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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments as filed 04/15/2026 as been considered and entered, however in light of amendments filed, the previous rejection(s) of claim(s) has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection(s) is made in view of Hayashi rendering the applicant’s arguments as moot because they are related to newly added limitations.
Applicant argues that cited references fail to teach the newly amended features such as “determining whether specific Internet Printing Protocol attribute information is included in a command for confirming validity of a job and a command for instructing a job generation” as currently recited in independent claims 1 and 5.
In reply, examiner asserts that new grounds of rejections have now been made in view of Hayashi and the new 103 combination now made with Kanno in view of Annamalai Thangaraj and Hayashi successfully teaches all the newly amended features, please see detailed rejection(s) below.
Examiner notes that since applicant failed to address the previous interpretation of claim(s) under 112(f), therefore interpretations under 11(f) are repeated below.
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: “printing section” in claim 1.
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, according to PG-Pub, 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:
printing section - image former 17, paragraph 42.
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 § 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 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 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno, US 2021/0004186 in view of Annamalai Thangaraj et al., US 2020/0285427 further in view of Hayashi, US 2021/0240404.
Regarding claim 1, Kanno discloses a printing apparatus (printer device 105 as shown in fig. 3 and fig. 4B) comprising:
a printing section (printing unit 315, fig. 3) that is capable of printing a print job based on Internet Printing Protocol (terminal apparatus 104 generates a print job based on data to be printed, and transmits the print job to a printer device using Internet Printing Protocol (IPP) to the printer device 105 to perform printing, paragraph 28, wherein, printing unit 315 (printer engine) executes printing based on received data via IPP, paragraph 54);
and a controller (CPU 306, fig. 3, controls an operation of the entire printer device 105, paragraph 51 and executes programs, paragraph 67) that:
receives the print job (printer device external I/F control unit 421 under the control of CPU 306 is configured to receive job data for printing transmitted from the terminal apparatus 104, paragraph 68),
determines whether specific Internet Printing Protocol attribute information is included in the received print job (in addition to print data, information regarding the acquired print data (XML file) is also transmitted to printer and thereby, printer device 105 generates, an XML-format file including a name, a setting item, and a setting value having an XML format when it is determined that the attribute of “printer-more-info-manufacturer” being an IPP standard attribute is included in the inquiry for the printer device attribute, paragraphs 117, 89, 97),
performs a print setting by reflecting a first attribute value not being the specific Internet Printing Protocol attribute information is determined to be included in the received print job (printer device configuration generation unit 426 determines whether or not an optional apparatus holding a capability that is not defined by a standard attribute defined by the IPP has been added, if yes, then the printer device configuration generation unit 426 generates information for defining and controlling its IPP-undefined printer device configuration information, on the ROM/RAM 307 as an XML file, paragraph 73, IPP-undefined printer device attribute refers to a printer device attribute that is not defined by the IPP (i.e., “shift sorter”, which is to be added to a printer device), thereby, printer device 105 generates, in the ROM/RAM 307 of the printer device 105, an XML-format file including a name, a setting item, and a setting value that relate to this optional apparatus. The item called “printer-more-info-manufacturer” itself is an item defined by the IPP, but the attribute value having an XML format at a destination of the value indicated by the item is not a value defined by the IPP, paragraph 89, note print setting information for a vendor-specific IPP-undefined printer device to the job for printing can be added, paragraph 65),
performs another print setting by reflecting a second attribute value being defined by the Internet Printing Protocol when the specific Internet Printing Protocol attribute information is determined not to be included in the received print job (printer device configuration generation unit 426 performs attribute value change for IPP-defined apparatus capability referring to a change in an attribute defined in the standard attributes of the IPP by adding a duplex printing mechanism which was not included in specific/standard IPP attribute capability for the printer device, paragraph 101),
wherein the controller further determines whether the specific Internet Printing Protocol attribute information is included for confirming attribute of a job and instruction for a job generation (the additional software 417 loads the information of the acquired XML file onto the ROM/RAM, this information is transmitted to printer and thereby, printer device 105 does print data job generation by generating, in the ROM/RAM, an XML-format file including a name, a setting item, and a setting value having an XML format when it is determined and confirmed that the attribute of “printer-more-info-manufacturer” being an IPP standard attribute is included in the inquiry for the printer device attribute, paragraphs 117, 89, 97).
Kanno fails to explicitly disclose controlling printing section, based on one of print setting or other print setting, wherein determining whether Internet Printing Protocol information is included in a command for confirming validity of a job and a command for instructing a job generation.
However, Annamalai Thangaraj teaches controlling printing section, based on one of print setting or other print setting (controller 208 overwrites the at least one submitted attribute related to the job in real-time at the multi-function device 101. The controller 208 coordinates with the print engine 212 for printing. The print engine 212 prints the job in accordance with the at least one of the print settings or other print setting such as changed attribute and/or remaining submitted/original attributes. If the user submits the input key corresponding to changing one of the print setting feature, then the print job is printed in accordance with that, paragraph 58).
Kanno and Annamalai Thangaraj are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with printing apparatuses performing print settings.
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 Kanno with the teachings of Annamalai Thangaraj for the benefit of controlling print apparatus to efficiently print based on dynamically changed settings to as taught by Annamalai Thangaraj at paragraphs 6-7, 58.
Combination of Kanno and Annamalai Thangaraj fails to further teach determining whether specific Internet Printing Protocol attribute information is included in a command for confirming validity of a job and a command for instructing a job generation.
However, Hayashi teaches wherein determining whether specific Internet Printing Protocol attribute information (Internet Printing Protocol (IPP)) is included in a command for confirming validity of a job (CPU 32 of printer 10 determines and confirms whether the IPP command received is a Validate-Job command (hereinbelow termed “VJ”), paragraphs 75, 89) and a command for instructing a job generation (Create-Job command (hereinbelow termed “CJ”) according to IPP is sent to the printer 10 and when receiving the CJ, the printer 10 confirms the received command and creates a unique job ID, paragraphs 91-92).
Kanno and Annamalai Thangaraj are combinable with Hayashi because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with printing apparatuses and accepting commands related to print settings.
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 Kanno and Annamalai Thangaraj with the teachings of Hayashi for the benefit of providing enhanced efficiency and flexibility which lets the printer suitably delete preset information according to a IPP command request from a user that is different from the administrator as taught by Hayashi at paragraphs 3 and 133.
Regarding claim 2, Combination of Kanno with Annamalai Thangaraj and Hayashi further teaches wherein the specific Internet Printing Protocol attribute information indicates that the print job output via a print support application (Kanno, fig. 10 describes an example of a format of the print job to be transmitted to the printer device 105 by the additional software 417 in Step S722 “TRANSMIT PRINT JOB” of FIG. 7, paragraph 132 and transmitted print job data is converted into data having a format such as PDF that can be interpreted by the printer device 105 indicating that print job is a print job in correct format such as PDF which is outputted using OS and additional software including display, paragraphs 64, 138), the first attribute value is assigned via the print support application (Kanno, the additional software 417 loads the information of the acquired XML file onto the ROM/RAM, thereby, printer device 105 assigns an XML-format file including a name, a setting item, and an attribute setting value having an XML format, paragraphs 117, 89, 97).
Regarding claim 3, Combination of Kanno with Annamalai Thangaraj and Hayashi further teaches wherein the first attribute value is described in a printer job language (Kanno, print settings such as a name, a setting item, and a setting value of the attribute value described in an XML format (XML is eXtensible Markup Language for print job), paragraph 89).
Regarding claim 4, is a method claim version of claim 1 reciting similar features and thus is rejected on the same rationale as presented for claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Combination of Kanno with Annamalai Thangaraj and Hayashi further teaches wherein the command for confirming the validity of the job is a Validate-Job command, and the command for instructing the job generation is a Create-Job command (Hayashi, printer receives IPP commands from the PC of which is a Validate-Job (“VJ”) command for confirming validity and a Create-Job (“CJ”) command for generating unique job data, paragraphs 89-92).
Kanno and Annamalai Thangaraj are combinable with Hayashi because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with printing apparatuses and accepting commands related to print settings.
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 Kanno and Annamalai Thangaraj with the teachings of Hayashi for the benefit of providing enhanced efficiency and flexibility which lets the printer suitably delete preset information according to a IPP command request from a user that is different from the administrator as taught by Hayashi at paragraphs 3 and 133.
Regarding claim 7, Combination of Kanno with Annamalai Thangaraj and Hayashi further teaches wherein the specific Internet Printing Protocol attribute information includes identification information for identifying a vendor (Kanno, print setting information for a vendor-specific IPP-undefined printer device to the job for printing can be added, paragraph 65 and/or Hayashi, IPP program could identify if same or different vendor of printer 10 is used, paragraph 29).
Kanno and Annamalai Thangaraj are combinable with Hayashi because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with printing apparatuses and accepting commands related to print settings.
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 Kanno and Annamalai Thangaraj with the teachings of Hayashi for the benefit of providing enhanced efficiency and flexibility which lets the printer suitably delete preset information according to a IPP command request from a user that is different from the administrator as taught by Hayashi at paragraphs 3 and 133.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno, US 2021/0004186 in view of Sugawara, US 2018/0364956 further in view of Hayashi, US 2021/0240404.
Regarding claim 5, Kanno further discloses an information processing apparatus (terminal apparatus 104 as shown in fig. 2 and fig. 4A) comprising:
a storage (ROM/RAM 207, fig. 2) that stores a control program (control programs, which are loaded onto a ROM/RAM 207, to control an operation of the entire terminal apparatus 104, paragraph 37) and a print support program (OS 412 refers to an operating system stored on the ROM/RAM 207, wherein, OS 412 is instructed to print data created by the application software 415, the print data is output to the printer device 105 through use of a printer driver 416 stored on ROM/RAM, paragraphs 61-65);
and a controller (CPU 206, fig. 2, is configured to execute an operating system (OS), an application, and other such control programs, which are loaded onto a ROM/RAM 207, to control an operation of the entire terminal apparatus 104, paragraph 37) that is capable of generating a print job based on Internet Printing Protocol by executing the control program (terminal apparatus 104 can generate a print job based on data to be printed, and can transmit the print job to a printer device 105 on the network by using Internet Printing Protocol (IPP protocol) to control the printer device 105 to perform printing, paragraph 28),
wherein the controller functions as a print support application by executing the print support program (CPU 206, fig. 2, is configured to execute an operating system (OS 412) and other such control programs, wherein, OS 412 is instructed to print data created by the application software 415, the print data is output to the printer device 105 through use of a printer driver 416, paragraphs 37, 63-65), and the print support application assigns specific Internet Printing Protocol attribute information (note print setting information for a vendor-specific IPP-undefined printer device to the job for printing can be added, paragraph 65) and that the print job is to be output via the print support application (OS 412 instructs the printer driver 416 to convert the data output by the application software 415 into data having a format that can be interpreted by the printer device 105 and print job is transmitted to the printer device 105 indicating that print job is a print job in correct format such as PDF is outputted using OS and additional software including display, paragraphs 64, 132, 138),
Kanno fails to explicitly disclose print support application assigns specific Internet Printing Protocol attribute information for print job to be outputted, controller transmits a command for confirming validity of a job, the command for confirming the validity of the job including the specific Internet Printing Protocol attribute information, and the controller transmits a command for instructing a job generation after transmitting the command for confirming the validity of the job, the command for instructing the job generation including the specific Internet Printing Protocol attribute information.
However, Sugawara teaches print support application (application layer includes a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) module and an Internet printing protocol (IPP) module, paragraph 20) assigns specific Internet Printing Protocol attribute information (specific port is assigned to IPP protocol to start a session) for print job to be outputted (HTTPS task detects an access to the port assigned to the IPP protocol and starts an IPP session. First, the HTTPS task performs SSL handshake processing between a host and establishes the SSL communication. After completion of the processing, the host transmits print data. After completion of the processing, the host transmits the print data in a row until transmission of the print data of a print job is completed, paragraph 30).
Kanno and Sugawara are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with printing apparatuses and Internet printing protocols.
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 Kanno with the teachings of Sugawara such that when processing related to the SSL/IPP communication and print processing are executed in parallel, delay in the print processing can be reduced as taught by Sugawara at paragraph 50.
Combination of Kanno with Sugawara fails to further teach controller transmits a command for confirming validity of a job, the command for confirming the validity of the job including the specific Internet Printing Protocol attribute information, and the controller transmits a command for instructing a job generation after transmitting the command for confirming the validity of the job, the command for instructing the job generation including the specific Internet Printing Protocol attribute information.
However, Hayashi teaches an information processing apparatus (each of the PCs 100A to 100C is provided with an Internet Printing Protocol (IPP) program, paragraph 29) comprising: controller (controller of PC (not shown)) transmits a command for confirming validity of a job, the command for confirming the validity of the job including the specific Internet Printing Protocol attribute information (PC transmits a IPP command including a Validate-Job command (hereinbelow termed “VJ”) to the printer such as “PC 100B sends a VJ according to IPP to the printer 10 in T50. The VJ command includes the print setting (i.e., “two-sided”, “monochrome”)” corresponding to confirming the validity of the print job data as received by the printer, paragraphs 75, 89),
and the controller transmits a command for instructing a job generation after transmitting the command for confirming the validity of the job, the command for instructing the job generation including the specific Internet Printing Protocol attribute information (when receiving the VJ from the PC 100B, the printer 10 sends a 2000K to the PC 100B. When receiving the 2000K from the printer 10, the PC 100B sends a Create-Job command (hereinbelow termed “CJ”) according to IPP to the printer 10. The CJ includes the print setting (i.e., “two-sided”, “monochrome”) and when receiving the CJ from the PC 100B, the printer 10 creates a unique job ID “J1” and sends a 2000K including the created job ID “J1” to the PC 100B, paragraphs 90-92).
Kanno and Sugawara are combinable with Hayashi because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with printing apparatuses with corresponding internet printing protocols and commands related to print settings.
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 Kanno and Sugawara with the teachings of Hayashi for the benefit of providing enhanced efficiency and flexibility which lets the printer suitably delete preset information according to a IPP command request from a user that is different from the administrator as taught by Hayashi at paragraphs 3 and 133.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yasuda et al., US 2023/0333794.
Kaneda, US 2023/008252 teaches attribute is information indicating whether each setting item is a setting item defined by the IPP or a vendor-specific setting item, paragraph 138 and the preset or the template can include not only setting items defined by the IPP standard but also vendor-specific settings, paragraph 35.
Kaneda, US 2021/0342107.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAWANDEEP DHINGRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-1231. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (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.
/PAWAN DHINGRA/Examiner, Art Unit 2683 /ABDERRAHIM MEROUAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights