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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/05/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Serizawa Masahiro et al (JP 2019084798 A).
Regarding claim 1, Masahiro et al discloses an image forming apparatus capable of accepting a plurality of types of print jobs (¶ [30-31]), comprising:
one or more memories that store instructions (¶ [11]); and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions stored in the one or more memories (¶ [11]) to set, for each type of the print job, whether to permit use of paper in a predetermined paper feed stage (¶ [31]), and control, in a case where a print job that uses the paper in the predetermined paper feed stage is received, based on the type of the received print job and the setting, whether to execute the print job that uses the paper in the predetermined paper feed stage (¶ [65]).
Regarding claim 2, Masahiro et al discloses the apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the one or more processors further cause the image forming apparatus to display a setting screen for accepting the setting from a user (¶ [65-67]).
Regarding claim 12, Masahiro et al discloses a method for an image forming apparatus capable of accepting a plurality of types of print jobs (see rejection of claim 1), the method comprising:
setting, for each type of the print job, whether to permit use of paper in a predetermined paper feed stage, and controlling, in a case where a print job that uses the paper in the predetermined paper feed stage is received, based on the type of the received print job and the setting, whether to execute the print job that uses the paper in the predetermined paper feed stage (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Masahiro et al discloses an image forming apparatus capable of accepting print jobs from a plurality of kinds of print applications (¶ [13]), comprising:
a paper feed stage (¶ [12]);
one or more memories that store instructions (see rejection of claim 1); and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions stored in the one or more memories to set, for each print application, whether to permit the print application to use paper in a predetermined paper feed stage, control, based on the setting, to execute a print job, that uses the paper in the predetermined paper feed stage, from a first print application permitted to use the paper in the predetermined paper feed stage (see rejection of claim 1 with respect to job type), and control not to execute a print job, that uses the paper in the predetermined paper feed stage, from a second print application not permitted to use the paper in the predetermined paper feed stage (see rejection of claim 1 with respect to job type).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serizawa Masahiro et al (JP 2019084798 A) in view of Miyajima Jun (JP 2004131247 A).
Regarding claim 3, Masahiro et al discloses the apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Masahiro et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors further cause the image forming apparatus to set, for each type of the print job, a discharge tray to which a sheet is discharged.
Jun, in the same field of endeavor of controlling paper feeding in accordance with a print job type (Abstract), teaches setting, for each type of the print job, a discharge tray to which a sheet is discharged (¶ [147]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the apparatus as disclosed by Masahiro et al comprising a processor configured to set, for each type of print job, whether to permit use of paper in a predetermined paper feed stage to utilize the teachings of Jun which teaches setting, for each type of the print job, a discharge tray to which a sheet is discharged to better organize output print jobs and improve security of output data.
Claims 4, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masahiro et al in view of Jun as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Yamamoto Masahito (JP 2005300605 A).
Regarding claim 4, Masahiro et al discloses the apparatus according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3).
Masahiro et al fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the one or more processors further cause the image forming apparatus to set a default discharge tray in association with a type of a print job for which use of resources is restricted, and set a default discharge tray in association with a type of a print job for which use of resources is unrestricted.
Masahito, in the same field of endeavor of utilizing multiple paper cassettes based on a plurality of types of jobs (¶ [25]), teaches setting a default discharge tray in association with a type of a print job for which use of resources is restricted, and set a default discharge tray in association with a type of a print job for which use of resources is unrestricted (¶ [153] and ¶ [180]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the apparatus as disclosed by Masahiro et al comprising a processor configured to set, for each type of print job, whether to permit use of paper in a predetermined paper feed stage to utilize the teachings of Masahito which teaches setting a default discharge tray in association with a type of a print job for which use of resources is restricted, and set a default discharge tray in association with a type of a print job for which use of resources is unrestricted to improve security of printed data.
Regarding claim 6, Masahiro et al discloses the apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Masahiro et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the type of the print job as the setting target includes at least one of Job Definition Format (JDF), PostScript, direct printing, and LBP Image Processing System (LIPS).
Masahito teaches wherein the type of the print job as the setting target includes at least one of Job Definition Format (JDF), PostScript, direct printing, and LBP Image Processing System (LIPS) (¶ [100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the apparatus as disclosed by Masahiro et al comprising a processor configured to set, for each type of print job, whether to permit use of paper in a predetermined paper feed stage to utilize the teachings of Masahito which teaches the type of the print job as the setting target includes at least one of Job Definition Format (JDF), PostScript, direct printing, and LBP Image Processing System (LIPS) to utilize known languages in the art to interpret and develop PDL data efficiently.
Regarding claim 8, Masahiro et al discloses the apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Masahiro et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors further cause the image forming apparatus to hold the received print job as a stored print job, display a list of the held stored print jobs on a display unit, and execute print processing based on the stored print job selected from the list.
Masahito teaches causing the image forming apparatus to hold the received print job as a stored print job, display a list of the held stored print jobs on a display unit, and execute print processing based on the stored print job selected from the list (¶ [55] and ¶ [194]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the apparatus as disclosed by Masahiro et al comprising a processor configured to set, for each type of print job, whether to permit use of paper in a predetermined paper feed stage to utilize the teachings of Masahito which teaches causing the image forming apparatus to hold the received print job as a stored print job, display a list of the held stored print jobs on a display unit, and execute print processing based on the stored print job selected from the list to enable printing of desired jobs at the convenience of the user.
Regarding claim 9, Masahiro discloses the apparatus according to claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8).
Masahiro et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors further cause the image forming apparatus to acquire a type of the received print job, and hold, in a case where the received print job is held, the acquired type of the print job in association with the stored print job.
Masahito teaches cause the image forming apparatus to acquire a type of the received print job, and hold, in a case where the received print job is held, the acquired type of the print job in association with the stored print job (¶ [101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the apparatus as disclosed by Masahiro et al comprising a processor configured to set, for each type of print job, whether to permit use of paper in a predetermined paper feed stage to utilize the teachings of Masahito which teaches the image forming apparatus acquires a type of the received print job, and hold, in a case where the received print job is held, the acquired type of the print job in association with the stored print job to enable printing of desired jobs at the convenience of the user.
Regarding claim 10, Masahiro et al discloses the apparatus according to claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8).
Masahiro et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein in a case where a condition is satisfied, selection of a plurality of stored print jobs from the list is disabled.
Masahito teaches in a case where a condition is satisfied, selection of a plurality of stored print jobs from the list is disabled (¶ [194]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the apparatus as disclosed by Masahiro et al comprising a processor configured to set, for each type of print job, whether to permit use of paper in a predetermined paper feed stage to utilize the teachings of Masahito which teaches in a case where a condition is satisfied, selection of a plurality of stored print jobs from the list is disabled to improve security in network printing.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masahiro et al in view of Jun and Masahito as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Qi Luo (US 20090328159 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Masahiro discloses the apparatus according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4).
Masahiro fails to explicitly disclose wherein the default discharge tray set in association with the type of the print job for which use of resources is restricted is different from the default discharge tray set in association with the type of the print job for which use of resources is unrestricted.
Luo, in the same field of endeavor of an output device capable of outputting document data using restricted resources (¶ [19]) teaches the default discharge tray set in association with the type of the print job for which use of resources is restricted is different from the default discharge tray set in association with the type of the print job for which use of resources is unrestricted (¶ [19] secured resources read on restricted resources as the user requires requesting of access; ¶ [43] and ¶ [48]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the apparatus as disclosed by Masahiro et al comprising a processor configured to set, for each type of print job, whether to permit use of paper in a predetermined paper feed stage to utilize the teachings of Luo which teaches the default discharge tray set in association with the type of the print job for which use of resources is restricted is different from the default discharge tray set in association with the type of the print job for which use of resources is unrestricted to provide a simple, efficient, and deployable printing system that facilitates secure printing of documents.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masahiro et al in view of Kozo Tao (US 20160062291 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Masahiro discloses the apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Masahiro et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors further cause the image forming apparatus to change, in a case where the type of the print job which is not permitted to use the paper in the predetermined paper feed stage is received, paper to be used from the paper in the predetermined paper feed stage, and execute print processing based on the changed paper.
Tao, in the same field of endeavor of providing a paper feed source with specific paper type (¶ [4]), teaches causing the image forming apparatus to change, in a case where the type of the print job which is not permitted to use the paper in the predetermined paper feed stage is received, paper to be used from the paper in the predetermined paper feed stage, and execute print processing based on the changed paper (¶ [6] substitute feed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the apparatus as disclosed by Masahiro et al comprising a processor configured to set, for each type of print job, whether to permit use of paper in a predetermined paper feed stage to utilize the teachings of Masahito which teaches causing the image forming apparatus to change, in a case where the type of the print job which is not permitted to use the paper in the predetermined paper feed stage is received, paper to be used from the paper in the predetermined paper feed stage, and execute print processing based on the changed paper to limit the amount of downtime in printing devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMARES Q WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571) 270-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4:30pm.
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.
/JAMARES Q WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
February 7, 2026