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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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”, “execution unit,” “obtainment unit,” “determination unit,” “storage unit,” and “notification unit,” in claims 1-12.
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 31, wherein the reception unit is a communication unit, which is structure, paragraph 30
obtainment unit – paragraph 35
determination unit – paragraph 57
storage unit – paragraph 47
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 contain(s) the limitation “execution unit” and “notification unit” however, the specification does not mention the term “execution unit” and “notification unit” in terms of structure. Although there is support for the steps and processes of execution and notification, there is a lack of support for each of their respective units. Therefore, one cannot determine the further features of the units besides what is described in the claims. As a result of a 112(f) identification in regards to the units, there needs to be more information to identify what the units comprise of and actions they perform.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 6-9 make reference to the reference time being the middle of the time period. In particular, claims 6 and 8 state that the reference time is the middle of the time period and that the print job should be scheduled in relation to the middle of the time period, as claimed.
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) 1-5, 10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Indei (US 2009/0094607).
Regarding Claim 1, Indei teaches a printer (Element 30) comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive a print job in which an execution time period for executing printing is designated (Paragraphs 71 and 86, wherein the job is received and the time period is determined);
an execution unit configured to execute the print job (Paragraph 84, wherein the job is generated);
an obtainment unit configured to obtain a required time required for execution of the print job (Paragraphs 72 and 86, wherein the processing time is determined); and
a determination unit configured to determine an execution timing of the print job within a printable time period in which the print job is executable by the execution unit based on the execution time period and the required time, in a case where the printable time period overlaps the execution time period (Paragraph 87, wherein it is determined if the job can be processed).
Regarding Claim 2, Indei further teaches wherein the determination unit determines the execution timing of the print job so that a start time at which the print job starts will fall within the printable time period and the execution time period (Paragraphs 87-89, wherein the time zone is determined to be acceptable based on current jobs).
Regarding Claim 3, Indei further teaches wherein the determination unit determines the execution timing of the print job so that an end time at which the print job ends will fall within the printable time period and the execution time period (Paragraphs 87-89, wherein the time zone is determined to be acceptable based on current jobs).
Regarding Claim 4, Indei further teaches wherein the reception unit receives print jobs of which execution time periods overlap (Paragraphs 87-89, wherein the time zone is determined to be acceptable based on current jobs and shifting can be done), and
wherein the determination unit determines execution timings of the print jobs so that executions of the print jobs will not overlap in the printable time period (Paragraphs 87-89, wherein the time zone is determined to be acceptable based on current jobs and shifting can be done).
Regarding Claim 5, Indei further teaches wherein the determination unit determines the execution timings of the print jobs in order of reception of the print jobs by the reception unit (Paragraphs 87-89, wherein the shifting is done based on the jobs that are received first).
Regarding Claim 10, Indei further teaches wherein the reception unit receives print jobs of which execution time periods overlap (Paragraphs 87-89, wherein the time zone is determined to be acceptable based on current jobs and shifting can be done), and
wherein the determination unit determines execution timings of print jobs that are adjacent to each other and are executed within the printable time period so that an end time at which a preceding print job ends will overlap a start time at which a subsequent print job starts among the print jobs (Paragraphs 87-89, wherein the time zone is determined to be acceptable based on current jobs and shifting can be done).
Regarding Claim 12, Indei further teaches a notification unit configured to give notification, in a case where the determination unit cannot determine the execution timing of the print job, about such a fact (Paragraph 92, wherein if the job cannot be processed in the designated time period, a notification can be sent).
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 14, 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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Indei (US 2009/0094607) in view of Matoba (US 2006/0227373).
Regarding Claim 11, Indei does not teach a storage unit configured to store the printable time period,
wherein the storage unit stores printable time periods in advance, and
wherein the printable time periods have time periods that do not overlap at least partially.
Matoba does teach a storage unit configured to store the printable time period (Paragraph 63, wherein there is a storage of the time periods for business and outside business hours),
wherein the storage unit stores printable time periods in advance (Paragraph 63, wherein there is a storage of the time periods for business and outside business hours), and
wherein the printable time periods have time periods that do not overlap at least partially (Paragraph 63, wherein there is a storage of the time periods for business and outside business hours).
Indei and Matoba are combinable because they both deal with scheduling print jobs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Indei with the teachings of Matoba for the purpose of ensuring proper processing of a job within a designated larger time set (Matoba: Paragraph 11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional cited reference of US 5940582 relates to scheduling jobs to ensure proper completion based on designated end times. US 2023/0297306 relates to prioritizing scheduled job start times for submitted print jobs. US 2007/0091344 relates to designating start or end times of print jobs when submitted.
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