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 May 26, 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.
Applicant argued that claims 1, 9 and 10 should not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Examiner disagrees with applicant's argument because with respect to Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011), “a first image processing unit” in claim 1, “a second image processing unit” in claim 1, and “an image processing unit” in claim 10 are treated in accordance with 112(f) because the associated function is modified by a word that serves as generic placeholder (i.e., the claim uses a term that is substitute for "means”). 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 wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
With respect to claim 9, applicant argues that Notredame’390 does not teach “second image processing unit that performs a next image process on output data resulting from the first image process”, Examiner disagrees with applicant’ argument because Notredame’390 teaches second image processing unit that performs a next image process on output data resulting from the first image process [as shown in Fig.10, the RIP system 1009 performs the desired image processing operations on the image data and then to transmit the processed image data to the rapid merge system 1003. The rapid merge system 1003 performs the desired image processing operations on the processed image data and then to transmit the new processed image data to the decompress & screening system 1017 to perform another desired image processing before transmitting it to a printing device 1019 for printing. Therefore, a workflow (the control information) is considered being disclosed to instruct the RIP system 1009 to perform desired image processing on a print job first, the rapid merge system 1003 to perform the next desired image processing on the said print job after the RIP system 1009 and the decompress & screening system 1017 to perform desired image processing on the said print job after the rapid merge system 1003 on a print job before transmitting the print job to a print job for printing].
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims received on May 26, 2026 has been entered.
The amendment of claims 1-6 and 8-10 are acknowledged.
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.
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: “a first image processing unit” in claim 1, “a second image processing unit” in claim 1, and “an image processing unit” in claim 10.
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 first image processing unit” in claim 1 is read as the item 20a1 shown in Fig.4 with is part of the processor 20a in Fig.4, “a second image processing unit” in claim 1 is read as the item 20a1 shown in Fig.4 with is part of the processor 20a in Fig.4, and “an image processing unit” in claim 10 is read as the processor 20a in Fig.4.
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 § 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Notredame’390 (US 6,049,390).
With respect to claim 9, Notredame’390 teaches a processor [the system (Fig. 10) is inherent disclosed with a processor to perform its desired functions] configured to cause a plurality of image processing units (Fig.10, items 1009, 1003 and 1017), which are configured to execute an image process for performing printing in a printing apparatus (Fig.10, item 1019), to execute the image processing, wherein
the processor outputs control information to an image processing unit of the plurality of image processing units, the control information including information indicating input data to be processed using a first image process by the first image processing unit, and identifying the second image processing unit that performs a next image process on output data resulting from the first image process [as shown in Fig.10, the RIP system 1009 performs the desired image processing operations on the image data and then to transmit the processed image data to the rapid merge system 1003. The rapid merge system 1003 performs the desired image processing operations on the processed image data and then to transmit the new processed image data to the decompress & screening system 1017 to perform another desired image processing before transmitting it to a printing device 1019 for printing. Therefore, a workflow (the control information) is considered being disclosed to instruct the RIP system 1009 to perform desired image processing on a print job first, the rapid merge system 1003 to perform the next desired image processing on the said print job after the RIP system 1009 and the decompress & screening system 1017 to perform desired image processing on the said print job after the rapid merge system 1003 on a print job before transmitting the print job to a print job for printing]
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 1, 2, 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Notredame’390 (US 6,049,390), and further in view of Niitsuma’098 (US 2004/0184098).
With respect to claim 1, Notredame’390 teaches an image processing control system (Fig. 10) comprising:
a plurality of image processing units (Fig.10, items 1009, 1003 and 1017) configured to perform image processing, the plurality of image processing comprising at least a first image processing unit (Fig.10, items 1009, 1003 and 1017) and second image processing unit (Fig.10, items 1009, 1003 and 1017); and
a processor [the system shown in Fig.10 is inherent disclosed with a processor to perform its desired functions] configured to cause the plurality of image processing units to execute the image process (Fig.10), wherein
the processor outputs control information to a first image processing unit, the control information including 1) information identifying input data to be processed using a first image processing and 2) information identifying the second image processing unit that performs a next image process on output data [as shown in Fig.10, the RIP system 1009 performs the desired image processing operations on the image data and then to transmit the processed image data to the rapid merge system 1003. The rapid merge system 1003 performs the desired image processing operations on the processed image data and then to transmit the new processed image data to the decompress & screening system 1017 to perform another desired image processing before transmitting it to a printing device 1019 for printing. Therefore, information identifying input data to be processed by the rapid merge system 1003 and the information identifying the decompress & screening system 1017 are considered being disclosed in order to enable the rapid merge system 1003 and the rapid merge system 1003 to perform desired image processing on the image data received the RIP system 1009], and
the first image processing unit is configured to read the information identifying input data to be processed and in response executed the first image process on the input data [as shown in Fig.10, the RIP system 1009 performs the desired image processing operations on the image data and then to transmit the processed image data to the rapid merge system 1003. The rapid merge system 1003 is considered to perform the desired image processing operations on the image data from the RIP system 1009 according to the information identifying the image data from the RIP system 1009].
Notredame’390 does not teach the first image processing unit further configured to read the information identifying the second image processing unit that performs the next image process and in response output outputs the output data of the first image process to the image processing unit that performs the next image process.
Niitsuma’098 teaches a second image data transmission unit which transmits the image data received by the first image data reception unit and the apparatus ID to the transfer destination address received by the first image data reception unit (paragraph 16).
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 Notredame’390 according to the teaching of Niitsuma’098 to enable the RIP system (Fig.10, item 1009) to transmit the image data and both of the apparatus ID and the address of the decompress & screening system (Fig.10, item 1017) (the information identifying the second image processing unit) to the rapid merge system (Fig.10, item 1003) so that the rapid merge system (Fig.10, item 1003) transmits the processed image data to the decompress & screening system (Fig.10, item 1017) according to both of the apparatus ID and the received address (the first image processing unit further configured to read the information identifying the second image processing unit that performs the next image process and in response output outputs the output data of the first image process to the image processing unit that performs the next image process) because this will allow the processed image to be transmitted to the desired destination more effectively.
With respect to claim 2, which further limits claim 1, Notredame’390 teaches at least the second image processing unit can be implemented in a plurality of computers (col.14, lines 1-3),
With respect to claim 6, which further limits claim 1, Notredame’390 teaches wherein the control information includes information specifying the image processing unit that performs a series of processes for printing of the printing apparatus among the plurality of image processing units [as shown in Fig.10, the RIP system 1009 performs the desired image processing operations on the image data and then to transmit the processed image data to the rapid merge system 1003. The rapid merge system 1003 performs the desired image processing operations on the processed image data and then to transmit the new processed image data to the decompress & screening system 1017 to perform another desired image processing before transmitting it to a printing device 1019 for printing], and
the specified image processing unit executes an image process [as shown in Fig.10, the RIP system 1009 performs the desired image processing operations on the image data and then to transmit the processed image data to the rapid merge system 1003. The rapid merge system 1003 performs the desired image processing operations on the processed image data and then to transmit the new processed image data to the decompress & screening system 1017 to perform another desired image processing before transmitting it to a printing device 1019 for printing].
With respect to claim 7, which further limits claim 1, Notredame’390 teaches wherein the control information includes the input data [as shown in Fig.10, the RIP system 1009 performs the desired image processing operations on the image data and then to transmit the processed image data to the rapid merge system 1003. The rapid merge system 1003 performs the desired image processing operations on the processed image data and then to transmit the new processed image data to the decompress & screening system 1017 to perform another desired image processing before transmitting it to a printing device 1019 for printing].
With respect to claim 8, which further limits claim 1, Notredame’390 teaches wherein the control information includes a parameter used in the image processing, and the image processing unit executes the image processing using the parameter [as shown in Fig.10, the RIP system 1009 performs the desired image processing operations on the image data and then to transmit the processed image data to the rapid merge system 1003. The rapid merge system 1003 performs the desired image processing operations on the processed image data and then to transmit the new processed image data to the decompress & screening system 1017 to perform another desired image processing before transmitting it to a printing device 1019 for printing].
With respect to claim 10, Notredame’390 teaches an image processing unit [regarding to the system shown in Fig. time 10) for executing any of a plurality of image processes (Fig.10, items 1009, 1003 and 1017) for performing printing (Fig.10, item 1019) in a printing apparatus,
wherein the image processing unit is configured to read information identifying input data to be processed from control information, and in response execute a first image process on the identified input data [as shown in Fig.10, the RIP system 1009 performs the desired image processing operations on the image data and then to transmit the processed image data to the rapid merge system 1003. The rapid merge system 1003 is considered to perform the desired image processing operations on the image data from the RIP system 1009 according to the information identifying the image data from the RIP system 1009].
Notredame’390 does not teach the image processing unit further configured to read information identifying a next image processing that performs a next image process and in response outputs the output data of the first image process to the next image processing unit that executes the next image process.
Niitsuma’098 teaches a second image data transmission unit which transmits the image data received by the first image data reception unit and the apparatus ID to the transfer destination address received by the first image data reception unit (paragraph 16).
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 Notredame’390 according to the teaching of Niitsuma’098 to enable the RIP system (Fig.10, item 1009) to transmit the image data and both of the apparatus ID and the address of the decompress & screening system (Fig.10, item 1017) (the information identifying the second image processing unit) to the rapid merge system (Fig.10, item 1003) so that the rapid merge system (Fig.10, item 1003) transmits the processed image data to the decompress & screening system (Fig.10, item 1017) according to both of the apparatus ID and the received address (the image processing unit further configured to read information identifying a next image processing that performs a next image process and in response outputs the output data of the first image process to the next image processing unit that executes the next image process) because this will allow the processed image to be transmitted to the desired destination more effectively.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Notredame’390 (US 6,049,390), Niitsuma’098 (US 2004/0184098) and further in view of Miyake’564 (US 2003/0208564).
With respect to claim 3, which further limits claim 1, Notredame’390 teaches wherein first storage location is associated with first image processing units [The rapid merge system (Fig.10, item 1003) is inherent disclosed with a first storage location in order to allow the processed image data to be stored], and
a second storage location is associated with the second image processing unit [The decompress & screening system (Fig.10, item 1017) is inherent disclosed with a first storage location in order to allow the processed image data to be stored]
Notredame’390 does not teach the first image processing unit is configured to monitor the first storage location and, when the control information is stored at the first storage location, start the first image process based on the input data indicated by the stored control information, and to store the control information at the second storage location associated with the second image processing unit.
Miyake’564 teaches the first image processing unit is configured to monitor the first storage location and, when the control information is stored at the first storage location, start the first image process based on the input data indicated by the stored control information [when image files are copied into these hot folders 24 and an image processing program is executed by the image processing unit],
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 Notredame’390 and Niitsuma’098 according to the teaching of Miyake’564 to include a hot folder in the rapid merge system (Fig.10, item 1003 in Notredame’390) such that the rapid merge system (Fig.10, item 1003 in Notredame’390) merges the files when the said files are being detected in the said hot folder because this will allow the filed to be merged more effectively.
The combination of Notredame’390, Niitsuma’098 and Miyake’564 does not teach to store the control information at the second storage location associated with the second image processing unit.
Since Notredame’390 teaches that the RIP system (Fig.10, item 1009) performs the desired image processing operations on the image data and then to transmit the processed image data to the rapid merge system (Fig.10, item 1003), the rapid merge system (Fig.10, item 1003) performs the desired image processing operations on the processed image data and then to transmit the new processed image data to the decompress & screening system (Fig.10, item 1017) to perform another desired image processing before transmitting it to a printing device (Fig.10, item 1019) for printing, and Miyake’564 teaches that when image files are copied into these hot folders 24 and an image processing program is executed by the image processing unit, 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 recognize to include a hot folder in the decompress & screening system (Fig.10, item 1017 in Notredame’390) such that the decompress & screening system (Fig.10, item 1017 in Notredame’390) performs the desired image processing according the setting information (the control information) associated with the said hot folder (to store the control information at the second storage location associated with the second image processing unit) because this will allow the decompress & screening system (Fig.10, item 1017 in Notredame’390) to perform desired image processing 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 Notredame’390, Niitsuma’098 and Miyake’564 to include a hot folder in the decompress & screening system (Fig.10, item 1017 in Notredame’390) such that the decompress & screening system (Fig.10, item 1017 in Notredame’390) performs the desired image processing according the setting information (the control information) associated with the said hot folder (to store the control information at the second storage location associated with the second image processing unit) because this will allow the decompress & screening system (Fig.10, item 1017 in Notredame’390) to perform desired image processing more effectively.
With respect to claim 4, which further limits claim 3, Notredame’390 does not teach wherein the control information includes information indicating the printing apparatus that executes printing, and the control information includes an output location associated with an image processing unit that generates final output data to be output to the printing apparatus, and wherein the image processing control system is configured such that when the control information is stored at the output location, the final output data is output to the printing apparatus and printing is performed.
Miyake’564 teaches wherein the control information includes information indicating the printing apparatus that executes printing, and the control information includes an output location associated with an image processing unit that generates final output data to be output to the printing apparatus, and wherein the image processing control system is configured such that when the control information is stored at the output location, the final output data is output to the printing apparatus and printing is performed [When image files are copied into these hot folders and an image processing program is executed by the image processing unit, the files are automatically extracted, processed, and outputted on the printer (paragraph 34 and Fig.11). Therefore, the setting information for outing the processed image data to a printer for printing is considered being disclosed]
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 Notredame’390 and Niitsuma’098 according to the teaching of Miyake’564 to include a decompress & screening system (Fig.10, item 1017 in Notredame’390) such that that the decompress & screening system (Fig.10, item 1017 in Notredame’390) performs the desired image processing according the setting information (the control information) associated with the said hot folder and then to output the processed image data to a printer for printing because this will allow the desired image data to be printed more effectively.
With respect to claim 5, which further limits claim 1, Notredame’390 does not teach wherein the control information includes information indicating a status storage location of status data indicating progress of the image processing, the image processing unit stores the status data at the storage location, and the processor executes image processing according to the status data stored at the status storage location.
Miyake’564 teaches wherein the control information includes information indicating a status storage location of status data indicating progress of the image processing, the image processing unit stores the status data at the storage location, and the processor executes image processing according to the status data stored at the status storage location [When image files are copied into these hot folders and an image processing program is executed by the image processing unit, the files are automatically extracted, processed, and outputted on the printer (paragraph 34 and Fig.11). Therefore, when the image files are the hot folder, the status data associated with the image files is considered being and provided so that the image files in the hot folder are being processed accordingly].
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 Notredame’390 according to the teaching of Yamashita’580 to include hot folders to enable the system to perform image data transmission and the desired operations on the RIP system (Fig.10, item 1009), the rapid merge system (Fig.10, item 1003) and the decompress & screening system (Fig.10, item 1017) because this will allow the image data be processed more effectively in a system.
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