DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Oath/Declaration
3. The receipt of Oath/Declaration is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/04/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawing(s) filed on 04/04/2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
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.
6. 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.
7. 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 folding mode decision section” in claims 3 and 4.
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.
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.
Status of Claims
8. Claims 1-6 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
12. The factual inquiries 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.
13. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata (US 2015/0239276 A1), in view of Ooba (US 9,598,260 B2), Iida (US 9,902,586 B2), and Kelley (US 2008/0252062 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Sakata discloses an image forming apparatus system (Sakata: Fig. 1 ‘image forming system’; [0042]) comprising an image forming apparatus (Sakata: Fig. 1 ‘image forming apparatus 101’; [0042]) and an information terminal (Sakata: Fig. 1 ‘information processing apparatus 103’; [0042]) connected to the image forming apparatus (Sakata: “each apparatus is connected through a network 104”; [0042]), in which
the image forming apparatus comprises a scoring section which forms a crease on a sheet of paper (Sakata discloses a ‘creaser apparatus 205’ which performs crease processing on media prior to folding (scoring section); (¶¶[0044; 0059-0064]; Fig. 4), a folder which folds the sheet of paper (Sakata discloses a finisher apparatus 208 which performs finishing processing including saddle stitch processing and folding; ¶[0044]; Fig. 6B), and
an image former which forms an image on the sheet of paper (Sakata discloses an image forming apparatus 101 comprising and ‘image forming apparatus main body 203’ which prints images on media; ¶¶[0044; 0048-0051]), and
the information terminal comprises a display which displays a folding setting screen to make a setting on a folding mode of the sheet of paper (Sakata discloses the information processing apparatus 103 is provided with a display device 1202 (Fig. 7C; ¶[0118]]) and a UI processing unit 1312 (Fig. 8, ¶[0131]) which together display job setting windows, including a six tab setting(s) screen (Figs. 9A-9D) comprising tables for general settings, job information, medium, layout, finishing, and crease processing; (¶¶[0132-0144]). The crease tab (Fig. 9D) displays settings for crease processing, constituting a display screen used to make settings on the folding/creasing mode of the sheet), wherein
in the information terminal, when an instruction is given by an operator to execute saddle stitch processing for the sheet of paper, the display displays the folding setting screen (Sakata discloses that the operator, via the information processing apparatus 103, accesses the FINISHING tab (Fig. 9C) and sets saddle stitching setting 1424 to perform saddle stitch binding (¶¶[0142-0142]). The crease tab (Fig. 9D), which constitutes a folding/crease settings screen, is part of the same job settings window and is accessible when saddle stitching is selected (¶¶[0132-0144], Figs. 9C-9D)). and
Sakata does not explicitly disclose when an instruction is given by an operator to execute saddle stitch processing for the sheet of paper, the display displays the folding setting screen. (Sakata discloses that the crease tab and the finishing tab are independently navigated).
Kelley disclose when an instruction is given by an operator to execute saddle stitch processing for the sheet of paper, the display displays the folding setting screen. (Kelley teaches the concept of automatically receiving and processing instructions that specify crease configuration parameters (number of creases and inter-crease distance) in direct response to a saddle-stitch job instruction; (Abstract, Claims 1-8).
Sakata in view of Kelley are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose when an instruction is given by an operator to execute saddle stitch processing for the sheet of paper, the display displays the folding setting screen. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is because contextual display of relevant setting upon activation is a well known UI design technique, and doing so eliminates the multi-step manual tab navigation and improves operator efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sakata with Kelley to obtain the invention as specified.
Sakata does not expressly disclose on the folding setting screen, a setting display to set a number of folding places
Ooba disclose on the folding setting screen, a setting display to set a number of folding places (Ooba discloses via a setting window displayed on the display device, setting information specifying crease processing at a plurality of crease positions as an operator configurable parameter (Claim 1).
Sakata, Kelley & Ooba are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose on the folding setting screen, a setting display to set a number of folding places
Sakata, Kelley & Ooba do not expressly disclose on the folding setting screen, a setting display to set a number of folding places and a distance between the folding places is presented.
Iida disclose on the folding setting screen, a setting display to set a number of folding places and a distance between the folding places is presented (Iida discloses wherein the console section is configured to receive from the operator a “bookbinding lap which is a distance between a first sheet end and a second sheet end of each sheet assumed to have been folded in two” as an operator settable parameter. Iida further discloses a “fold position adjustment amount” received as a separately settable distance value via the console (Claim 2).
Sakata, Kelley, Ooba & Iida are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose on the folding setting screen, a setting display to set a number of folding places and a distance between the folding places is presented. The suggestion/motivation for doing so gives the operator direct control over the fold configuration and allows manual override of the system’s automatic calculation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sakata, Kelley & Ooba to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6:
The proposed combination of Sakata, Kelley, Ooba & Iida, explained in the rejection of system claim 1, renders obvious the apparatus of claim 6 because these steps occur in the operation of the proposed combination as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 6
It is noted that Sakata discloses a standalone image forming apparatus 101 with an operation panel 425 accessory to the image forming apparatus main body 203 (Fig. 2B, ¶[0056]), controlled by a UI processing unit 1301 (Fig. 8, ¶[0124]). Ooba is explicitly directed to an image forming apparatus embodiment with an integrated display and input device, and Claim 1 of Ooba recites these as apparatus level components (claim 1). Iida’s console section similarly resides on the apparatus itself (claim 1).
Regarding Claim 2:
The proposed combination of Sakata, Kelley, Ooba & Iida further discloses the image forming apparatus system according to claim 1, wherein in the information terminal, when an instruction is given by the operator to execute the saddle stitch processing for sheets of paper including the sheet of paper, the scoring section executes scoring to form a crease on at least one sheet of paper among the sheets of paper instructed to be folded (Sakata discloses that flapper 603 distributes each medium either to straight path 601 (bypass) or conveyance path 602 (crease processing) at Fig. 4 ¶[0060]. This selective routing architecture expressly implements crease processing on at least one medium among those being processed, with remaining sheets optionally bypassing the creaser).
Accordingly, Claim 2 is unpatentable over Sakata, Kelley, Ooba & Iida.
Regarding Claim 3:
The proposed combination of Sakata, Kelley, Ooba & Iida further discloses the image forming apparatus system according to claim 1, wherein: the information terminal comprises a folding mode decision section which decides on the number of folding places and the distance between the creases based on a number of sheets of the paper for which the saddle stitch processing is instructed; and the scoring section forms the crease on the sheet of paper based on the number of folding places and the distance between the folding places decided by the folding mode decision section, and the folder folds the sheet of paper (Sakata discloses job control unit 1307 executes step S1707 “OBTAIN NUMBER OF INNER SHEETS” and uses this number as an input to calculate the spine cover thickness in step S1708, which in turn drives the crease position calculations in Steps S1710-S1712 (Fig. 12, ¶¶[0165-0170]. The resulting crease positions (number and distance) are thus decided based on the number of inner sheets, satisfying the folding mode decision section limitation. The scoring section (creaser apparatus 205) and folder (finisher apparatus 208) then execute on the basis of these decided values (Fig. 13, ¶¶[0177-0180]).
Accordingly, Claim 3 is unpatentable over Sakata, Kelley, Ooba & Iida.
Regarding Claim 4:
The proposed combination of Sakata, Kelley, Ooba & Iida further discloses the image forming apparatus system according to claim 3, wherein the folding mode decision section decides on the number of folding places and the distance between the creases also in consideration of a thickness of the sheet of paper for which an instruction is given to execute the saddle stitch processing (Sakata explicitly discloses this limitation. Step S1708 of Fig. 12 “CALCULATE THICKNESS OF SPINE COVER” directly compares the spine thickness from the obtained sheet count and sheet type (medium type), and this thickness value is the primary input to the crease position calculations in steps S1710-S1712 (Fig. 12 ¶¶[0165-0170]). The medium type (THICK PAPER or similar) is specified in the MEDIUM tab of the job setting window (Fig. 9A, ¶¶[0132-0135]), establishing that paper thickness is a known and available parameter in the decision process).
Accordingly, Claim 4 is unpatentable over Sakata, Kelley, Ooba & Iida.
Regarding Claim 5:
The proposed combination of Sakata, Kelley, Ooba & Iida further discloses the image forming apparatus system according to claim 3, wherein the number of folding places and the distance between the creases decided by the folding mode decision section is changeable by the operator (Sakata discloses that the offset position 1427 on the crease tab (Fig. 9D) is an operator modifiable numerical field (¶¶[0143-0144]). Fig. 14 of Sakata further shows a crease settings screen with an operator editable offset value of 15.mm alongside per page crease position fields 1904-0906 that are individually adjustable by the operator (Fig. 14, ¶¶[0183-0184]). These disclosure elements establish that after the system determines crease parameters, the operator retains the ability to modify those values).
Accordingly, Claim 5 is unpatentable over Sakata, Kelley, Ooba & Iida.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hasegawa (US 2015/0251373) discloses a sheet processing system that performs control to change the position of a crease for each of a plurality of sheets. Specifically, Hasegawa discloses a sheet processing system includes a creasing unit configured to crease a plurality of sheets and a control unit configured to perform control to change, for each of the plurality of sheets, a position of a crease to be formed by the creasing unit.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL R MCLEAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6AM - 4PM, PST.
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, Akwasi M Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/NEIL R MCLEAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681