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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
The acronym ‘NCU' as recited in the claims should be spelled out and/or defined the first time it is recited in the claims
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.
Claim limitations “a diagnosis unit” and “display unit”, have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “a diagnosis unit” and “display unit” coupled with functional language “configured to…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“a diagnosis unit” and “display unit” appear to be hardware including a processor and memory (par [0048 and p0050] of the specification).
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 the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima (US 10204232) in view of Bae et al. (US 20230315562).
Regarding claim 1, Kojima teaches an image processing apparatus performing various functions related to an image process according to a user operation, the image processing apparatus comprising:
a first display unit configured to display menus indicating error symptoms of the various functions that may occur in the image processing apparatus so as to be selectable by a user (fig. 5: 503: trouble Shoot);
a diagnosis unit configured to perform, when the user selects one of the menus, a diagnosis of the image processing apparatus according to an error symptom indicated in the menu selected by the user (fig. 5: 503a 503b); and
a second display unit configured to display a solution based on a diagnosis result by the diagnosis unit (fig.5: 504 505 and 506).
Kojima does not teach menus indicating error symptoms of the various functions.
Bae teaches menus indicating error symptoms of the various functions (fig. 9C)
Kojima and Bae are combinable because they both deal with troubleshooting printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kojima with the teaching of Bae for purpose of for confirming an error that has occurred on an image forming apparatus in real time and providing a solution suitable for the confirmed error to a user in real time (p0025).
Regarding claim 13, The structural elements of apparatus claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 13. Thus, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 14 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Bae’s further teaching on: A computer-readable memory that contains instructions, which when executed by a processor perform steps in a method (p0056).
Regarding claim 11, Kojima discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first display unit displays the menus when a user uses any of the various functions and an error symptom occurs in the function being used (fig. 5: 503: trouble Shoot).
Claims 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima in view of Bae as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Numata (US 6384938).
Regarding claim 2, Kojima in view of Bae does not teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein when the user selects a menu indicating that fax sending is impossible at all from among the menus, the diagnosis unit performs at least one of a board failure diagnosis, a line cable connection diagnosis, and a circuit type diagnosis as the diagnosis.
Numata teaches wherein when the user selects a menu indicating that fax sending is impossible at all from among the menus, the diagnosis unit performs at least one of a board failure diagnosis, a line cable connection diagnosis, and a circuit type diagnosis as the diagnosis (col. 3, Lines: 15-25: a facsimile module self-diagnostic system that can ensure the operation of the transmission-side demodulation circuit and the reception-side re-modulation circuit in a facsimile module used for a compressed FAX-signal transmission process, thus detecting a failure occurring in those circuits).
Kojima in view of Bae and Numata are combinable because they both deal with troubleshooting printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kojima in view of Bae with the teaching of Numata for purpose of providing a facsimile module self-diagnostic system.
Regarding claim 5, Kojima in view of Bae and Numata teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the diagnosis unit performs, when the user selects a menu indicating that fax reception is impossible at all from among the menus (Bae: fig. 9C), at least one of a board failure diagnosis and a line cable connection diagnosis as the diagnosis (Namata: col. 3, Lines: 15-25).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima in view of Bae as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hou et al. (US 7180638).
Regarding claim 3, Kojima in view of Bae does not teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein when the user selects a menu indicating that fax sending ends in error from among the menus, the diagnosis unit performs an end code diagnosis as the diagnosis.
Hou teaches wherein when the user selects a menu indicating that fax sending ends in error from among the menus, the diagnosis unit performs an end code diagnosis as the diagnosis (col. 8, lines:1-5:indicating that the error code for the error is 01. The error code 01 corresponds to a particular type of error identified in a manual or on an on line help screen, for example.).
Kojima in view of Bae and Hou are combinable because they both deal with troubleshooting printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kojima in view of Bae with the teaching of Hou for purpose of provide an embedded fax server that faxes files received from a remote client.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima in view of Bae and Hou as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of O’Brien (US 20030187939).
Regarding claim 4, Kojima in view of Bae and Hou teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein an end code of a job record of a job that has ended in error due to a fax error in the image processing apparatus is obtained in the end code diagnosis (Hou: col. 8, lines:1-5); when the end code obtained does not indicate the automatic call sending error, a solution corresponding to the end code obtained without performing a diagnosis by the diagnosis unit (fig.5: 504 505 and 506).
Kojima in view of Bae and Hou does not teach wherein the diagnosis unit performs, when the end code obtained indicates an automatic call sending error, at least one of a board failure diagnosis, a line cable connection diagnosis, and a circuit type diagnosis as the diagnosis.
O’Brien teaches wherein the diagnosis unit performs, when the end code obtained indicates an automatic call sending error, at least one of a board failure diagnosis, a line cable connection diagnosis, and a circuit type diagnosis as the diagnosis (p0008:the sender's fax machine in such event typically prints an error message, and may, if so programmed, try to re-send the digitized document image some number of times).
Kojima in view of Bae and Hou and O’Brien are combinable because they both deal with troubleshooting printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kojima in view of Bae and Hou with the teaching of O’Brien for purpose of provide convenient or effective way to allow the sender of an electronic message (and in particular an e-mail message) to make a print-on-receipt request without the need for the sender to have any knowledge of the receiver's computer system or configuration other than the receiver's e-mail address.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima in view of Bae as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Plotkin (US 20130097270).
Regarding claim 9, Kojima in view of Bae does not teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the diagnosis unit performs, when the user selects a menu indicating that transmission by any one of Email, SMB, FTP, I-FAX, and WebDav is impossible from among the menus, a network connection diagnosis as the diagnosis.
Plotkin teaches wherein the diagnosis unit performs, when the user selects a menu indicating that transmission by any one of Email, SMB, FTP, I-FAX, and WebDav is impossible from among the menus, a network connection diagnosis as the diagnosis (p0319: enabled/disabled state of user interface elements (e.g., buttons, menus, and menu items), email send/receive schedule, enabled/disabled state of automatic email sending/receiving).
Kojima in view of Bae and Plotkin are combinable because they both deal with controlling user interface menu . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kojima in view of Bae with the teaching of Plotkin for purpose of provide system may select and send different response messages based on changes in the recipient's context.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima in view of Bae as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Magpayo et al. (US 20180091665).
Regarding claim 12, Kojima in view of Bae does not explicitly disclose the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first display unit displays the menus when the image processing apparatus is activated.
Magpayo teaches wherein the first display unit displays the menus when the image processing apparatus is activated.
Kojima in view of Bae and Magpayo are combinable because they both deal with image processing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kojima in view of Bae with the teaching of Magpayo so that user can use the image forming apparatus.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima in view of Bae and Numata as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hayashi (US 6862114).
Regarding claim 6, Kojima in view of Bae and Numata does not teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising a fax board and a modem, wherein at least one of a connection check and a communication check between the fax board and the modem, a check of the reading and writing of a value of a port-IC register, and a revision check is performed in the board failure diagnosis.
Hayashi teaches further comprising a fax board and a modem, wherein at least one of a connection check and a communication check between the fax board and the modem, a check of the reading and writing of a value of a port-IC register, and a revision check is performed in the board failure diagnosis (col. 11, lines:59-65: ransmission of a CNG signal via modem parts 603c and NCU 603d on the fax board 603 and a known facsimile procedure such as negotiation or training (S105, S107, S109). When, in this case, there is given no response from a counterpart (called party) or a communication error).
Kojima in view of Bae and Numata are combinable because they both deal with image processing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kojima in view of Bae and Numata with the teaching of Hayashi to provide an image data transmitting apparatus and an image data receiving apparatus capable of making easier troublesome handling of printed output results by enabling discriminating between image data received and image data not yet received.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 7-8 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Kojima (US 10204232) teaches similar system.
However, the closest prior art of record, namely Kojima (US 10204232), does not disclose, teach or suggest, the claim limitation, as recited in 7-8 and 10
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN Q ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1600. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Merouan, Abderrahim can be reached on (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.
HELEN ZONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/HELEN ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights