Detailed Action
This is a Non-final Office action in response to communications received on 12/14/2024. Claims 1-11 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings, filed 12/14/2024, are acknowledged.
Foreign Priority
The foreign priority date of 12/14/2024 is acknowledged.
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 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:
“display unit” in claim 1.
“transmission processing unit” in claim 1.
“switching unit” in claim 1.
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.
The corresponding structures interpreted from the specification for the above limitations are as follows:
“display unit” ([0034]).
“transmission processing unit” ([0034]).
“switching unit” ([0034]).
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.
Claim 3 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites "so that it takes long time". It should more correctly read “a long time”. Additionally, “long time” is a relative term and is therefore indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Urakawa (US 20210306485 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Urakawa teaches the limitations of claim 1 substantially as follows:
An image forming apparatus comprising:
a communication unit; an operation unit; (Urakawa; [0042]: The network I/F is configured to connect the PC with a communication network (i.e., communication unit); the communication network is connected with the router and the MFP; The MFP includes a CPU (i.e., operation unit))
a display unit displaying an operation image operable from the operation unit; (Urakawa; [0046]: The MFP further includes a panel and keys. In the first illustrative embodiment, the panel is a touch panel. The panel is configured to display thereon various screens depending on states of the MFP (i.e., a display unit displaying an operation image))
a transmission processing unit transmitting, via the communication unit, display information for displaying a remote operation image based on the operation image to an external device; and (Urakawa; [0056]: The “Remote Panel” in the illustrated example includes a panel display that is the same as displayed on the panel of the MFP and a key display that virtually shows the keys of the MFP (i.e., display information for displaying a remote operation image based on the operation image to an external device). Display data for displaying the “Remote Panel” is obtained from the EWS)
a switching unit for switching a disclosure mode for information disclosure in the remote operation image, (Urakawa; [0136]: When the MFP is remotely connected with the PC via the network IF, the CPU transmits to the PC screen data for causing the PC to display substantially the same screen as the panel display being displayed on the panel; when the MFP is not remotely connected with the PC via the network I/F, the CPU displays on the panel the panel display that is the particular screen (i.e., switching based on mode))
wherein the disclosure mode includes a first mode in which prescribed information included in part of the operation image is included in the display information and registration information that is information registered by a user is included in the display information, the registration information being included in part of the operation image, and a second mode in which the prescribed information is included in the display information and the registration information is not included in the display information. (Urakawa; [0133]: when the particular screen is being displayed on the panel of the MFP , the screen is switched to the same screen as the panel display′ without input buttons (i.e., a second mode in which the prescribed information is included in the display information and the registration information is not included in the display information), on the panel as well as in the detail pane . Therefore, it is impossible for the third party other than the administrator to follow a change in the display mode for each of the operated keys and know the password)
Regarding claim 2, Urakawa teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Urakawa teaches the limitations of claim 2 as follows:
The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the disclosure mode further includes a third mode in which the prescribed information is not included in the display information and the registration information is not included in the display information. (Urakawa; [0148]: when determining that the setting for putting the main body panel in the non-display mode while the “Remote Panel” is in use is valid, the CPU turns off the backlight of the panel (i.e., a third mode in which the prescribed information is not included in the display information and the registration information is not included in the display information))
Regarding claim 3, Urakawa teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Urakawa teaches the limitations of claim 3 as follows:
The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operation image includes a switching button for switching the disclosure mode, and wherein an operation for switching from the second mode to the first mode is set so that it takes long time for the operation unit to operate the switching button, compared with an operation for switching from the first mode to the second mode. (Urakawa; [0055]: When a user of the MFP presses a “Yes” button on the checking screen , the “Remote Panel” is displayed in the detail pane (i.e., switching button for switching the disclosure mode))
Regarding claim 4, Urakawa teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Urakawa teaches the limitations of claim 4 as follows:
The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the registration information includes at least one of a background image that serves as a background in the operation image and an icon image indicating a selectable icon. (Urakawa; [0133]: when the particular screen is being displayed on the panel of the MFP , the screen is switched to the same screen as the panel display′ without input buttons (i.e., selectable icon), on the panel as well as in the detail pane . Therefore, it is impossible for the third party other than the administrator to follow a change in the display mode for each of the operated keys and know the password)
Regarding claim 6, Urakawa teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Urakawa teaches the limitations of claim 6 as follows:
The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the registration information includes information indicating a password registered by the user. (Urakawa; [0055]: a user (e.g., an administrator) who attempts to log in to the “Remote Panel” is required to input an administrator name (e.g., “Administrator”) in a user name entry field on the login authentication screen and input an administrator password in a password entry field (i.e., indicating a password registered by the user))
Regarding claim 7, Urakawa teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Urakawa teaches the limitations of claim 7 as follows:
The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operation image includes a switching button for switching the disclosure mode, and wherein the display information includes the switching button in a non-selectable state or does not include the switching button. (Urakawa; [0136]: when the MFP is remotely connected with the PC via the network I/F, instead of the first screen, the CPU displays on the panel the panel display′ for which a display mode is different from a display mode for the first screen (i.e., alternate display of UI elements based on mode).
Regarding claim 8, Urakawa teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Urakawa teaches the limitations of claim 8 as follows:
The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the display unit displays the operation image with the registration information having a different display form according to the disclosure mode. (Urakawa; [0136]: when the MFP is remotely connected with the PC via the network I/F, instead of the first screen, the CPU displays on the panel the panel display′ for which a display mode is different from a display mode for the first screen (i.e., alternate display of UI elements based on mode).
Regarding claim 9, Urakawa teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Urakawa teaches the limitations of claim 9 as follows:
The image forming apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the switching unit sets the disclosure mode to the second mode when the transmission processing unit starts transmitting the display information. (Urakawa; [0136]: when the MFP is remotely connected with the PC via the network I/F, instead of the first screen, the CPU displays on the panel the panel display′ for which a display mode is different from a display mode for the first screen (i.e., disclosure mode to the second mode when the transmission processing unit starts transmitting the display information).
Regarding claim 10, Urakawa teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Urakawa teaches the limitations of claim 10 as follows:
The image forming apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the switching unit sets the disclosure mode to the third mode when the transmission processing unit starts transmitting the display information. (Urakawa; [0148]: when determining that the setting for putting the main body panel in the non-display mode while the “Remote Panel” is in use is valid, the CPU turns off the backlight of the panel (i.e., sets the disclosure mode to the third mode when the transmission processing unit starts transmitting the display information))
Regarding claim 11, Urakawa teaches the limitations of claim 11 substantially as follows:
An information transmission method comprising: an image forming apparatus transmitting, via a communication unit, display information for displaying a remote operation image based on the operation image to an external device, (Urakawa; [0056]: The “Remote Panel” in the illustrated example includes a panel display that is the same as displayed on the panel of the MFP and a key display that virtually shows the keys of the MFP (i.e., display information for displaying a remote operation image based on the operation image to an external device). Display data for displaying the “Remote Panel” is obtained from the EWS)
the image forming apparatus including the communication unit, an operation unit, and (Urakawa; [0042]: The network I/F is configured to connect the PC with a communication network (i.e., communication unit); the communication network is connected with the router and the MFP; The MFP includes a CPU (i.e., operation unit))
a display unit displaying an operation image operable from the operation unit; and (Urakawa; [0046]: The MFP further includes a panel and keys. In the first illustrative embodiment, the panel is a touch panel. The panel is configured to display thereon various screens depending on states of the MFP (i.e., a display unit displaying an operation image))
the image forming apparatus switching a disclosure mode regarding information disclosure in the remote operation image, (Urakawa; [0136]: When the MFP is remotely connected with the PC via the network IF, the CPU transmits to the PC screen data for causing the PC to display substantially the same screen as the panel display being displayed on the panel; when the MFP is not remotely connected with the PC via the network I/F, the CPU displays on the panel the panel display that is the particular screen (i.e., switching based on mode))
wherein the disclosure mode includes a first mode in which prescribed information included in part of the operation image is included in the display information and registration information that is information registered by a user is included in the display information, the registration information being included in part of the operation image, and a second mode in which the prescribed information is included in the display information and the registration information is not included in the display information. (Urakawa; [0133]: when the particular screen is being displayed on the panel of the MFP , the screen is switched to the same screen as the panel display′ without input buttons (i.e., a second mode in which the prescribed information is included in the display information and the registration information is not included in the display information), on the panel as well as in the detail pane . Therefore, it is impossible for the third party other than the administrator to follow a change in the display mode for each of the operated keys and know the password)
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urakawa (US 20210306485 A1), in view of Iwamoto (US 20130235414 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Urakawa teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Urakawa does not teach the limitations of claim 5 as follows:
The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the registration information includes information indicating a contact registered by the user.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Iwamoto discloses the limitations of claim 5 as follows:
The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the registration information includes information indicating a contact registered by the user. (Iwamoto; [0218]: a key operation to request display of data of a facsimile addressee list (list data) (i.e., contact registered by the user))
Iwamoto is combinable with Urakawa because all are from the same field of endeavor of image forming apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Urakawa to incorporate listing registered recipients as in Iwamoto in order to provide the predictable result of displaying/selecting users.
Prior Art Considered But Not Relied Upon
Furuichi (US 8683199 B2) which teaches a system in which whenever a drawing command is executed, a computer system having a graphic user interface such as a multi-window system determines, from the logical operation pattern of the drawing command, what kind of information is inherited by a drawing result from the drawing command.
Henniger (US 20050270372 A1) which teaches a processing device which outputs an informational display that is displayed on the screen and overlays a portion of the images captured by the camera.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE ISAAC NARRAMORE whose telephone number is (303)297-4357. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 0700-1700 MT.
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, Taghi T Arani can be reached on (571) 272-3787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BLAKE I NARRAMORE/Examiner, Art Unit 2438