DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “reception unit” and “conversion unit” in claims 6-9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
reception unit – Paragraph 63, wherein the external I/F acts like the reception unit to receive the PDL job
conversion unit – Paragraph 39, wherein the driver performs the conversion
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 10-13, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vestjens (US 2018/0211142) in view of Voss (US 2011/0188060).
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, the sheet information including a plurality of print speed values (Paragraph 43-47, wherein the media type information is determined for each sheet of the job. This includes print speed);
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).
Vestjens does not teach a decision unit configured to decide a print speed in the print processing based on the sheet information acquired by the acquisition unit, the print speed being decided as a lowest value of the plurality of print speed values;
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 so that printing of the job data is performed without changing the print speed during the printing.
Voss does teach a decision unit configured to decide a print speed in the print processing based on the sheet information acquired by the acquisition unit, the print speed being decided as a lowest value of the plurality of print speed values (Paragraphs 53-58 and claim 7, wherein the lowest print speed is selected for the whole job when the sheets can have different print speeds);
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 so that printing of the job data is performed without changing the print speed during the printing (Paragraphs 53-58 and claim 7, wherein the lowest print speed is selected for the whole job when the sheets can have different print speeds).
Vestjens and Fukuda are combinable because they both deal with controlling printing speed.
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 Voss for the purpose of providing an efficient management of printing speed (Voss: Paragraph 10).
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(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 Voss (US 2011/0188060) further in view of Fukuda (US 2017/0011283).
Regarding Claim 5, Vestjens in view of Voss 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 in view of Voss 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 in view of Voss 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 in view of Voss 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 in view of Voss 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 in view of Voss 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 in view of Voss 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 in view of Voss 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 in view of Voss 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 in view of Voss 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 in view of Voss 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 in view of Voss 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 in view of Voss with the teachings of Fukuda for the purpose of improving the printing speed and processing speed for printing (Fukuda: Paragraph 7).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS PACHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-3433. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, George Eng can be reached at 571-272-7495. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS PACHOL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights