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 .
2. Claims 1-27 are pending in this application.
Priority
3. Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on application JP 2018-125177 filed on 06/29/2018 under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d).
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in priorApplication Numbers. 17/135,536, filed on 12/28/2020 & 18/055,639, filed on 11/15/2022, and name an inventor or inventors named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or division. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78.
Drawings
4. The drawing has been filed on 04/16/2024 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
6. Claims 1-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,520,533 B2.
It is clear that all the elements of instant application independent claims 1, 14, 27 are to be found in patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,520,533 B2) claims 1, 10, 14 as the instant application independent claims 1, 14, 27 fully encompasses the patent claim 1, 10, 14. The difference between the instant application independent claims 1, 14, 27 and the patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,520,533 B2) claims 1, 10, 14 lies in the fact that the patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,520,533 B2) claim includes many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus, the invention of claims 1, 10, 14 of the patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,520,533 B2) is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the instant application independent claims 1, 14, 27. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since instant application independent claims 1, 14, 27 are anticipated by claims 1, 10, 14 of the patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,520,533 B2), it is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 10, 14 of the patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,520,533 B2).
The dependent claims 2-13, 15-26 of the instant application obviously claim the same subject matter as found in the claims 2-9, 11-13, 15-20 of the parent patent’ 533 and therefore would be rejected based on the claims 2-9, 11-13, 15-20 of the parent patent’ 533.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1-3, 6, 9-12, 14-16, 19, 22-25, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. [hereafter Park], US Pub 2010/0231957.
As to claim 1 [independent], Park teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [fig. 2, element 130; 0044] storing one or more programs including a print setting application [0044, 0048-0049, 0055] configured to be executed by one or more processors of an information processing apparatus [fig. 2, element 150; 0044, 0061-0067] storing printing software that is configured to generate print data printable by image processing apparatuses of a plurality of manufacturers [0050-0057, 0061-0064 Park teaches that the processor 150 causes the universal printer driver unit 140, may include a plurality of printer drivers corresponding to a plurality of languages, and may perform printing jobs for a plurality of printers operated in different languages, to generate printing data using a printer driver corresponding to a selected printer and then transmit the generated printing data to the selected printer] and is able to cause the information processing apparatus to transmit the print data to the image processing apparatuses [0050-0057, 0061-0064 Park teaches that the processor 150 causes the universal printer driver unit 140, may include a plurality of printer drivers corresponding to a plurality of languages, and may perform printing jobs for a plurality of printers operated in different languages, to generate printing data using a printer driver corresponding to a selected printer and then transmit the generated printing data to the selected printer], the one or more programs including instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the information processing apparatus to perform a control method comprising [fig. 2, element 150; 0044, 0061-0067]:
obtaining second capability information including capability information not included in first capability information from the image processing apparatus [figs. 3, 8; 0071-0073, 0078-0080 Park teaches that the processor 150 obtained second capability information i.e. ‘SPL language’ corresponding to the printer 4 not included in the first capability information related to the printer 2 or the printer 3], the first capability information being obtained from at least one image processing apparatus of the image processing apparatuses by the printing software without the print setting application [figs. 3, 8; 0071-0073-0080 Park teaches that the processor 150 caused the display 110 to display printers information and further obtained at least the first capability information related to the printer 2 or the printer 3 from the printer 2 or the printer 3 (para., 0079) without of some of the print setting application such as two-sided application isn’t available]; and
receiving a user instruction selecting a print setting value corresponding to the obtained second capability information [figs. 3-4, 6, 8; 0071-0073-0080 Park teaches that the processor 150 obtained second capability information i.e. ‘SPL language’ corresponding to the printer 4 not included in the first capability information related to the printer 2 or the printer and select some print setting values (e.g. fig. 6)].
As to claim 2 [dependent from claim 1], Park teaches wherein the printing software is provided by an operating system of the information processing apparatus [0057].
As to claim 3 [dependent from claim 1], Park teaches wherein the printing software is a common printer driver [0003, 0007, 0012, 0023].
As to claim 6 [dependent from claim 1], Park teaches wherein the one or more programs include the instructions to cause the information processing apparatus to display a print setting screen on which the print setting value corresponding to the second capability information can be set [figs. 3, 8; 0071-0073, 0078-0080 Park teaches that the processor 150 obtained second capability information i.e. ‘SPL language’ corresponding to the printer 4 and displayed it for the user, so the print setting value corresponding to the second capability information can be set].
As to claim 9 [dependent from claim 1], Park teaches wherein the printing software has a function of generating intermediate data from drawing data output by an application [0050-0059, 0061-0064 Park teaches that the processor 150 causes the universal printer driver unit 140 to generate printing data using a printer driver corresponding to a selected printer in intermediate format (as suggested in para., 0054) and then from the intermediate format to printing data which may have different format such as PDF or different type of PDL data such as XPS, prior to transmit the generated printing data to the selected printer].
As to claim 10 [dependent from claim 9], Park teaches wherein the printing software has a function of generating the print data from the intermediate data [0050-0059, 0061-0064 Park teaches that the processor 150 causes the universal printer driver unit 140 to generate printing data using a printer driver corresponding to a selected printer in intermediate format (as suggested in para., 0054) and then from the intermediate format to printing data which may have different format such as PDF or different type of PDL data such as XPS, prior to transmit the generated printing data to the selected printer].
As to claim 11 [dependent from claim 10], Park teaches wherein the print data is PDF (Portable Document Format) data or PWG-Raster format data [0050-0059, 0061-0064 Park teaches that the processor 150 causes the universal printer driver unit 140 to generate printing data using a printer driver corresponding to a selected printer in intermediate format (as suggested in para., 0054) and then from the intermediate format to printing data which may have different format such as PDF or different type of PDL data such as XPS, prior to transmit the generated printing data to the selected printer].
As to claim 12 [dependent from claim 10], Park teaches wherein the intermediate data is XPS (XML Paper Specification) data [0050-0059, 0061-0064 Park teaches that the processor 150 causes the universal printer driver unit 140 to generate printing data using a printer driver corresponding to a selected printer in intermediate format (as suggested in para., 0054) and then from the intermediate format to printing data which may have different format such as PDF or different type of PDL data such as XPS, prior to transmit the generated printing data to the selected printer].
As to claim 14 [independent], However, the independent claim 14 essentially claimed same subject matter as claimed in the independent claim 1 for/and/with other claim limitations, and are therefore the independent claim 14 would be rejected based on same rationale as applied to the independent claim 1.
As to claim 15 [dependent from claim 14], However, the dependent claim 15 essentially claimed same subject matter as claimed in the dependent claim 2 for/and/with other claim limitations, and are therefore the dependent claim 15 would be rejected based on same rationale as applied to the dependent claim 2.
As to claim 16 [dependent from claim 14], However, the dependent claim 16 essentially claimed same subject matter as claimed in the dependent claim 3 for/and/with other claim limitations, and are therefore the dependent claim 16 would be rejected based on same rationale as applied to the dependent claim 3.
As to claim 19 [dependent from claim 14], However, the dependent claim 19 essentially claimed same subject matter as claimed in the dependent claim 6 for/and/with other claim limitations, and are therefore the dependent claim 19 would be rejected based on same rationale as applied to the dependent claim 6.
As to claim 22 [dependent from claim 14], However, the dependent claim 22 essentially claimed same subject matter as claimed in the dependent claim 9 for/and/with other claim limitations, and are therefore the dependent claim 22 would be rejected based on same rationale as applied to the dependent claim 9.
As to claim 23 [dependent from claim 22], However, the dependent claim 23 essentially claimed same subject matter as claimed in the dependent claim 10 for/and/with other claim limitations, and are therefore the dependent claim 23 would be rejected based on same rationale as applied to the dependent claim 10.
As to claim 24 [dependent from claim 23], However, the dependent claim 24 essentially claimed same subject matter as claimed in the dependent claim 11 for/and/with other claim limitations, and are therefore the dependent claim 24 would be rejected based on same rationale as applied to the dependent claim 11.
As to claim 25 [dependent from claim 22], However, the dependent claim 25 essentially claimed same subject matter as claimed in the dependent claim 12 for/and/with other claim limitations, and are therefore the dependent claim 25 would be rejected based on same rationale as applied to the dependent claim 12.
As to claim 27 [independent], However, the independent claim 27 essentially claimed same subject matter as claimed in the independent claim 1 for/and/with other claim limitations, and are therefore the independent claim 27 would be rejected based on same rationale as applied to the independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 4-5, 7-8, 17-18, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. [hereafter Park], US Pub 2010/0231957 in view of Suzuki et al. [hereafter Suzuki], US Pub 2017/0318184.
As to claims 4, 17 [dependent from claims 1, 14 respectively], Park teaches wherein a print setting value corresponding to the first capability information can be set on a print setting screen provided by the software [figs. 3, 8; 0071-0073-0080 Park teaches that the processor 150 caused the display 110 to display printers information and further obtained at least the first capability information related to the printer 2 or the printer 3 from the printer 2 or the printer 3 (para., 0079)], and
Park doesn’t teach the print setting value corresponding to the second capability information cannot be set on the print setting screen.
Suzuki teaches the print setting value corresponding to the second capability information cannot be set on the print setting screen [fig. 5, steps 505-506 & fig. 7; 0029-0030, 0068, 0081-0085 Suzuki teaches that the terminal device 110 displays the second content/settings screen received from the printer 120 for the user to select the print settings in order to generate the print data by the printer driver according to the predetermined print protocol].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Suzuki teaching to determine the print setting value corresponding to the second capability information cannot be set on the print setting screen to modify Park’s teaching to authenticate the set prints setting information corresponding to the recording medium corresponding to the registered information displayed in the terminal device so as to be selectable by the user when the information indicating the recording medium corresponding to the registered information is transmitted to the terminal device. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to not display unregister settings and display device displays an appropriate screen when the display unit does not display error notification screen when generated error is unsupported error, so that confusion of the user can be suppressed.
As to claims 5, 18 [dependent from claims 1, 14 respectively], Park doesn’t teach wherein the first capability information is obtained by the printing software using communication complying with the Internet Printing Protocol.
Suzuki teaches wherein the first capability information is obtained by the printing software using communication complying with the Internet Printing Protocol [figs. 2, 5-7; 0047-0048, 0052-0053, 0064-0065 Suzuki teaches that the terminal device 110 first obtained the attribute/content information from the printer 120 (see at least fig. 2, step 202-203 & fig. 3 and paras., 0052-0053), and the first one using the predetermined print protocol (IPP, see at-least para., 0047)].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Suzuki teaching to acquire the first capability information complying with the Internet Printing Protocol to modify Park’s teaching to set prints setting information corresponding to the recording medium corresponding to the registered information displayed in the terminal device so as to be selectable by the user when the information indicating the recording medium corresponding to the registered information is transmitted to the terminal device. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to display device displays an appropriate screen when the display unit does not display error notification screen when generated error is unsupported error, so that confusion of the user can be suppressed.
As to claims 7, 20 [dependent from claims 1, 14 respectively], Park doesn’t teach wherein the first capability information is defined by a predetermined protocol, and
the second capability information including capability information not defined by the predetermined protocol.
Suzuki teaches wherein the first capability information is defined by a predetermined protocol [figs. 2, 5-7; 0047-0048, 0052-0053, 0064-0065 Suzuki teaches that the terminal device 110 obtained the first attribute/content information from the printer 120 (see at least fig. 2, step 202-203 & fig. 3 and paras., 0052-0053), and the using the predetermined print protocol (IPP, see at-least para., 0047) to obtain it], and
the second capability information including capability information not defined by the predetermined protocol [figs. 2, 5-7; 0047-0048, 0052-0053, 0064-0065 Suzuki teaches that the terminal device 110 obtained the second attribute/content information from the printer 120 (see at least fig. 5, step 502-503 & fig. 7 and paras., 0052-0053) using ‘a different protocol’ that is different than the protocol (i.e. the predetermined print protocol ‘IPP protocol’, see at-least para., 0047) used to obtain first attribute/content information].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Suzuki teaching to acquire the first capability information complying with the Internet Printing Protocol to modify Park’s teaching to set prints setting information corresponding to the recording medium corresponding to the registered information displayed in the terminal device so as to be selectable by the user when the information indicating the recording medium corresponding to the registered information is transmitted to the terminal device. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to display device displays an appropriate screen when the display unit does not display error notification screen when generated error is unsupported error, so that confusion of the user can be suppressed.
As to claims 8, 21 [dependent from claims 7, 20 respectively], Suzuki teaches wherein the predetermined protocol is Internet Printing Protocol [figs. 2, 5-7; 0047-0048, 0052-0053, 0064-0065 Suzuki teaches that the terminal device 110 obtained the first attribute/content information from the printer 120 (see at least fig. 2, step 202-203 & fig. 3 and paras., 0052-0053), and the using the predetermined print protocol (IPP, see at-least para., 0047) to obtain it].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Suzuki teaching to acquire the first capability information complying with the Internet Printing Protocol to modify Park’s teaching to set prints setting information corresponding to the recording medium corresponding to the registered information displayed in the terminal device so as to be selectable by the user when the information indicating the recording medium corresponding to the registered information is transmitted to the terminal device. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to display device displays an appropriate screen when the display unit does not display error notification screen when generated error is unsupported error, so that confusion of the user can be suppressed.
11. Claims 13, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. [hereafter Park], US Pub 2010/0231957 in view of Sako et al. [hereafter Sako], US Pub 2010/0238493.
As to claims 13, 26 [dependent from claims 1, 14 respectively], Park doesn’t teach wherein the second capability information including capability information corresponding to a needleless binding function for binding prints without using needles or a secure printing function.
Sako teaches wherein the second capability information including capability information corresponding to a needleless binding function for binding prints without using needles or a secure printing function [figs. 5-6; 0058, 0060].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Sako teaching to search for capability information including capability information corresponding to a needleless binding function to bind printed document to modify Park’s teaching to the printer can reduce burden for the bookbinding print job that required mass storage capacity in the memory, and timely and effectively performed binding process. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to provide printer can reduce burden for the bookbinding print job that required mass storage capacity in the memory, thus effectively using the memory resource of the printed document.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARIS SABAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday/Friday from 9:00AM to 5:30PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Benny Tieu, can be reached on (571)272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The Examiner’s personal fax number is (571)270-4917.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/HARIS SABAH/Examiner, Art Unit 2682