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 .
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 1-7, 24, 26, and 27 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.
Specifically, claim 1 introduces “a printing job” in line 7 of the claim. Subsequently, the claim introduces “a printing job” in line 9 of the claim, which appears to be a different printing job given that the claim refers to both “the obtained printing job” and “the received printing job” in lines 14-15 of the claim. However, the claim then refers to “the printing job” in the second to last line of the claim. The antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim is unclear— does it reference the first introduced “a print job” or the second? Consequently, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. Claims 6, 7, and 24 contain similar defects and are therefore similarly rejected. Claims 2-5, 26, and 27 are dependent on an independent claim and therefore contain the same defect.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous rejection of claims 8-14, applicant appears to acknowledge that Tanabe “determines if continuous printing from a first job to a second job is executable” (see Arguments at 17), but attempts to distinguish Tanabe from the claimed subject matter by arguing that “Tanabe does not teach or suggest the exchange of information between the information processing apparatus and the image forming apparatus that allows for continuous printing”. Id. Applicant then concludes that “Tanabe does not teach or suggest the image processing apparatus receiving a printing job from the information processing apparatus and performing continuous printing processing on the received printing job in a case where the reception unit receives a printing job not including a printing processing start command and printing setting information.” Arguments at 18. The Examiner does not agree.
As an initial matter, Tanabe explicitly discloses reception and execution of a job from an external apparatus (see, for example, paragraphs [0039]-[0046] and throughout). Given applicant’s apparent concession that Tanabe “determines if continuous printing from a first job to a second job is executable”, the contention that Tanabe does not suggest an exchange of information between the information processing apparatus and the image forming apparatus that allows for continuous printing appears unfounded. Consequently, Tanabe discloses the subject matter of claims 8-14 and applicant’s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive.
However, even assuming arguendo that Tanabe did not disclose such a configuration, the “continuous printing processing” requirement of claims 8, 13, and 14 is recited as a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04(II) and 2143.03. Specifically, claims 8, 13, and 14 recite “a printing control unit configured to perform continuous printing processing on the received printing job in a case where the reception unit receives a printing job not including a printing processing start command and printing setting information”. Therefore, claims 8, 13, and 14 do not require the system to perform continuous printing in cases where a print job includes a printing processing command and printing setting information. Excluding the preamble, the claims merely additionally require “receiv[ing] a printing job from the information processing apparatus”. Given that Tanabe further discloses printing submission of a job for printing based on settings formation (see, for example, paragraph [0007]), Tanabe discloses the subject matter of claims 8, 13, and 14 even assuming arguendo applicant’s contentions regarding Tanabe.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanabe (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2017/0344862).
Regarding claim 8, Tanabe discloses:
An image forming apparatus that can communicate with an information processing apparatus, comprising:
at least one memory and at least one processor and/or at least one circuit which function as:
a reception unit configured to receive a printing job from the information processing apparatus (Figure 4, paragraphs [0078]-[0081], the second job print settings are acquired); and
a printing control unit configured to perform continuous printing processing on the received printing job in a case where the reception unit receives a printing job not including a printing processing start command and printing setting information (Figure 4, paragraph [0078]-[0081], it is evaluated whether or not the second job can be continuously printed (i.e., without a separate start command after the first print job start and without stopping in-between the first job and the second job) – the settings for the second job are additionally obtained – the continuous printing is executable when the current received print setting for the first job and the second print setting for the second job share a specific print item)
Regarding claim 9, Tanabe additionally discloses:
wherein the continuous printing processing is to feed a medium of a next printing job during printing a last page of a current printing job in execution (paragraphs [0007], [0075], claim 1, sheet feeding for a second job occurs before completion of the first job)
Regarding claim 10, Tanabe additionally discloses:
wherein the at least one memory and the at least one processor and/or the at least one circuit further function as:
a setting unit that sets whether to allow or to not allow execution of the continuous printing processing (Figure 4, elements S404, S405, paragraphs [0081]-[0091], YES vs. NO at S404 and S405)
Regarding claim 11, Tanabe additionally discloses:
wherein, in a case where the setting unit performs setting to allow execution of the continuous printing processing, and also the reception unit receives a printing job not including a printing processing start command and printing setting information, the printing control unit performs the continuous printing processing (Figure 4, paragraph [0078]-[0081], it is evaluated whether or not the second job can be continuously printed (i.e., without a separate start command after the first print job start and without stopping in-between the first job and the second job) – the settings for the second job are additionally obtained – the continuous printing is executable when the current received print setting for the first job and the second print setting for the second job share a specific print item)
Regarding claim 12, Tanabe additionally discloses:
wherein, in a case where the setting unit performs setting to not allow execution of the continuous printing processing, the printing control unit does not perform the continuous printing processing (Figure 4, elements S404, S405, paragraphs [0081]-[0091], if NO at S404 or S405, continuous printing is not performed)
Regarding claim 13, the structural elements of apparatus claim 8 perform all of the steps of method claim 13. Thus, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 14, arguments analogous to claim 8 are applicable. The computer readable medium is explicitly taught as evidenced by paragraph [0115] of Tanabe.
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) 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanabe in view of Inoue (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2019/0369934).
Regarding claim 28, Tanabe discloses the apparatus of the parent claim (claim 8).
Tanabe additionally discloses:
wherein the at least one memory and the at least one processor and/or the at least one circuit () further function as: a sending unit configured to send printing setting information of a printing job in execution, to the information processing apparatus, in a case where the reception unit receives an obtaining request for the printing setting information of the printing job in execution, from the information processing apparatus (The Examiner notes that this limitation is contingent – therefore it has no limiting effect for situations in which the reception unit does not receive an obtaining request for the printing setting information of the printing job in execution, from the information processing apparatus)
Even assuming arguendo Tanabe does not explicitly disclose: wherein the at least one memory and the at least one processor and/or the at least one circuit further function as: a sending unit configured to send printing setting information of a printing job in execution, to the information processing apparatus, in a case where the reception unit receives an obtaining request for the printing setting information of the printing job in execution, from the information processing apparatus
Inoue (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2019/0369934) discloses:
wherein the at least one memory and the at least one processor and/or the at least one circuit further function as: a sending unit configured to send printing setting information of a printing job in execution, to the information processing apparatus, in a case where the reception unit receives an obtaining request for the printing setting information of the printing job in execution, from the information processing apparatus (paragraphs [0046]-[0047], the status/setting information is communicated to the client terminal)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Inoue with the system of Tanabe to include the functionality of a sending unit configured to send printing setting information of a printing job in execution, to the information processing apparatus, in a case where the reception unit receives an obtaining request for the printing setting information of the printing job in execution, from the information processing apparatus as described in Inoue. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of allowing the administrator to quickly “refer and set a job status…via the browser” (paragraph [0047] of the Inoue reference) and thereby enhance usability.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Tanabe and Inoue discloses the apparatus of the parent claim (claim 28).
Tanabe additionally discloses:
wherein the sending unit sends printing information indicating whether the image forming apparatus proceeds with the printing job in execution, to the information processing apparatus, in a case where the reception unit receives an acquisition request for the printing information, from the information processing apparatus, before the reception unit receives the obtaining request for the printing setting information of the printing job in execution, from the information processing apparatus (The Examiner notes that this limitation is contingent – therefore it has no limiting effect for situations in which the reception unit does not receive an acquisition request for the printing information, from the information processing apparatus, before the reception unit receives the obtaining request for the printing setting information of the printing job in execution, from the information processing apparatus)
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 JOHN R WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30-5 PM.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/JOHN R WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682 `
Prosecution Insights