DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner as indicated below.
Claim Interpretation
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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: “a first width detector” and “a second width detector” in claims 1, 10 and 11.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitations: CPU or ASIC (see Specification, pages 27-28). It is noted that that the functions performed or controlled by CPU are disclosed in a manner that transforms the general CPU or the like to a special purpose CPU or the like programmed to perform the disclosed functions. That is, the various "unit" functions claimed are described in the specification in the form of prose and flow charts in a manner that provides sufficient structure.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAMURA et al. (US 2021/0281712) (IDS cited on 12/05/2024) (hereinafter NAKAMURA) in view of Nakajima (US 2022/0201155) (hereinafter Nakajima).
Regarding claim 1, NAKAMURA discloses a reading device (Figures 1-2) comprising:
a light source to irradiate a subject with light (reflected light of the document, which is illuminated, or irradiated, by the light source; paragraph 40);
an imaging device to receive the light reflected off the subject and generate an image (reflected light from a document 12, which is the subject, to be imaged on the imaging unit 22; paragraph 51).
NAKAMURA does not explicitly disclose a first width detector to detect a width of the subject; a second width detector to detect the width of the subject using a different method from the first width detector; and circuitry configured to determine a size of the subject, the circuitry being configured to: when the first width detector has detected the width of the subject normally, determine the width of the subject based on a detection result of the first width detector; and when the first width detector has not detected the width of the subject normally, determine the width of the subject based on a detection result of the second width detector.
However, Nakajima working in the same field of endeavor teaches a first width detector (CPUs / width detection sensors; Figures 1, 3) to detect a width of the subject (Width detection sensor 10 that detects a width of the document; paragraph 126, Figure 15);
a second width detector (CPU / width detection sensors; Figures 1, 3) to detect the width of the subject using a different method from the first width detector (CPU 251 confirms presence or absence of the skew correction exceeding the maximum correction angle; paragraphs 118-120, Figure 13); and
circuitry configured to determine a size of the subject (CPU 251 determines and performs the skew detection by the skew detection unit 271 on the image data of the reading image output; paragraph 116), the circuitry being configured to:
when the first width detector has detected the width of the subject normally (When the skew detection amount θ is equal to or less than the maximum correction angle (consider as normally); paragraph 117, Figure 13), determine the width of the subject based on a detection result of the first width detector (CPU 251 sets the output main scanning width, the output sub-scanning length, the skew correction amount θ, and the reference edge point; paragraph 117); and
when the first width detector has not detected the width of the subject normally (When the skew detection amount θ exceeds the maximum correction angle, the CPU 251 confirms, presence or absence of the skew correction exceeding the maximum correction angle; paragraphs 118-119, Figure 13), determine the width of the subject based on a detection result of the second width detector (CPU 251 performs the skew correction and the cutting out of the original by the skew correction unit 270 based on the set value which is set in the skew correction unit 270; paragraph 120, Figure 13 and see the rest of reference).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to combine the system of NAKAMURA as taught by Nakajima to include: a first width detector to detect a width of the subject and a second width detector to detect the width of the subject using a different method from the first width detector. By doing so, the combined system of Nakajima would have generated an output image which is not inclined and has no missing portion can be obtained. Therefore, the occurrence of missing image at an edge of the original would be prevented (paragraph of Nakajima).
Regarding claim 2, NAKAMURA discloses the reading device according to claim 1.
NAKAMURA in view of Nakajima teaches wherein the first width detector detects edges of opposite ends of the subject in a main scanning direction of the imaging device to detect the width of the subject (paragraphs 66-68, Figure 5).
Regarding claim 3, NAKAMURA discloses the reading device according to claim 1.
NAKAMURA in view of Nakajima further teaches comprising a conveyor to convey the subject (CPU 251 conveys the original on the uppermost surface of the original bundle S stacked on the feeding tray 30 to the reading position of the reader 200; paragraph 116, Figure 12),
wherein the second width detector includes a sensor that detects a position where the subject being conveyed has passed (paragraphs 125, 130-131), and
the circuitry is configured to determine the width of the subject based on the detection result of the sensor (In the sheet conveyance path, the original detection sensors 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are arranged in this order from the upstream side in the conveyance direction of the original. The original detection sensors 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 each detect the original conveyed along the sheet control path; at least paragraph 30 and see the rest of reference).
Regarding claim 4, NAKAMURA discloses the reading device according to claim 3.
NAKAMURA in view of Nakajima teaches wherein the sensor includes a plurality of light-receiving devices (The plurality of light receiving elements are arranged in a direction orthogonal to the conveyance direction of the original. The direction in which a plurality of light receiving elements are arranged is a main scanning direction; paragraph 32 and see the rest of reference), and
the circuitry is configured to determine the width of the subject using position information of a light-receiving device located one or more light-receiving devices away in an outward direction from a light-receiving device that has reacted to the subject being conveyed among the plurality of light-receiving devices, the outward direction being a direction toward an outside relative to a conveyance center (paragraphs 30-32 and see the rest of reference).
Regarding claim 5, NAKAMURA discloses the reading device according to claim 1.
NAKAMURA in view of Nakajima teaches wherein the second width detector determines whether or not the subject is present at each of a plurality of predetermined positions in the image generated by the imaging device and determines the width of the subject using information indicating presence or absence of the subject at a predetermined position located one or more predetermined positions away in an outward direction from a predetermined position at which the subject has been determined to be present among the plurality of predetermined positions, the outward direction being a direction toward an outside relative to a document placement reference (at least paragraphs 50, 58, 97-98, 101, 118, Figures 7-8).
Regarding claim 6, NAKAMURA discloses the reading device according to claim 2,
wherein the light that the light source irradiates includes visible light and invisible light (Light source irradiates visible light and invisible light to a subject; see Abstract of NAKAMURA),
the imaging device receives the visible light and the invisible light reflected off the subject to capture a visible image and an invisible image (The light source irradiates visible light and invisible light to a subject. The image sensor receives the visible light and the invisible light, each of which is reflected from the subject, to capture a visible image and an invisible image; paragraph 5), and the first width detector (A processor such as a CPU that operates; paragraph 55, Figure 3) detects the edges of the subject from at least one of the visible image and the invisible image (Edge detected from the invisible image may be referred to as a first edge, and the edge detected from the visible image may be referred to as a second edge; paragraph 93, Figure 16 and see the rest of reference).
Regarding claim 7, NAKAMURA discloses the reading device according to claim 1.
NAKAMURA in view of Nakajima teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to adjust the width of the subject according to an input from a user interface (A setting registration screen for making various settings in the image forming apparatus 2000. When the “scan specification setting” button is selected in the screen 1701 by the operation unit 304 to perform a setting related to the image reading (adjustment service); paragraph 103, Figure 9).
Regarding claim 8, NAKAMURA discloses the reading device according to claim 1, wherein the subject includes a conveyable object (bill conveying device recognizes an inclination of the bill by edge detection; paragraph 126-127, Figure 28).
Regarding claim 9, NAKAMURA discloses an image processing apparatus comprising:
the reading device according to claim 1; and an image forming device to form an image of a document that is the subject (Image reading device 101 of the image forming apparatus 100 is applied as the image processing apparatus; paragraph 125, Figures 1-2).
Claims 10 and 11 are directed to a method and a non-transitory readable medium and recite identical features as claim 1. Thus, claims 10 and 11 are rejected for the same reasons discussed in claim 1 above.
Cited Art
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sasa et al. (US 10,855,866) discloses a document size detection device, comprising: a light source configured to irradiate a document with light; an imaging device configured to receive light reflected at the document; and circuitry configured to control a switching on and off of the light source and movement in a sub-scanning direction of the light source, and determine a size in a main scanning direction of the document based on image data acquired by the imaging device, wherein the circuitry is further configured to determine the size in the main-scanning direction of the document based on: first image data acquired when the light source is switched off, while the light source is at a first reading position; second image data acquired when the light source is switched on, while the light source is at the first reading position; and third image data acquired when the light source is switched on, while the light source is being moved from the first reading position to a second reading position, wherein, when the circuitry acquires a plurality of detection results corresponding to a plurality of reading positions, the circuitry is further configured to determine the size based on a most frequent detection result, wherein, when the circuitry acquires A same number of different detection results, the circuitry is further configured to determine the size based on a most frequent detection result from which a detection result corresponding to the first reading position is excluded, wherein the circuitry is further configured to read an image of a document having the size detected by the document size detection device.
Takita (US 12,081,710) discloses an image reading device comprising: a transport unit configured to transport a document in a predetermined transport direction; a reading unit configured to read the document transported by the transport unit; a multi-feed detector provided at a position upstream of the reading unit in the transport direction and configured to detect a multi-feed of the document; and a control unit, wherein when the multi-feed detector detects the multi-feed of the document, the control unit acquires a document width from image data generated by the reading unit reading a leading end portion of the document, the document width being a length of the document in a width direction intersecting the transport direction, determines, based on the document width, whether a size of the document corresponds to a size of a plastic card or an instant film, does not execute error processing in response to an occurrence of the multi-feed when it is determined that the size of the document corresponds to the size of the plastic card or the instant film, and executes the error processing when it is determined that the size of the document does not correspond to the size of the plastic card or the instant film, comprising a document detector provided at a position upstream of the reading unit in the transport direction and configured to detect the document, wherein the control unit is configured to acquire a document length based on a detection result of the document by the document detector, the document length being a length of the document in the transport direction, and when the multi-feed detector detects the multi-feed of the document, the control unit determines, based on the document width and the document length, whether the size of the document corresponds to the size of the plastic card or the instant film.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am-4 pm.
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.
/ALLEN H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights