DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32 and 33 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-7, 10-17 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaoka (2021/0232878) in view of Orikasa (2012/0327436).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Takaoka teaches a printing device and non-transitory computer-readable medium, comprising:
a printer user contract defining a number of expected pages at an expected first resolution with first drive signal pattern automatically set to be printed by the user, and if an amount of ink remaining left to print with exceeds a threshold, notifying the user that there is not enough ink in the existing tank for the expected number of pages (Takaoka, see figs. 9-14). Takaoka does not teach two drive signal patterns, one for a higher resolution printing, i.e., higher ink usage amount, and one for lower resolution printing, i.e., lower ink usage amount, and wherein, when the user is notified of the threshold being exceeded, i.e., a new tank is needed, also being given the option to, along with replacing the tank, to lower the print resolution to lower the ink usage amount and print more pages. Orikasa teaches wherein when a data amount, i.e., an ink usage amount, to be printed in a certain resolution is determined to exceed a certain threshold, a user is prompted at a display to confirm whether or not printing in a lower resolution is acceptable (Orikasa, see figs. 7-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a third option of lowering printing resolution to allow for more pages to be printed, as disclosed by Orikasa, in the device disclosed by Takaoka because doing so would allow for a more robust printing system.
Upon combination of the references, when a user agreed to a reduction in resolution, the automatically set standard resolution first drive pattern would be changes to a lower resolution second drive signal pattern.
Further, note that the existence of two different resolutions for printing necessarily means there are two different drive signal patterns, one corresponding to high-resolution and high ink usage and the other to lower resolution and lower ink usage.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Takaoka in view of Orikasa teaches the printing device and non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claims 1 and 13, respectively, wherein, in the setting, the controller is configured to set the drive signal pattern based on a type of the container to be attached to a holder of the printing device in accordance with the contract information (Takaoka, fig. 4, Note that the ink usage quantity and the ink tank size determine what drive signal pattern to use. That is, the combined device would calculate the amount of ink needed to complete a print job based on what is in Takaoka’s figure 4, and if the ink was insufficient for printing with the first drive signal, the user would be asked if it was acceptable to use the second drive signal).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Takaoka in view of Orikasa teaches the printing device and non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claims 1 and 13, respectively, note that there is necessarily a storage, and not that the user ID entered is identified, and all user settings are retrieved and applied.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Takaoka in view of Orikasa teaches the printing device and non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claims 3 and 15, respectively,
wherein the default drive signal pattern is fixedly set regardless of the contract information and the first drive signal pattern different from the default drive signal pattern are stored in the first storage (Takaoka, see figs. 3-5, note all user information is saved and applied every time the user prints), and
wherein the controller is configured to change the first drive signal pattern to the second drive signal pattern without changing the default drive signal pattern that has been stored, in advance, in the first storage (Otokita, figs. 6, 7, note that the normal and low-resolution drive patterns are not (Takaoka, see figs. 3-5, note that all user information is saved and applied to printing every time the user prints).
Regarding claim 5, Takaoka in view of Orikasa teaches the printing device according to claim 4,
further comprising a communication interface configured to communicate with an external device (Takaoka, see fig. 1, ote interface between management server and individual printers),
wherein the controller is configured to perform obtaining the second drive signal pattern from the external device by a communication via the communication interface (Takaoka, see fig. 1, ote interface between management server and individual printers).
Regarding claim 6, Takaoka in view of Orikasa teaches the printing device according to claim 5,
wherein the controller is configured to perform changing the first drive signal pattern to the second drive signal pattern at a particular second timing that is later than a particular first timing at which a contract corresponding to the contract information was concluded (Takaoka, Note that repeat users in contracts will have the drive signals changed any number of times after the completion of the contract).
Regarding claim 7, Takaoka in view of Orikasa teaches the printing device according to claim 6,
wherein the controller is configured to perform the first drive signal pattern to the second drive signal pattern obtained in the obtaining one of when a number of sheets printed exceeds a threshold number and when a quantity of the ink ejected exceeds a threshold amount at the second timing (see fig. 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 10, Takaoka in view of Orikasa teaches the printing device according to claim 5, wherein the controller is further configured to perform:
receiving a pattern change instruction from the external device via the communication interface (Takaoka, note that all instructions are sent to and from the management server); and
changing the first drive signal pattern to the second drive signal
pattern in response to the pattern changing instruction received in the receiving (Takaoka, note that all instructions are sent to and from the management server).
Regarding claim 11, Takaoka in view of Orikasa teaches the printing device according to claim 3,
further comprising an operation panel (Takaoka, see fig. 9) configured to be operated by a user (Takaoka, see fig. 9),
wherein the controller is further configured to perform:
receiving a particular pattern changing operation input via the operation panel; and changing the default drive signal pattern to the first drive signal pattern in response to receipt of the pattern changing operation input via the operation panel (Orikasa, see fig. 9).
Regarding claim 12, Takaoka in view of Orikasa teaches the printing device according to claim 5, further comprising an operation panel configured to be operated by a user (Takaoka, fig. 9), wherein the controller is further configured to perform:
receiving a pattern changing instruction from the external device via the communication interface (Takaoka, note that all instructions are sent to and from the management server),
receiving a particular pattern changing operation input through the operation panel (note that all information communicated by and a user goes through the operation panel and to the server and back to the operation panel), and
changing the first drive signal pattern to the second drive signal pattern in response to receipt of the pattern changing instruction via the communication interface and the pattern changing operation input through the operation panel (note that all information communicated by and a user goes through the operation panel and to the server and back to the operation panel).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, note that print resolution corresponds to a quantity of ink to be deposited on a print media, and as explained in the rejections of claims 1 and 13, when the quantity of ink required for printing in high resolution exceeds a threshold, the second ejection amount pattern is set by the controller to reduce print resolution.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, note that the contract may be for a single print job, i.e., a period corresponding the amount of time it takes the entire print job to be finished, and if the amount of ink required to print in high resolution for the entire print job exceeds the threshold of how much ink is remaining, the second ejection amount pattern is set. Note also that “period-based contract” has not been defined with any specificity.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaoka in view of Orikasa as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Kawai (2017/0063646).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Takaoka in view of Orikasa teaches the printing device and non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claims 1 and 13, respectively. Takaoka in view of Orikasa does not teach identifying and determining steps. Kawai teaches wherein the controller is further configured to perform:
identifying a type of the container attached to the holder of the printing device (Kawai, fig. 9, S146);
determine whether the type of the container identified in the identifying matches a type of the container to be attached to the holder based on the contract information (Kawai, fig. 9, S140, S146, Note that the only way a special cartridge is identified is by comparing its ID information with information included in the contract information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the cartridge-type functionality disclosed by Kawai to the device disclosed by Takaoka in view of Orikasa because doing so would allow for Takaoka in view of Orikasa’s printer to be serviced via subscription cartridge. Upon combination, the resultant device would check the type of cartridge by determining if the installed cartridge was special or not, determine if fixed-rate printing was in order, determined the amount of residual ink in whichever type of cartridge was installed, and then execute printing at regular resolution if the amount of ink remaining was above a threshold and at low resolution if the amount of ink remaining was below the threshold.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Takaoka in view of Orikasa and Kawai teaches the printing device and non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claims 8 and 18, respectively,
wherein the controller is configured to perform the identifying by obtaining container information stored in a second storage provided to the container (Kawai, fig. 9, S140, Note that the container itself has a second storage).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, DOUGLAS X. RODRIGUEZ can be reached at 571-431-0716. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853