DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This is an initial office action in response to communication(s) filed on September 18, 2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patton et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0254078 A1, hereinafter as “Patton”).
With regard to claim 1, the claim is drawn to a system (see Patton, i.e. in fig.2, disclose the printer job emulation system 200) comprising:
a processor and associated memory (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 2, disclose the print controller 202 and memory 220”);
a network interface configured to receive a PJL encoded print job (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 2, in para. 21 and etc., disclose that “[0021] FIG. 2 is a schematic block diagram of the present invention printer job emulation system. The system 200 comprises a print controller 202 having an interface on line 204 to receive an electronically formatted print job from a source 206. Here, the source 206 is depicted as print driver embedded in a device 208, such as a personal computer or print server. Line 204 may represent a local connection, such as a USB, serial, and parallel port cable connection, or network connection, such as a local area network (LAN) and Internet connection to name a few examples. The controller 202 determines a match between received print job commands and default print job commands, and maps non-matching received print job commands to default print job commands…”);
the processor (see Patton, i.e. in para. 21 and etc., disclose that “…The controller 202 determines a match between received print job commands and default print job commands, and maps non-matching received print job commands to default print job commands…”) configured to,
identify one or more PJL commands in a print job (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 4, step 2, and in para. 34 and etc., discloses that “[0034] FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating the steps taken by the printer firmware to process an incoming print job using the present invention. In Step 2 a printer receives a print job. In Step 4 the printer then determines if the print job is generated by a Sharp driver. It is assumed that the printer is a Sharp printer. This determination is made by analyzing PJL commands in the data stream…),
determine whether each identified PJL command is compatible with a print engine targeted for printing the print job (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 4, step 4, and in para. 34, disclose that “[0034] FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating the steps taken by the printer firmware to process an incoming print job using the present invention. In Step 2 a printer receives a print job. In Step 4 the printer then determines if the print job is generated by a Sharp driver. It is assumed that the printer is a Sharp printer. This determination is made by analyzing PJL commands in the data stream. If the job was generated by a Sharp driver, it is output using standard methods (Step 6). If the job was not generated by a Sharp driver, a first print command is read (Step 8). The printer then looks for this command in the table (Step 10) and if it is listed, replaces it with the Sharp command (Step 12). If the command is not listed in the mapping table, the print stream will be left as is. The printer then determines if there are additional commands in the print job (Step 14) and if so, repeats Steps 8-14. When all commands have been processed, the print job is released to the next stage of processing (Step 16).”), and
commence printing of the print job by the print engine when each identified PJL command is determined to be compatible with the print engine (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 4, steps 4 and 6, disclose when the print job received is determined to be generated by a Sharp driver, or “compatible”, then the print job is printed as usual);
wherein, when an identified PJL commands is incompatible with the print engine (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 4, steps 4, 8, 10 and 12, disclose when the print job received is determined to be not generated by a Sharp driver, or “incompatible”, then “…The printer then looks for this command in the table (Step 10) and if it is listed, replaces it with the Sharp command (Step 12).”), the processor is configured to,
replace each incompatible PJL command with a compatible PJL command having the corresponding attributes in accordance with the lookup table to form a modified PJL encoded print job (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 4, step 4, and in para. 34, disclose that “[0034] FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating the steps taken by the printer firmware to process an incoming print job using the present invention. In Step 2 a printer receives a print job. In Step 4 the printer then determines if the print job is generated by a Sharp driver. It is assumed that the printer is a Sharp printer. This determination is made by analyzing PJL commands in the data stream. If the job was generated by a Sharp driver, it is output using standard methods (Step 6). If the job was not generated by a Sharp driver, a first print command is read (Step 8). The printer then looks for this command in the table (Step 10) and if it is listed, replaces it with the Sharp command (Step 12). If the command is not listed in the mapping table, the print stream will be left as is. The printer then determines if there are additional commands in the print job (Step 14) and if so, repeats Steps 8-14. When all commands have been processed, the print job is released to the next stage of processing (Step 16).”), and
commence printing of the print job by the print engine with the modified PJL encoded print job (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 4, step 16, output print, and in para. 34, disclose that “[0034] FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating the steps taken by the printer firmware to process an incoming print job using the present invention. In Step 2 a printer receives a print job. In Step 4 the printer then determines if the print job is generated by a Sharp driver. It is assumed that the printer is a Sharp printer. This determination is made by analyzing PJL commands in the data stream. If the job was generated by a Sharp driver, it is output using standard methods (Step 6). If the job was not generated by a Sharp driver, a first print command is read (Step 8). The printer then looks for this command in the table (Step 10) and if it is listed, replaces it with the Sharp command (Step 12). If the command is not listed in the mapping table, the print stream will be left as is. The printer then determines if there are additional commands in the print job (Step 14) and if so, repeats Steps 8-14. When all commands have been processed, the print job is released to the next stage of processing (Step 16).”).
With regard to claim 2, the claim is drawn to the system of claim 1 wherein a received PJL encoded print job is received from a print driver associated with a first device manufacturer and wherein the print engine is associated with a second device manufacturer (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 3, discloses [0030] FIG. 3 is a drawing depicting an exemplary compatibility table; which disclose at least the Sharp command and HP command).
With regard to claim 3, the claim is drawn to the system of claim 2 wherein the processor, the memory, and the network interface comprise a multifunction peripheral intelligent controller configured to control the print engine (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 2, disclose the printer controller 202 and the print engine 212, and further in para. 22, discloses that “[0022] The print controller 202 has an output on line 210 to supply a modified set of received print job commands. A print engine 212 has an input on line 210 to receive the modified print job commands and an output on line 214 to supply a printed document responsive to the print job commands. The print controller 202 supplies a combination of mapped default and received print job commands to the print engine 212. That is, the print engine 212 may print a first portion of the print job using received print job commands, and a second portion of the print job using mapped default print job commands…”).
With regard to claim 4, the claim is drawn to the system of claim 3 wherein custom PJL commands are directed to one or more of finishing options, paper handling, font and print mode (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 3, disclose the compatibility table which comprises settings relating to “input tray” [or “paper handling”], PJL JobStaple=StapleLeft [or as “finishing options”] and etc; more specifically, in Patton, i.e. in para. 30, discloses that “[0030] FIG. 3 is a drawing depicting an exemplary compatibility table. The print controller may map print job commands associated with input tray number selection, output tray number selection, finishing options, such as staple, punch, binding edge, or pamphlet, inserts for transparencies and carbon copy function, or print hold for PIN and proof printing. Other commands are also possible. The exemplary table depicts the mapping of input tray selection and staple finishing options between a Sharp and an HP printer. Additionally, other tables (not shown) may be used to map between different model printers made by the same manufacturer, between the same model printer when enabled with different hardware options, or between the same model printer when enabled for different networking, human language, or custom configuration options.”).
With regard to claim 5, the claim is drawn to the system of claim 4 wherein the lookup table includes the custom PJL commands corresponding to different printers from multiple manufacturers, and wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine a manufacturer associated with each identified custom PJL command (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 3, para. 11, and etc., discloses that “[0011] Once the table is created, the present invention provides a mechanism for automatically detecting the intended printer brand or model, and emulating the intended printer using the settings in the table. The intended printer type is determined from clues in the print job, such as a PJL command that identify the manufacturer and model associated with the print driver, or even the lack of such a command. For example, a Sharp printer may receive a job that does not identify Sharp as the generator of the job. In response, the printer uses a compatibility table that emulates an alternate, non-Sharp printer…”); and
replace each incompatible PJL command with a compatible PJL command in accordance with a determined manufacturer (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 4, steps 10, 12 and correspondingly in para. 34, disclose replace HP command with equivalent in step 12).
With regard to claim 6, the claim is drawn to the system of claim 1 wherein one or more PJL command determined to be compatible are shared by multiple manufacturers (see Patton, i.e. in para. 33, discloses that “[0033] As a new print job is being received, the printer interprets the print stream and determines the print job origin by parsing through PJL commands. If PJL commands indicate that a job is created by a Sharp printer driver, a Sharp printer executes the job using standard methods. If a PJL command indicates that another vendor's print driver created the file, or if no PJL command exists and another vendor's print driver is assumed, the print job is output using a mapping table. The printer firmware compares each command in the print job to the table to determine if a change is necessary…”).
With regard to claim 7, the claim is drawn to the system of claim 6 wherein the one or more PJL commands shared by multiple manufacturers is standardized by the Printer Working Group (see Patton, i.e. in claim 4 and etc, disclose that “ claim 4. The method of claim 3 wherein receiving an electronically formatted print job includes receiving a print job with commands selected from the group including page description language (PDL) and print job language (PJL) commands; wherein printing the print job using a combination of mapped default and received print job commands includes: printing a first portion of the print job using received print job commands; and, printing a second portion of the print job using mapped default print job commands).
With regard to claim 8, the claim is drawn to a method (see Patton, i.e. in para. 2 and etc., disclose that “… method for emulating the processing performance of one printer in a different printer”) comprising:
identifying one or more PJL commands in a PJL encoded print job (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 4, step 2, and in para. 34 and etc., discloses that “[0034] FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating the steps taken by the printer firmware to process an incoming print job using the present invention. In Step 2 a printer receives a print job. In Step 4 the printer then determines if the print job is generated by a Sharp driver. It is assumed that the printer is a Sharp printer. This determination is made by analyzing PJL commands in the data stream…),
determining whether each identified PJL command is compatible with a print engine targeted for printing a print job (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 4, step 4, and in para. 34, disclose that “[0034] FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating the steps taken by the printer firmware to process an incoming print job using the present invention. In Step 2 a printer receives a print job. In Step 4 the printer then determines if the print job is generated by a Sharp driver. It is assumed that the printer is a Sharp printer. This determination is made by analyzing PJL commands in the data stream. If the job was generated by a Sharp driver, it is output using standard methods (Step 6). If the job was not generated by a Sharp driver, a first print command is read (Step 8). The printer then looks for this command in the table (Step 10) and if it is listed, replaces it with the Sharp command (Step 12). If the command is not listed in the mapping table, the print stream will be left as is. The printer then determines if there are additional commands in the print job (Step 14) and if so, repeats Steps 8-14. When all commands have been processed, the print job is released to the next stage of processing (Step 16).”),
commencing printing of the print job by the print engine when each identified PJL command is determined to be compatible with the print engine (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 4, steps 4 and 6, disclose when the print job received is determined to be generated by a Sharp driver, or “compatible”, then the print job is printed as usual);
wherein, when one or more identified PJL commands are incompatible with the print engine (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 4, steps 4, 8, 10 and 12, disclose when the print job received is determined to be not generated by a Sharp driver, or “incompatible”, then “…The printer then looks for this command in the table (Step 10) and if it is listed, replaces it with the Sharp command (Step 12).”),
replacing each incompatible PJL command with a compatible PJL command having corresponding attributes in accordance with a lookup table containing a mapping between PJL commands having the corresponding attributes for different printers to form a modified PJL encoded print job (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 4, step 4, and in para. 34, disclose that “[0034] FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating the steps taken by the printer firmware to process an incoming print job using the present invention. In Step 2 a printer receives a print job. In Step 4 the printer then determines if the print job is generated by a Sharp driver. It is assumed that the printer is a Sharp printer. This determination is made by analyzing PJL commands in the data stream. If the job was generated by a Sharp driver, it is output using standard methods (Step 6). If the job was not generated by a Sharp driver, a first print command is read (Step 8). The printer then looks for this command in the table (Step 10) and if it is listed, replaces it with the Sharp command (Step 12). If the command is not listed in the mapping table, the print stream will be left as is. The printer then determines if there are additional commands in the print job (Step 14) and if so, repeats Steps 8-14. When all commands have been processed, the print job is released to the next stage of processing (Step 16).”), and
commencing printing of the print job by the print engine with the modified PJL encoded print job (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 4, step 16, output print, and in para. 34, disclose that “[0034] FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating the steps taken by the printer firmware to process an incoming print job using the present invention. In Step 2 a printer receives a print job. In Step 4 the printer then determines if the print job is generated by a Sharp driver. It is assumed that the printer is a Sharp printer. This determination is made by analyzing PJL commands in the data stream. If the job was generated by a Sharp driver, it is output using standard methods (Step 6). If the job was not generated by a Sharp driver, a first print command is read (Step 8). The printer then looks for this command in the table (Step 10) and if it is listed, replaces it with the Sharp command (Step 12). If the command is not listed in the mapping table, the print stream will be left as is. The printer then determines if there are additional commands in the print job (Step 14) and if so, repeats Steps 8-14. When all commands have been processed, the print job is released to the next stage of processing (Step 16).”).
With regard to claim 9, the claim is drawn to the method of claim 8 further comprising receiving the PJL encoded print job from a print driver associated with a first device manufacturer and wherein the print engine is associated with a second device manufacturer (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 3, discloses [0030] FIG. 3 is a drawing depicting an exemplary compatibility table; which disclose at least the Sharp command and HP command).
With regard to claim 10, the claim is drawn to the method of claim 9 wherein the method is performed by an intelligent controller of a multifunction peripheral (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 2, disclose the printer controller 202 and the print engine 212, and further in para. 22, discloses that “[0022] The print controller 202 has an output on line 210 to supply a modified set of received print job commands. A print engine 212 has an input on line 210 to receive the modified print job commands and an output on line 214 to supply a printed document responsive to the print job commands. The print controller 202 supplies a combination of mapped default and received print job commands to the print engine 212. That is, the print engine 212 may print a first portion of the print job using received print job commands, and a second portion of the print job using mapped default print job commands…”).
With regard to claim 11, the claim is drawn to the method of claim 10 wherein the custom PJL commands are directed to one or more of finishing options, paper handling, font and print mode (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 3, disclose the compatibility table which comprises settings relating to “input tray” [or “paper handling”], PJL JobStaple=StapleLeft [or as “finishing options”] and etc; more specifically, in Patton, i.e. in para. 30, discloses that “[0030] FIG. 3 is a drawing depicting an exemplary compatibility table. The print controller may map print job commands associated with input tray number selection, output tray number selection, finishing options, such as staple, punch, binding edge, or pamphlet, inserts for transparencies and carbon copy function, or print hold for PIN and proof printing. Other commands are also possible. The exemplary table depicts the mapping of input tray selection and staple finishing options between a Sharp and an HP printer. Additionally, other tables (not shown) may be used to map between different model printers made by the same manufacturer, between the same model printer when enabled with different hardware options, or between the same model printer when enabled for different networking, human language, or custom configuration options.”).
With regard to claim 12, the claim is drawn to the method of claim 11 wherein the lookup table includes the custom PJL commands corresponding to different printers from multiple manufacturers, further comprising: determining a manufacturer associated with each identified custom PJL command (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 3, para. 11, and etc., discloses that “[0011] Once the table is created, the present invention provides a mechanism for automatically detecting the intended printer brand or model, and emulating the intended printer using the settings in the table. The intended printer type is determined from clues in the print job, such as a PJL command that identify the manufacturer and model associated with the print driver, or even the lack of such a command. For example, a Sharp printer may receive a job that does not identify Sharp as the generator of the job. In response, the printer uses a compatibility table that emulates an alternate, non-Sharp printer…”); and replacing each incompatible PJL command with a compatible PJL command in accordance with a determined manufacturer (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 4, steps 10, 12 and correspondingly in para. 34, disclose replace HP command with equivalent in step 12).
With regard to claim 13, the claim is drawn to the method of claim 8 wherein one or more PJL command determined to be compatible are shared by multiple manufacturers (see Patton, i.e. in para. 33, discloses that “[0033] As a new print job is being received, the printer interprets the print stream and determines the print job origin by parsing through PJL commands. If PJL commands indicate that a job is created by a Sharp printer driver, a Sharp printer executes the job using standard methods. If a PJL command indicates that another vendor's print driver created the file, or if no PJL command exists and another vendor's print driver is assumed, the print job is output using a mapping table. The printer firmware compares each command in the print job to the table to determine if a change is necessary…”).
With regard to claim 14, the claim is drawn to the method of claim 13 wherein one or more PJL commands shared by multiple manufacturers is standardized by the Printer Working Group (see Patton, i.e. in claim 4 and etc, disclose that “ claim 4. The method of claim 3 wherein receiving an electronically formatted print job includes receiving a print job with commands selected from the group including page description language (PDL) and print job language (PJL) commands; wherein printing the print job using a combination of mapped default and received print job commands includes: printing a first portion of the print job using received print job commands; and, printing a second portion of the print job using mapped default print job commands).
With regard to claim 15, the claim is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for causing a digital data device to execute a control method (See Patton, i.e. in para. 2, discloses that “a system and method for emulating the processing performance of one printer in a different printer” para. 6 and etc. disclose that “…However, many legacy and industry-specific software applications are written with print drivers built-in and hard-coded to specific printers.”), the control method comprising:
identifying one or more PJL commands in a PJL encoded print job (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 4, step 2, and in para. 34 and etc., discloses that “[0034] FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating the steps taken by the printer firmware to process an incoming print job using the present invention. In Step 2 a printer receives a print job. In Step 4 the printer then determines if the print job is generated by a Sharp driver. It is assumed that the printer is a Sharp printer. This determination is made by analyzing PJL commands in the data stream…),
determining whether each identified PJL command is compatible with a print engine targeted for printing a print job (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 4, step 4, and in para. 34, disclose that “[0034] FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating the steps taken by the printer firmware to process an incoming print job using the present invention. In Step 2 a printer receives a print job. In Step 4 the printer then determines if the print job is generated by a Sharp driver. It is assumed that the printer is a Sharp printer. This determination is made by analyzing PJL commands in the data stream. If the job was generated by a Sharp driver, it is output using standard methods (Step 6). If the job was not generated by a Sharp driver, a first print command is read (Step 8). The printer then looks for this command in the table (Step 10) and if it is listed, replaces it with the Sharp command (Step 12). If the command is not listed in the mapping table, the print stream will be left as is. The printer then determines if there are additional commands in the print job (Step 14) and if so, repeats Steps 8-14. When all commands have been processed, the print job is released to the next stage of processing (Step 16).”),
commencing printing of the print job by the print engine when each identified PJL command is determined to be compatible with the print engine (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 4, steps 4 and 6, disclose when the print job received is determined to be generated by a Sharp driver, or “compatible”, then the print job is printed as usual);
wherein, when one or more identified PJL commands are incompatible with the print engine (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 4, steps 4, 8, 10 and 12, disclose when the print job received is determined to be not generated by a Sharp driver, or “incompatible”, then “…The printer then looks for this command in the table (Step 10) and if it is listed, replaces it with the Sharp command (Step 12).”),
replacing each incompatible PJL command with a compatible PJL command having corresponding attributes in accordance with a lookup table containing a mapping between PJL commands having the corresponding attributes for different printers to form a modified PJL encoded print job (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 4, step 4, and in para. 34, disclose that “[0034] FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating the steps taken by the printer firmware to process an incoming print job using the present invention. In Step 2 a printer receives a print job. In Step 4 the printer then determines if the print job is generated by a Sharp driver. It is assumed that the printer is a Sharp printer. This determination is made by analyzing PJL commands in the data stream. If the job was generated by a Sharp driver, it is output using standard methods (Step 6). If the job was not generated by a Sharp driver, a first print command is read (Step 8). The printer then looks for this command in the table (Step 10) and if it is listed, replaces it with the Sharp command (Step 12). If the command is not listed in the mapping table, the print stream will be left as is. The printer then determines if there are additional commands in the print job (Step 14) and if so, repeats Steps 8-14. When all commands have been processed, the print job is released to the next stage of processing (Step 16).”), and
commencing printing of the print job by the print engine with the modified PJL encoded print job (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 4, step 16, output print, and in para. 34, disclose that “[0034] FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating the steps taken by the printer firmware to process an incoming print job using the present invention. In Step 2 a printer receives a print job. In Step 4 the printer then determines if the print job is generated by a Sharp driver. It is assumed that the printer is a Sharp printer. This determination is made by analyzing PJL commands in the data stream. If the job was generated by a Sharp driver, it is output using standard methods (Step 6). If the job was not generated by a Sharp driver, a first print command is read (Step 8). The printer then looks for this command in the table (Step 10) and if it is listed, replaces it with the Sharp command (Step 12). If the command is not listed in the mapping table, the print stream will be left as is. The printer then determines if there are additional commands in the print job (Step 14) and if so, repeats Steps 8-14. When all commands have been processed, the print job is released to the next stage of processing (Step 16).”).
With regard to claim 16, the claim is drawn to the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15 wherein the control method further comprises receiving the PJL encoded print job from a print driver associated with a first device manufacturer and wherein the print engine is associated with a second device manufacturer (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 3, discloses [0030] FIG. 3 is a drawing depicting an exemplary compatibility table; which disclose at least the Sharp command and HP command).
With regard to claim 17, the claim is drawn to the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 16 wherein the control method is performed by an intelligent controller of a multifunction peripheral (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 2, disclose the printer controller 202 and the print engine 212, and further in para. 22, discloses that “[0022] The print controller 202 has an output on line 210 to supply a modified set of received print job commands. A print engine 212 has an input on line 210 to receive the modified print job commands and an output on line 214 to supply a printed document responsive to the print job commands. The print controller 202 supplies a combination of mapped default and received print job commands to the print engine 212. That is, the print engine 212 may print a first portion of the print job using received print job commands, and a second portion of the print job using mapped default print job commands…”).
With regard to claim 18, the claim is drawn to the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 17 wherein the custom PJL commands are directed to one or more of finishing options, paper handling, font and print mode (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 3, disclose the compatibility table which comprises settings relating to “input tray” [or “paper handling”], PJL JobStaple=StapleLeft [or as “finishing options”] and etc; more specifically, in Patton, i.e. in para. 30, discloses that “[0030] FIG. 3 is a drawing depicting an exemplary compatibility table. The print controller may map print job commands associated with input tray number selection, output tray number selection, finishing options, such as staple, punch, binding edge, or pamphlet, inserts for transparencies and carbon copy function, or print hold for PIN and proof printing. Other commands are also possible. The exemplary table depicts the mapping of input tray selection and staple finishing options between a Sharp and an HP printer. Additionally, other tables (not shown) may be used to map between different model printers made by the same manufacturer, between the same model printer when enabled with different hardware options, or between the same model printer when enabled for different networking, human language, or custom configuration options.”).
With regard to claim 19, the claim is drawn to the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15 wherein the lookup table includes the custom PJL commands corresponding to different printers from multiple manufacturers, wherein the method further comprises: determining a manufacturer associated with each identified custom PJL command (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 3, para. 11, and etc., discloses that “[0011] Once the table is created, the present invention provides a mechanism for automatically detecting the intended printer brand or model, and emulating the intended printer using the settings in the table. The intended printer type is determined from clues in the print job, such as a PJL command that identify the manufacturer and model associated with the print driver, or even the lack of such a command. For example, a Sharp printer may receive a job that does not identify Sharp as the generator of the job. In response, the printer uses a compatibility table that emulates an alternate, non-Sharp printer…”); and replacing each incompatible PJL command with a compatible PJL command in accordance with a determined manufacturer (see Patton, i.e. in fig. 4, steps 10, 12 and correspondingly in para. 34, disclose replace HP command with equivalent in step 12).
With regard to claim 20, the claim is drawn to the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15 wherein one or more PJL command determined to be compatible are shared by multiple manufacturers (see Patton, i.e. in para. 33, discloses that “[0033] As a new print job is being received, the printer interprets the print stream and determines the print job origin by parsing through PJL commands. If PJL commands indicate that a job is created by a Sharp printer driver, a Sharp printer executes the job using standard methods. If a PJL command indicates that another vendor's print driver created the file, or if no PJL command exists and another vendor's print driver is assumed, the print job is output using a mapping table. The printer firmware compares each command in the print job to the table to determine if a change is necessary…”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lombardo et al. (U.S. Pat/Pub No. 2012/0127498 A1) disclose an invention relates to a printer compatibility matrix.
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