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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
It is noted the objections to the drawings are moot in view of the amendments.
It is noted that no response has been filed in regards to objection to the title, and therefore it is maintained.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 12 and 13 filed 06/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that Asakura does not teach “establish[ing] a remote data connection with a terminal server,” the examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the argument is based on the assertion of transmitting a printing profile. However, claim 12 makes no mention of a printing profile. All that is required of Asakura is to establish a remote data connection. A remote data connection, is just a connection to send data remotely. This is shown in paragraphs 59, 64, and 65. Therefore, Asakura does teach “establish[ing] a remote data connection with a terminal server.”
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: “detection unit” in claim 14.
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:
detection unit – Paragraph 32
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 § 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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the processing device" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-3, 4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kloskowski (US 2023/0131182) in view of Shimizu (US 2003/0208644).
Regarding Claim 1, Kloskowski teaches a method for printing on a workpiece (Paragraph 1), the method comprising the steps of:
preparing of printing data, corresponding to a desired printing procedure, to be performed on the workpiece (Paragraph 39-41, wherein the print data is prepared), the preparation of the printing data being carried out at least in part on a terminal server which is connected to the processing device via a remote data connection (Paragraphs 156-159, wherein the process parameter data is simulated on the computer. The computer can be a server, paragraph 149. The computer and printer are remote from each other, paragraph 149);
transmitting the printing data to a printing device (Paragraph 159, wherein the data is transmitted to the printer); and
printing on the workpiece by means of the printing device using the printing data (Paragraph 160, wherein the data is printed accordingly).
Kloskowski does not teach wherein firstly a printing profile of the printing device is transmitted to the terminal server.
Shimizu does teach wherein firstly a printing profile of the printing device is transmitted to the terminal server (Paragraph 77, wherein a device profile is transmitted. This would correspond to the printing profile. The device profile is device information, functions of the device, paragraph 138).
Kloskowski and Shimizu are combinable because they both deal with processing print jobs.
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 Kloskowski with the teachings of Shimizu for the purpose of easily realizing functions of devices connected to a server (Shimizu: Paragraph 7).
Regarding Claim 2, Kloskowski does not teach wherein a virtual printing device is created in the terminal server.
Shimizu teaches wherein a virtual printing device is created in the terminal server (Paragraphs 50, 62, 64, and 138, wherein a virtual printer can be created based on information about the printer).
Kloskowski and Shimizu are combinable because they both deal with processing print jobs.
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 Kloskowski with the teachings of Shimizu for the purpose of easily realizing functions of devices connected to a server (Shimizu: Paragraph 7).
Regarding Claim 3, Kloskowski further teaches wherein at least one workpiece parameter of a workpiece to be processed is transmitted to the terminal server, the at least one workpiece parameter being selected from the dimensions of a section to be processed, surface properties of the section to be processed and desired appearance of the section to be processed, such as in particular decorative pattern, decorative color profile, degree of gloss and/or haptics (Paragraphs 47-71, wherein information about the workpiece can be obtained).
Regarding Claim 4, Kloskowski further teaches wherein the at least one workpiece parameter is transmitted from a machine control (Paragraphs 172 and 173, wherein the information is obtained for determined how to print).
Regarding Claim 6, Kloskowski further teaches wherein the preparation of the printing data is carried out on the basis of workpiece parameters, decorative data, or a printing profile (Paragraphs 172 and 173, wherein the information is obtained for determined how to print).
Claim(s) 5, 7, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kloskowski (US 2023/0131182) in view of Shimizu (US 2003/0208644) further in view of Asakura (US 2016/0011830).
Regarding Claim 5, Kloskowski in view of Shimizu does not teach wherein information and/or commands are transmitted to the terminal server by means of a client for inputting and outputting information, on the basis of which the preparation of the printing data is carried out.
Asakura does teach wherein information and/or commands are transmitted to the terminal server by means of a client for inputting and outputting information, on the basis of which the preparation of the printing data is carried out (Paragraphs 59, 64, and 65, wherein the terminal sends the information to the server).
Kloskowski and Asakura are combinable because they both deal with processing print jobs.
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 Kloskowski in view of Shimizu with the teachings of Asakura for the purpose of efficiently registering and utilizing a printer with a server (Asakura: Paragraphs 4 and 5).
Regarding Claim 7, Kloskowski in view of Shimizu does not teach wherein the preparation of the printing data comprises rasterization.
Asakura does teach wherein the preparation of the printing data comprises rasterization (Paragraph 35, wherein converting image data into print data is rasterization).
Kloskowski and Asakura are combinable because they both deal with processing print jobs.
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 Kloskowski in view of Shimizu with the teachings of Asakura for the purpose of efficiently registering and utilizing a printer with a server (Asakura: Paragraphs 4 and 5).
Regarding Claim 11, Kloskowski in view of Shimizu does not teach wherein the data transmission between the terminal server and at least one local unit is performed via a remote data transmission wherein at least one local unit is selected from the client, machine control, or detection unit.
Asakura does teach wherein the data transmission between the terminal server and at least one local unit is performed via a remote data transmission wherein at least one local unit is selected from the client, machine control, or detection unit (Paragraph 10, wherein the communication can occur remotely between the server and terminal).
Kloskowski and Asakura are combinable because they both deal with processing print jobs.
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 Kloskowski in view of Shimizu with the teachings of Asakura for the purpose of efficiently registering and utilizing a printer with a server (Asakura: Paragraphs 4 and 5).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kloskowski (US 2023/0131182) in view of Shimizu (US 2003/0208644) further in view of Toriyabe (US 2019/0260911).
Regarding Claim 8, Kloskowski in view of Shimizu does not teach wherein a printed section of the workpiece is detected by means of a detection unit to create a detection result, the detection result being transmitted to the terminal server.
Toriyabe teaches wherein a printed section of the workpiece is detected by means of a detection unit to create a detection result, the detection result being transmitted to the terminal server (Paragraph 115, wherein adjustments can be made based on reading information from a sensor).
Kloskowski and Toriyabe are combinable because they both deal with processing of print jobs.
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 Kloskowski in view of Shimizu with the teachings of Toriyabe for the purpose of reducing operation burden on the user for color adjustment (Toriyabe: Paragraph 13).
Regarding Claim 9, Kloskowski further teaches wherein the detection result or a result of a simulation performed by means of a virtual printing device is compared in the terminal server with a target variable and on the basis of the comparison, the method further comprises optimizing the preparation of the printing data to create an optimized printing profile (Paragraphs 158-161, wherein the verification is performed to determine how to print the data through the comparison).
Regarding Claim 10, Kloskowski further teaches wherein the optimized printing profile is transmitted from the terminal server to the printing device or instructions based on the optimized printing profile are output by the terminal server to an operator for adjusting the printing profile (Paragraphs 159 and 160, wherein the data is transmitted accordingly).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kloskowski (US 2023/0131182) in view of Asakura (US 2016/0011830).
Regarding Claim 12, Kloskowski teaches a device for printing on a workpiece (Paragraph 1), the device comprising:
a printing device for printing on a workpiece which comprises wood, wood materials, or plastic (Paragraph 151, wherein there is a printer. The media can be wood or laminate or the like, paragraphs 4-6), and
wherein the printing device or the client comprises a remote data transfer interface configured to establish a remote data connection with a terminal server (The computer and printer are remote from each other, paragraph 149).
Kloskowski does not teach a client comprising a mobile terminal for inputting and outputting information.
Asakura does teach a client comprising a mobile terminal for inputting and outputting information (Paragraphs 59, 64, and 65, wherein the terminal sends the information to the server).
Kloskowski and Asakura are combinable because they both deal with processing print jobs.
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 Kloskowski with the teachings of Asakura for the purpose of efficiently registering and utilizing a printer with a server (Asakura: Paragraphs 4 and 5).
Regarding Claim 13, Kloskowski further teaches a terminal server for connecting with the printing device or the client, the terminal server being configured (i) to prepare printing data on the basis of which a printing procedure is to be performed by the printing device (Paragraph 39-41, wherein the print data is prepared. Furthermore, Paragraphs 156-159, wherein the process parameter data is simulated on the computer. The computer can be a server, paragraph 149. The computer and printer are remote from each other, paragraph 149) and (ii) to transmit the printing data to the printing device (Paragraph 159, wherein the data is transmitted to the printer).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kloskowski (US 2023/0131182) in view of Asakura (US 2016/0011830) further in view of Toriyabe (US 2019/0260911).
Regarding Claim 14, Kloskowski in view of Asakura does not teach a detection unit configured to detect a printed section of the workpiece and to transmit the detection result to the terminal server.
Toriyabe teaches a detection unit configured to detect a printed section of the workpiece and to transmit the detection result to the terminal server (Paragraph 115, wherein adjustments can be made based on reading information from a sensor).
Kloskowski and Toriyabe are combinable because they both deal with processing of print jobs.
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 Kloskowski in view of Asakura with the teachings of Toriyabe for the purpose of reducing operation burden on the user for color adjustment (Toriyabe: Paragraph 13).
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 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