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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 15 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 14 and 15 refer to “The computer readable recording medium.” The claims should refer to the non-transitory computer readable medium. 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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tong (US 2020/0267283).
Regarding Claim 1, Tong teaches an image forming apparatus, comprising:
a feed unit (Element 230, wherein there is a feeder tray);
an in-line scanner (Paragraphs 36 and 49, wherein there is a scanner to scan the document); and
a processor (Paragraph 50, wherein there are processors),
wherein the feed unit is to feed to the in-line scanner a print medium on which an image is formed (Paragraph 49, wherein the document is fed from the feeder to the scanner),
wherein the in-line scanner is to scan the fed print medium to generate a scan image (Paragraph 36, wherein an image is generated when scanned), and
wherein, in response to the scan image fulfilling a condition, the processor is to control the image forming apparatus to perform an action corresponding to the condition (Paragraphs 29 and 101-105, wherein if confidential information is determined, then image processing can occur on the document).
Regarding Claim 2, Tong further teaches wherein the image forming apparatus is to receive a selection of a print medium verification scheme for application to an analysis of whether the scan image fulfills the condition and a selection of the action (Paragraphs 101-105, wherein depending on what is needed depends on what action is performed. This is based on what is detected).
Regarding Claim 3, wherein the print medium verification scheme for application to the analysis comprises steganography, watermark, fingerprinting, or pattern/text detection (Paragraph 105 and 106, wherein the information can be redacted).
Regarding Claim 4, wherein the action comprises:
deleting, from the image forming apparatus, data for printing of the image;
notifying a specified contact that the print medium is printed out; or
performing billing for the print medium on which the image is formed (Paragraph 23, wherein the document can be deleted).
Regarding Claim 5, wherein the processor is to identify a print medium verification scheme for application to an analysis of whether the scan image fulfills the condition (Paragraphs 87-89, wherein it is determined what is detected in the document and security requirements), and
wherein the analysis comprises identifying whether the scan image comprises additional data that is detectable through the identified print medium verification scheme (Paragraphs 87-90, wherein it is determined what is detected in the document and security requirements and therefore what needs to be redacted as a result).
Regarding Claim 6, wherein the condition comprises a condition that the print medium on which the image is formed corresponds to a document comprising sensitive information or a document to be billed (Paragraph 20, wherein the detection can detect categories of data that may be confidential).
Regarding Claim 7, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 6 above.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 5 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional cited prior art of A-C and E-J relate to reproducing confidential information from a document image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS PACHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-3433. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4.
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, George Eng can be reached at 571-272-7495. 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.
/NICHOLAS PACHOL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights