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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 24 recites “a port controller”, there is no adequate description about the obtaining unit.
3. 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.
4. Claim 24 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 element “obtaining unit” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function.
The term “a port controller” is unclear; port control process 140 (port control unit) (specification paragraph p0073).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 15-16, 18, 21 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (JP 2017117026 (IDS)) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20190258431).
Regarding claim 25, Inoue teaches an information processing apparatus comprising at least one memory and at least one processor and/or at least one circuit which function as:
an obtaining unit configured to obtain type information indicating the type of a printing media on which printing is to be performed (p0001: a means for acquiring paper information of a paper feed unit of a printing device from the printing device); and
a display controlling unit configured to perform, even when no user instruction to use a past history at printing of a printing target is provided, control to display information as a content to be set to a particular setting item in accordance with the type information obtained by the obtaining unit on a print setting screen displayed based on an operation for printing the printing target (p0011: a display means for displaying to a user setting candidates for the print settings of the printing control system for the paper information acquired by the paper information acquisition means and p0036),
Inoue does not explicitly disclose the information indicating print setting based on a setting history including contents of setting by a user at past printing.
Yamamoto teaches the information indicating print setting based on a setting history including contents of setting by a user at past printing (fig. 27 and p0227: Assume that the print setting information which was generated in the past).
Inoue and Yamamoto are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. 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 Inoue with the teaching of Yamamoto for purpose of implement printing via a messaging application (p0006).
Regarding claim 24, The structural elements of apparatus claim 25 perform all of the steps of method claim 24. Thus, claim 24 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 25.
Claim 1 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 25 and in accordance with Yamamoto’s further teaching on: A computer-readable memory that contains instructions, which when executed by a processor perform steps in a method (p0010).
Regarding claim 2, Inoue teaches the storage medium storing the one or more programs according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining unit obtains, as the type information, information related to the type of a printing media that is set to a feeding unit of a printing apparatus (p0001: a means for acquiring paper information of a paper feed unit of a printing device from the printing device).
Regarding claim 4, Inoue teaches the storage medium storing the one or more programs according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining unit obtains the type information from a printing apparatus (p0001: a means for acquiring paper information of a paper feed unit of a printing device from the printing device).
Regarding claim 5, Inoue in view of Yamamoto teaches the storage medium storing the one or more programs according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining unit obtains, as the type information, information indicating the printing media type that is set by the user (Yamamoto: fig. 27 and p0227: Assume that the print setting information which was generated in the past).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 6, Inoue in view of Yamamoto teaches the storage medium storing the one or more programs according to claim 1, wherein the display controlling unit displays, as the content to be set to a particular setting item, first information indicating first print setting based on the setting history of the user in a case where the printing media type indicated by the type information is a first type (p0011), and displays, as the content to be set to a particular setting item, second information indicating second print setting based on the setting history of the user in a case where the printing media type indicated by the type information is a second type (Yamamoto: fig. 27 and p0227: different paper type and settings).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 21, Inoue in view of Yamamoto teaches the storage medium storing the one or more programs according to claim 1, wherein the display controlling unit performs control to display, as the content to be set to a particular setting item, information indicating print setting based on the setting history in accordance with the type information obtained by the obtaining unit and a printing media size (Yamamoto: fig. 27 and p0227: different paper type and settings).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 16, Inoue in view of Yamamoto teaches the storage medium storing the one or more programs according to claim 1, wherein the particular setting item is a setting item for printing (Yamamoto: fig. 26A).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 15, Inoue teaches the storage medium storing the one or more programs according to claim 1, wherein the one or more computers are further caused to function as a setting unit configured to set, to the particular setting item, print setting based on a past setting history of the user in accordance with the type information obtained by the obtaining unit even when no user operation is performed to instruct a content that is set to the particular setting item (p0011: a display means for displaying to a user setting candidates for the print settings of the printing control system for the paper information acquired by the paper information acquisition means and p0036).
Regarding claim 18, Inoue teaches the storage medium storing the one or more programs according to claim 1, wherein the display controlling unit further performs control to display, information indicating print setting based on a past setting history of the user in accordance with the type information obtained by the obtaining unit, as a content that is set to at least one other setting item different from the particular setting item (p0011: a display means for displaying to a user setting candidates for the print settings of the printing control system for the paper information acquired by the paper information acquisition means and p0036).
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Yamamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuo et al. (US 5010371).
Regarding claim 3, Inoue in view of Yamamoto does not teach the storage medium storing the one or more programs according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining unit obtains, as the type information, information indicating the type of a printing media that is set to a feeding unit loaded to a platen position in a case where the printing apparatus includes a plurality of feeding units to which printing medium are set.
Matsuo teaches wherein the obtaining unit obtains, as the type information, information indicating the type of a printing media that is set to a feeding unit loaded to a platen position in a case where the printing apparatus includes a plurality of feeding units to which printing medium are set (abstract: one of plurality of sheet feeders storing a relevant size of copy sheet is selected based on the size of a larger document fed onto the platen).
Inoue in view of Yamamoto and Matsuo are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. 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 Inoue in view of Yamamoto with the teaching of Matuso for purpose of to provide a copying apparatus wherein imaging failure is prevented in a dual document feeding mode.
Claims 7 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Yamamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 9561647).
Regarding claim 7, Inoue in view of Yamamoto does not teach the storage medium storing the one or more programs according to claim 1, wherein the display controlling unit performs control to display, as the content to be set to a particular setting item, information indicating print setting that is lastly set for the printing media type indicated by the type information obtained by the obtaining unit.
Watanabe teaches wherein the display controlling unit performs control to display, as the content to be set to a particular setting item, information indicating print setting that is lastly set for the printing media type indicated by the type information obtained by the obtaining unit (fig. 2: latest and col. 4, liens 39:42:the latest set tray as the operable tray, on the touch panel 10 (S12)).
Inoue in view of Yamamoto and Watanabe are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. 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 Inoue in view of Yamamoto with the teaching of Watanabe for purpose of setting paper for the printing device.
Regarding claim 9, Inoue in view of Yamamoto and Watanabe teaches the storage medium storing the one or more programs according to claim 1, wherein the one or more computers are further caused to function as a receiving unit configured to receive, from the user, an instruction to change print setting that is set to the particular setting item; and a print controlling unit configured to perform control to print print setting as the setting history in association with the printing media type indicated by the type information obtained by the obtaining unit, the print setting being set based on the instruction received by the receiving unit (col.1 Lines: 40-45: history of the choices selected at least twice. The display control unit first provides one or more choices of the plurality of choices on the user interface based on the history.
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 7 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 10, Inoue in view of Yamamoto teaches the storage medium storing the one or more programs according to claim 9, wherein the display controlling unit performs control to display a setting screen for performing a setting operation related to printing and for receiving an instruction that is receivable by the receiving unit to change the print setting, the setting screen including the particular setting item, and performs, upon an instruction operation to confirm a content that is set by using the setting screen (Yamamoto: fig. 17B), control to display a selection screen for selecting whether print setting that is set based on the instruction received by the receiving unit is to be applied in subsequent occasions for the printing media type indicated by the type information obtained by the obtaining unit (Yamanoto:fig. 17B).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 7 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 11, Inoue in view of Yamamoto teaches the storage medium storing the one or more programs according to claim 10, wherein the print controlling unit performs control to store the print setting that is set based on the instruction received by the receiving unit in a case where selection to perform the application in subsequent occasions is made on the selection screen (Yamanoto:fig. 17B : 1712: store print settings) and not to store the print setting that is set based on the instruction received by the receiving unit in a case where selection not to perform the application in subsequent occasions is made on the selection screen (Yamanoto:fig. 17B: 1714:cancel).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 7 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 12, Inoue in view of Yamamoto teaches the storage medium storing the one or more programs according to claim 10, wherein, upon the instruction operation to confirm, the display controlling unit performs control to display the selection screen in a case where no information indicating that selection has been made on the selection screen is stored and not to display the selection screen in a case where information indicating that selection has been made on the selection screen is stored (fig. 17B).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 7 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 13, Inoue in view of Yamamoto and Watanabe teaches the storage medium storing the one or more programs according to claim 9, wherein the one or more computers are further caused to function as a searching unit configured to search the setting history for print setting stored in association with the printing media type indicated by the type information obtained by the obtaining unit (Yamamoto:p0227: database 330).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Yamamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maeda (US 20150002572).
Regarding claim 8, Inoue in view of Yamamoto does not teach the storage medium storing the one or more programs according to claim 1, wherein the display controlling unit performs control to display, as the content to be set to a particular setting item, information indicating print setting that is most frequently set for the printing media type indicated by the type information obtained by the obtaining unit.
Maeda teaches wherein the display controlling unit performs control to display, as the content to be set to a particular setting item, information indicating print setting that is most frequently set for the printing media type indicated by the type information obtained by the obtaining unit (p0099: borderless printing is set in a case that a print sheet of which the printing target image is frequently a photograph has been set as the print settings, such as a case where the size of the print sheet is "L size" or "2 L size")
Inoue in view of Yamamoto and Maeda are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. 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 Inoue in view of Yamamoto with the teaching of Maeda for purpose of enable a suitable image to be printed (p0008).
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Yamamoto and Watanabe as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Meri (US 8705125).
Regarding claim 14, Inoue in view of Yamamoto and Watanabe does not teach the storage medium storing the one or more programs according to claim 9, wherein the display controlling unit performs control to display candidates for a setting content that is set to the particular setting item based on a user operation, the candidates being arranged based on the setting history in descending order of dates and times that are set in the past for the printing media type indicated by the type information obtained by the obtaining unit or in descending order of use frequency in the past.
Meri teaches wherein the display controlling unit performs control to display candidates for a setting content that is set to the particular setting item based on a user operation, the candidates being arranged based on the setting history in descending order of dates and times that are set in the past for the printing media type indicated by the type information obtained by the obtaining unit or in descending order of use frequency in the past (claim 4).
Inoue in view of Yamamoto and Watanabe and Meri are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. 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 Inoue in view of Yamamoto with the teaching of Meri for purpose of provide a printing system capable of proposing a set content that is recommended in print setting items based on a print setting history.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Yamamoto as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Metcalfe et al. (US 20160203392).
Regarding claim 17, Inoue in view of Yamamoto does not teach the storage medium storing the one or more programs according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of candidates that can be set to the particular setting item include at least one of a picture, a monochrome picture, a poster, and a CAD drawing.
Metcalfe teaches wherein a plurality of candidates that can be set to the particular setting item include at least one of a picture, a monochrome picture, a poster, and a CAD drawing (p0050: standard or high quality print settings) will render more than acceptable image quality (IQ). Similarly, monochrome pictures, monochrome halftone picture).
Inoue in view of Yamamoto and Metcalfe are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. 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 Inoue in view of Yamamoto with the teaching of Metcalfe for to save on printer consumables, decrease copy time in the review cycle (p0004).
Claims 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Yamamoto as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Goto et al. (US 9678700).
Regarding claim 19, Inoue in view of Yamamoto does not teach the storage medium storing the one or more programs according to claim 18, wherein the other setting item is an item that is can be set based on an operation that instructs detailed setting.
Goto teaches wherein the other setting item is an item that is can be set based on an operation that instructs detailed setting (col.22 lines 55-65: detailed settings).
Inoue in view of Yamamoto and Goto are combinable because they both deal with a printing apparatus. 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 Inoue in view of Yamamoto with the teaching of Goto for preventing a failure in executing image processing based on communication with an external device in a software arrangement including a script layer, and a storage medium storing a program.
Regarding claim 20, Inoue in view of Yamamoto and Goto teaches the storage medium storing the one or more programs according to claim 18, wherein the other setting item is at least one of an item for setting printing quality, an item for setting whether to convert a printing document into monochrome color and print the printing document, an item for adjusting color tone at printing, and an item for setting a matching method or a color correction method at printing (Goto: (col.22 lines 55-65: print speed setting print quality setting color/monochrome setting).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 19 has been incorporated herein.
Claims 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Yamamoto as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Ogawa et al. (US 20220137906 ).
Regarding claim 23, Inoue in view of Yamamoto does not teach the storage medium storing the one or more programs according to claim 22, wherein while the notification is displayed, a display item for print setting including the particular setting item is in an inactive state in which no operation is to be received.
Ogawa teaches wherein while the notification is displayed, a display item for print setting including the particular setting item is in an inactive state in which no operation is to be received (p0039:out of history information 502, cannot be reflected, a warning mark 802 may be displayed).
Inoue in view of Yamamoto and Ogawa are combinable because they both deal with a printing apparatus. 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 Inoue in view of Yamamoto with the teaching of Ogawa so that the user recognizes a warning at the time of performing restoration print.
Regarding claim 22, Inoue in view of Yamamoto and Ogawa teaches the storage medium storing the one or more programs according to claim 1, wherein in a case where information indicating print setting based on the setting history is displayed as the content to be set to a particular setting item, the display controlling unit performs control to display a notification indicating that the print setting based on the setting history is to be reflected (s2105 and s2106 in fig. 9).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 23 has been incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN Q ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1600. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
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, Merouan, Abderrahim can be reached on (571) 270-5254. 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.
HELEN ZONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/HELEN ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights