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 log saving section,” “a log saving priority-setting section” : in claim 1.
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 § 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.
Claims 3-4 and 6 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.
As per claim 3, the limitations of “a unit” is unclear and lacks antecedent basis. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which recites “a plurality of units” as well as “one unit.” It is unclear which unit the claim is referring to.
As per claim 4, the limitations of “a unit” and “above-mentioned unit” are unclear and lacks antecedent basis. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which recites “a plurality of units” as well as “one unit.” It is unclear which unit the claim is referring to.
As per claim 6, the limitation of “the same unit” is unclear and lacks antecedent basis. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which recites “a plurality of units” as well as “one unit.” It is unclear which unit the claim is referring to.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanematsu United States Patent Application Publication No. 20190199862 in view of Akiyama et al. United States Patent Application Publication No. 20130135646
As per claim 1, Kanematsue teaches a printing system including, error detection and a plurality of units associated with a plurality of types of functions [printer fax an scanner (pp 0051-0053); error mode (pp 00, respectively, comprising:
a log saving section that automatically saves an operation log of firmware that controls one unit [log storage (pp 0057)];
a log saving priority-setting section for setting a priority of operation of the log saving section when an error has occurred [preferential storage of log (pp 0057); and
a controller that causes, when occurrence of an error is detected by the error detection section in a case where the priority of operation of the log saving section has been set by the log saving priority-setting section, the log saving section to execute an automatic saving process for automatically saving an operation log of firmware, and a screen to be displayed on a display section, for prompting a user to wait until the automatic saving process is terminated [warning for user to not shut down (pp 0047)].
Kanematsu does not explicitly teach a jam detection section that detects occurrence of a jam as a state in which a sheet is jammed and a guide display section that displays a guide of a procedure for removing a sheet in response to occurrence of the detected jam.
However, in analogous art, Akiyama teaches a jam detection section that detects occurrence of a jam as a state in which a sheet is jammed and guide display section that displays a guide of a procedure for removing a sheet in response to occurrence of the detected jam [user guidance system (pp 0008, 0103) consecutive instructions (Figures 5A-5E, pp 0083-0088)].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the jam detection and user display for removing the sheet of Akiyama with the error of Kanematsu. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this as a paper jam is a known error in printers and to provide the operator with timely guidance in the consecutive instructions (Akiyama pp 0117).
As per claim 2, Kanematsu in view of Akiyama teach the printing system according to claim 1, wherein the controller further causes, when occurrence of a jam is detected by the jam detection section in a case where the priority of operation of the log saving section has been set by the log saving priority-setting section, the log saving section to execute the automatic saving process for automatically saving the operation log of firmware without displaying the guide, and disables reception of a user's operation during execution of the automatic saving process but enables reception of a user's operation by displaying the guide after the automatic saving process is terminated [Kanematsu: log storage prompt (pp 0047); display tunred off during log storage (S624 pp 0058). Akiyami teaches jam is the error (pp0008)].
As per claim 3, Kanematsu in view of Akiyama teach the printing system according to claim 1, wherein a unit in which a jam has occurred generates a jam code defining automatic log saving target information indicating whether or not a log is to be saved with respect to the jam which has occurred and notifies the generated jam code to the controller, and wherein the controller further determines whether or not to execute the automatic saving process based on a type of the notified jam code [Kanematsu: determining where the error has occurred (pp 0056); Akiyami teaches paper jam is the error (pp0008)].
As per claim 5, Kanematsu in view of Akiyama teach the printing system according to claim 1, wherein the controller further calculates a processing time required to perform the automatic saving process this time and displays the calculated processing time on the display section [Kanematsu: indicate length of time (pp0040), user screen (pp 0047)]
As per claim 7, Kanematsu in view of Akiyama teach the printing system according to claim 1, wherein the controller saves an operation log collected by executing the automatic saving process in a nonvolatile memory [Kanematsu pp0002].
As per claim 8, Kanematsu in view of Akiyama teach the printing system according to claim7,wherein the controller compresses operation logs most recently collected over a plurality of times by executing the automatic saving process and collectively stores the operation logs in a nonvolatile memory, and deletes an older operation log than the operation logs most recently stored over the plurality of times [Kanematsu: written over stored operation log (pp 0004).
As per claim 9, Kanematsu in view of Akiyama teach the printing system according to claim 7, further comprising a transmission section that transmits the collected operation logs to an information processing apparatus installed in an apparatus vendor at a predetermined timing via a network [Kanematsu: connected to a network (pp 0030)].
As per claim 10, Kanematsu in view of Akiyama teach the printing system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of units include a scanner section that performs scanning and a printer section that performs printing [Kanematsu: Figure 1].
Claims 11-12 are rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 1 as they do not teach or further define over the limitations of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is noted in PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UZMA ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-3995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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, Allana L Bidder can be reached at 571-272-5560. 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.
UZMA . ALAM
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877
/UZMA ALAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights