication time displayed on the display according to the network quality data calculations),
wherein in the transmission processing, image information based on image quality information related to an image quality corresponding to the first information is transmitted to the terminal device as the display information (Kano ¶¶128–131, a user selects attribute alteration, the attribute alteration is executed and transmission of the image (to the receiver terminal 45 – see ¶123) continues, where ¶160 teaches execution of the attribute alteration changes the transmitted image according to a user set image quality as image resolution, where the user selects the attribute alteration to change image quality according to network quality (first information)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano.
Regarding claim 2, Kano teaches wherein the reception processor is configured to receive, from the terminal device, information including a request related to the image quality information as the first information (Kano ¶¶90–93, communication section which is connected to CPU (reception processor) receives various signals and data from the receiver terminal 45 (terminal device), including measurement data 53 which includes requests for re-transmission (a request), where the re-transmission requests correspond to network quality, and where ¶¶141, 145–147 and 160–162, teaches network quality is related to image quality in that when the network quality is poor leading to a high transmission time, the alteration attributes such as resolution can be changed).
Kano does not explicitly teach/anticipate that the re-transmission requests sent by the receiver terminal are related to the image quality information, however, Kano does at least teach that there is a relationship between the re-transmission requests to network quality, and then that network quality can determine what resolution setting is offered to the user to set to reduce transmission time in the context of a poor network quality for example (see ¶160). Therefore, the user has a closed set of options to select from in altering attributes of the transmission, some which would be related to the re-transmission requests. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (herein “PHOSITA”) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the image transmission system of Kano to include having the re-transmission requests regarding network quality be related to image quality by way of a user selection of an alteration attribute at least because doing so would provide practical alternatives to a user to counteract poor network quality, and allow the user to make the decisions on counteracting the poor network quality. See Kano ¶165.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano in view of Majumder, US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0067957 A1 (herein “Majumder”).
Regarding claim 4, with deficiencies of Kano noted in square brackets [], Kano teaches wherein the reception processor is configured to receive, [from the terminal device], information including the image quality information determined based on the communication time as the first information (Kano ¶¶160, 165, a change in image resolution (image quality information) is received by CPU from user input, where the user chooses to change the image resolution as a measure to take against poor network quality).
Kano does not explicitly where Majumder teaches that the image quality information is from the terminal device (Majumder ¶26, server apparatus (terminal device) in communication with the image forming apparatus, transmits data regarding image quality).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kano and Majumder together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the image resolution change information of Kano to be transmitted by, be received from, the terminal device as disclosed in Majumder, at least as doing so would provide a way to resolve image quality issues more speedily and without burden. See Majumder ¶5.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano in view of Diefenbaugh et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0112707 A1 (herein “Diefenbaugh”). Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano in view of Kanbayashi, US Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0094736 A1 (herein “Kanbayashi”) in view of Diefenbaugh.
Regarding claim 5, with deficiencies of Kano noted in square brackets [], Kano teaches wherein when the communication time is longer than a predetermined [time] (Kano ¶¶90–92 and 141, when the network quality fails to meet the predetermined requirements, where network quality is determined based on the timestamp of packets and the delay calculated therefrom, and where ¶88 teaches that a longer response time shows a poorer network quality), the transmission processor transmits, to the terminal device, the image information lower in image quality than the image information (Kano ¶¶160–162, user can change the image resolution to be 300dpi instead of 600 dpi (lower in image quality) when transmission time is prohibitively long) [when the communication time is equal to or shorter than the predetermined time].
While Kano teaches that the communication time being longer correlates to a poorer network quality, where the network quality has predetermined requirements which control image quality, Kano does not explicitly teach that a particular delay time or timestamp is used to compare against the determined delay time/timestamp.
Diefenbaugh teaches when the communication time is longer than a predetermined time (Diefenbaugh ¶13, low latency amount being a predetermined threshold value indicating a time period below which the latency of transmission (communication time) is considered low) and when the communication time is equal to or shorter than the predetermined time (Diefenbaugh ¶46, an image transfer policy where low latency transmission is prioritized over image quality thus a lower image quality than when the image policy prioritizes image quality over low latency transmission).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kano and Diefenbaugh together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the predetermined requirements for image quality changes of Kano to be from a specific communication time threshold as disclosed in Diefenbaugh, at least as doing so would avoid inefficiencies in use of system equipment and available bandwidth. See Diefenbaugh ¶¶2 and 17.
Regarding claim 12, Kano teaches wherein when the communication time is longer than a predetermined [time] (Kano ¶¶90–92 and 141, when the network quality fails to meet the predetermined requirements, where network quality is determined based on the timestamp of packets and the delay calculated therefrom, and where ¶88 teaches that a longer response time shows a poorer network quality), the reception processor receives, from the image forming apparatus, the image information lower in image quality than the image information (Kano ¶¶160–162, user can change the image resolution to be 300dpi instead of 600 dpi (lower in image quality) when transmission time is prohibitively long, thus the receiving processor receiving the transmitted image in lower image quality) [when the communication time is equal to or shorter than the predetermined time].
While Kano teaches that the communication time being longer correlates to a poorer network quality, where the network quality has predetermined requirements which control image quality, Kano does not explicitly teach that a particular delay time or timestamp is used to compare against the determined delay time/timestamp.
Diefenbaugh teaches when the communication time is longer than a predetermined time (Diefenbaugh ¶13, low latency amount being a predetermined threshold value indicating a time period below which the latency of transmission (communication time) is considered low) and when the communication time is equal to or shorter than the predetermined time (Diefenbaugh ¶46, an image transfer policy where low latency transmission is prioritized over image quality thus a lower image quality than when the image policy prioritizes image quality over low latency transmission).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kano and Diefenbaugh together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the predetermined requirements for image quality changes of Kano to be from a specific communication time threshold as disclosed in Diefenbaugh, at least as doing so would avoid inefficiencies in use of system equipment and available bandwidth. See Diefenbaugh ¶¶2 and 17.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano in view of Motohashi et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0165221 A1 (herein “Motohashi”). Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano in view of Kanbayashi in view of Motohashi.
Regarding claim 6, with deficiencies of Kano noted in square brackets [], Kano teaches wherein the transmission processor is configured to transmit the display information as information to be displayed on [a browser] of the terminal device (Kano fig. 15, ¶¶178 and 186, PIX data (display information) is transmitted to the receiver terminal from the communication section of the image communication apparatus, where ¶79 teaches the receiver terminal to be a PC, depicted in fig. 2 as having a monitor, thus received data can be displayed (to be displayed) in the receiver terminal).
Kano does not explicitly teach that the terminal device has a browser. However, Motohashi teaches displayed on a browser of the terminal device (Motohashi ¶32, terminal can view fax image data using a web browser).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kano and Motohashi together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the terminal PC of Kano to include web browser image viewing ability as disclosed in Motohashi, at least as doing so would allow for processing data contained in fax images together with other system information for better efficiency in workflow. See Motohashi ¶¶11–13 and 32.
Regarding claim 13, with deficiencies of Kano noted in square brackets [], Kano teaches wherein the reception processor is configured to receive the display information as information to be displayed on [a browser] of the terminal device (Kano fig. 15, ¶¶178 and 186, PIX data (display information) is transmitted to the receiver terminal (thus received from its reception processor) the communication section of the image communication apparatus, where ¶79 teaches the receiver terminal to be a PC, depicted in fig. 2 as having a monitor, thus received data can be displayed (to be displayed) in the receiver terminal).
Kano does not explicitly teach that the terminal device has a browser. However, Motohashi teaches displayed on a browser of the terminal device (Motohashi ¶32, terminal can view fax image data using a web browser).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kano and Motohashi together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the terminal PC of Kano to include web browser image viewing ability as disclosed in Motohashi, at least as doing so would allow for processing data contained in fax images together with other system information for better efficiency in workflow. See Motohashi ¶¶11–13 and 32.
Claims 8–11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano in view of Kanbayashi, US Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0094736 A1 (herein “Kanbayashi”).
Regarding claim 8, with deficiencies of Kano noted in square brackets, Kano teaches a terminal device comprising (Kano figs. 1 and 16, ¶¶188–189, image communication apparatus 70 arranged to include the functions also of image communication apparatus 10, where fig. 2 illustrates that image communication apparatuses operate as endpoints (terminals) on respective LANs that are connected by the Internet, hence the image communication apparatus being a terminal as well):
an operation unit (Kano fig. 1, ¶52, operation section 21);
a communication unit (Kano figs. 16 and 1, ¶¶57–58, communication section 26);
a reception processor configured to receive display information [based on an operation image displayed on an image forming apparatus-side display] as a display of an image forming apparatus from the image forming apparatus via the communication unit (Kano figs. 1 and 16, CPU 11, ¶¶48, 50, CPU connected to operation section, image processing section, recording section, and communication section (receive display information via the communication unit), where ¶79 teaches the receiver terminal 45 as an apparatus capable of image exchange with the image communication apparatus 10, and where 45 is pictured as another image forming apparatus in fig. 1);
a display configured to display a [remote] operation image [based on the display information received by the reception processor] (Kano figs. 1, 16, ¶51, display section 20 composed of a liquid crystal display and providing a display function to display information on image communication (operation image));
a storage configured to store (Kano ¶49, RAM 13 which provides a work memory for temporarily storing various types of data when the CPU 11 executes a program) a communication time necessary for communication for acquiring the display information from the image forming apparatus (Kano ¶¶64, 71–72, 77, CPU executing progress grasping including determining communication time for a remaining amount of time to receive image data being transmitted, which are then displayed on the display section 20, thus requiring temporary storage in the RAM 13); and
a transmission processor configured to transmit first information related to the communication time to the image forming apparatus via the communication unit (Kano figs. 1 and 16, CPU 11, ¶¶48, 50, CPU connected to communication section (transmit first information via the communication unit), where ¶¶94–95 teaches the network quality data being obtained by communication with a measurement server on a receiving end LAN including a receiver terminal 45 (terminal device), and ¶¶90–91 teaching transmission of a measurement command via LAN 42, shown in fig. 1 that the LAN is connected to the communication unit which is connected to the CPU, the measurement commands used to determine network conditions and the time it takes to receive transmitted images (communication time)), wherein the reception processor is configured to receive image information based on image quality information related to an image quality corresponding to the first information as the display information from the image forming apparatus (Kano figs. 1 and 16, CPU 11, ¶¶48, 50, CPU connected to operation section, image processing section, recording section, and communication section (received first information via the communication unit), where ¶63 teaches the CPU displays information about network quality (related to time necessary for communication for the terminal device to acquire any information over the network, including display information)), and where ¶¶90–92 teaches the measurement data for calculating network quality is received from the measurement server (from the terminal) and that the measurement data is calculated to determine packet delay (related to a communication time necessary for communication), where fig. 16 shows the LAN connection through the communication section, connected to the CPU, and fig. 4, ¶¶106, 111 and 115 teaching a communication time displayed on the display according to the network quality data calculations), and the display is configured to display [the remote operation image] based on the image information (Kano ¶¶156, 159–161, fig. 12, operation screen on the display including various information about the image being transmitted/received based on network quality and image mode attributes affecting transfer speed such as resolution).
While Kano teaches that a receiver terminal 45 as an image forming apparatus and that terminal 45 exchanges images with image communication apparatus 10, Kano does not explicitly teach that the display information received is “based on an operation image displayed on an image forming apparatus-side display,” or “based on the display information received by the reception processor” or that the operation image is a “remote” operation image as claimed.
Kanbayashi teaches based on an operation image displayed on an image forming apparatus-side display (Kanbayashi ¶58, for operation images, a flag indicates whether or not a portable terminal device displays the operation images which are presently being displayed on the display 130 of image forming apparatus 10), based on the display information received by the reception processor (Kanbayashi fig. 9, ¶¶67 and 72–73, steps S15, S16, S31 and S32, operation image is transmitted to display which receives the operation image and displays it), and “a/the remote operation image” (Kanbayashi figs. 4, 8, ¶¶57–58, a terminal receives and displays an operation image from a separate/remote image forming apparatus 10).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Kano and Kanbayashi together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the image communication system of Kano to provide the displaying/receiving of operation images from a separate/remote image apparatus on a separate terminal as disclosed in Kanbayashi at least because doing so would improve visibility and operability of the operation image. See Kanbayashi ¶4.
Regarding claim 9, Kano teaches wherein the transmission processor is configured to transmit information including a request related to the image quality information to the image forming apparatus (Kano ¶¶90–93, communication section which is connected to CPU (transmission processor) transmits various signals and data to the receiver terminal 45 (shown in fig. 2 to be the same device as 10, an image communication apparatus), including measurement data 53 which includes requests for re-transmission (a request), where the re-transmission requests correspond to network quality, and where ¶¶141, 145–147 and 160–162, teaches network quality is related to image quality in that when the network quality is poor leading to a high transmission time, the alteration attributes such as resolution can be changed).
Kano does not explicitly teach/anticipate that the re-transmission requests sent by the receiver terminal are related to the image quality information, however, Kano does at least teach that there is a relationship between the re-transmission requests to network quality, and then that network quality can determine what resolution setting is offered to the user to set to reduce transmission time in the context of a poor network quality for example (see ¶160). Therefore, the user has a closed set of options to select from in altering attributes of the transmission, some which would be related to the re-transmission requests. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the image transmission system of Kano to include having the re-transmission requests regarding network quality be related to image quality by way of a user selection of an alteration attribute at least because doing so would provide practical alternatives to a user to counteract poor network quality, and allow the user to make the decisions on counteracting the poor network quality. See Kano ¶165.
Regarding claim 10, Kano teaches wherein the transmission processor is configured to transmit, to the image forming apparatus, information including the communication time as the first information (Kano ¶¶90–92, measurement data 53 received by the receiver terminal (transmitted from the image communication apparatus 10 having the CPU/transmission processor), including packet data with timestamps indicating timestamps of time of generation which provides information on delay (communication time)).
Regarding claim 11, Kano teaches further comprising: a determination unit configured to determine the image quality information based on the communication time (Kano ¶¶90–93, CPU (determination unit) processes measurement data 53 which includes requests for re-transmission (a request), where the re-transmission requests correspond to network quality, and where ¶¶141, 145–147 and 160–162, teaches network quality is related to image quality in that when the network quality is poor leading to a high transmission time, the alteration attributes such as resolution can be changed), wherein the transmission processor is configured to transmit, to the image forming apparatus, information including the image quality information as the first information (Kano ¶¶160, 165, a change in image resolution (image quality information) is received by CPU from user input, where the user chooses to change the image resolution as a measure to take against poor network quality).
Regarding claim 14, Kano teaches wherein the communication unit is configured to communicate with the image forming apparatus via at least one information processing device (Kano figs. 1 and 16, ¶¶48–50, 62–63, 70, CPU as a control section is connected to communication section 26 where the CPU also has a network quality grasping section grasping information obtained according to the control signal exchanged between the communication section 26 and the receiver terminal (shown in fig. 2, 45 as being another image communication apparatus/multifunctional peripheral (see ¶¶47 and 79) (image forming apparatus)), and where ¶¶184–185 teach that when the network quality grasped is poor, the communication section receives commands from user input (via the CPU) to send for example an EOM signal to the receiver terminal).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Watanabe, US Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0405457 A1, directed towards communications between clients over a network where the clients can determine and adapt to communication conditions.
Manda, US Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0373121 A1, directed towards an imaging unit and a display unit where the picture quality of the picture being displayed can be adjusted.
Fukunaga et al., US Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0277614 A1, directed towards selecting an image forming apparatus on a network with other image forming apparatuses that satisfies quality information from a request.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE M KOETH whose telephone number is (571)272-5908. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 09:00-17:00, Friday 09:00-13:00, EDT/EST.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 571-272-8243. 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.
MICHELLE M. KOETH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2671
/MICHELLE M KOETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights