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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Applicant is advised that the Notice of Allowance mailed 04/11/24 is vacated. If the issue fee has already been paid, applicant may request a refund or request that the fee be credited to a deposit account. However, applicant may wait until the application is either found allowable or held abandoned. If allowed, upon receipt of a new Notice of Allowance, applicant may request that the previously submitted issue fee be applied. If abandoned, applicant may request refund or credit to a specified Deposit Account.
The indicated allowability of claims 1-18 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Vestjens (US 2018/0211142) in view of Fukuda (US 2017/0011283). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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) 1-4, 6, 10-13, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vestjens (US 2018/0211142).
Regarding Claim 1, Vestjens teaches a controlling apparatus (Paragraph 32, wherein there is a control section) comprising:
at least one memory and at least one processor (Paragraph 24 and 36, wherein there is a memory and controller) which function as:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire sheet information of each of a plurality of pages included in job data for executing print processing in a printing apparatus (Paragraph 43-47, wherein the media type information is determined for each sheet of the job);
a decision unit configured to decide a print speed in the print processing based on the sheet information acquired by the acquisition unit (Paragraph 46, wherein the print speed is determined for each sheet and a determination is made if the speed needs to be changed); and
a control unit configured to control the printing apparatus based on the print speed decided by the decision unit and data generated from the job data and processible by the printing apparatus (Paragraph 37, wherein the schedule of the media is determined by the controller),
wherein even in a case where sheet types represented by the pieces of sheet information are mixed in the plurality of pages, the decision unit decides a print speed to be commonly applied to the sheet types of the plurality of pages Paragraphs 45-47, wherein a common speed for the media can be determined).
Regarding Claim 2, Vestjens further teaches wherein based on sheet information acquired by the acquisition unit from job data of each of a plurality of jobs, the decision unit decides a print speed to be commonly applied to the plurality of jobs (Paragraph 45-47 and 52, wherein a common speed can be determined and used. This can apply to a plurality of jobs).
Regarding Claim 3, Vestjens further teaches wherein the plurality of jobs are continuously executed in the printing apparatus (Paragraph 52, wherein the speed is taken into consideration for the job queue, which means the jobs are continuously executed).
Regarding Claim 4, Vestjens further teaches wherein the controlling apparatus is an apparatus outside the printing apparatus (Paragraph 36, wherein the controller can be outside the print engine).
Regarding Claim 6, Vestjens further teaches a reception unit configured to receive the job data, wherein the acquisition unit acquires the sheet information of each of the plurality of pages included in the job data received by the reception unit (Paragraph 37, wherein a job is submitted accordingly).
Regarding Claim 10, Vestjens further teaches wherein the sheet information includes information for associating a sheet type and applicability of each of a plurality of print speeds with each other (Paragraphs 46-52, wherein the interaction with the media for the print speed is determined to optimize the speed), .
Regarding Claim 11, Vestjens further teaches wherein the decision unit decides a print speed in the print processing from a plurality of print speeds including at least a first print speed and a second print speed lower than the first print speed (Paragraphs 46-52, wherein the appropriate print speed is determined, including a maximum and a minimum).
Regarding Claim 12, Vestjens further teaches herein in a case where the sheet information of each of the plurality of pages acquired by the acquisition unit indicates that the first print speed is applicable, the control unit decides the first print speed as the print speed in the print processing (Paragraphs 46-52, wherein the appropriate print speed is determined).
Regarding Claim 13, Vestjens further teaches wherein in a case where the pieces of sheet information of the plurality of pages acquired by the acquisition unit include information indicating that the first print speed is not applicable, the control unit decides the second print speed as the print speed in the print processing (Paragraphs 46-52, wherein the appropriate print speed is determined).
Regarding Claim 18, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 19, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
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) 5, 7-9, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vestjens (US 2018/0211142) in view of Fukuda (US 2017/0011283).
Regarding Claim 5, Vestjens does not teach wherein the controlling apparatus is a Digital Font End (DFE).
Fukuda does teach wherein the controlling apparatus is a Digital Font End (DFE) (Paragraph 29, wherein there is a DFE).
Vestjens and Fukuda are combinable because they both deal with controlling printing settings.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Vestjens with the teachings of Fukuda for the purpose of assisting in transferring of image data efficiently and controlled to the MFP so as to not over burden the MFP (Fukuda: Paragraph 34).
Regarding Claim 7, Vestjens does not teach wherein the job data is Page Description Language (PDL) data.
Fukuda does teach wherein the job data is Page Description Language (PDL) data (Paragraph 34, wherein the job data is PDL job data).
Vestjens and Fukuda are combinable because they both deal with controlling printing settings.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Vestjens with the teachings of Fukuda for the purpose of assisting in transferring of image data efficiently and controlled to the MFP so as to not over burden the MFP (Fukuda: Paragraph 34).
Regarding Claim 8, Vestjens further teaches wherein the control unit transmits, to the printing apparatus, the print speed decided by the decision unit and the data generated by the conversion by the conversion unit and processible by the printing apparatus (Paragraphs 46-51, wherein how to print is determined).
Vestjens does not teach a conversion unit configured to convert, after the decision unit decides the print speed, the job data into data processible by the printing apparatus.
Fukuda does teach a conversion unit configured to convert, after the decision unit decides the print speed, the job data into data processible by the printing apparatus (Paragraphs 4 and 34, wherein the job data is sent to a RIP to be converted).
Vestjens and Fukuda are combinable because they both deal with controlling printing settings.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Vestjens with the teachings of Fukuda for the purpose of assisting in transferring of image data efficiently and controlled to the MFP so as to not over burden the MFP (Fukuda: Paragraph 34).
Regarding Claim 9, Fukuda further teaches wherein the data processible by the printing apparatus is data rasterized into a raster image (Paragraphs 4 and 34, wherein bitmap image data is raster image data).
Vestjens and Fukuda are combinable because they both deal with controlling printing settings.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Vestjens with the teachings of Fukuda for the purpose of assisting in transferring of image data efficiently and controlled to the MFP so as to not over burden the MFP (Fukuda: Paragraph 34).
Regarding Claim 14, Vestjens does not teach wherein in a case where an acceptance unit accepts designation of executing a job in a predetermined mode, the decision unit decides the print speed in the print processing.
Fukuda does teach wherein in a case where an acceptance unit accepts designation of executing a job in a predetermined mode, the decision unit decides the print speed in the print processing (Paragraph 42, wherein a priority mode can be selected. This can include a speed priority. Based on the selection of the mode, it is determined if the print job can be processed at a high speed, paragraphs 45-47 and 54).
Vestjens and Fukuda are combinable because they both deal with controlling printing settings.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Vestjens with the teachings of Fukuda for the purpose of improving the printing speed and processing speed for printing (Fukuda: Paragraph 7).
Regarding Claim 15, Vestjens does not teach wherein in a case where the acceptance unit does not accept the designation of executing the job in the predetermined mode, the decision unit does not decide the print speed in the print processing, and the control unit controls the printing apparatus based on the data generated from the job data and processible by the printing apparatus.
Fukuda does teach wherein in a case where the acceptance unit does not accept the designation of executing the job in the predetermined mode, the decision unit does not decide the print speed in the print processing, and the control unit controls the printing apparatus based on the data generated from the job data and processible by the printing apparatus (Paragraphs 42-46, wherein it is determined if the speed mode or quality mode is selected and how to process the print job accordingly).
Vestjens and Fukuda are combinable because they both deal with controlling printing settings.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Vestjens with the teachings of Fukuda for the purpose of improving the printing speed and processing speed for printing (Fukuda: Paragraph 7).
Regarding Claim 16, Fukuda further teaches wherein the predetermined mode is a productivity priority mode (Paragraph 42, wherein a high speed priority is selected, which corresponds to a productivity mode as stated in applicant’s disclosure).
Vestjens and Fukuda are combinable because they both deal with controlling printing settings.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Vestjens with the teachings of Fukuda for the purpose of improving the printing speed and processing speed for printing (Fukuda: Paragraph 7).
Regarding Claim 17, Fukuda further teaches wherein the case where the acceptance unit does not accept the designation of executing the job in the predetermined mode includes a case where the acceptance unit does not accept designation of executing the job in a quality priority mode (Paragraphs 42, 43, and 54, wherein a quality priority mode can also be selected and designated).
Vestjens and Fukuda are combinable because they both deal with controlling printing settings.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Vestjens with the teachings of Fukuda for the purpose of improving the printing speed and processing speed for printing (Fukuda: Paragraph 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional prior art of A-F, H, and J-L all relate to handling different printing speeds.
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