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 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(s) 1, 2-4, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (US 2025/0068843) in view of Dejean (2010/0306260).
(1) regarding claims 1, 14, and 15:
Su ‘843 discloses an image processing apparatus that communicably connects to a proofreading server that performs inference using a learned model (paragraph [0038] and [0053]), comprising:
a generation unit configured to generate a prompt for causing the proofreading server to proofread the acquired image data (paragraph [0134], where a machine learning model is selected for proofread the acquired image data);
a proofreading result request unit configured to transmit the acquired image data and the generated prompt to the proofreading server (paragraph [0134] and [0141], where the inquiry to the proofreading is transmitted), and cause the proofreading server to perform proofreading on the acquired image data based on the generated prompt using the learned model, and output a result of the proofreading (paragraph [0146]); and
an output unit configured to output a proofreading result output from the proofreading server to an output destination (paragraph [0146], where the result of the proofreading is outputted).
Momo ‘116 discloses all the subject matter as described above except an acquisition unit configured to acquire image data read from an original;
However, Dejean ‘260 teaches an acquisition unit configured to acquire image data read from an original (paragraph [0020], where a document is scanned and image data obtained from reading the original);
Having a system of Dejean ‘260 reference and then given the well-established teaching of Su ‘843 reference, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Su ‘843 to include the limitations as taught by Dejean ‘260 because with this a hardcopy can be converted into digital form in order to perform processes that will allow to obtain desirable results.
(2) regarding claim 3:
Su ‘843 further discloses wherein the output unit displays image data representing the proofreading result on a preview screen (paragraph [0125]).
(3) regarding claim 4:
Su ‘843 further discloses wherein the output unit transmits image data representing the proofreading result to a predetermined destination (paragraph [0097]-[0098]]).
(4) regarding claim 12:
Su ‘843 further discloses wherein in the image data representing the proofreading result, a part pointed by the proofreading is highlighted and a proofreading item is displayed in a state associated with the pointed part (paragraph [0109]).
Claim(s) 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (US 2025/0068843) and Dejean (2010/0306260) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Murphy et al. (US 2025/0225888).
(1) regarding claim 2:
Su ‘843 and Dejean ‘260 disclose all the subject matter as described above except wherein the proofreading server is a large language model server.
However, Murphy ‘888 teaches wherein the proofreading server is a large language model server (paragraph [0027]).
Having a system of Murphy ‘888 reference and then given the well-established teaching of Su ‘843 and Dejean ‘260, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Su ‘843 and Dejean ‘260 to include the limitations as taught by Murphy ‘888 because LLMs generally acquire these capabilities by learning statistical relationships from text documents during intensive training process (paragraph [0027]).
(2) regarding claim 5:
Su ‘843 and Dejean ‘260 disclose all the subject matter as described above except wherein the generated prompt is a text using a natural language.
However, Murphy ‘888 teaches wherein the generated prompt is a text using a natural language (paragraph [0025]).
Having a system of Murphy ‘888 reference and then given the well-established teaching of Su ‘843 and Dejean ‘260, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Su ‘843 and Dejean ‘260 to include the limitations as taught by Murphy ‘888 because LLMs generally acquire these capabilities by learning statistical relationships from text documents during intensive training process (paragraph [0027]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11, and 13 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:
A. Claim 6 discloses the unique and distinct limitations of “a first display unit configured to display a plurality of inspection items for generating the prompt in a state selectable by a user, and wherein the generation unit generates the prompt according to an inspection item or inspection items selected by a user from the plurality of inspection items”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter. Claims 7-10 depend either directly or indirectly on claim 6, therefore a similar analysis applies.
B. Claim 11 discloses the unique and distinct limitations of “a destination setting UI for making a setting of access to the proofreading server, and wherein the proofreading result request unit performs communication with the proofreading server by using the setting of access to the proofreading server, which has been made by the destination setting UI”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter.
C. Claim 13 discloses the unique and distinct limitations of “a second display unit configured to further display a plurality of destinations which can be set as the predetermined destination in a state selectable by a user”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENNIN R RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-7:00pm.
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.
/LENNIN R RODRIGUEZGONZALEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights