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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim 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: “printing unit,” “control unit,” “display unit,” “detection unit,” “medium size detection unit,” “environment detection unit,” in claims 1-10.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
printing unit – paragraph 39
control unit – paragraph 43
display unit – paragraph 40
detection unit – paragraph 53
medium size detection unit – paragraph 51
environment detection unit – paragraph 53
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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 § 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 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga (US 2009/0235098) in view of Akazawa (US 2022/0103711).
Regarding Claim 1, Matsunaga teaches a printing apparatus (Paragraph 2) comprising:
a printing unit configured to perform printing on a medium (Paragraph 59, wherein there is a printer part); and
a control unit configured to control the printing unit (Paragraph 66, wherein there is a CPU), wherein apparatus states set by the control unit include:
a first operation mode and a second operation mode being modes where power required for printing by the printing unit is supplied (Paragraph 71, wherein there can be multiple power saving modes); and
power consumption in the second operation mode is less than that in the first operation mode, and is more than that in the sleep mode (Paragraph 71, wherein more components are selected to be turned off between the power modes, therefore one power mode is less than the other), and
the second operation mode is configured so that a method of setting power consumption is customized via a user interface (Paragraphs 72 and 73, wherein the user can select what is not supplied with power).
Matsunaga does not teach a sleep mode being a mode where power required for printing by the printing unit is not supplied.
Akazawa teaches a sleep mode being a mode where power required for printing by the printing unit is not supplied (Paragraph 47, wherein there is a sleep mode).
Matsunaga and Akazawa are combinable because they both deal with power-saving in an image processing apparatus.
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 Matsunaga with the teachings of Akazawa for the purpose of reducing unnecessary power usage (Akazawa: Paragraph 4).
Regarding Claim 4, Matsunaga further teaches a display unit configured to display various information (Paragraph 86, wherein the power consumption can be displayed.).
Matsunaga does not teach wherein minimum brightness of the display unit at least during printing execution is selectable via the user interface as a display mode of the display unit in the second operation mode.
Akazawa does teach wherein minimum brightness of the display unit at least during printing execution is selectable via the user interface as a display mode of the display unit in the second operation mode (Paragraph 67, wherein the brightness can be changed).
Matsunaga and Akazawa are combinable because they both deal with power-saving in an image processing apparatus.
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 Matsunaga with the teachings of Akazawa for the purpose of reducing unnecessary power usage (Akazawa: Paragraph 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Matsunaga further teaches a display unit configured to display various information (Paragraph 86, wherein the power consumption can be displayed.).
Matsunaga does not teach wherein light-off of the display unit at least during printing execution is selectable via the user interface as a display mode of the display unit in the second operation mode.
Akazawa does teach wherein light-off of the display unit at least during printing execution is selectable via the user interface as a display mode of the display unit in the second operation mode (Paragraph 67, wherein the display can be turned off).
Matsunaga and Akazawa are combinable because they both deal with power-saving in an image processing apparatus.
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 Matsunaga with the teachings of Akazawa for the purpose of reducing unnecessary power usage (Akazawa: Paragraph 4).
Regarding Claim 6, Akazawa does teach a detection unit that detects an apparatus state change, wherein the control unit cancels the sleep mode when a signal of the detection unit is changed in the sleep mode (Paragraph 52, wherein receiving a job can return the device from sleep), and
cutting-off of power supply to the detection unit in the second operation mode is selectable via the user interface (Paragraph 77, wherein the wireless operation can be shifted to off).
Matsunaga and Akazawa are combinable because they both deal with power-saving in an image processing apparatus.
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 Matsunaga with the teachings of Akazawa for the purpose of reducing unnecessary power usage (Akazawa: Paragraph 4).
Claim(s) 2, 3 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga (US 2009/0235098) in view of Akazawa (US 2022/0103711) further in view of official notice.
Regarding Claim 2, Matsunaga further teaches a display unit configured to display various information (Paragraph 86, wherein the power consumption can be displayed.).
Matsunaga in view of Akazawa does not teach wherein monochrome display is selectable via the user interface as a display mode of the display unit in the second operation mode.
Official notice is taken that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a change to a monochrome display setting to reduce power. It is known that a color display utilizes more power than a monochrome display. If a user is trying to conserve power, then switching to a monochrome display would do this, similar to a brightness reduction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Matsunaga in view of Akazawa with the teachings of converting to a monochrome display to allow for further power savings.
Regarding Claim 3, Matsunaga further teaches a display unit configured to display various information (Paragraph 86, wherein the power consumption can be displayed.).
Matsunaga in view of Akazawa does not teach wherein reduction of a display region is selectable via the user interface as a display mode of the display unit in the second operation mode.
Official notice is taken that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the size of the display. This allows for less pixels to be used, which is known to reduce power.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Matsunaga in view of Akazawa with the teachings of reduction in display size to allow for further power savings.
Regarding Claim 7, Matsunaga teaches a medium placement unit on which a medium before feeding is placed (Fig. 1, wherein there is shown an ADF).
Matsunaga in view of Akazawa does not teach a medium size detection unit configured to detect a size of the medium placed on the medium placement unit, wherein cutting-off of power supply to the medium size detection unit in the second operation mode is selectable via the user interface.
Official notice is taken that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a size detection sensor. When having additional sensor and transitioning to a power-saving mode, it may be optional to turn those sensors off. When the sensor does not have a necessity outside of performing a standard printing or scanning operation, then those can also be turned off to help conserve power.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Matsunaga in view of Akazawa with the teachings of sheet size detector which can be disabled in a power-saving mode to allow for further power savings while adding the ability to detect a sheet size for scanning.
Regarding Claim 8, Matsunaga in view of Akazawa does not teach an environment detection unit configured to detect an apparatus installation environment, wherein cutting-off of power supply to the environment detection unit in the second operation mode is selectable via the user interface.
Official notice is taken that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have an environment detection sensor. This sensor would help determine if there is an issue with temperature, humidity, etc., for the device. This allows for a determination of an environmental factor that may have an impact on image processing. When having additional sensor and transitioning to a power-saving mode, it may be optional to turn those sensors off. When the sensor does not have a necessity outside of performing a standard printing or scanning operation, then those can also be turned off to help conserve power.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Matsunaga in view of Akazawa with the teachings of an environmental detection which can be disabled in a power-saving mode to allow for further power savings while adding the ability to detect a the environment of the device to help ensure proper operation of the device.
Regarding Claim 9, Matsunaga in view of Akazawa does not teach an environment detection unit configured to detect an apparatus installation environment, wherein the control unit executes transition to the second operation mode when a detection result of the environment detection unit exceeds a predetermined range.
Official notice is taken that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have an environment detection sensor. This sensor would help determine if there is an issue with temperature, humidity, etc., for the device. This allows for a determination of an environmental factor that may have an impact on image processing. If the device is in an environment that, for example temperature, was too high, then there can be a need to turn off power to most of the device to ensure proper operation of the device in the future and avoid potential breakage or faults within the device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Matsunaga in view of Akazawa with the teachings of an environmental detection which can be disabled in a power-saving mode to allow for further power savings while adding the ability to detect a the environment of the device to help ensure proper operation of the device.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga (US 2009/0235098) in view of Akazawa (US 2022/0103711) further in view of Kawakami (US 2016/0062289).
Regarding Claim 10, Matsunaga in view of Akazawa does not teach wherein the control unit is configured to receive an earthquake early warning and execute transition to the second operation mode when the earthquake early warning is received.
Kawakami does teach wherein the control unit is configured to receive an earthquake early warning and execute transition to the second operation mode when the earthquake early warning is received (Paragraphs 47 and 48, wherein there is an earthquake sensor where the device can transition to a power saving mode).
Matsunaga and Kawakami are combinable because they both deal with power-saving in an image processing device.
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 Matsunaga in view of Akazawa with the teachings of Kawakami for the purpose preventing problems within the device (Kawakami: Paragraph 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional cited prior art of Kato (US 2018/0188680) relates to earthquake detection for an image forming apparatus. The additional cited prior art of Murata (US 2010/0070216) relates to power consumption control for an image forming 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
