Claim DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication(s) filed on February 10, 2026.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claims 7 and 14 are objected.
The objection to “TITILE” is withdrawn in view of the amendment with a new title.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 10, 2026 have been fully considered but are respectfully found to be not persuasive for at least the following reason(s).
In regard to applicant’s remarks on February 10, 2026, specifically on pg. 3-6, regarding the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) with regard to claims 1-6 and 15-16, applicant mainly alleged that “… Tsunekawa is silent as to the condition of "each of the pages having been printed with a printing error that occurred." Although Tsunekawa refers to an error being displayed in paragraph 128, displaying such an error message has no relation to an error being present on a printed page. This paragraph states that "In this embodiment, when the disk capacity runs short, an error is displayed, ending the processing." That is, the error in Tsunekawa is a lack of hard drive space, not an error on a printed page. Tsunekawa’ s errors relate to storage and occur before any page is successfully printed, whereas claim 1 refers to pages that have already been printed and contain printing defects in the printed output itself. Accordingly, Tsunekawa fails to disclose or suggest pages that were printed with a printing error, as recited in claim 1.
Also consider Figure 13 of this reference, which paragraph 128 refers to. As can be seen in this flowchart, there is no description of pages being printed with errors…” (see para. 4 of applicant’s remarks dated February 10, 2026). Applicant’s argument(s) are fully considered, however found to be not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
With regard to applicant’s argument relating to “… Tsunekawa is silent as to the condition of "each of the pages having been printed with a printing error that occurred." (para. 3, pg. 4 of applicant’s remarks dated Feb. 10, 2026), and asserting that the errors described in Tsunekawa relate only to storage capacity limitations rather than errors on printed pages. However, Applicant’s interpretation of Tsunekawa is overly narrow. Tsunekawa describes a system that manages print data and enables reprinting of pages based on stored page images or reanalysis of print data (see, e.g., para. 22 and para. 181–194). In particular, the reprint process involves determining whether a previously generated page image can be reused and, if not, reanalyzing the print data to perform reprinting. Such functionality inherently addresses situations where previously attempted printing must be repeated due to problems occurring during printing or processing.
While para. 128 of Tsunekawa describes an error condition associated with insufficient disk capacity, this disclosure merely illustrates one example of an error detected by the system and does not limit the types of errors that may occur during printing operations. The broader teachings of Tsunekawa demonstrate that the system detects errors, terminates or interrupts processing when appropriate, and subsequently allows reprinting using stored page images or reanalyzed data (i.e. in Tsunekawa, i.e. in para. 129, disclose that “[0129] If all pages are written without any error, the total sizes of page information and the printing environment are written (overwritten) in the area of the total page information size 602 in step S1208. In step S1209, the total size of print data (processed-data size at this time) is overwritten in an area corresponding to the print data size 1103 in the hard disk. The total page image size is set in the data size 1402 (step S1210) . In step S1211, the page image is added (moved) subsequent to the page information/printing environment. The data size of the entire reprint data (total size of the print data, page information/printing environment, and image data) is overwritten in the area of the total reprint size 1102 (step S1212). Finally, the page information and printing environment in the RAM 305 are deleted, ending the processing (step S1213).”). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such reprint functionality is used when printing fails or produces an unsatisfactory output, thereby necessitating reprinting of the affected pages.
Furthermore, the Examiner’s reliance on Figures 21–22 and 25 and paragraphs 164 and 181–194 is directed to the reprint processing workflow, which manages the reproduction of page images and print data for previously processed pages. The reference therefore teaches handling pages associated with printing problems and performing reprinting of those pages.
Regarding Applicant’s reference to Figure 13, the flowchart describes system processing and error handling related to print operations. The absence of an explicit statement that a page was printed with a visible defect does not negate the teaching of reprinting pages after an error or failed print operation. The claims do not explicitly require any particular type of printing defect beyond the occurrence of a printing error that necessitates reprinting.
Accordingly, Tsunekawa teaches or at least reasonably suggests the claimed limitation relating to pages associated with printing errors and subsequent reprinting. Therefore, for at least the reasons set forth above and ones set forth previously on record, the rejection made under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over Tsunekawa with regard to claim 1 is remained proper and therefore maintained (similarly for claims 2-6 and 15-16 as well).
In regard to applicant’s remarks on Feb. 10, 2026, pg. 6, regarding the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. §103 with regard to 8-13, applicant mainly alleged that the teachings of Kai does not address the issue(s) as argued above in Tsunekawa. Applicant’s argument(s) are fully considered, however found to be not persuasive for at least the rationales set forth above, also incorporated by reference herein. Therefore, for at least the reasons set forth above, the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. §103 over the prior art(s) of record with regard to claims 8-13 is remained proper and therefore also maintained.
(The grounds of rejection and/or objection are maintained [except for the ones indicated above to be withdrawn] for at least the responses set forth above and/or the reasons of record set forth previously, also herein reproduced and provided with further details below in view of current claim amendments, if any)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsunekawa (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0231320 A1).
With regard to claim 1, the claim is drawn to an image processing apparatus (see Tsunekawa, i.e. in fig. 3, para. 62 and etc., disclose the image processing apparatus according to the embodiment) comprising:
a processor (see Tsunekawa, i.e. in fig.3, disclose the controller 103, among others, comprises a CPU 301 and etc.) configured to:
impose a group of pages on a single sheet as a target for reprinting and perform reprinting, the group of pages being referred to as printing-error pages, each of the pages having been printed with a printing error that occurred while a plurality of pages imposed on one or more sheets were printed (see Tsunekawa, i.e. in fig. 21-22, para. 164, disclose teachings of whether designation for printing of a plurality of pages (layout printing or N-up) [or as “impose”]; and further in fig. 25, disclose teachings of a page image example of reprint data by N-up designation, and an output result example obtained when partial printing is assigned to the reprint data; also see para. 181-194 for additional details; also see the responses set forth in the section of “Responses to Arguments” above, also incorporated by reference herein).
With regard to claim 2, the claim is drawn to the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a method of imposition for reprinting is the same as a method of imposition for printing used when the printing error occurred (see Tsunekawa, i.e. in para.148-151 and etc., disclose that “[0148] In this case, "reprint mode=0" means to reprint all pages in the same order as that in a general job. Similarly, 1=partial printing, 2=reverse printing, 3=reverse & partial printing, and 4=random printing. The parameter of the reprint designation command changes depending on the reprint mode as follows. That is, the parameter is interpreted as mode 0=parameter is unnecessary, mode 1=start and end pages, mode 2=no parameter, mode 3=start and end pages, and mode 4=the total number of pages to be reprinted and the order of page numbers (mode in which all pages subsequent to a designated page are reprinted may be employed). … [0151] In the above structure, reprint designation issued after any drawing command is made invalid (data is printed as a general print job). If an item not designated as a job environment exists in a print job designating reprinting, the item is processed as the same job environment as that of a general print job.”).
With regard to claim 3, the claim is drawn to the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the method of imposition for printing is determined based on a method of bookbinding to be used to bind a plurality of printed sheets obtained by printing the plurality of pages (see Tsunekawa, i.e. in para. 10-11 and etc., disclose that “[0009] More specifically, a bitmap image representing the content of one generated page is reused in multiple-copy printing or reprinting, and the conventional image processing apparatus cannot be applied to reprinting of different page contents. For example, when a print job by double-sided printing with a set binding width is reprinted by single-sided printing, the image offset direction changes between the obverse and the reverse. Even if designations for the binding width and binding direction do not change, a bitmap image generated for printing on the reverse cannot be printed on the obverse. [0010] In this way, a generated image cannot be reused in various cases such as a change of the print resolution, change from color printing to monochrome printing, change of the binding width, binding direction, or offset amount, and change from printing of one page to printing of a plurality of pages…”).
With regard to claim 4, the claim is drawn to the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: impose the printing-error pages and pages related to the printing-error pages on a single sheet as a target for reprinting (see Tsunekawa, i.e. in para. 51, disclose that “[0051] FIG. 25 is a view showing a page image example of reprint data by N-up designation, and an output result example obtained when partial printing is assigned to the reprint data.”; in para. 172-174 and etc., disclose that “[0172] A detailed example of a reprint job assigned partial printing with a designation different from a job environment in PDL data storage will be described with reference to FIGS. 23 and 24. This embodiment will exemplify …. [0174] N-up is designated by the job environment setting command (JL language) shown in, e.g., FIG. 17. For example, for "two pages/sheet", "NUP=2in1" is designated. This designation content is directly stored in the job environment 605, and compared with the reprint job designation content as one of conditions of deciding whether a stored page image is reusable. Drawing contents described in the PDL at this time are the same as those described when no N-up designation exists or "one page/sheet" is designated as N-up. The drawing data analyzer 303b determines a reduction ratio corresponding to the N-up designation content, and the position, i.e., layout of each page within a sheet. The drawing object 806 and drawing information 805 are generated while the character size and drawing position designated by each drawing command are corrected.”).
With regard to claim 5, the claim is drawn to the image processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the pages related to the printing-error pages are determined based on the method of imposition for printing (see Tsunekawa, i.e. in para. 128-129 and etc., disclose that “[0128] If YES in step S1205, an error is displayed on a panel or the like (step S1206), and a page image, print data, and page information/printing environment which are written in the hard disk are deleted (step S1207). Thereafter, all pieces of page information/printing environment in the RAM 305 before merge are deleted (step S1213). Although not shown in FIG. 5, the disk capacity is also checked in print data write in step S506. In this embodiment, when the disk capacity runs short, an error is displayed, ending the processing. Alternatively, only a page image may be deleted, leaving only print data and page information/printing environment. [0129] If all pages are written without any error, the total sizes of page information and the printing environment are written (overwritten) in the area of the total page information size 602 in step S1208. In step S1209, the total size of print data (processed-data size at this time) is overwritten in an area corresponding to the print data size 1103 in the hard disk. The total page image size is set in the data size 1402 (step S1210) . In step S1211, the page image is added (moved) subsequent to the page information/printing environment. The data size of the entire reprint data (total size of the print data, page information/printing environment, and image data) is overwritten in the area of the total reprint size 1102 (step S1212). Finally, the page information and printing environment in the RAM 305 are deleted, ending the processing (step S1213).
With regard to claim 6, the claim is drawn to the image processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein one or more pages related to one of the printing-error pages are defined as one or more pages placed on the same sheet as the one of the printing-error pages, the sheet being one of a plurality of printed sheets that are obtained by printing the plurality of pages and that are bound to produce a book (see Tsunekawa, i.e. in para. 15, fig. 20-21, and etc., disclose the teachings of book binding and book printing, and further in Tsunekawa, i.e. in para. 128-129 and etc., disclose that “[0128] If YES in step S1205, an error is displayed on a panel or the like (step S1206), and a page image, print data, and page information/printing environment which are written in the hard disk are deleted (step S1207). Thereafter, all pieces of page information/printing environment in the RAM 305 before merge are deleted (step S1213). Although not shown in FIG. 5, the disk capacity is also checked in print data write in step S506. In this embodiment, when the disk capacity runs short, an error is displayed, ending the processing. Alternatively, only a page image may be deleted, leaving only print data and page information/printing environment. [0129] If all pages are written without any error, the total sizes of page information and the printing environment are written (overwritten) in the area of the total page information size 602 in step S1208. In step S1209, the total size of print data (processed-data size at this time) is overwritten in an area corresponding to the print data size 1103 in the hard disk. The total page image size is set in the data size 1402 (step S1210) . In step S1211, the page image is added (moved) subsequent to the page information/printing environment. The data size of the entire reprint data (total size of the print data, page information/printing environment, and image data) is overwritten in the area of the total reprint size 1102 (step S1212). Finally, the page information and printing environment in the RAM 305 are deleted, ending the processing (step S1213)).
With regard to claim 15, the claim is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process, the process comprising: imposing a group of pages on a single sheet as a target for reprinting and performing reprinting, the group of pages being referred to as printing-error pages, each of the pages having been printed with a printing error that occurred while a plurality of pages imposed on one or more sheets were printed (see Tsunekawa, i.e. in fig. 3, para. 62 and etc., disclose the image processing apparatus according to the embodiment ; and further in Tsunekawa, i.e. in fig. 21-22, para. 164, disclose teachings of whether designation for printing of a plurality of pages (layout printing or N-up) [or as “impose”]; and further in fig. 25, disclose teachings of a page image example of reprint data by N-up designation, and an output result example obtained when partial printing is assigned to the reprint data; also see para. 181-194 for additional details; in addition, in para. 71, disclose that “[0071] The arrangement which constitutes the present invention is supplied as a program stored in a ROM in the above description, but may be supplied by a medium such as a floppy disk or hard disk, loaded to a RAM or the like before execution, and then executed. The present invention can also be practiced by installing a control program from a storage medium such as a CD-ROM, CD-R, memory card, or DVD via a drive (not shown) and controlling the image processing apparatus. The present invention includes this implementation.”).
With regard to claim 16, the claim is drawn to an image processing method comprising: imposing a group of pages on a single sheet as a target for reprinting and performing reprinting, the group of pages being referred to as printing-error pages, each of the pages having been printed with a printing error that occurred while a plurality of pages imposed on one or more sheets were printed (see Tsunekawa, i.e. in para. 16, discloses that “[0016] The present invention has been made to overcome the conventional drawbacks, and has as its object to provide an image processing method and apparatus capable of easily reprinting the same print data in various output forms at a high speed without any large-capacity storage device.”; and in fig. 3, para. 62 and etc., disclose the image processing apparatus according to the embodiment ; and further in Tsunekawa, i.e. in fig. 21-22, para. 164, disclose teachings of whether designation for printing of a plurality of pages (layout printing or N-up) [or as “impose”]; and further in fig. 25, disclose teachings of a page image example of reprint data by N-up designation, and an output result example obtained when partial printing is assigned to the reprint data; also see para. 181-194 for additional details).
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) 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunekawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kai (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0257243 A, hereinafter as “Kai”).
With regard to claim 8, the claim is drawn to the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: after the number of occurrences of a printing error in a region on which pages are imposed on a sheet becomes equal to a threshold or larger, impose no page on the region as a target for reprinting.
The teachings of Tsunekawa do not explicitly disclose the aspect relating to “wherein the processor is configured to: after the number of occurrences of a printing error in a region on which pages are imposed on a sheet becomes equal to a threshold or larger, impose no page on the region as a target for reprinting”.
However, Kai discloses analogous invention relates to more appropriately controlling printing of a content whose number of times of printing is restricted. According to an aspect of the present invention, an information processing apparatus includes a determination unit configured to determine whether print data includes identification information indicating that there is a target content to which a restriction on a number of times of printing is set, a storing unit configured to store determination information indicating whether to authorize a reprinting process to be performed if an error occurs in printing of the print data as information indicating authorization of performing the reprinting process, and a changing unit configured to change, if the determination unit determines that the identification information is included, the determination information to information indicating not authorizing the reprinting process. More specifically, in Kai, i.e. in para. 8 and etc., disclose that “[0008] If a document including the content whose number of times of printing is restricted is printed, an error may occur in the page including the content, so that the page may be is missed. In such a case, according to the above-described technique, the missing page is reprinted, and as a result, the printing system performs printing to exceed the restricted number of times of printing the content….”. In addition, in Kai, i.e. in claim 2, disclose that “ The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information processing apparatus is connected to be communicable with a printing apparatus configured to print the print data, the information processing apparatus further comprising a print control unit configured to acquire information about whether there is an error in printing of the print data from the printing apparatus, to perform the reprinting processing if it is determined that there is an error and if the determination information indicates authorizing the reprinting process, and not to perform the reprinting process if it is determined that there is an error and if the determination information indicates not authorizing the reprinting process [or as claimed “impose no page on the region as a target for reprinting”]”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsunekawa to include the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Kai, with the limitation(s) discussed and set forth above, as the cited prior arts are at least considered to be analogous arts if not also in the same field of endeavor relating to printing arts. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsunekawa by the teachings of Kai, and to incorporate the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Kai, thereby “to more appropriately controlling printing of a content whose number of times of printing is restricted” (see Kai, i.e. para. 9 and etc.).
With regard to claim 9, the claim is drawn to the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to: after the number of occurrences of a printing error in a region on which pages are imposed on a sheet becomes equal to a threshold or larger, impose no page on the region as a target for reprinting (instant claim is similarly rejected for at least the rationales set forth in discussion of claim 8 above, also incorporated by reference herein).
With regard to claim 10, the claim is drawn to the image processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to: after the number of occurrences of a printing error in a region on which pages are imposed on a sheet becomes equal to a threshold or larger, impose no page on the region as a target for reprinting (instant claim is similarly rejected for at least the rationales set forth in discussion of claim 8 above, also incorporated by reference herein).
With regard to claim 11, the claim is drawn to the image processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to: after the number of occurrences of a printing error in a region on which pages are imposed on a sheet becomes equal to a threshold or larger, impose no page on the region as a target for reprinting (instant claim is similarly rejected for at least the rationales set forth in discussion of claim 8 above, also incorporated by reference herein).
With regard to claim 12, the claim is drawn to the image processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to: after the number of occurrences of a printing error in a region on which pages are imposed on a sheet becomes equal to a threshold or larger, impose no page on the region as a target for reprinting (instant claim is similarly rejected for at least the rationales set forth in discussion of claim 8 above, also incorporated by reference herein).
With regard to claim 13, the claim is drawn to the image processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to: after the number of occurrences of a printing error in a region on which pages are imposed on a sheet becomes equal to a threshold or larger, impose no page on the region as a target for reprinting (instant claim is similarly rejected for at least the rationales set forth in discussion of claim 8 above, also incorporated by reference herein).
Allowable Subject Matter
With regard to Claims 7 and 14, claims 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 and overcoming the corresponding rejections and/or objection (if any) set forth in the Office Action above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 7, the closest prior arts of record, Tsunekawa and Kai, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “the image processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the number of pages to be imposed on a single sheet is determined, and wherein the processor is configured to: impose the printing-error pages and the pages related to the printing-error pages on a single sheet and start reprinting when a sum of the number of the printing-error pages and the number of the pages related to the printing-error pages becomes equal to the number of pages to be imposed on a single sheet”. These additional features in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by prior arts of record.
With regard to claim 14, the claims are depending directly or indirectly from the independent Claim 7, each encompasses the required limitations recited in the independent claim discussed above.
Therefore, claims 7 and 14 are objected to.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mitsubori (U.S. Pat/Pub No. 2017/0351466 A1) disclose an invention relates to an image processing apparatus for use in a printing system which is configured to impose and print plural print jobs, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an imposition control program to be executed by a hardware processor of the image processing apparatus, and an imposition control method for use in the printing system.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
The Art Unit (or Workgroup) location of your application in the USPTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Art Unit 2681.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacky X. Zheng whose telephone number is (571) 270-1122. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, alt. Friday Off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached on (571) 272-3438. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACKY X ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681