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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/06/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted have been reviewed. The submission is incompliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statement.
Request for Examiners interview to compact prosecution.
Examiner would like to request Examiner’s interview to discuss the claims for the seek of compact prosecution.
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 1, 19 and 20 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.
In claim 1, the limitation “… in response to an intended image forming device is caused to perform printing of an image indicated by print data via a server device in a manner that the print data is transmitted to the server device in response to an instruction from a user while the print data is held in the storage unit…”,
It is not clearly described within the claim if the image forming device actually performs the printing process or the printer is just intended to perform printing. This makes the claim indefinite and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor.
In claims 19 and 20, the limitation “…. causing an intended image forming device to perform the printing of an image indicated by the print data via the server…”
It is not clearly described within the claim if the image forming device actually performs the printing process or the printer is just intended to perform printing. This makes the claim indefinite and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor.
Dependent claims 3,7-8, 10, 12 are rejected because of the dependence of claims 3, 7-8, 10 and 12 on claims 1, 19 and 20.
Another 112 (b) rejection
Claims 1, 19 and 20 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.
Secondly, claims 1, 19 and 20 requires that the information processing apparatus comprising: a storage unit and a processor
The print data is deleted from the storage unit which is in the information processing apparatus not in the image forming device. Applicant’s argument appears to suggest that the storage is in the image forming device which the claims does not support that.
Therefore it is not clear to the Examiner if the storage unit is inside the information processing apparatus or the image forming device (Printer).
This makes the claim indefinite for failing to particularly point out if the storage unit is inside the information processing apparatus or the image forming device (Printer).
Dependent claims 3,7-8, 10, 12 are rejected because of the dependence of claims 3, 7-8, 10 and 12 on claims 1, 19 and 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 specifically claims 1, 2, 3 and 4. have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on the applied references (Nishiguchi -20050068566 in view of Motoyama US20080098038) in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that the cited references fails to disclose the deletion of print data from a storage of a printing device rather than from the storage of a server.
In reply, Examiner disagree because in Paragraph 0074 “the deletion approval/disapproval judge portion judges (109, which is in the Printer or MFP 1 in fig. 3) that print data 71 needs to be deleted.
Also in Paragraph 0084, Nishiguchi teaches a different embodiment which process printing based on just printers without servers, this means that the deletion of the print data as described in paragraph 0074 will happen in the printer. This is because if there is no servers then the print data is deleted from the storage of the printer.
the claim requires that the storage unit is part of the information processing apparatus. Based on reference (Nishiguchi) if the information processing apparatus is shown in fig. 3 comprising Terminal device 3, File Server 2 and MFP 1 then the print data is deleted from the printing device which based on the claim it maps to information processing apparatus.
Also, the secondary reference newly applied due to the amendments (Aikens (US20100007909)) also discusses (Paragraph 0034 and 0035) an invention in which a secure print manager within a printer monitors each print job using a delete timer (predetermined timing).
Specifically, when a secure print job is received, a delete timer is set based on the jobs expiration time. The secure print manager deletes the print job from memory 330 which is in the printing device. This teaches that a printed data can be deleted from the storage of a printer (Printer 120 in reference Aikens)
Based on fig. 1 and 2 memory 230 is inside printer 120 (See paragraph 0022)
PNG
media_image1.png
539
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 3, The applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the deletion of data at the end of the scheduled period.
In responds Examiner respectfully disagrees because Nishiguchi teaches in paragraph 0045 that the print data is deleted at the server at the end of the scheduled period. What is missing is the fact that the deletion does not happen at the storage at the printing device.
The newly added reference Aikens (US20100007909) in paragraph 0034 and 0035 teaches that the print job is deleted from the memory 230 in printer 120. Therefore the combination of the Nishiguchi and Aikens discloses “the deletion of data at the end of the scheduled period”
Regarding claim 4, applicant argues that the cited references fails to discloses that the print described in claim 1 is considered to have ended after an inquiry has been made to the server, and the response of the inquiry has indicated that the printing has ended.
In reply, Section 0052, The print data detection portion in the printer accesses the file server 2 periodically to check whether or not the print data memory portion stores the print data meaning if the print data has been printed or its still storing the print data. See Section 0053 as well.
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, 3, 7-8, 10, 12, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiguchi (USPAP 2005/0068566) in view of Aikens (US20100007909)
Referring to claim 1, Nishiguchi teaches an information processing apparatus (Fig. 1 (including the MFP 1, Files server 2 and terminal device 3) shows an information processing apparatus) comprising:
a storage unit (File server 2 which includes print data memory portion 71)
a CPU (Section 0032, lines 1-2 CPU 1a shown in Fig. 2 ), configured to: in response to an intended image forming device ([Section 0031, lines 1-3, printers 1 (image forming device), is caused to perform printing of an image indicated by print data via a server device ([server 2 of fig 1]), in a manner that the print data is transmitted to the server device ([server 2 of fig 3]) in response to an instruction from a user while the print data is held in a storage unit, (Section 0074, lines 9-13 – thus “after printing is completed normally based on print data 71, in a case … print data remain saved and a predetermined time elapse) , and then a printing instruction is performed on the image forming device by the user, (Section 0050, lines 1-2 “user presses a print button”) and printing with the print data has been ended at a predetermined timing, execute a process of deleting the print data from the storage unit. (Section 0074, lines 6-9 “Print data 71”… is deleted from the storage unit (file server 2 which is part of the information processing apparatus as shown in Fig. 1)
wherein the printing with the print data is determined as having been ended is where a response result to an inquiry to the server device indicates that the printing has been ended, (Section 0080, lines 1-8- thus “When judging that printing may be performed, the printer implements a printing process based on the print data. After that, …. This mean that deletion of the print data is performed after printing has ended.)
and the predetermined timing is a timing within each predetermined period as the print data is deleted from the storage when the timing of the predetermined period has ended. (Section 0084, lines 10-18- thus “deletion of print data 71 is carried out after predetermined time elapses…” This mean that deletion of the print data is performed after printing has ended.)
Nishiguchi does not clearly discloses deletion of the print data from the storage of the image forming device.
Aikens discloses a printing system that deletes a print data from the storage of the image forming device. (Paragraph 0035 lines 6-9 thus the secure print manager 250 determines that the secure print job delete timer has expired, then the secure print manager deletes the secure print job from memory 330, Fig. 2 shows that memory 330 is in printer 120)
Aikens also discloses a secure print job delete timer based on the received secure print job expiration time. (Paragraph 0034, lines 1-5)
Therefore it will be obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of including the coherence parameters. The motivation is that it makes the transmission faster.
Referring to claim 2, Nishiguchi in view of Aikens (Paragraph 0034 and 0035) teaches an information processing apparatus wherein the predetermined timing is at least one of a timing at which a predetermined operation is performed on the information processing apparatus or a timing for each predetermined period, (Nishiguchi: Section 0045, lines 7-10- thus “after predetermined time elapsed after detecting the print data for the first time and a case where time indicated in the print data deletion time elapsed or other cases).
Referring to claim 3, Nishiguchi in view of Aikens (Fig. 4 shows log in screen) teaches an information processing apparatus wherein the predetermined operation is at least one of an operation for the instruction on the image forming device or an operation of at least one of login to or logout from the information processing apparatus, (Nishiguchi: Section 0049, lines 1-3- thus broadly interpreting the limitation a user designate only this desired conditions means a user login)
Referring to claims 4-6 (Cancelled),
Referring to claim 7, Nishiguchi in view of Aikens (fig. 4, Login screen) teaches an information processing apparatus wherein information indicating the response result is at least one of information indicating a printing status of individual print data (Nishiguchi: Section 0074 lines 9-1) or information indicating all pieces of print data that have not been printed among pieces of print data received by the server device. (Nishiguchi: Section 0074, lines 8-9 thus the print data is normally printed which means the status of the print data is completed)
Referring to claim 8, Nishiguchi in view of Aikens teaches an information processing apparatus (Nishiguchi: a printing system in fig 1) wherein information indicating the response result is at least one of information indicating a printing status of individual print data or information (Nishiguchi: Section 0079, lines the printer 1 obtains status information) indicating all pieces of print data that have not been printed among pieces of print data received by the server device, (Nishiguchi: Section 0085, lines 1-4- thus when print data saved data memory portion in the file server are not used by each printer which means the print data have not been printed).
Referring to claim 9, (Cancelled)
Referring to claim 10, Nishiguchi in view of Aikens teaches an information processing apparatus wherein the processor is configured to:where transmission of the print data to the image forming device in response to a transmission instruction of the print data from the image forming device has been ended, execute the process of deleting the print data from the storage unit, (Nishiguchi: Section 0084, lines 7-9 thus transmission of a document (Print data) can be realized)
Referring to claim 11, (Cancelled)
Referring to claim 12, Nishiguchi in view of Aikens teaches an information processing apparatus wherein the processor is configured to: after where transmission of the print data to the image forming device in response to a transmission instruction of the print data from the image forming device has been ended, (Nishiguchi: Section 0084, lines 7-9 thus transmission of a document (Print data) can be realized) execute the process of deleting the print data from the storage unit, (Nishiguchi: Section 0085, lines 1-4- thus when print data saved data memory portion in the file server are not used by each printer which means the print data have not been printed).
Referring to claims 13-18, (Cancelled)
Referring to claim 19, Nishiguchi teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing an information processing program causing a computer to execute a process ([programs and data are loaded on the RAM 1b as required and the programs are executed by the CPU 1a. see par.0034, lines 8-10]), comprising:
receiving a print instruction from a user to execute a printing; (Section 0050, lines 1-3- “when a user presses a “print” button in the printing condition”)
transmitting print data of the print instruction to a server after receiving the print instruction while the print data is held in a storage unit of the information processing apparatus; (Section 0051, lines 1-10- thus the print data is received which means the print data was transmitted to be received)
causing an intended image forming device to perform the printing of an image indicated by the print data via the server; (Section 0074, lines 9-13 – thus “after printing is completed normally based on print data 71, in a case … print data remain saved and a predetermined time elapse) and
deleting the print data from the storage unit of the information processing apparatus after the printing has ended at a predetermined timing. (Section 0074, lines 6-9 “Print data 71”… is deleted from the storage unit (file server 2 which is part of the information processing apparatus as shown in Fig. 1)
wherein the printing with the print data is determined as having been ended is where a response result to an inquiry to the server device indicates that the printing has been ended, (Section 0080, lines 1-8- thus “When judging that printing may be performed, the printer implements a printing process based on the print data. After that, …. This mean that deletion of the print data is performed after printing has ended.)
and the predetermined timing is a timing within each predetermined period as the print data is deleted from the storage when the timing of the predetermined period has ended. (Section 0084, lines 10-18- thus “deletion of print data 71 is carried out after predetermined time elapses…” This mean that deletion of the print data is performed after printing has ended.)
Nishiguchi does not clearly discloses deletion of the print data from the storage of the image forming device.
Aikens discloses a printing system that deletes a print data from the storage of the image forming device. (Paragraph 0035 lines 6-9 thus the secure print manager 250 determines that the secure print job delete timer has expired, then the secure print manager deletes the secure print job from memory 330, Fig. 2 shows that memory 330 is in printer 120)
Aikens also discloses a secure print job delete timer based on the received secure print job expiration time. (Paragraph 0034, lines 1-5)
Therefore it will be obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of including the coherence parameters. The motivation is that it makes the transmission faster.
Referring to claim 20, Nishiguchi teaches an information processing apparatus (Fig. 1 (including the MFP 1, Files server 2 and terminal device 3) shows an information processing apparatus) comprising: executing, receiving a print instruction from a user to execute a printing; transmitting print data of the print instruction to a server after receiving the print instruction while the print data is held in a storage unit of the information processing apparatus; (Section 0074, lines 9-13 – thus “after printing is completed normally based on print data 71, in a case … print data remain saved and a predetermined time elapse) causing an intended image forming device to perform the printing of an image indicated by the print data via the server; ( Section 0051, lines 3-6 – thus print data sent to printer 1 to be printed) and
deleting the print data from the storage unit of the information processing apparatus after the printing has ended at a predetermined timing. (Section 0074, lines 6-9 “Print data 71”… is deleted from the storage unit (file server 2 which is part of the information processing apparatus as shown in Fig. 1)
wherein the printing with the print data is determined as having been ended is where a response result to an inquiry to the server device indicates that the printing has been ended, (Section 0080, lines 1-8- thus “When judging that printing may be performed, the printer implements a printing process based on the print data. After that, …. This mean that deletion of the print data is performed after printing has ended.)
and the predetermined timing is a timing within each predetermined period as the print data is deleted from the storage when the timing of the predetermined period has ended. (Section 0084, lines 10-18- thus “deletion of print data 71 is carried out after predetermined time elapses…” This mean that deletion of the print data is performed after printing has ended.)
Nishiguchi does not clearly discloses deletion of the print data from the storage of the image forming device.
Aikens discloses a printing system that deletes a print data from the storage of the image forming device. (Paragraph 0035 lines 6-9 thus the secure print manager 250 determines that the secure print job delete timer has expired, then the secure print manager deletes the secure print job from memory 330, Fig. 2 shows that memory 330 is in printer 120)
Aikens also discloses a secure print job delete timer based on the received secure print job expiration time. (Paragraph 0034, lines 1-5)
Therefore it will be obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of including the coherence parameters. The motivation is that it makes the transmission faster.
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 Akwasi M Sarpong whose telephone number is (571)270-3438. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Leave a voicemail at the above phone number. 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.
/AKWASI M SARPONG/SPE, Art Unit 2681 01/6/2026.
Prosecution Insights