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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 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: Claim 9 identifies the uniquely distinct features inter alia “a second position condition that a first distance between the error occurrence time position and the reading end position or the standby position is equal to or less than a second 2 distance between the error occurrence time position and the error notification position.” In particular, the concept of the second distance based on a timing with respect to the error occurrence in relation to the reading position, as it relates to the rest of the claim limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okado (US 2016/0037012) in view of Hamada (US 2021/0377395).
Regarding Claim 1, Okado teaches an image reader (Paragraph 2) comprising:
a transparent plate having a placement surface configured to support a read target object placed thereon (Paragraph 22 and element 32, wherein there is a contact glass);
a reading unit including a light source configured to emit light toward the transparent plate (Paragraphs 23 and 24 and element 40, wherein there is a reading unit with a light emitting section);
and a controller (Paragraph 26 and element 100, wherein there is a control unit) configured to:
perform a reading process to cause the reading unit to read the read target object placed on the placement surface of the transparent plate (Paragraph 30, wherein the reading operation can be started);
in response to occurrence of an error, perform an error notification process to cause the reading unit to perform an error notification operation (Paragraph 34, wherein errors are tracked to determine notifications).
Okado does not teach depending on one or more occurrence conditions for the error that has occurred while the reading unit is in use, determine whether to perform the error notification process by interrupting the use of the reading unit or after the use of the reading unit is completed.
Hamada does teach depending on one or more occurrence conditions for the error that has occurred while the reading unit is in use, determine whether to perform the error notification process by interrupting the use of the reading unit or after the use of the reading unit is completed (Paragraphs 125 and 137, wherein based on the type of error and severity of the error it is decided if the notification is given after the discharge, which is after the discharge. The error notification can also be during reading, paragraph 124).
Okado and Hamada are combinable because they both deal with handling reading errors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Okado with the teachings of Hamada for the purpose of increasing usability for error recovery (Hamada: Paragraph 7).
Regarding Claim 2, Hamada further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to perform, in said determining, determining whether to perform the error notification process by interrupting the reading process or after the reading process is completed, depending on the one or more occurrence conditions for the error that has occurred during the reading process (Paragraphs 125 and 137, wherein based on the type of error and severity of the error it is decided if the notification is given after the discharge, which is after the discharge. The error notification can also be during reading, paragraph 124).
Okado and Hamada are combinable because they both deal with handling reading errors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Okado with the teachings of Hamada for the purpose of increasing usability for error recovery (Hamada: Paragraph 7).
Regarding Claim 3, Okado further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to, in the reading process, perform:
a reading operation of causing the reading unit to read the read target object while moving the reading unit in a first direction from a reading start position to a reading end position (Paragraph 30, wherein the document is read through the movement of the reading unit);
and a return operation of causing the reading unit to move in a second direction from the reading end position and stop at a standby position, the second direction being opposite to the first direction (Paragraph 43, wherein if the reading unit is not being used it returns to the home position).
Regarding Claim 4, Hamada further teaches wherein the one or more occurrence conditions include at least one inoperability condition that an error that prevents the reading operation or the return operation from being completed has occurred during the reading process (Paragraphs 89, 125 and 137, wherein the error can be related to reading or a jam), and
wherein the controller is further configured to perform, in said determining, determining to perform the error notification process by interrupting the reading process, when the at least one inoperability condition is satisfied (Paragraphs 125 and 137, wherein based on the type of error and severity of the error it is decided if the notification is given after the discharge, which is after the discharge. The error notification can also be during reading, paragraph 124).
Okado and Hamada are combinable because they both deal with handling reading errors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Okado with the teachings of Hamada for the purpose of increasing usability for error recovery (Hamada: Paragraph 7).
Regarding Claim 5, Hamada further teaches wherein the at least one inoperability condition includes an unreadability condition that an error that prevents the reading operation from being completed has occurred during the reading operation (Paragraph 89, wherein the skew can prevent proper reading of the document), and
wherein the controller is further configured to perform, in said determining, determining to perform the error notification process by interrupting the reading operation, when the unreadability condition is satisfied (Paragraphs 125 and 137, wherein based on the type of error and severity of the error it is decided if the notification is given after the discharge, which is after the discharge. The error notification can also be during reading, paragraph 124).
Okado and Hamada are combinable because they both deal with handling reading errors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Okado with the teachings of Hamada for the purpose of increasing usability for error recovery (Hamada: Paragraph 7).
Regarding Claim 6, Hamada further teaches wherein the at least one inoperability condition includes a readability condition that an error that prevents the return operation from being completed has occurred during the return operation (Paragraph 89, wherein a jam can occur), and
wherein the controller is further configured to perform, in said determining, determining to perform the error notification process by interrupting the return operation, when the readability condition is satisfied (Paragraphs 125 and 137, wherein based on the type of error and severity of the error it is decided if the notification is given after the discharge, which is after the discharge. The error notification can also be during reading, paragraph 124).
Okado and Hamada are combinable because they both deal with handling reading errors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Okado with the teachings of Hamada for the purpose of increasing usability for error recovery (Hamada: Paragraph 7).
Regarding Claim 7, Hamada further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to perform, in said determining, determining to perform the error notification process after the return operation is completed, when the at least one inoperability condition is not satisfied (Paragraphs 125 and 137, wherein based on the type of error and severity of the error it is decided if the notification is given after the discharge, which is after the discharge. The error notification can also be during reading, paragraph 124).
Okado and Hamada are combinable because they both deal with handling reading errors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Okado with the teachings of Hamada for the purpose of increasing usability for error recovery (Hamada: Paragraph 7).
Regarding Claim 8, Okado further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to perform, as the error notification operation, causing the reading unit to move to and stop at an error notification position in the error notification process (Paragraph 43, wherein the reading unit is moved to the proper notification position).
Regarding Claim 12, Okada further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to, in said determining, perform:
depending on one or more occurrence conditions for a new error that has occurred during the error notification process, determining whether to perform a new error notification process for the new error by interrupting the error notification process or after the error notification process is completed (Paragraphs 38 and 50, wherein a notification can be made based on if the error needs to be notified based on priority).
Regarding Claim 13, Okada teaches a multi-function peripheral (Paragraph 2) comprising:
an image reader configured to read a read target object (Paragraph 22, wherein there is an image reading section with an image reading unit);
a printer configured to print an image on a printing medium (Paragraph 17, wherein there is an image forming section); and
a controller (Paragraph 26 and element 100, wherein there is a control unit),
wherein the image reader comprises:
a transparent plate having a placement surface configured to support the read target object placed thereon (Paragraph 22 and element 32, wherein there is a contact glass); and
a reading unit including a light source configured to emit light toward the transparent plate (Paragraphs 23 and 24 and element 40, wherein there is a reading unit with a light emitting section); and
wherein the controller is configured to:
perform a reading process to cause the reading unit to read the read target object placed on the placement surface of the transparent plate (Paragraph 30, wherein the reading operation can be started);
in response to occurrence of an error, perform an error notification process to cause the reading unit to perform an error notification operation (Paragraph 34, wherein errors are tracked to determine notifications).
Okada does not teach depending on one or more occurrence conditions for the error that has occurred while the reading unit is in use, determine whether to perform the error notification process by interrupting the use of the reading unit or after the use of the reading unit is completed.
Hamada does teach depending on one or more occurrence conditions for the error that has occurred while the reading unit is in use, determine whether to perform the error notification process by interrupting the use of the reading unit or after the use of the reading unit is completed (Paragraphs 125 and 137, wherein based on the type of error and severity of the error it is decided if the notification is given after the discharge, which is after the discharge. The error notification can also be during reading, paragraph 124).
Okado and Hamada are combinable because they both deal with handling reading errors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Okado with the teachings of Hamada for the purpose of increasing usability for error recovery (Hamada: Paragraph 7).
Regarding Claim 14, Hamada further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to perform the error notification process after the reading process is completed, when the error has occurred in the image reader during the reading process (Paragraphs 125 and 137, wherein based on the type of error and severity of the error it is decided if the notification is given after the discharge, which is after the discharge. The error notification can also be during reading, paragraph 124).
Okado and Hamada are combinable because they both deal with handling reading errors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Okado with the teachings of Hamada for the purpose of increasing usability for error recovery (Hamada: Paragraph 7).
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 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 D all relate to processing errors in an image processing apparatus.
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