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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/2/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 are pending in this application.
Claims 1 and 5-7 have been amended [6/2/2026].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument based on newly applied reference Saito et al. (US-2007/0264039).
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(s) 1, 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiwada et al. (US-2006/0038844) in view of Kuroshima (US-2012/0120445) and further in view of Saito et al. (US-2007/0264039).
As to Claim 7, Kiwada teaches ‘An information processing apparatus, comprising: a display unit configured to display sheet information [Figs 8 (65), 9 (74), par 0063-0064,0069-0071 – entering in input box/drop down menu, paper type of a search section]; one or more processors [Fig 4 (201), par 0061 – control unit]; and one or more memories [Fig 4 (202), par 0061 – storage unit], wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories cooperate to: search for an image forming apparatus, among the plurality of image forming apparatuses, to which sheet information selected by a user can be set [Figs 8 (66), 9 (75), par 0063-0064, 0066-0067, 0069-0071 – when a search button is pressed after paper type is entered, a search is made for MFPs which are provided with the paper type that can be used by a user’s department based on paper management information received from each MFP]; and display the image forming apparatus found by the search on the display unit [Fig 8, par 0066 – as a result of the search, the MFPs provided with the paper type usable by the user are displayed in a result display area]’.
Kiwada does not disclose ‘manage a sheet usable/unusable flag associated with a plurality of image forming apparatuses, wherein the sheet usable/unusable flag indicates a user-definable administrative permission to use the displayed sheet information on a specific image forming apparatus among the plurality of image forming apparatuses, and wherein the sheet usable/unusable flag permits or prohibits use of the sheet on each of the plurality of image forming apparatuses in addition to hardware-supported sheet capability constraints of the plurality of image forming apparatuses; … to which sheet information selected by a user can be set based on at least the sheet usable/unusable flag and capability information of the plurality of image forming apparatuses’, although Kiwada teaches contents of department information contained in paper management information is stored and received from MFPs [par 0065].
Kuroshima in the proposed combination of teaches ‘manage a sheet usable/unusable flag associated with a plurality of image forming apparatuses, wherein the sheet usable/unusable flag indicates a permission to use the displayed sheet information on a specific image forming apparatus among the plurality of image forming apparatuses; … to which sheet information selected by a user can be set based on at least the sheet usable/unusable flag of the plurality of image forming apparatuses [par 0064-0065, 0074, 0078 – paper information management table includes a display ON/OFF flag that is set to determine whether a paper size or type is usable or not usable as a selection candidate for displaying]’.
Kiwada and Kuroshima are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include managing paper information usability, as taught by Kuroshima. The motivation for doing so would have been to enabling a reduction in the possibility of wrong print output settings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kuroshima with Kiwada to obtain the invention as specified.
Kiwada in view of Kuroshima do not disclose expressly ‘wherein the sheet usable/unusable flag indicates a user-definable administrative permission, and wherein the sheet usable/unusable flag permits or prohibits use of the sheet on each of the plurality of image forming apparatuses in addition to hardware-supported sheet capability constraints of the plurality of image forming apparatuses; to which sheet information selected by a user can be set based on at least the sheet usable/unusable flag and capability information of the plurality of image forming apparatuses’.
Saito in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the sheet usable/unusable flag indicates a user-definable administrative permission, and wherein the sheet usable/unusable flag permits or prohibits use of the sheet on each of the plurality of image forming apparatuses in addition to hardware-supported sheet capability constraints of the plurality of image forming apparatuses; to which sheet information selected by a user can be set based on at least the sheet usable/unusable flag and capability information of the plurality of image forming apparatuses [Fig 12CB, par 0015, 0100-0102, 0124 – administrator may determine whether to restrict one or more users from using any one of the custom sheet types (i.e., usable/unusable flag) and information regarding one or more functions available (i.e., hardware-supported sheet capability) for use by the printer(s)]]’.
Kiwada in view of Kuroshima are analogous art with Saito because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include an administrator setting restrictions for custom sheet use and corresponding functions available by the printer, as taught by Saito. The motivation for doing so would have been to suppressing the time for generating or processing a printing job request, or the work load of the image forming apparatus or the information processing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Saito with Kiwada in view of Kuroshima to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Further, in regards to Claim 6, the information processing apparatus of claim 7 performs the control method of claim 6.
Further, in regards to claim 1, the control method of claim 6 is fully embodied in the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1.
As to Claim 4, Kiwada teaches ‘wherein the program causes the computer to change a mode of displaying a sheet holding unit which is among a plurality of sheet holding units of the image forming apparatus found by the search and to which the sheet information selected by the user is able to be set [Fig 9 (76), par 0070 – a search is made for MFPs which match the required status considering the paper and the result of the search is displayed in a result display area which shows the discovered MFP and the tray]’.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiwada in view of Kuroshima, Saito and further in view of Ishii (US-2008/0085133).
As to Claim 2, Kiwada in view of Kuroshima and Saito teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claim 1. Kiwada in view of Kuroshima and Saito does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the program causes the computer to set the sheet information selected by the user to a sheet holding unit of the image forming apparatus found by the search, the sheet holding unit being selected by the user’.
Ishii in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the program causes the computer to set the sheet information selected by the user to a sheet holding unit of the image forming apparatus found by the search, the sheet holding unit being selected by the user [par 0036, 0038, 0084-0086, 0089 – setting for each paper feeding tray according to a paper condition so that paper is registered and stored]’.
Kiwada in view of Kuroshima and Saito are analogous art with Ishii because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include registering paper conditions and feeding trays, as taught by Ishii. The motivation for doing so would have been to reducing the labor of setting a paper type in a plurality of image forming apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ishii with Kiwada in view of Kuroshima to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
As to Claim 3, Kiwada in view of Ishii teaches ‘wherein the program causes the computer to cause the information processing apparatus to store information in which a plurality of image forming apparatuses is associated with sheet information that is able to be set for the plurality of image forming apparatuses [Kiwada: Fig 4 (202), par 0053 – storage unit has an application program and a printer driver understood by all MFPs installed; Ishii: par 0036-0037, 0057, 0078, 0081 – storing a distribution table and paper table for each of the image forming apparatuses], and wherein the program causes the computer to cause the information processing apparatus to search for, based on the information, an image forming apparatus associated with sheet information on a sheet to which the sheet information selected by the user is able to be set [Kiwada: Figs 8 (66), 9 (75), par 0063-0064, 0066-0067, 0069-0071 – when a search button is pressed after paper type is entered, a search is made for MFPs which are provided with the paper type that can be used by a user’s department based on paper management information received from each MFP]’.
Kiwada in view of Kuroshima and Saito are analogous art with Ishii because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include registering paper conditions and feeding trays, as taught by Ishii. The motivation for doing so would have been to reducing the labor of setting a paper type in a plurality of image forming apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ishii with Kiwada in view of Kuroshima and Saito to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiwada in view of Kuroshima, Saito and further in view of Fujimori et al. (US-2010/0188700).
As to Claim 5, Kiwada in view of Kuroshima teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in dependent claim 4 and independent claim 1. Kiwada in view of Kuroshima does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the program causes the computer to change a color of display of one of the plurality of sheet holding unit of the image forming apparatus found by the search and to which the sheet information selected by the user is able to be set’.
Fujimori teaches ‘wherein the program causes the computer to change a color of display of one of the plurality of sheet holding units of the image forming apparatus found by the search and to which the sheet information selected by the user is able to be set [Fig 10, par 0097, 0111-0112, 0115 – highlighting printing devices and their trays that have equally matched printer settings (i.e., Paper Type)]’.
Kiwada in view of Kuroshima and Saito are analogous art with Fujimori because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include highlighting printer trays, as taught by Fujimori. The motivation for doing so would have been to providing an improved print management system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fujimori with Kiwada in view of Kuroshima and Saito to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Publication No. 2007/0264039
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA J CATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 830-530.
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 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.
/MIYA J CATO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights