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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2024-014290, filed on 02/01/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 6, 7, 13, 14 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 3, include “,” at the end of first and third limitation before “and” and at the end of second limitation.
Claim 3, third limitation recites the limitation “designating a size of a document” and “designating a type of the document”. It should read as “designating the size of the document” and “designating the type of the document”. (Emphasis added with underline)
Regarding claim 6, include “,” at the end of first limitation before “and”.
Claims 6, 7, 13 and 14 recites the limitation “the last document”. It should read as “a last document”.
Regarding Claim 18, include “;” at the end of the first limitation before “and”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 transport section for…”
“a reading section for…”
“a detection section for…”
“a display section for…”
“a control section” in claims 1, 17 and 18,
“a multi-feed detection section for…” in claim 4 and 10
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. Specifications in paragraph [0039] recites the structure for the transport section as plurality of pick-up rollers, paragraph [0040] recites the structure for reading section as multiple optical sensors, paragraph [0042] recites the structure for detection section as plurality of optical sensors, display section as a display screen and paragraph [0034] recites the structure for the control section as one or more processors. Paragraph [0047] describes multi-feed detection section as ultrasonic sensor.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a document" in third, fourth and fifth limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there are multiple instances of “a document” recited and it is unclear and confusing if reading section reading a document is a different document from the detection section that detects a document. It is further confusing if “a document that is a reading target” is another document different from the first two instances of documents. It is confusing if the document recited in “causes the display section to display that a document that does not meet the target condition”, is different form “display section to display that a document that does not meet the target condition has been detected”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims 2 – 16 are rejected for being directly or indirectly dependent on rejected claim 1.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected for reasons similar to claim 1 as described in step 10 above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
A rejection on this statutory basis (35 U.S.C. 102(g) as in force on March 15, 2013) is appropriate in an application or patent that is examined under the first to file provisions of the AIA if it also contains or contained at any time (1) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that is before March 16, 2013 or (2) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.
Claims 1, 9, 12, 14 and 17 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nishiyama et al. (US 20210344809 A1; hereafter referred to as Nishiyama).
Regarding Claim 1, Nishiyama teaches:
An image reading system comprising:
a transport section for transporting sheets of documents one sheet at a time from a document bundle (Nishiyama, [0037] The ADF 100 includes the document tray 30 as a document stacking tray on which the document bundle S including one or more document sheets is stacked, a separation pad 8 and a separation roller 2 for regulating the document bundle S not to protrude from the document tray 30 and move downstream before starting document conveyance, and a sheet feed roller 1”);
a reading section for reading a document (Nishiyama, [0035] “a document in the document bundle S stacked on the document tray 30 is read by a reading unit 229”);
a detection section for detecting a document (Nishiyama, [0038] The document tray 30 is provided with the document detection sensor 16 and thus can determine presence or absence of a document on the document tray 30”);
a display section for displaying a setting screen on which a document condition is set as a target condition of a document that is a reading target (Nishiyama, [0057] The preview screen portion 201 represents a preview screen in a case where a preview is performed at a time when reading of a first sheet of documents is completed by setting the documents including a plurality of sheets having different document widths (e.g., A3 and B4 mixed size documents)”; Nishiyama, [0059] Size display 203 indicates size information of the read image data”; Nishiyama, [0129] In step S602, the CPU 111 confirms a size guide display setting”); and
a control section, wherein when the detection section detects a document that does not meet the target condition, the control section causes the display section to display that a document that does not meet the target condition has been detected (Nishiyama, [0040] “The “document size detection on the document tray” is executed, for example, in step S301 in FIG. 3 described below. In a document reading operation performed not in “the document size mixed mode”, the CPU 111 performs control to read the document according to the document size obtained based on the above-described “document size detection on the document tray”; Nishiyama, [0083] “ in a case where it is determined that the above-described “detected size” does not coincide with “the length in the conveyance direction” (NO in step S305), the CPU 111 determines that the size of the read document is different from “the detected size”, i.e., the sizes of the documents on the document tray 30 are different from each other. In this case, the CPU 111 advances the processing to step S306. For example, in the state exemplified in the preview screen portion 205 in FIG. 2A, it is determined as “NO” in the above-described step S305”; Nishiyama, [0084] “In step S306, the CPU 111 stores information indicating size unmatching (the read size does not coincide with the document size) in association with target image data determined that the sizes do not coincide with each other (NO) in the above-described step S305 in the storage 114. This is because the size unmatching information is to be displayed together when a thumbnail list described below is displayed”).
Regarding Claim 9, Nishimaya teaches the image reading system according to claim 1, wherein
in a confirmation mode for confirming the presence or absence of a document that does not match the target condition, the control section displays a notification screen for inquiring whether to end the confirmation mode when the detection section detects a document that does not match the target condition (Nishiyama, [0038] “The document tray 30 is provided with the document detection sensor 16 and thus can determine presence or absence of a document on the document tray 30. The document tray 30 is also provided with length sensors 10 and 11. The CPU 111 can detect a size of the document bundle S on the document tray 30 in a document conveyance direction (document length) based on detection results of the length sensors 10 and 11”).
Regarding Claim 12, Nishiyama teaches the image reading system according to claim 9, wherein
when the detection section detects a document that does not match the target condition in the confirmation mode, the control section displays the notification screen after stopping the transport section (Nishiyama, Fig. 2A, [0066] “Information 207 notifies a user that there is a possibility that the documents having different sizes are mixed and read, and the second sheet of the documents is read as “A3”, but a size of an original document is likely to be different”; Nishiyama, [0067] An operation key 208 is used for continuing reading of the document. If the operation key 208 is pressed in the state exemplified in the preview screen portion 205, reading of a next document is started while maintaining the image data of the preview image 206 as “A3””).
Regarding Claim 14, Nishimaya teaches the image reading system according to claim 9, wherein
after the last document is transported in the confirmation mode, the control section displays an end screen for ending the confirmation mode (Nishiyama, [0045] In a case where a plurality of documents is stacked on the document tray 30, the ADF 100 repeats sheet feeding from the document bundle S, separation, conveyance processing, reading processing at the flow reading position, and sheet discharge processing described above until reading and discharging to the sheet discharge tray 31 of a last document is completed”; Nishiyama, [0057] The preview screen portion 201 represents a preview screen in a case where a preview is performed at a time when reading of a first sheet of documents is completed by setting the documents including a plurality of sheets having different document widths).
Regarding Claim 17, Nishimaya teaches:
An image reading device comprising:
a transport section for transporting sheets of documents one sheet at a time from a document bundle (Nishiyama, [0037] The ADF 100 includes the document tray 30 as a document stacking tray on which the document bundle S including one or more document sheets is stacked, a separation pad 8 and a separation roller 2 for regulating the document bundle S not to protrude from the document tray 30 and move downstream before starting document conveyance, and a sheet feed roller 1”);
a reading section for reading a document (Nishiyama, [0035] “a document in the document bundle S stacked on the document tray 30 is read by a reading unit 229”);
a detection section for detecting a document (Nishiyama, [0038] The document tray 30 is provided with the document detection sensor 16 and thus can determine presence or absence of a document on the document tray 30”);
a display section for displaying a setting screen on which a document condition is set as a target condition of a document that is a reading target (Nishiyama, [0057] The preview screen portion 201 represents a preview screen in a case where a preview is performed at a time when reading of a first sheet of documents is completed by setting the documents including a plurality of sheets having different document widths (e.g., A3 and B4 mixed size documents)”; Nishiyama, [0059] Size display 203 indicates size information of the read image data”; Nishiyama, [0129] In step S602, the CPU 111 confirms a size guide display setting”); and
a control section, wherein when the detection section detects a document that does not meet the target condition, the control section causes the display section to display that a document that does not meet the target condition has been detected (Nishiyama, [0040] “The “document size detection on the document tray” is executed, for example, in step S301 in FIG. 3 described below. In a document reading operation performed not in “the document size mixed mode”, the CPU 111 performs control to read the document according to the document size obtained based on the above-described “document size detection on the document tray”; Nishiyama, [0083] “ in a case where it is determined that the above-described “detected size” does not coincide with “the length in the conveyance direction” (NO in step S305), the CPU 111 determines that the size of the read document is different from “the detected size”, i.e., the sizes of the documents on the document tray 30 are different from each other. In this case, the CPU 111 advances the processing to step S306. For example, in the state exemplified in the preview screen portion 205 in FIG. 2A, it is determined as “NO” in the above-described step S305”; Nishiyama, [0084] “In step S306, the CPU 111 stores information indicating size unmatching (the read size does not coincide with the document size) in association with target image data determined that the sizes do not coincide with each other (NO) in the above-described step S305 in the storage 114. This is because the size unmatching information is to be displayed together when a thumbnail list described below is displayed”).
Regarding Claim 18, Nishimaya teaches:
A control device connected to an image reading device, the image reading device including (Nishiyama, [0040] “the CPU 111 performs control to read the document according to the document size obtained based on the above-described “document size detection on the document tray”) a transport section for transporting sheets of documents one sheet at a time from a document bundle (Nishiyama, [0037] The ADF 100 includes the document tray 30 as a document stacking tray on which the document bundle S including one or more document sheets is stacked, a separation pad 8 and a separation roller 2 for regulating the document bundle S not to protrude from the document tray 30 and move downstream before starting document conveyance, and a sheet feed roller 1”), a reading section for reading a document (Nishiyama, [0035] “a document in the document bundle S stacked on the document tray 30 is read by a reading unit 229”), a detection section for detecting a document (Nishiyama, [0038] The document tray 30 is provided with the document detection sensor 16 and thus can determine presence or absence of a document on the document tray 30”), the control device comprising:
a display section for displaying a setting screen on which a document condition is set as a target condition of a document that is a reading target (Nishiyama, [0057] The preview screen portion 201 represents a preview screen in a case where a preview is performed at a time when reading of a first sheet of documents is completed by setting the documents including a plurality of sheets having different document widths (e.g., A3 and B4 mixed size documents)”; Nishiyama, [0059] Size display 203 indicates size information of the read image data”; Nishiyama, [0129] In step S602, the CPU 111 confirms a size guide display setting”); and
a control section configured to communicate with the image reading device, wherein when the detection section detects a document that does not meet the target condition, the control section causes the display section to display that a document that does not meet the target condition has been detected (Nishiyama, [0040] “The “document size detection on the document tray” is executed, for example, in step S301 in FIG. 3 described below. In a document reading operation performed not in “the document size mixed mode”, the CPU 111 performs control to read the document according to the document size obtained based on the above-described “document size detection on the document tray”; Nishiyama, [0083] “ in a case where it is determined that the above-described “detected size” does not coincide with “the length in the conveyance direction” (NO in step S305), the CPU 111 determines that the size of the read document is different from “the detected size”, i.e., the sizes of the documents on the document tray 30 are different from each other. In this case, the CPU 111 advances the processing to step S306. For example, in the state exemplified in the preview screen portion 205 in FIG. 2A, it is determined as “NO” in the above-described step S305”; Nishiyama, [0084] “In step S306, the CPU 111 stores information indicating size unmatching (the read size does not coincide with the document size) in association with target image data determined that the sizes do not coincide with each other (NO) in the above-described step S305 in the storage 114. This is because the size unmatching information is to be displayed together when a thumbnail list described below is displayed”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 4 – 8, 10 – 11, 13 and 15 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama (US 20210344809 A1; hereafter referred to as Nishiyama) in view of Morikawa et al. (see Machine Translation for WO2023067709A1; hereafter referred to as Morikawa).
Regarding Claim 2, Nishiyama teaches the image reading system according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach:
in a count mode for counting documents matching the target condition, the control section causes the display section to display the number of sheets of documents matching the target condition.
In the same field of endeavor, Morikawa teaches:
in a count mode for counting documents matching the target condition, the control section causes the display section to display the number of sheets of documents matching the target condition (Morikawa, page 11, para 12, “when the operation mode is set to the counting mode, the control unit 152 displays the counter on the display device 106 or outputs the number of transported media by transmitting it to the information processing device via the interface device 133”; Morikawa, page 13, para 1, “when the medium conveying device 100 conveys an A4 size sheet with its lateral direction aligned with the medium conveying direction A1… in the counting mode, the medium conveying device 100 should rotate each roller by 240 mm per sheet, which is the size of A4”);
Nishiyama and Morikawa are considered analogous art as they are reasonably pertinent to the same field of endeavor of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nishiyama with the invention of Morikawa to make the invention that counts the documents matching the target condition and displays the number of sheets of documents matching the target condition; doing so the user can easily check whether or not all the media have been imaged by counting the number of media in the counting mode before or after imaging the medium in the imaging mode and make it possible to improve user convenience (Morikawa, page 13, para 5); thus, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references.
Regarding Claim 4, Nishiyama in view of Morikawa teaches the image reading system according to claim 2, further comprising:
a multi-feed detection section for detecting multi-feed of documents (Morikawa, page 18, para 3, “the media transport device may further determine whether multi-feeding of media has occurred”) wherein
when the multi-feed detection section detects a multi-feed in the count mode, the control section displays a change screen for inquiring about a parameter change of the transport section (Morikawa, page 18, para 4 – 5, “In the imaging mode, when multi-feeding of media occurs, the control unit 152 stops the conveyance of the media and/or notifies the user as abnormal processing. On the other hand, in the counting mode, when multiple feeding of media occurs, the control unit 152 may continue the feeding of the media without stopping. In this case, the control unit 152 outputs the counter and the number of occurrences of double feeding on the display device 106 or by transmitting it to the information processing device via the interface device 133 when the transportation of all the media is completed. As a result, the control unit 152 can reduce the user's trouble when multiple feeding of media occurs in the counting mode, and can improve the user's convenience”).
The reasons for combining Nishiyama and Morikawa are similar to that stated in the rejection of claim 2. In addition, this same reasoning is pertinent and applicable to the rejections of claims 5 – 8 below.
Regarding Claim 5, Nishiyama in view of Morikawa teaches the image reading system according to claim 4, wherein
when the multi-feed detection section detects a multi-feed in the count mode, the control section displays a continuation screen inquiring about continuing the count mode (Morikawa, page 18, para 4, “in the counting mode, when multiple feeding of media occurs, the control unit 152 may continue the feeding of the media without stopping…. the control unit 152 outputs the counter and the number of occurrences of double feeding on the display device 106 or by transmitting it to the information processing device via the interface device 133 when the transportation of all the media is completed”).
Regarding Claim 6, Nishiyama in view of Morikawa teaches the image reading system according to claim 2, wherein
after the last document is transported in the count mode, the control section displays an end screen for ending the count mode (Morikawa, page 11, last para, “when the operation mode is set to the counting mode, the control unit 152 displays the counter on the display device 106 or outputs the number of transported media by transmitting it to the information processing device via the interface device 133. (step S230), and the series of steps ends”), and
the number of sheets of documents that meet the target condition and the number of sheets of documents that do not meet the target condition are displayed on the end screen (Morikawa, page 11, last para, “when the operation mode is set to the counting mode, the control unit 152 displays the counter on the display device 106 or outputs the number of transported media by transmitting it to the information processing device via the interface device 133. (step S230), and the series of steps ends”).
Regarding Claim 7, Nishiyama in view of Morikawa teaches the image reading system according to claim 4, wherein
when a parameter change of the transport section was permitted through the change screen, then after the last document is transported in the count mode, the control section causes a preserve screen to be displayed to inquire whether to preserve the parameter of the transport section for the count mode next time (Morikawa, page 13, para 3 - 5, “the control unit 152 sets the medium transport speed so that the frequency of multi-feeding of media is lower when the counting mode is set than when the imaging mode is set. Multifeeding of media is an example of a media transport abnormality. By reducing the initial speed of the feed roller 112, the control unit 152 can suppress the occurrence of double feeding of media…when operating in the counting mode, the medium transporting apparatus 100 shortens the medium transporting time compared to when operating in the imaging mode, and transports the medium so as not to cause an abnormality in transporting the medium. Control. As a result, when counting the number of transported media, the medium transport device 100 can stably transport the media in a short period of time, and can transport the media satisfactorily. In addition, the user can easily check whether or not all the media have been imaged by counting the number of media in the counting mode before or after imaging the medium in the imaging mode….to improve user convenience”).
Regarding Claim 8, Nishiyama in view of Morikawa teaches the image reading system according to claim 2, wherein
in the count mode, the control section displays a status screen to show the current number of document sheets that have been counted (Morikawa, page 11, last para, “the control unit 152 displays the counter on the display device 106 or outputs the number of transported media by transmitting it to the information processing device via the interface device 133. (step S230), and the series of steps ends”; Morikawa, page 13, para 1, “the number of media can be correctly counted”).
Regarding Claim 10, Nishiyama teaches the image reading system according to claim 9, but fails to explicitly teach:
a multi-feed detection section for detecting multi-feed of documents, wherein
when the multi-feed detection section detects multi-feed in the confirmation mode, the control section displays a change screen inquiring about a parameter change of the transport section.
In the same field of endeavor, Morikawa teaches:
a multi-feed detection section for detecting multi-feed of documents (Morikawa, page 18, para 2, “the media transport device may further determine whether multi-feeding of media has occurred”), wherein
when the multi-feed detection section detects multi-feed in the confirmation mode, the control section displays a change screen inquiring about a parameter change of the transport section (Morikawa, page 18, para 2, “the media transport device may further determine whether multi-feeding of media has occurred…When a plurality of media are overlapped and conveyed, ultrasonic waves that pass through the media are attenuated by air layers between the overlapped and conveyed media. Therefore, the medium transport device can determine whether double feeding of media has occurred based on whether the ultrasonic signal is equal to or less than the threshold”; Morikawa, page 18, para 3, “the imaging mode, when multi-feeding of media occurs, the control unit 152 stops the conveyance of the media and/or notifies the user as abnormal processing… in the counting mode, when multiple feeding of media occurs, the control unit 152 may continue the feeding of the media without stopping. In this case, the control unit 152 outputs the counter and the number of occurrences of double feeding on the display device 106 or by transmitting it to the information processing device via the interface device 133 when the transportation of all the media is completed”).
Nishiyama and Morikawa are considered analogous art as they are reasonably pertinent to the same field of endeavor of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nishiyama with the invention of Morikawa to make the invention that detects multi-feed and the control section displays a change screen inquiring about a parameter change of the transport section; doing so the control unit can reduce the user's trouble when multiple feeding of media occurs in the counting mode, and can improve the user's convenience (Morikawa, page 18, para 4); thus, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references.
Regarding Claim 11, Nishiyama in view of Morikawa teaches the image reading system according to claim 10, wherein
when the multi-feed detection section detects a multi-feed in the confirmation mode, the control section displays a continuation screen to inquire whether to continue the confirmation mode (Morikawa, page 18, para 3, “the imaging mode, when multi-feeding of media occurs, the control unit 152 stops the conveyance of the media and/or notifies the user as abnormal processing”; Morikawa, page 18, para 6, “the control unit 152 stops the conveyance of the medium and/or notifies the user as abnormal processing. Further, in the counting mode, the control unit 152 accepts an instruction from the user as to whether to continue or end the counting of media when a media jam or skew occurs”).
The reasons for combining Nishiyama and Morikawa are similar to that stated in the rejection of claim 10. In addition, this same reasoning is pertinent and applicable to the rejections of claim 13 below.
Regarding Claim 13, Nishiyama in view of Morikawa teaches the image reading system according to claim 10, wherein
when a parameter change of the transport section was permitted through the change screen, then after the last document is transported in the confirmation mode, the control section causes display of a preserve screen to inquire whether to preserve the parameter of the transport section for the confirmation mode next time (Morikawa, page 11, last para, “when the operation mode is set to the counting mode, the control unit 152 displays the counter on the display device 106 or outputs the number of transported media by transmitting it to the information processing device via the interface device 133”; Morikawa, page 14, para 5, “the control unit 152 changes the rotation speed of the discharge roller 120 while the medium is passing through the imaging device 119 when the counting mode is set. As a result, the control unit 152 adjusts the medium conveying speed so as to reduce the frequency of media popping, unevenness, or jamming when the counting mode is set compared to when the imaging mode is set”; Morikawa, page 18, last para, “when the user instructs to continue counting the media, the control unit 152 stores the counter in the storage device 140 . After that, when the medium conveying process is re-executed and the conveying of all the media is completed”).
Regarding Claim 15, Nishiyama teaches the image reading system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
in a total count mode in which documents are counted without reference to the target condition, the control section causes the display section to display the number of sheets of documents that have been counted.
In the same field of endeavor, Morikawa teaches:
in a total count mode in which documents are counted without reference to the target condition, the control section causes the display section to display the number of sheets of documents that have been counted (Morikawa, page 18, last para, “the control unit 152 calculates and outputs the total number of counters counted before and after the occurrence of the medium jam… the control unit 152 may output the number of jam occurrences or the number of skew occurrences together with each counter stored in the storage device 140 and the last counted counter”).
Nishiyama and Morikawa are considered analogous art as they are reasonably pertinent to the same field of endeavor of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nishiyama with the invention of Morikawa to make the invention that counts the total documents without reference to the target condition and displays the number of sheets of documents that have been counted; doing so the user can easily check whether or not all the media have been imaged by counting the number of media in the counting mode before or after imaging the medium in the imaging mode and can improve the user's convenience (Morikawa, page 13, para 5); thus, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references.
Regarding Claim 16, Nishiyama in view of Morikawa teaches the image reading system according to claim 15, wherein
in a collation mode in which the control section counts the number of sheets of documents without reference to the target condition and then collates the total number of sheets of documents that were counted this time with the total number of sheets documents that were counted in the total count mode, when there is a discrepancy between the total number of sheets of documents that were counted this time and the total number of sheets of documents that were counted in the total count mode, then the control section causes the display section to display that the total number of sheets of documents that were counted this time does not match the total number of sheets of documents that were counted in the total count mode (Morikawa, page 11, last para, page 12, first para,” the control unit 152 may count the number of conveyed media not only in the counting mode but also in the imaging mode, and output the number in step S230. In that case, the control unit 152 may further determine whether or not the counter calculated in the previous medium transporting process matches the counter calculated in the current medium transporting process. If the counters do not match, the control unit 152 notifies the user of a warning by displaying that fact on the display device 106 or transmitting it to the information processing device via the interface device 133 . As a result, the user can count in the counting mode after capturing an image of a specific medium group in the imaging mode, and easily determine whether or not the number of media captured in the imaging mode is correct. The medium transport device 100 can improve user convenience”).
The reasons for combining Nishiyama and Morikawa are similar to that stated in the rejection of claim 15.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama (US 20210344809 A1; hereafter referred to as Nishiyama) in view of Morikawa et al. (see Machine Translation for WO2023067709A1; hereafter referred to as Morikawa) further in view of Hamashima (US 20220166893 A1; hereafter referred to as Hamashima).
Regarding Claim 3, Nishiyama in view of Morikawa teaches the image reading system according to claim 2, wherein,
the detection section is configured to detect at least one of a size of the document (Nishiyama, [0059] “Size display 203 indicates size information of the read image data”; Nishiyama, [0051] “in a case where documents, which have a same document width but different document lengths such as an A3 document and an A4 document, are combined and loaded in a mixed state, the length sensors 10 and 11 detect the A4 document and the A3 document mixed with the A4 document in the document size mixed mode”; Nishiyama, [0129] “In step S602, the CPU 111 confirms a size guide display setting”),
in the setting screen are displayed (Nishiyama, [0055] “FIGS. 2A and 2B illustrate examples of preview screens displayed on the operation unit 115 of the MFP 101”),
a start button for starting the count mode (Morikawa, page 3, para 9, “The operation device 105 has an input device such as a button and an interface circuit for acquiring signals from the input device, receives an input operation by a user, and outputs an operation signal according to the input operation by the user”; Morikawa, page 12, para 5, “when the counting mode is set, the control unit 152 makes the rotation start timing of the feeding roller 112 earlier than when the imaging mode is set”).
However, Nishiyama in view of Morikawa does not explicitly teach:
the detection section is configured to detect at least one of a size of the document and a type of the document, and
in the setting screen are displayed
at least one of a size designation button for designating a size of a document and a type designation button for designating a type of the document,
In the same field of endeavor, Hamashima teaches:
the detection section is configured to detect at least one of a size of the document and a type of the document (Hamashima, [0047] “since the document presence and absence sensor 46 is configured to measure the front end and the rear end of the document D, the document presence sensor 46 can measure the length of the document D in the transport direction Y, that is, the document size determined from the length, based on the transport distance of the document D from the measurement of the front end of the document D to the measurement of the rear end thereof”; Hamashima, [0059] “the input unit 101 of the host apparatus 100 is operated by the user, a setting condition related to the image reading processing is set. In other words, the setting condition is set by the user input. The setting condition includes a reading condition including a document size, a reading resolution, a reading color, single-sided reading and two-sided reading, or the like, and a storage condition including a storage format of reading data (image data), a transfer method, and a storage destination”; Hamashima, [0081] “the user sets one value from the values within the range….for pure white paper, the blank paper removal level is set to a lower value, and for colored paper or recycled paper, the blank paper removal level is set to a higher value than for pure white paper”; see Hamashima, [0225] describes the type of papers as wrinkled or color such as recycled or blank paper), and
in the setting screen are displayed (Hamashima, [0075] “By operating the menu displayed on the display unit 22 on the touch panel to select a lower-level screen, the user can cause the job selection screen 121 (FIG. 11), the first setting screen 91 (FIG. 4), the second setting screen 92 (FIG. 6), or the like to be displayed”; Hamashima, [0225] “displayed on the preview screen”),
at least one of a size designation button for designating a size of a document and a type designation button for designating a type of the document (Hamashima, [0073] “The display control unit 76 displays various setting screens such as a job selection screen 121 (see FIG. 11) including, for example, a first setting screen 91 illustrated in FIG. 4, a second setting screen 92 illustrated in FIG. 6, or the like according to an operation signal from the input unit 21”; Hamashima, [0085] “the setting of the blank paper removal level, and the selection of the preview screen display function on the first setting screen 91, when the user operates an OK button 95, those setting contents are registered”; Hamashima, [0086] “when the OK button 95 is operated with the setting contents of the first setting screen 91 illustrated in FIG. 4, all four functions of the first management table SD1 are ON”; Hamashima, [0090] “When the OK button 99 is selected on the second setting screen 92, one mode corresponding to the scan format selected on the second setting screen 92 is set”),
Nishiyama, Morikawa and Hamashima are considered analogous art as they are reasonably pertinent to the same field of endeavor of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nishiyama in view of Morikawa with the invention of Hamashima to make the invention that detects at least one of a size of the document and a type of the document, in the setting screen are displayed at least one of a size designation button for designating a size of a document and a type designation button for designating a type of the document ; doing so the user can determine the size and type of the document for the image information (Hamashima, [0059]) and if the type of the document is a blank paper, it can be removed (Hamashima, [0082]); thus, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180034992 A1 IMAGE READING DEVICE AND IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS An image reading device includes: contact glass, a document reading section that reads a document loaded on the contact glass while a moving mechanism moves in a document reading direction, a reading control section that causes the document reading section to read the whole contact glass at a rate of once per a predefined number of times N1, a first contamination detection section, and a report section. The first contamination detection section detects, from image data of the whole contact glass obtained through the reading by the document reading section, contamination of the contact glass present in a region other than a region loaded with the document.
US 20170126914 A1 IMAGE READING APPARATUS An image reading apparatus includes a transport section that can transport original documents along a transport path, a reading section configured to read images of the original documents transported by the transport section, an output controller configured to output data of the original documents read by the reading section, a multi-sheet feed detection sensor configured to detect a multi-sheet feed of the original documents transported by the transport section, and an instruction section configured to issue an instruction to disable multi-sheet feed detection by the multi-sheet feed detection section.
US 20160286071 A1 IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS AND DOCUMENT READING APPARATUS An image forming apparatus includes: a copy condition storage section configured to store a copy condition depending on a size of an original document to be copied, with the copy condition associated with at least a width of the original document along a main scanning direction; a document width detecting section configured to detect the document width; a copy condition readout section configured to read, from the copy condition storage section, the copy condition associated with the document width detected by the document width detecting section; an image forming section configured to form an image on a recording sheet; an image reading section configured to read the original document to acquire an image; and a control section configured to allow the image forming section to form the image acquired by the image reading section on the recording sheet according to the copy condition read by the copy condition readout section.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAISALI RAO KOPPOLU whose telephone number is (571)270-0273. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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.
/VAISALI RAO KOPPOLU/Examiner of Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights