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 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.
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 reading part” and “an operation part” in claim 1.
The specification defines a reading part as scanner 207 and an operation part as display 205. Both parts are controller by CPU 201 and therefore have sufficient structure. Thus, no rejection under 35 USC 112(b) is deemed necessary.
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.
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 § 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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tokita (US 2023/0344950).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 7, Tokita discloses a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a program to cause a computer to execute a method for controlling an image processing apparatus, a method for controlling an image processing apparatus, and an image processing apparatus, comprising:
a reading part configured to read an image of a document and generate image data (see Fig. 2, scanner 222 and paras 28-29);
an operation part configured to receive a prompt for causing generative Al to execute image analysis for extracting a predetermined character string from the image data (see Fig. 2, operation unit 220, and paras 28-29 and 68-74, based on a set folder distribution rule automatic text string extraction is performed by a trained AI model to extract a predetermined character string and create a folder for storage based on the extracted information, reference states the MFP 110 can play the role of client PC 111); and
at least one memory (RAM 213 and HDD 214) and at least one processor (CPU 211) which function as:
a transmission unit configured to transmit the image data and the prompt to the generative AI (see Fig. 2 and paras 28, 31, and 71, network I/F 219);
an acquisition unit configured to acquire the character string extracted through the image analysis performed by the generative AI (see Figs 7 and 16 and paras 43, 46-47, 56, 65-66, and 68-74, based on a set folder distribution rule automatic text string extraction is performed by a trained AI model to extract a predetermined character string and create a folder for storage based on the extracted information, reference states the MFP 110 can play the role of client PC 111); and
a control unit configured to perform control to store the image data in a folder indicated by a folder path including the character string that has been acquired (see Figs. 4, 7, and 16 and paras 68-74, based on a set folder distribution rule automatic text string extraction is performed by a trained AI model to extract a predetermined character string and create a folder for storage based on the extracted information, reference states the MFP 110 can play the role of client PC 111).
Regarding claim 2, Tokita further discloses wherein a job execution button for executing a job of reading an image of a document, generating image data, and storing the image data in the folder indicated by the folder path is registered, and the prompt is registered in association with the job execution button (see paras 36-37, 68, and 71, a user can press a start button that initiates the scanning process and based on a set folder distribution rule defined by the user in advance, automatic text string extraction is performed by a trained AI model to extract a predetermined character string and create a folder for storage based on the extracted information, reference states the MFP 110 can play the role of client PC 111).
Regarding claim 3, Tokita further discloses wherein the at least one memory and the at least one processor further function as:
a display unit configured to display the folder path (see Fig. 16 and para 66), and
a selection unit configured to allow a user to select whether to store the image data in the folder indicated by the folder path (see Fig. 16 and para 83, a user confirms the folder path by selecting the transmit button 1612).
Regarding claim 4, Tokita further discloses wherein the at least one memory and the at least one processor further function as an editing unit configured to cause a user to edit the folder path (see paras 66 and 83, a user can edit values and extraction tokens used to determine the folder path).
Regarding claim 5, Tokita further discloses wherein when the user selects not to store the image data in the folder indicated by the folder path, the transmission unit transmits the image data and another prompt in which supplementary information is added to the prompt to the generative AI (see Fig. 16 and paras 43, 46-47, 66, 68, 71, and 83, if the user selects the back button, the user can then edit a folder distribution rule that would change the information used by the trained AI model to extract character string data and create a folder path).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. To further show the state of the art please refer to the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R MILIA whose telephone number is (571) 272-7408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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 Sarpong can be reached at 571-270-3438. The fax 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.
/MARK R MILIA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights