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 12/04/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pp 6 of Applicant Arguments that “ As shown above ([0039] of the applied prior art US 2012/0224207), Sueshige discloses determining whether a conflict of setting values is caused among print setting items. However, applicant submits that determining a conflict between setting values is not equivalent to detecting a constraint violation between attributes”.
In response, examiner disagrees. Applicant defines in [0015] of US 2025/0244930, PG Pub of Application 18/428,489, “ A constraint violation involves conflicts between job attributes that may occur when one job attribute for a print job has a value that is not permitted based on a value for another job attribute for that print job”. Based on that definition, examiner believes that, broadly, the limitations “determining whether a conflict exists between attributes” previously presented and “detecting a constraint violation between attributes” currently presented as amendment in the independent claims are obvious variant of each other.
The applied prior US 2012/0224207 discloses in [0059] in step S507, the print setting information control unit 204 determines whether a conflict (inconsistency) of setting values is caused among the print setting items, based on priorities uniquely held by the printer driver 202, which reads on both limitations, therefore, examiner maintains his rejection.
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) 1-9, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sueshige (US 2012/0224207).
With respect to claim 1 (similarly claims 11 and 16), Sueshige teaches a system (e.g. a printing system Fig 1 [0040]) comprising:
at least one physical memory device (e.g. a random access memory (RAM) 103 and an external storage device 104 Fig 1 [0041]) to store a print workflow manager (e.g. to store printer driver 202 Fig 2 [0047]); and
one or more processors (e.g. CPU 101 Fig 1 [0041]) coupled with the at least one physical memory device to execute the print workflow manager to (e.g. the CPU 101 loads program code of the printer driver into the RAM 103. The external storage device 104 stores the program code read by the CPU 101 [0042]):
receive a print job (e.g. the printer driver 202 receives print data from the client apparatus 3 [0048], see also [0058] where the print setting information control unit 204 receives print setting information added to the print data from the application 207);
receive a job ticket including first attributes (e.g. the print setting information control unit 204 analyzes job ticket information added to the print data [0048], see also [0058] where the print setting information control unit 204 receives print setting information added to the print data from the application 207, as a job ticket 001);
convert the first attributes included in the job ticket to second attributes of a format supported by a printer (e.g. the print setting information control unit 204 overwrites the job ticket 002, in which the default values are set in step S503, with the information written in the job ticket 001 supplied from the application 207 in step S501 [0058]);
detect a constraint violation between two or more of the second attributes (e.g. in step S507, the print setting information control unit 204 determines whether a conflict (inconsistency) of setting values is caused among the print setting items, based on priorities uniquely held by the printer driver 202 [0059]); and
perform one or more adjustments to the two or more second attributes based on a priority list upon detecting the constraint violation (e.g. in step S507, the print setting information control unit 204 determines whether a conflict (inconsistency) of setting values is caused among the print setting items, based on priorities uniquely held by the printer driver 202 [0059], in step S702, among the print setting items causing a conflict, the print setting information control unit 204 determines a print setting item that needs to be reset, based on priorities uniquely held by the printer driver 202 [0064], the print setting information control unit 204 causes the printer driver 202 to use an appropriate setting value to reset (change) the print setting item that needs to be reset. In this way, the print setting information control unit 204 resolves the conflict [0065]).
With respect to claim 2 (similarly claims 12 and 17), Sueshige teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the adjustments are performed based on adjustment rules included in the priority list (e.g. the adjustments are performed based on adjustment rules included in the priorities uniquely held by the printer driver 202, [0060-[0061]).
With respect to claim 3 (similarly claims 13 and 18), Sueshige teaches the system of claim 2, wherein an adjustment rule retains a highest priority attribute among the conflicting attributes and adjusts lower priority attributes to accommodate the highest priority attribute (e.g. In the data table 600 in FIG. 6, a print setting item indicated on the left side of another print setting item has a higher priority [0060]).
With respect to claim 4, Sueshige teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the priority list further comprises one or more high- priority attributes and a list of low-priority attributes associated with each of the one or more high-priority attributes (e.g. the data table of Fig 6 comprises one or more high- priority attributes and a list of low-priority attributes associated with each of the one or more high-priority attributes [0060]).
With respect to claim 5, Sueshige teaches the system of claim 4, wherein performing an adjustment comprises iteratively changing the lower-priority attributes causing the conflict and determining whether the conflict has been resolved (e.g. Fig 6 [0060]-[0061] comprises iteratively changing the lower-priority attributes causing the conflict and determining whether the conflict has been resolved, see also [0065] where the print setting information control unit 204 causes the printer driver 202 to use an appropriate setting value to reset (change) the print setting item that needs to be reset. In this way, the print setting information control unit 204 resolves the conflict).
With respect to claim 6 (similarly claims 14 and 19), Sueshige teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the print workflow manager further to access the priority list upon determining that the conflict exists (e.g. If it is determined that a conflict of setting values is caused among print setting items (YES in step S507), the operation proceeds to step S508, and the print setting information control unit 204 executes a conflict resolution switching process [0062] i.e. to access the priority list upon determining that the conflict exists).
With respect to claim 7 (similarly claims 15 and 20), Sueshige teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the print workflow manager further to receive constraints (e.g. receive the constraints Fig 6 [0060]-[0061]); and generate the priority list based on the constraints (e.g. generate the priorities held by 202 based on the constraints, [0060]-[0063]).
With respect to claim 8, Sueshige teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the print workflow manager to transmit the second attributes to the printer (e.g. a print job in data format interpretable by the printer 2, based on the print setting information and the print data, is output to the printer [0051]).
With respect to claim 9, Sueshige teaches the system of claim 8, the printer to receive the second attributes (e.g. this print job is output to the printer [0051]).
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) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sueshige (US 2012/0224207) in view of Gaertner (US 2014/0247460).
With respect to claim 10, Sueshige teaches the system of claim 1 including the job ticket.
However, Sueshige fails to teach wherein the job ticket comprises a Job Definition Format (JDF) job ticket.
Gaertner teaches a job ticket which a Job Definition Format (JDF) job ticket (e.g. receives Job Definition Format (JDF) job tickets that indicate how to process the incoming print jobs [0020]).
Sueshige and Gaertner are analogous art because they all pertain to processing print jobs and job tickets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to people having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the job ticket of Sueshige to include: wherein the job ticket comprises a Job Definition Format (JDF) job ticket, as suggested in [0020] of Gaertner. The benefit of the modification would be to know how to process the incoming print jobs, Gaertner [0020].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 IBRAHIM SIDDO whose telephone number is (571)272-4508. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30PM.
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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 5712703438. 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.
/IBRAHIM SIDDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights