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 .
Application, submitted on 12/09/2024, has been received, entered, and made of record. Currently, claims 1-12 remain pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/09/2024 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. However, Applicant has not provided an explanation of relevance of cited document(s).
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: “reception unit”, “acceptance unit” in claims 1-10, and “lock function setting unit” in claims 6-8 use a generic placeholder (“configured to”) that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
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. However, the specification does not disclose sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions of a 35 U.S.C. §112(f) limitation.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “reception unit”, “acceptance unit”, and “lock function setting unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. That is, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claims. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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 1-5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada (US 2014/0033090 A1).
Referring to claim 1, Yamada discloses an image processing apparatus (fig.1, Printer 1) having a plurality of home screens (figs.3-5) (Note: different user interfaces based on user ID input method), comprising:
a reception unit (fig.1, communication interface unit 15) configured to receive job information about a job based on a job setting set on an information processing apparatus ([0032], [0038], fig.2, and [0045]-[0062]) (Note: the printer receives, from a personal computer (PC) 2, a print job information based on printing settings/conditions through a communication interface unit 15); and
an acceptance unit (fig.1, controller 10) configured to accept, based on a fact that the job information received by the reception unit includes start condition information (fig.2, password) that is information relating to a home screen among the plurality of home screens (figs.3-5) and indicating a condition for starting processing based on the job information, an input of start condition information (figs.3-4, figs.8-9, [0117]-[0120] and [0130]-[0132]) (Note: the controller 10 accepts an input of a password (start condition information) based of the received printing settings/conditions including a password related to either the simple printing conditions change screen 42 (fig.3) or the detailed printing conditions change screen 44 (fig.4)).
Referring to claim 2, Yamada discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the start condition information included in the job information received by the reception unit and the input of the start condition information accepted by the acceptance unit match, the image processing apparatus starts processing the job based on the job information ([0119]-[0121] and [0131]-[0134]) (Note: the controller 10 determines whether the password set in the security print job to be executed selected on the print job selection screen 43 and the password inputted on the password input screen are identical to each other. When the passwords are identical to each other, the controller 10 executes printing of the security print job to be executed).
Referring to claim 3, Yamada discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the job information received by the reception unit does not include the start condition information, the image processing apparatus starts processing the job, based on a fact that the job information by the reception unit is received ([0117] and [0122]) (Note: when the controller 10 determines that the input of a password is not required (job information received does not include the start condition information), the controller 10 executes printing of the security print job to be executed).
Referring to claim 4, Yamada discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the job information received by the reception unit includes password information, the acceptance unit accepts an input of a password set in the job information before the image processing apparatus starts processing the job ([0119]-[0121] and [0131]-[0134]) (Note: the controller 10 determines whether the password set in the security print job to be executed selected on the print job selection screen 43 and the password inputted on the password input screen are identical to each other. When the passwords are identical to each other, the controller 10 executes printing of the security print job to be executed).
Referring to claim 5, Yamada discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein in a case where the password of which input has been accepted by the acceptance unit and the password information included in the job information match, the image processing apparatus starts processing the job based on the job information ([0119]-[0121] and [0131]-[0134]) (Note: the controller 10 determines whether the password set in the security print job to be executed selected on the print job selection screen 43 and the password inputted on the password input screen are identical to each other. When the passwords are identical to each other, the controller 10 executes printing of the security print job to be executed).
Referring to claim 10, Yamada discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 4, further comprising: a display unit (fig.1, operation/display unit 12) configured to display a password input screen for accepting the input of the password, wherein the acceptance unit accepts the input of the password on the password input screen ([0075]-[0076] and [0117]-[0119]) (Note: the controller 10 displays a password input screen 41 for accepting the input of the password).
Referring to claim 11, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 1 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 12, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 1 is applicable herein. Yamada further a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that causes a computer of an image processing apparatus having a plurality of home screens to perform claim 1 ([0027]).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Akuzawa (US 2017/0085731 A1).
Referring to claim 9, Yamada discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, a display unit (fig.1, operation/display unit 12) configured to display the plurality of home screens and the home screen corresponding to the start condition information as an input of the start condition information from among the plurality of home screens (figs.4-5).
Yamada fails to disclose a display unit configured to display software keys each for displaying a different one of the plurality of home screens, and wherein the acceptance unit accepts an input of a software key to display the home screen from among the plurality of home screens.
However, in the same field of endeavor of image processing apparatus, Akuzawa discloses a display unit (fig.1, display unit 119) configured to display software keys each for displaying a different one of the plurality of home screens, and wherein the acceptance unit accepts an input of a software key to display the home screen from among the plurality of home screens (figs.3A, 4A, [0056] and [0061]) (Note: Buttons 303 and 304 are arranged in the function selection area 302 for the purpose of activating the main menu screen and a custom menu screen that is generated by the custom menu control module).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the image processing apparatus of Yamada with a display unit configured to display software keys each for displaying a different one of the plurality of home screens, and wherein the acceptance unit accepts an input of a software key to display the home screen from among the plurality of home screens as taught by Akuzawa. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve user’s experience by providing a display with personalized environments, quick access and organization.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUSTAPHA DIABY whose telephone number is (571)270-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-6PM.
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.
/MOUSTAPHA DIABY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights