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 filed on March 18, 2026 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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims received on March 18, 2026 has been entered.
The amendment of claims 16-30 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 16-19, 21-23, 25 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki’395 (US 2009/0213395), and further in view of Murata’084 (US 2012/0250084), Inoue’369(US 2006/0221369).
With respect to claim 29, Ozaki’395 teaches an information processing apparatus (Fig.1, item 3000) comprising at least one memory (Fig.1, items 2 and 3) containing instructions and at least one processor (Fig.1, item 1) for executing the instructions and/or at least one circuit which function as:
an obtaining unit configured to obtain print data in a second format different from a first format, including document data and print setting by a user, from printing software different from print control software (paragraph 43);
a generating unit configured to generate the print data converted by the converting unit as the print data in the first format (paragraph 43); and
a sending unit configured to send the print data to a printing apparatus (Fig.8, step S811).
Ozaki’395 does not teach the print setting including setting regarding a paper size which is not able to be set via the print control software; a converting unit configured to convert the print data to convert size of the document data in a case where the printing software accepts a borderless setting;
Murata’084 teaches the print setting including setting regarding a paper size which is not able to be set via the print control software (Fig.5 and paragraph 49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ozaki’395 according to the teaching of Murata’084 to include a function to prohibit a size of sheet to be selected for printing because this will allow a usage of a printer to be enhanced more effectively.
The combination of Ozaki’395 and Murata’084 does not teach a converting unit configured to convert the print data to convert size of the document data in a case where the printing software accepts a borderless setting.
Inoue’369 teaches a converting unit configured to convert the print data to convert size of the document data in a case where the printing software accepts a borderless setting (paragraph 131);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ozaki’395 and Murata’084 according to the teaching of Inoue’369 to include an image enlargement section to enlarge an image to fit on a sheet for printing when the borderless print setting is being configured because this will allow the borderless printing for a print job to be processed more effectively.
With respect to claim 16, it is a claim regarding to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing thereon a computer program. Claim 16 claims how the information processing apparatus of claim 29 to execute to perform borderless printing. Claim 16 is obvious in view of Ozaki’395, Murata’084 and Inoue’369 because the claimed combination operates at the same manner as described in the rejected claims 29. In addition, the reference discloses a process, the process would be implemented by a processor that requires a non-transitory computer readable medium, e.g., a RAM, to function, thus, the medium is inherently present
With respect to claim 17, which further limits claim 16, Ozaki’395 does not teach
wherein the print data is converted to convert the size of the document data in a case where a setting of a predetermined size corresponding to a paper size included in the print settings can be set by the printing apparatus.
Inoue’369 teaches wherein the print data is converted to convert the size of the document data in a case where a setting of a predetermined size corresponding to a paper size included in the print settings can be set by the printing apparatus [as shown in Fig.14, the image is being converted into the size which is able to printed on a size of the medium in the printer when borderless printing is being determined].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ozaki’395 and Murata’084 according to the teaching of Inoue’369 to include an image enlargement section to enlarge an image to fit on a sheet for printing when the borderless print setting is being configured because this will allow the borderless printing for a print job to be processed more effectively.
With respect to claim 18, which further limits claim 16, Ozaki’395 does not
wherein whether or not to perform conversion to enlarge the size of the document data is determined according to the user included in the print setting.
Inoue’369 teaches wherein whether or not to perform conversion to enlarge the size of the document data is determined according to the user included in the print setting [as shown in Fig.2, the user is allowed to configured the borderless printing. Therefore, the image is considered being determine to convert into a size for borderless printing according to the user in the print setting after the user has selects the “BORDERLESS PRINTING” shown in Fig.2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ozaki’395 and Murata’084 according to the teaching of Inoue’369 to include an image enlargement section to enlarge an image to fit on a sheet for printing when the borderless print setting is being configured because this will allow the borderless printing for a print job to be processed more effectively.
With respect to claim 19, which further limits claim 16, Ozaki’395 does not teach wherein user setting information in which whether or not to perform conversion by the printing apparatus is set for each of the users is obtained, and wherein whether or not to perform conversion to enlarge the size of the print data for each of the users is determined based on the user setting information.
Inoue’369 teaches wherein user setting information in which whether or not to perform conversion by the printing apparatus is set for each of the users is obtained [as shown in Fig.2, the user is allowed to configured the borderless printing. The screen shown in Fig.2 is considered the user setting information in which whether or not to perform conversion by the printing apparatus is set for each of the users is obtained], and
wherein whether or not to perform conversion to enlarge the size of the print data for each of the users is determined based on the user setting information [as shown in Fig.2, the user is allowed to configured the borderless printing. The image is considered to convert into a size which is being enlarged for borderless printing according to the user in the print setting after the user has selects the “BORDERLESS PRINTING” shown in Fig.2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ozaki’395 and Murata’084 according to the teaching of Inoue’369 to include an image enlargement section to enlarge an image to fit on a sheet for printing when the borderless print setting is being configured because this will allow the borderless printing for a print job to be processed more effectively.
With respect to claim 21, which further limits claim 16, Ozaki’395 does not teach wherein a first mode in which the conversion of the print data is performed by the converting unit or a second mode in which the print data is not converted by the conversion unit even in a case where the print setting satisfy a predetermined condition can be set.
Inoue’369 teaches wherein a first mode in which the conversion of the print data is performed by the converting unit or a second mode in which the print data is not converted by the conversion unit even in a case where the print setting satisfy a predetermined condition can be set (Fig.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ozaki’395 and Murata’084 according to the teaching of Inoue’369 to provide a graphical user interface to enable a user to configure if the borderless print setting for a print job needed because this will allow the borderless printing for a print job to be processed more effectively.
With respect to claim 22, which further limits claim 16, Ozaki’395 teaches wherein in the settings, a mode can be set in at least one of a case of installation of the print control software, a case of activation of the print control software, or a case of print execution (Fig.24).
With respect to claim 23, which further limits claim 16, Ozaki’395 does not teach wherein the converting unit performs conversion to enlarge the size of the document data in a case where the paper size is a predetermined size.
Inoue’369 teaches wherein the converting unit performs conversion to enlarge the size of the document data in a case where the paper size is a predetermined size (paragraph 131).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ozaki’395 and Murata’084 according to the teaching of Inoue’369 to include an image enlargement section to enlarge an image to fit on a sheet for printing when the borderless print setting is being configured because this will allow the borderless printing for a print job to be processed more effectively.
With respect to claim 25, which further limits claim 16, Ozaki’395 does not teach wherein the converting unit determines whether the printing data is converted according to a mode set in a case of installation of the print control software in a case where the paper size cannot be obtained.
Inoue’369 teaches wherein the converting unit determines whether the printing data is converted according to a mode set in a case of installation of the print control software in a case where the paper size cannot be obtained [as shown in Fig.14, the image is being converted into the size which is able to printed on a size of the medium in the printer when borderless printing is being determined. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognized not to convert the image to a size which is able to printed on a size of the medium in the printer when borderless printing is being determined but the size of the medium in the printer is not able to bed determined because this will allow the borderless printing for a print job to be processed more effectively.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ozaki’395 and Murata’084 according to the teaching of Inoue’369 to include an image enlargement section to enlarge an image to fit on a sheet for printing when the borderless print setting is being configured and the size of the sheet in the printer is being determined because this will allow the borderless printing for a print job to be processed more effectively.
With respect to claim 27, which further limits claim 16, Ozaki’395 teaches wherein the printing software is OS standard printing software (Fig.2, item 201).
With respect to claim 28, which further limits claim 16, Ozaki’395 does not teach wherein the conversion is not performed in a case where the printing software does not accept the "borderless" setting.
Inoue’369 teaches wherein the conversion is not performed in a case where the printing software does not accept the "borderless" setting [when the “NON-BORDERLESS PRINTING” 62 is being selected, the conversion is considered not performed for the image to enlarge the image data for printing]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ozaki’395 and Murata’084 according to the teaching of Inoue’369 to include an image enlargement section to enlarge an image to fit on a sheet for printing when the borderless print setting is being configured and the size of the sheet in the printer is being determined because this will allow the borderless printing for a print job to be processed more effectively.
With respect to claim 30, it is a method claim that claims how the information processing apparatus of claim 29 to perform borderless printing. Claim 30 is obvious in view of Ozaki’395, Murata’084 and Inoue’369 because the claimed combination operates at the same manner as described in the rejected claim 29. In addition, the reference has disclosed an information processing apparatus to perform borderless printing, the process (method) to perform borderless printing is inherent disclosed to be performed by a processor in the information processing apparatus when the information processing apparatus performs the operation to perform borderless printing.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki’395 (US 2009/0213395), Murata’084 (US 2012/0250084), Inoue’369(US 2006/0221369) and further in view of Tokuchi’393 (US 2018/0111393).
With respect to claim 20, which further limits claim 19, the combination of Ozaki’395, Murata’084 and Inoue’369 does not teach wherein the user setting information is information based on a history showing whether or not the user performs processing to enlarge the document data by using the printing apparatus.
Tokuchi’393 teaches wherein the user setting information is information based on a history showing whether or not the user performs borderless printing by using the printing apparatus (Fig.8 and paragraphs 108-110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ozaki’395, Murata’084 and Inoue’369 according to the teaching of Tokuchi’393 to restrict borderless printing which required enlarging image data according the user’s borderless printing history (wherein the user setting information is information based on a history showing whether or not the user performs processing to enlarge the document data by using the printing apparatus) because this will allow the borderless printing for a print job to be processed more effectively.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki’395 (US 2009/0213395), Murata’084 (US 2012/0250084), Inoue’369(US 2006/0221369) and further in view of Suzuki’776 (US 2014/0009776).
With respect to claim 24, which further limits claim 16, the combination of Ozaki’395, Murata’084 and Inoue’369 does not teach wherein the converting unit does not perform the conversion in a case where a paper size is a different size from a predetermined size.
Suzuki’776 teaches wherein the converting unit does not perform the conversion in a case where a paper size is a different size from a predetermined size [the borderless printing is not able to be configured when A4 is the paper size is being selected for a print job (paragraph 83)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ozaki’395, Murata’084 and Inoue’369 according to the teaching of Suzuki’776 to determine if the borderless printing is able configured according the selected paper size for a print job because this will allow the borderless printing for a print job to be processed more effectively.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki’395 (US 2009/0213395), Murata’084 (US 2012/0250084), Inoue’369(US 2006/0221369) and further in view of Shinjo’882 (US 2017/0087882).
With respect to claim 26, which further limits claim 16, the combination of Ozaki’395, Murata’084 and Inoue’369 does not teach wherein the program further causes the computer to function as a second obtaining unit configured to obtain information about margin setting in the printing apparatus corresponding to a kind of paper designated in the print setting, wherein the converting unit performs conversion in which the document data is reduced in a case where a margin designated in the print settings is less than the margin obtained by the second obtaining unit.
Shinjo’882 teaches wherein the program further causes the computer to function as a second obtaining unit configured to obtain information about margin setting in the printing apparatus corresponding to a kind of paper designated in the print setting (Fig.13, step S23 and paragraph 126), wherein the converting unit performs conversion in which the document data is reduced in a case where a margin designated in the print settings is less than the margin obtained by the second obtaining unit (Fig.13, step S24 and paragraph 126).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ozaki’395, Murata’084 and Inoue’369 according to the teaching of Shinjo’882 to determine if the size of the document data is needed to enlarged or reduced according to the margin configured by a user because this will allow the printer to provide high quality of printouts.
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 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 date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUO LONG CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am - 5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tieu, Benny can be reached on (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 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.
/HUO LONG CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights