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
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Oath/Declaration
3. The receipt of Oath/Declaration is acknowledged.
Drawings
4. The receipt of Drawings is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
Statutory - 101
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
The USPTO may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411). The applicant should amend or cancel claims such that the reference and the instant application no longer contain claims directed to the same invention.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/400,215 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
10. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
11. Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US PG. Pub. 2004/0190057 A1) in view of Okubo (US PG. Pub. 2009/0204804 A1).
Referring to Claim 1, Takahahsi teaches a system (See Takahashi, Fig. 1, Sect. [0089], Print System) comprising:
a processor (See Takahashi, Fig. 1, Process Control Manager 111, Sect. [0359] lines 2-4, the process control manager 111 controls and manages all process steps to be executed for a print job to be processed) and associated memory (See Takahahsi, Fig. 1, Hard Disk, Sect. [0555] lines 1-2, The process control manager 111 registers and holds, in its memory such as a hard disk);
a network interface (See Takahahsi, Fig. 1, Network Interface 101) configured to receive print job data associated with an identified source (See Takahahsi, MIB Network Interface, Sect. [0374] lines 1-11, the MIB (Management Information Base) in the network interface in each image forming device of this system which includes the MFPs 104 and 105, uses SNMP (Simple Network Management Protocol) to acquire status data and print job information);
a print engine (See Figs. 8-10, Printer Driver) operable in connection with printer settings (See Takahahsi, Sect. [0154], printer driver operable to set desired parameters (print output process condition data) by his or her key operations on a GUI about "printer" on a print setup GUI to instruct an output operation such as a print operation or the like by the image forming device MFPs 104 and/or 105 of this system.);
the processor configured to store received print job data in the memory (See Takahashi, Sect. [0492] lines 9-18, the process control manager 111 stores in its hard disk memory schedules of print the job work flow and print job quality verification data and various kinds of information (job output condition information, device information, and status information));
the processor further configured to show, on a display of the user interface, indicia corresponding to each of one or more print jobs associated with the print job data (See Takahashi, Figs. 8-10, GUI Print Setup Window, Sect. [0161] lines 1-22 and Sect. [0162], The GUI screen in FIG. 9 is an operation window displayed upon depression of the "Paper" tab 711 showing indicia corresponding to each print job such as paper size setup field 715, booklet imposition layout setup field 716, sheet orientation setup field 717, paper feed tray setup field 718, copy number setup field 719 which allows the user to select the number of print copies of a job to be processed and upon selection of the "Graphics" tab 712 allows the user to make a resolution setup and halftone setup, and a window displayed upon selection of the "PDL" tab 714 allows the user to select a PDL output format);
the processor further configured to print a print job selected by the user in accordance selection of its associated indicia and the printer settings (See Takahahsi, Sect. [0164], the processor selects the Image forming devices (MFPs 104 and or 105) to execute an output operation based on the output conditions set by the client (user) for data (including image data) of the job on the GUI print setup windows shown in FIGS. 8 to 10);
the processor further configured to generate a proof print of a previously printed job in accordance with a reselection of that job (See Takahashi, Sect. [0090] lines 41-47, when the client inputs a re-edit instruction via the UI of the client computer in place of the approval instruction, the proof manager 114 controls to re-execute the edit process, and to repeat the proof print of a job to be processed until processed document image data accepted by the client is obtained.).
Takahashi fails to explicitly teach
a user interface configured to receive login data from a user corresponding to the identified source;
the processor further configured to determine a user logoff or an inactivity timeout;
the processor further configured to delete the print job data from the memory in accordance with a determined user logoff or the inactivity timeout.
However, Okubo teaches
a user interface configured to receive login data from a user corresponding to the identified source (See Okubo, Fig. 9, System Login, Sect. [0047], FG. 2 shows the display screen that is displayed by the operating part 101 during the inputting of the setting information by the user with a password input screen that is displayed by the operating part 101 when the user is logged in to the multifunction machine 100.);
the processor further configured to determine a user logoff or an inactivity timeout (See Okubo, Sect. [0040] lines 1-11, The authentication canceling part 105 cancels authentication of the user authenticated by the authenticating part 103 when the user logs out of the multifunction machine 100 and suspends input during the input of the setting information when there is no input (i.e. inactivity) of the setting information made by the user for a certain period of time);
the processor further configured to delete the print job data from the memory in accordance with a determined user logoff or the inactivity timeout (See Okubo, Sect. [0111], The authentication canceling part 105 cancels the authentication of the user and logs the user out, and also removes the operation condition data 501 that is stored in the internal memory part 110. Moreover, the authentication canceling part 105 orders the operating part 303 to suspend the display of the screen that is currently being displayed.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a user interface configured to receive login data from a user corresponding to the identified source the processor further configured to determine a user logoff or an inactivity timeout; the processor further configured to delete the print job data from the memory in accordance with a determined user logoff or the inactivity timeout. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent leakage of the setting information to other users by removing (remotely storing or deleting) the setting information input by a user when the user logs out of the information processing device, and that can later reproduce the setting information input just before the user suspended the input of the setting information or when the user logged out of the information processing device (See Sect. [0006] of the Okubo reference). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Takahashi and Okubo to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Referring to Claim 2, the combination of Takahashi in view of Okubo teaches the system of claim 1 (See Takahashi, Fig. 1, Sect. [0089], Print System) wherein the processor is further configured to modify the printer settings in accordance with user input received before the proof print (See Takahahsi, Proof Manager 114 Process, Sect. [0090] lines 1-35, the proof manager 114 modifies the received print output condition data (i.e. print setting data), the proof manager 114 processes the received document image data using its own edit unit and sends back the processed image data to the client computer via the communication medium before the data is actually printed by the image forming device so as to allow the client to confirm and-recognize before actual start of proof print process).
Referring to Claim 3, the combination of Takahashi in view of Okubo teaches the system of claim 2 (See Takahashi, Fig. 1, Sect. [0089], Print System) wherein modified print settings include settings associated with one or more of media type, print quality, print resolution, page brightness, page contrast, color, halftone or grayscale (See Takahashi, Print Output Condition data for Edit as Modified Print Settings, Sect. [0090] lines 10-15, the edited document data by the proof manager 114 includes print output condition data associated with color edit, a zoom process such as enlargement/reduction, an edit process such as a reduced layout process, enlarged layout process, or the like, a finishing process).
Referring to Claim 4, the combination of Takahashi in view of Okubo teaches the system of claim 1 (See Takahashi, Fig. 1, Sect. [0089], Print System) wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine print issue associated with a printout of the print job selected by the user (See Takahashi, Sect. [0374] lines 11-16, the functions of finishers connected to the MFPs 104 and 105 can be determines print issues whether or not an error, jam, or the like has occurred, whether the device is printing or idling, or the like can be detected as status information.),
disable printing after the print issue is determined (See Takahashi, Print Wait/Hold when Jam occurs for job re-routing, Sect. [0424] line 2, set a wait time for job re-routing),
determine rectification of the print issue (See Takahashi, Automatic Print Distribution, Sect. [0424] lines 3-4, automatically distributes the job to another printer when one printer is down due to any jam, error),
re-enable printing after the rectification is determined (See Takahashi, Printer Re-routing Sect. [0424] lines 1-2, In step S2620, the control prompts a print re-routing time for jam rectification and re-routing of print job), and
generate the proof print in accordance with the reselection by the user of the print job (See Takahashi, Sect. [0090] lines 41-47, when the client inputs a re-edit instruction via the UI of the client computer in place of the approval instruction, the proof manager 114 controls to re-execute the edit process, and to repeats a proof print of a job to be processed with the processed document image data accepted by the user).
Referring to Claim 5, the combination of Takahashi in view of Okubo teaches the system of claim 4 (See Takahashi, Fig. 1, Sect. [0089], Print System) wherein the print issue is associated with one or more of a paper jam, toner level or ink level (See Takahashi, Sect. [0369] lines 18-20, As for a job that has caused an error, jam, or the like, a message that advises accordingly is displayed so that the user can identify it.).
Referring to Claim 6, the combination of Takahashi in view of Okubo teaches the system of claim 1 (See Takahashi, Fig. 1, Sect. [0089], Print System) wherein the processor is further configured to show a selectable indicia on the display corresponding to printing the proof print as a test page (See Takahashi, Fig. 37, GUI Screen Display for Test Print as Proof Output, Sect. [0301] lines 8-16, Selectable indicia is shown on the GUI Screen in Fig. 37, wherein, the user selects "Print Output (proof output) by Post" 2901 or "Visit Customer Site for a copy of a test print to be formed using the print manager 115 and MFP 104 (or 105) as a proof output print.).
Referring to Claim 7, the combination of Takahashi in view of Okubo teaches the system of claim 6 (See Takahashi, Fig. 1, Sect. [0089], Print System) wherein the processor is further configured to modify the printer settings in accordance with user input received before a reprint (See Takahasi, Sect. [0091] lines 22-28, the client (user) modifies the output format data when the client issues a re-output request instruction via the order/input manager 112 and can then re-print the readout data using one of the image forming devices (e.g., MFP) in the desired output format which is newly set by the client upon issuing the re-output request).
Referring to Claim 8, the combination of Takahashi in view of Okubo teaches the system of claim 7 (See Takahashi, Fig. 1, Sect. [0089], Print System) wherein modified print settings include settings associated with one or more of media type, print quality, print resolution, page brightness, page contrast, color, halftone or grayscale (See Takahashi, Fig. 27, Output Condition Setting Window, Sect. [0279] lines 15-26, Via the window shown in FIG. 27, the user can input setup information (e.g., including various kinds of print output condition information such as setup information of the number of copies to be printed, setup information of the paper size of print sheets, information that specifies if document data includes color pages alone, monochrome pages alone, or both color and monochrome pages, setup information about a duplex or simplex print process to be executed, setup information indicating if images for N pages are to be laid out on a single surface of one sheet using an N-UP function that allows to print images for a plurality of pages on single surface of one sheet).
Referring to Claim 9, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable herein. The structural elements of “A system” in claim 1 perform all of the functions of “A method” in claim 8. Thus, “A method” in claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Referring to Claim 10, arguments analogous to claim 2 are applicable herein. The structural elements of “The system” in claim 2 perform all of the functions of “The method” in claim 10. Thus, “The method” in claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 2.
Referring to Claim 11, arguments analogous to claim 3 are applicable herein. The structural elements of “The system” in claim 3 perform all of the functions of “The method” in claim 11. Thus, “The method” in claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 3.
Referring to Claim 12, arguments analogous to claim 4 are applicable herein. The structural elements of “The system” in claim 4 perform all of the functions of “The method” in claim 12. Thus, “The method” in claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 4.
Referring to Claim 13, arguments analogous to claim 5 are applicable herein. The structural elements of “The system” in claim 5 perform all of the functions of “The method” in claim 13. Thus, “The method” in claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 5.
Referring to Claim 14, arguments analogous to claim 6 are applicable herein. The structural elements of “The system” in claim 6 perform all of the functions of “The method” in claim 14. Thus, “The method” in claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 6.
Referring to Claim 15, the combination of Takahashi in view of Okubo teaches the method of claim 14 (See Takahashi, Fig. 2, Order/Input Print Method) wherein modifying a print engine includes modifying printer settings (See Takahashi, Sect. [0090] lines 47-59, Based on the modification of the print output condition (i.e. print settings) such as color printing or monochrome printing the proof manager 114, transfers the rasterized image data to the specific print engine or image forming device, the MFP (at least one of the color MFPs 104a and 104b and monochrome MFPs 105a to 105c) of this system as a print output destination via the communication medium such as the network 110 and the like, and controls the image forming device as the print output destination to print out (execute a print process of) the processed image data.).
Referring to Claim 16, arguments analogous to claim 8 are applicable herein. The structural elements of “The system” in claim 8 perform all of the functions of “The method” in claim 16. Thus, “The method” in claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 8.
Referring to Claim 17, Takahashi in view of Okubo teaches a method (See Takahashi, Fig. 6, Proof Management Method) comprising:
sending print job data to a printer (See Takahashi, Fig. 7, Output Device Control Module 606, Sect. [0148] lines 1-9, The Output Device Control Module 606 denotes an output device control module, which controls to determine devices to which the job is to be output, for print execution from one image data generation source and sends print data to interfaces of the selected devices, and controls the devices to execute an output process such as a print process);
viewing selectable indicia corresponding to a print job associated with print job data on a display (See Takahashi, Figs 8-10, Printer Driver GUI Screen 701, Sect. [0161] lines 1-45, FIG. 9 shows an operation window 701displayed upon depression of the "Paper" tab 711 comprising selectable indicia including a paper size setup field 715 which allows the user to set the paper size of print sheets, a booklet imposition layout setup field 716 which allows the user to input an instruction for selecting a layout mode, a sheet orientation setup field 717 which allows the user to select a desired print orientation of a job to be printed (i.e. as portrait, landscape), a paper feed tray setup field 718, copy number setup field 719, which allows the user to select the number of print copies of a job to be processed and additional selectable indica as displayed in Figs 8-10 for color print selections, MFP selections, duplex printing options and print job finishes.);
selecting the indicia (See Takahashi, Fig, 9, Sect. [0162], a window displayed upon selection of the "Graphics" tab 712 allows the user to make a resolution setup and halftone setup, and a window displayed upon selection of the "PDL" tab 714 allows the user to select a PDL output format);
printing the print job associated with the selected indicia in accordance with current printer settings (See Takahashi, Figs. 8-10, Sect. [0161] lines 40-52, In FIG. 10, function selection field 731 selects desired sheet processing and setting value setup field 732 selects detailed processing condition parameters for print processing and execution by the image forming device selected by the user on the operation window of FIG. 8 in accordance with the selected indicia selected by fields 731 and 732 respectively);
viewing a printout of the print job (See Takahashi, Fig. 20, Preview Field 1735, Sect. [0111] lines 15-18, The document edit manager 113 controls to display a preview of edited image data obtained by applying edit processes to document image data on the display of the client computer.);
modifying printer settings in accordance with a characteristic of the printout (See Takahasi, Sect. [0091] lines 22-28, the client (user) modifies the output format data when the client issues a re-output request instruction via the order/input manager 112 and can then re-print the readout data using one of the image forming devices (e.g., MFP) in the desired output format which is newly set by the client upon issuing the re-output request);
re-selecting the indicia (See Takahashi, Sect. [0090] lines 41-44, when a re-edit instruction is input, the proof manager 114 controls to re-execute the edit process of the print output conditions); and
printing a proof print of the print job associated with the reselected indicia with modified printer settings (See Takahashi, Sect. [0090] lines 45-59, Reference numeral 115 denotes a print manager which applies a rasterize process for print execution of the document edit process for proof process printing via the proof process of the proof manager 114 by the MFPs 104a and 104b and monochrome MFPs 105a to 105c).
Takahashi fails to explicitly teach logging in to the printer via a user interface as an authenticated user.
However, Okubo teaches logging in to the printer via a user interface as an authenticated user (See Okubo, Fig. 9, System Login, Sect. [0071] lines 1-2, FIG. 9 is a flow diagram illustrating processing of user log in authentication executed by the multifunction machine 100.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate logging in to the printer via a user interface as an authenticated user. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent leakage of the setting information to other users by removing (remotely storing or deleting) the setting information input by a user when the user logs out of the information processing device, and that can later reproduce the setting information input just before the user suspended the input of the setting information or when the user logged out of the information processing device (See Sect. [0006] of the Okubo reference). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Takahashi and Okubo to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Referring to Claim 18, the combination of Takahashi in view of Okubo teaches the method of claim 17 (See Takahashi, Fig. 6, Proof Management Method) further comprising printing the proof print as a test page in accordance with a user selection (See Takahashi, Sect. [0301] lines 8-12, When the user selects "Print Output (proof output) by Post" 2901 or "Visit Customer Site (with print output (proof output))" 2902, a copy of test prints are formed using the print manager 115 and MFP 104 (or 105), and is delivered to the user.).
Referring to Claim 19, the combination of Takahashi in view of Okubo teaches the method of claim 18 (See Takahashi, Fig. 6, Proof Management Method) further comprising selectively reprinting the print job in accordance with the characteristic of the test page (See Takahashi, Sect. [0298], in case of a color print, a reprint of the actual print job by the print manager 114 and image forming device such as the MFP 104 (or 105) may be actually used to form a copy of test prints (proof prints) of the designated number of copies as an output sample to be delivered to the customer to confirm the proof result.).
Referring to Claim 20, the combination of Takahashi in view of Okubo teaches the method of claim 19 (See Takahashi, Fig. 6, Proof Management Method).
Takahashi fails to explicitly teach further comprising logging off the authenticated user via the user interface.
However, Okubo teaches further comprising logging off the authenticated user via the user interface (See Okubo, lines 3-6, The authentication canceling part 105 cancels authentication when the user suspends input during the input of the setting information and when the user logs out of the multifunction machine 100.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate further comprising logging off the authenticated user via the user interface. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent leakage of the setting information to other users by removing (remotely storing or deleting) the setting information input by a user when the user logs out of the information processing device, and that can later reproduce the setting information input just before the user suspended the input of the setting information or when the user logged out of the information processing device (See Sect. [0006] of the Okubo reference). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Takahashi and Okubo to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Cited Art
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Keery et al. (US PG. PUB. 2020/0220985 A1) discloses A method and system for operating an appliance scanner system. A device can maintain at least two isolated communication channels, one to connect to a configuration service and others for connecting to document processing and management services. This can enable the configuration service to reside outside of a secure network. Firewalls and policies can prevent content generated at the scanner from exiting the secure network and reaching the configuration service. To set up the scanner, it can be initiated and connect to the configuration service via a operations communication channel. The configuration service can then instruct the scanner how to connect to various document services through one or more generated content communication channels. Furthermore, document services can communicate validation information back to the scanner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRYL V DOTTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 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.
/DARRYL V DOTTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
/DARRYL V DOTTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683