Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/508,624

PRINTING METHODS FOR ENHANCED PAPER SELECTION

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 14, 2023
Examiner
MENBERU, BENIYAM
Art Unit
2681
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Kyocera Document Solutions Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
519 granted / 707 resolved
+11.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
740
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.1%
-29.9% vs TC avg
§103
62.2%
+22.2% vs TC avg
§102
10.7%
-29.3% vs TC avg
§112
12.2%
-27.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 707 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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) 1,3-13 and 15-18, 21-22 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 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, 3, 5-7, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070031162 to Dombrowski in view US 20230071492 to Chang further in view US 20050063750 to Lermant. Regarding claim 1, Dombrowski discloses a method for managing printing operations at a printing device (paragraph 26, 35; method 63 for managing print jobs at printer 16), the method comprising: receiving a print job for the printing device, wherein the print job specifies an attribute having a value (paragraph 10, 35; print job is received for printer having attributes with value); determining whether the attribute is related to a paper tray configured on the printing device (paragraph 35; it determines in step 68 if any trays having media matching the attributes value of the job); assigning the print job to be printed using the paper tray (paragraph 35; the job is assigned to the designated tray 20 having the attribute to be used for printing); printing the print job at the printing device using the paper tray (paragraph 35; print the job using designated tray 20). However Dombrowski does not disclose printing the print job at the printing device using resources corresponding to the first paper catalog entry. Chang discloses printing the print job at the printing device using resources corresponding to the first paper catalog entry (paragraph 76, 77-78; paper catalog 124 entry is used to find ICC profile (resource) that is used to print the print job at printer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Dombrowski as taught by Chang to provide resources for printing a job. The motivation to combine the references is to provide reuse of existing ICC profiles for new paper types associated with a print job thereby saving time and work for providing the resource such as ICC profile for print job (paragraph 26-27). However Dombrowski does not disclose determining a first paper catalog entry and a second paper catalog entry are assigned to the paper tray; determining whether to assign the first paper catalog entry or the second paper catalog entry to the print job; assigning the first paper catalog entry to the print job. Lermant discloses determining a first paper catalog entry and a second paper catalog entry are assigned to the paper tray (paragraph 49-50, 51-52; tray of printer can be assigned to universal paper catalog label such as “generic labels” or “Default”; selection of universal paper catalog label in Fig. 13 results in determination of entry in paper catalog 1 and paper catalog 2 in Fig. 12); determining whether to assign the first paper catalog entry or the second paper catalog entry to the print job (paragraph 42, 53-54; print job is assigned either of entry in paper catalog 1 or paper catalog 2 based on selection of universal paper catalog depending on which printer gets the job); assigning the first paper catalog entry to the print job (paragraph 42, 54; if job is sent to printer 32a then paper catalog 1 is assigned to the job). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Dombrowski as taught by Lermant to provide determination of paper catalogs for the paper tray. The motivation to combine the references is to provide a system having load balancing that reduces the load on each printer in which a selection of a universal media for the print job that is submitted results in distribution of jobs to different printers that have paper catalog associated with the universal media (paragraph 52-54). Regarding claim 3, Lermant discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising providing a list of the first paper catalog entry and the second catalog entry at a user interface (paragraph 42; pulldown 64a includes paper catalog 1 and paper catalog 2 entry on display 62a). Regarding claim 5, Dombrowski discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the attribute is related to the paper tray includes determining the value for the attribute is related to the paper tray (paragraph 27, 35; it is determine in step 68 if any trays having media matching the attributes value of the job; attribute related to paper tray are “plain”, size attributes “A4”). Regarding claim 6, Lerman discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising determining that the print job also uses the first paper catalog entry based on the attribute (paragraph 49, 54; print jobs use paper catalog 1 or 2 based on association of universal catalog to attribute names). Regarding claim 7, Chang discloses the method of claim 6, wherein a policy indicates that the first paper catalog entry is used based on the attribute (paragraph 76, 78, 84; catalog is searched based on attribute in step 404; policy is defined in step 406 that indicates based on precision requirement whether the ICC profile of the catalog entry is used; if it meets the requirement then the ICC profile and the catalog entry is used). Regarding claim 21, Chang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first catalog entry and the second catalog entry include different color printing resources (paragraph 21, 39, 88, 96; ICC profiles (color resources) can be different for each of first and second catalog entry). Claim(s) 4, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070031162 to Dombrowski in view US 20230071492 to Chang further in view US 20050063750 to Lermant further in view of JP 2017228242 to Ochi. Regarding claim 4, Dombrowski does not disclose the method of claim 2, further comprising determining a number of sheets for a first paper media corresponding to the first paper catalog entry and a number of sheets for a second paper media corresponding to the second paper catalog entry. Ochi discloses method further comprising determining a number of sheets for a first paper media corresponding to the first paper catalog entry and a number of sheets for a second paper media corresponding to the second paper catalog entry (paragraph 195,212, 215-218; User-B-Paper-A4 (first catalog entry) includes first paper associated with entry and User-C-Paper-A4 (second catalog entry) includes second paper associated with entry; paragraph 217; remaining paper capacity (number of sheets) is determined for each of catalog entry having first/second paper media). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Dombrowski as taught by Ochi to make determination of number of sheets remaining for each catalog entry. The motivation to combine the references is to provide notification for user to replenish the sheets for the tray of the catalog entry which is selected associated with small number of remaining sheets (paragraph 217, 219). Regarding claim 8, Ochi discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising generating a list of catalog entries applicable for the print job based on the attribute; and selecting the first paper catalog entry for the list, wherein the first paper catalog entry is supported by the paper tray (paragraph 211-214; when attribute such as paper weight for a catalog assigned to job differs from that catalog stored in storage 127, list catalog entry is displayed in Fig. 28 that is applicable to job; selecting "User-C-Paper-A4" (first catalog entry) having support for "Tray-2" ). Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070031162 to Dombrowski in view US 20230071492 to Chang further in view US 20050063750 to Lermant further in view of JP 2016215453 to Iida. Regarding claim 9, Dombrowski does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein assigning the print job to be printed using the paper tray includes assigning the paper tray according to a tray priority at the printing device. Iida discloses wherein assigning the print job to be printed using the paper tray includes assigning the paper tray according to a tray priority at the printing device (paragraph 33-34; when job attributes does not specify cassette (tray), then the tray assignment for the job is based on priority of printer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Dombrowski as taught by Iida to provide tray priority to be used in assigning trays to print job. The motivation to combine the references is to provide selection of printer tray for feeding the paper for the job when tray assignment is not existing in the job by selecting based on priority that results in efficiency and improved print output such as selecting the tray based on how much sheets is in the tray or tray that has shortest transportation distance (paragraph 34). Claim(s) 10-13, 16-17, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015038697 to Yamamoto in view of US 20230071492 to Chang further in view US 20050063750 to Lermant. Regarding claim 10, Yamamoto discloses a method for managing printing operations at a printing device (paragraph 16, 46-47; print job management for printing at printer 40), the method comprising: receiving a print job for the printing device, wherein the print job specifies a first attribute (paragraph 42, 89-90, 92; print data together with job ticket (print job) is received at the print control device 30 which is assigned to the printer 40; job ticket specifies attributes of paper including minimum information (attributes)); determining whether the first attribute is related to a first paper catalog entry applicable for the printing device (paragraph 42, 90-91; minimum information (first attribute) are compared with media catalog info to find matching entry (related) associated with printer 40). However, Yamamoto does not disclose printing the print job at the printing device using resources corresponding to the first paper catalog entry. Chang discloses printing the print job at the printing device using resources corresponding to the first paper catalog entry (paragraph 76, 77-78; paper catalog 124 entry is used to find ICC profile (resource) that is used to print the print job at printer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Yamamoto as taught by Chang to provide resources for printing a job. The motivation to combine the references is to provide reuse of existing ICC profiles for new paper types associated with a print job thereby saving time and work for providing the resource such as ICC profile for print job (paragraph 26-27). However Yamamoto does not disclose determining whether the first attribute is related to a first paper catalog entry and a second paper catalog entry applicable for the printing device (); determining the first paper catalog entry instead of the second paper catalog entry corresponding to the print job is assigned to a paper tray configured at the printing device; assigning the paper tray to the print job; printing the print job at the printing device using the paper tray. Lermant discloses determining whether the first attribute is related to a first paper catalog entry and a second paper catalog entry applicable for the printing device (paragraph 42, 50, 53-54; media for print job is selected from universal catalog 44 in step 104 as attribute; for example if “Johns Tabs” is media (attribute) selected, this is related to paper catalog 1 and paper catalog 2 that is applicable to printer 32a or printer 32b); determining the first paper catalog entry instead of the second paper catalog entry corresponding to the print job is assigned to a paper tray configured at the printing device (paragraph 42, 51, 52, 53-54; in fig. 13, pulldown 92 is used to assign tray at a printer to a universal catalog label; universal catalog label is associated with paper catalog 1 or paper catalog 2 based on the catalog set at each printer; print job going to printer 32a is determined to be paper catalog 1 instead of paper catalog 2); assigning the paper tray to the print job (paragraph 52; tray associator associates the media selection such as “XYZ Co” to Tray 2 for the print job); printing the print job at the printing device using the paper tray (paragraph 3, 52; printing the job based on tray association for the media selection at the printer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Yamamoto as taught by Lermant to provide determination of paper catalogs for the paper tray. The motivation to combine the references is to provide a system having load balancing that reduces the load on each printer in which a selection of a universal media for the print job that is submitted results in distribution of jobs to different printers that have paper catalog associated with the universal media (paragraph 52-54). Regarding claim 11, Yamamoto discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising selecting the paper tray from a plurality of paper trays based on a second attribute of the print job (paragraph 42, 55-56, 90-91; minimum information used to identify a catalog entry includes combination of plurality of attributes including second attribute; catalog entry matching these second attributes will provide a tray selection (406) associated with that entry). Regarding claim 12, Lermant discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising generating a list of paper catalog entries related to the attribute of the print job (paragraph 42-43; list of paper catalog entries 64a displayed that are related to attributes of print job shown in Fig. 9 as 72a). Regarding claim 13, Lermant discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising selecting the first paper catalog entry from the list of paper catalog entries (user can select either paper catalog 1 or catalog 2 via pulldown 64a). Regarding claim 16, Yamamoto discloses the method of claim 10, wherein determining whether the first attribute is related to the first paper catalog entry includes determining whether a value of the first attribute is related to the paper catalog entry (paragraph 42, 69-70, 90-91; minimum information (first attribute) has associated value such paper size value which is used by paper determination unit 501 to find matching paper catalog entry having matching value). Regarding claim 17, Chang discloses the method of claim 10, wherein a policy indicates that the first paper catalog entry is used based on the attribute (paragraph 76, 78, 84; catalog is searched based on attribute in step 404; policy is defined in step 406 that indicates based on precision requirement whether the ICC profile of the catalog entry is used; if it meets the requirement then the ICC profile and the catalog entry is used). Regarding claim 22, Chang discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the first catalog entry and the second catalog entry include different color printing resources (paragraph 21, 39, 88, 96; ICC profiles (color resources) can be different for each of first and second catalog entry). Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015038697 to Yamamoto in view of US 20230071492 to Chang further in view US 20050063750 to Lermant further in view of JP 2017228242 to Ochi. Regarding claim 15, Yamamoto does not disclose the method of claim 10, further comprising determining a number of sheets for a first paper media corresponding to the first paper catalog entry and a number of sheets for a second paper media corresponding to the second paper catalog entry; wherein the first paper media and the second paper media are loaded at the printing device; assigning the first paper catalog entry to the print job if the number of sheets for the first paper media is greater than the number of sheets for the second paper media; and assigning the second paper catalog entry to the print job if the number of sheets for the second paper media is greater than the number of sheets for the first paper media. Ochi discloses the method, further comprising: determining a number of sheets for a first paper media corresponding to the first paper catalog entry and a number of sheets for a second paper media corresponding to the second paper catalog entry (paragraph 195,212, 215-218; User-B-Paper-A4 (first catalog entry) includes first paper associated with entry and User-C-Paper-A4 (second catalog entry) includes second paper associated with entry; paragraph 217; remaining paper capacity (number of sheets) is determined for each of catalog entry having first/second paper media), wherein the first paper media and the second paper media are loaded at the printing device (paragraph 195-196; first/second paper media is loaded in each tray); assigning the first paper catalog entry to the print job if the number of sheets for the first paper media is greater than the number of sheets for the second paper media (paragraph 213, 217, 219; "User-B-Paper-A4" (first paper catalog entry) is 100% remaining sheets of first paper which is greater than "User-C-Paper-A4" (second paper catalog entry) is 0% remaining sheet of second paper; user can assign "User-B-Paper-A4" to job if notified that "User-C-Paper-A4" needs paper set); and assigning the second paper catalog entry to the print job if the number of sheets for the second paper media is greater than the number of sheets for the first paper media (paragraph 213, 217, 219; if instead "User-B-Paper-A4" (first paper catalog entry) was 0% remaining sheets of first paper which is greater than if "User-C-Paper-A4" (second paper catalog entry) was 100% remaining sheet of second paper; user can assign "User-C-Paper-A4" to job if notified that "User-B-Paper-A4" needs paper set). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Yamamoto as taught by Ochi to make determination of number of sheets remaining for each catalog entry. The motivation to combine the references is to provide notification for user to replenish the sheets for the tray of the catalog entry which is selected associated with small number of remaining sheets (paragraph 217, 219). Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015038697 to Yamamoto in view of US 20230071492 to Chang further in view US 20050063750 to Lermant further in view JP 2016215453 to Iida. Regarding claim 18, Yamamoto does not disclose the method of claim 10, wherein assigning the print job to the paper tray includes assigning the paper tray according to a tray priority at the printing device. Iida discloses wherein assigning the print job to the paper tray includes assigning the paper tray according to a tray priority at the printing device (paragraph 33-34; when job attributes does not specify cassette (tray), then the tray assignment for the job is based on priority of printer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Yamamoto as taught by Iida to provide tray priority to be used in assigning trays to print job. The motivation to combine the references is to provide selection of printer tray for feeding the paper for the job when tray assignment is not existing in the job by selecting based on priority that results in efficiency and improved print output such as selecting the tray based on how much sheets is in the tray or tray that has shortest transportation distance (paragraph 34). Other Prior Art Cited 14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20120237245 to Mitsui. 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENIYAM MENBERU whose telephone number is (571) 272-7465. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00am-6:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached on (571) 270-3438. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the customer service office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600. The group receptionist number for TC 2600 is (571) 272-2600. 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. 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). Patent Examiner Beniyam Menberu /BENIYAM MENBERU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681 02/18/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 14, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 21, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 18, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593978
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING A DISEASE AFFECTED AREA
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594480
EXERCISE SUPPORT DEVICE OPERATING WITH WEIGHT TRAINING EQUIPMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594048
NOISE ANALYSIS SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12585170
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DISPLAYING CULTURED CELLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587604
IMAGE READING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+13.2%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 707 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month