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.
Oath/Declaration
3. The receipt of Oath/Declaration is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/14/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Applicant has provided an explanation of relevance of cited document JP 2016-99800 on page 1 of the specification.
Drawings
5. The drawing(s) filed on 12/20/2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
6. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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.
7. 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.
8. 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 display unit” in claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 14, 16, and17;
“a light emitting unit” in claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 14 16 and 17;
“a printing unit” in claims 1, 11, and 15,; and
“a reception unit” in claim 3.
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) Claim 1: ‘a display unit to display a first screen corresponds to Fig. 2 ‘display device 201’. “The display device 201 is a liquid crystal display device or an organic EL display device, for example.” [0025].
(b) Claim 1: ‘a light emitting unit’ corresponds to Figs. 2 and 3 ‘LED 206’. “The LED 206 is a notification unit that indicates whether the two-dimensional code key 205 is effective.” [0027; 0063].
(c) Claim 1: ‘a printing unit’ corresponds to Fig. 3 ‘printing unit 304’. “The printing unit 304 includes a printing engine of an inkjet system, and the printing unit 304 prints an image saved in the RAM 303 on a print sheet.” [0030].
(d) Claim 3: ‘a reception unit’ corresponds to Fig. 1 ‘operation panel 102’. “The operation panel 102 is a reception unit (input unit) that receives input of a setting value or an instruction for execution of processing from the user. The operation panel 102 is equipped on the outer surface of the image printing apparatus 101.” [0022].
9. Note that claim 9 further recites ‘wherein the light emitting unit is an LED’, thus claim 9 is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
10. Note that claim 12 further recites ‘wherein the display unit is a liquid crystal display’, and claim 13 further recites ‘wherein the display unit is an organic EL display’, thus claims 12 and 13 are not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
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.
Double Patenting
11. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
12. Claims 1-16, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of US Patent No. 12,216,947 (hereinafter ‘947) .
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Note that Patent ‘947 Claim 9 discloses that ‘the first state is a blinking state’.
Note that Patent ‘947 Claim 10 discloses that ‘the second state is a turn-on state or a turned-off state’.
Claim 17 of the current application does not correspond to any claim of ‘947, however, this difference is insufficient to render the present claim patentably distinct because there is no substantive change in functionality or scope:
Regarding Claim 1 (drawn to an apparatus):
Current Application
Claim 1:
A printing apparatus comprising:
a display unit; a light emitting unit; and
a printing unit configured to print an image on a sheet,
wherein
in a case where a consumable of the printing apparatus is in an error state,
the display unit displays a first screen to specify the consumable being in the error state and
the light emitting unit changes from a turned-on state to a blinking state,
wherein
the display unit displays a second screen different from the first screen and including a predetermined code based on reception of an instruction to display the predetermined code from a user, and
wherein the predetermined code is a code to cause an external terminal to display information of a manual of the printing apparatus by the predetermined code being captured by a camera of the external terminal.
‘947
Claim 1:
A printing apparatus comprising:
a display unit; a light emitting unit; a printing unit configured to print an image on a sheet; and
at least one processor operating to:
in a case where a consumable of the printing apparatus is in an error state, cause
the display unit to display a first screen to specify the consumable being in the error state and
cause the light emitting unit to be in a first state corresponding to the error state,
in a case where the consumable is in a normal state, cause the light emitting unit to be in a second state different from the first state, and
cause
the display unit to display a second screen different from the first screen and including a predetermined code responsive to reception of an instruction to display the predetermined code from a user,
wherein the predetermined code is a code to cause an external terminal to display information of a manual of the printing apparatus by the predetermined code being captured by a camera of the external terminal.
15. Since application claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of the patent, it is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of the patent.
16. Claim 2 of the current application corresponds to claim 2 of ‘947.
17. Claim 3 of the current application corresponds to claim 3 of ‘947.
18. Claim 4 of the current application corresponds to claim 4 of ‘947.
19. Claim 5 of the current application corresponds to claim 5 of ‘947.
20. Claim 6 of the current application corresponds to claim 6 of ‘947.
21. Claim 7 of the current application corresponds to claim 7 of ‘947.
22. Claim 8 of the current application corresponds to claim 8 of ‘947.
23. Claim 9 of the current application corresponds to claim 11 of ‘947.
24. Claim 10 of the current application corresponds to claim 12 of ‘947.
25. Claim 11 of the current application corresponds to claim 13 of ‘947.
26. Claim 12 of the current application corresponds to claim 14 of ‘947.
27. Claim 13 of the current application corresponds to claim 15 of ‘947.
28. Claim 14 of the current application corresponds to claim 21 of ‘947.
29. Claim 15 of the current application corresponds to claim 16 of ‘947.
30. Claim 16 of the current application corresponds to claim 18 of ‘947.
31. Claim 17 of the current application does not correspond to any claim of ‘947, however, this difference is insufficient to render the present claim patentably distinct because there is no substantive change in functionality or scope:
32. Claim 18 of the current application corresponds to claim 17 of ‘947.
33. Claim 19 of the current application corresponds to claim 19 of ‘947.
34. Claim 20 of the current application corresponds to claim 20 of ‘947.
Relevant Prior Art
35. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McLeod et al. (US 2013/0169996) is directed to a device and associated system for enhanced printer functionality and troubleshooting through the use of dynamic identifier codes, such as barcodes and/or quick response codes ("QR codes"). Example embodiments may provide a user interface of a printer system that may be configured to enhance user functionality, serviceability, and/or other user interactions. Such embodiments are configured to provide these advantages through the use of mobile computing devices configured to acquire image data, such as mobile phones, tablet computers, laptops, and other computing devices.
Conclusion
36. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL R MCLEAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6AM - 4PM, PST.
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, Akwasi M Sarpong can be reached on 571.270.3438. 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.
/NEIL R MCLEAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights