DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 of this title, 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.
3. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boutros et al (US Pub: 2011/0188761) and in further view of Muller (US Patent: 6,771,267).
Regarding claim 1, Boutros et al teaches: An apparatus, comprising: at least one processor and memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus at least to: identify embedded fonts in a plurality of electronic files [p0029]; identify glyphs represented in the embedded fonts [p0030].
Boutros et al is lack of prescription on union of glyphs. In the same field of endeavor, Muller teaches: generate a synthesized font subset comprising a union of the glyphs found in the embedded fonts; and assign glyph code points to the glyphs of the synthesized font subset [abstract, col 1: lines 56-67; col 2: lines 1-5].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the two to generate a font subset with a union of glyphs uniquely identified for improving data management and processing efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Boutros et al further teaches: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the apparatus at least to: compute hash values for the glyphs [p0007, p0032].
And Muller further teaches: generate a hash table of the glyphs indexed based on the hash values, wherein entries of the hash table represent the union of the glyphs [col 4: lines 50-65]. Boutros et al computes hash values from glyph data and using the hash value to retrieve code point information and Muller merges glyphs from several source fonts containing glyphs of original fonts, the combined teaching of the two would have been obvious to a skilled in the art to organize merged glyphs in a hash indexed table to merge duplicate glyphs across multiple fonts for simplicity.
Regarding claim 5, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 4 has been incorporated herein. Boutros et al in view of Muller further teaches: The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the apparatus at least to: generate a code point mapping for the glyphs, wherein the code point mapping maps a glyph to one or more character code points in the embedded fonts [Muller: page 3: lines 15-30, claim 11; Boutros: p0007]; and modify the combined file to use the synthesized font subset based on the code point mapping [Muller: page 4: lines 56-65].
Regarding claim 6, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 5 has been incorporated herein. Boutros et al further teaches: The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the apparatus at least to: for each glyph of the hash table, scan the embedded fonts for one or more occurrences of the glyph; and for each occurrence of the glyph, store usage information for the glyph, wherein the usage information comprises an identifier of the embedded font where the glyph appears, and a character code point associated with the glyph within the embedded font [figs. 2 and 3, p0030-p0033].
Regarding claim 7, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Boutros et al further teaches: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the electronic files comprise portable document format files [p0002].
Regarding claim 8, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Boutros et al further teaches: A print system, comprising: a management server communicatively coupled to one or more printers; wherein the management server comprises the apparatus of claim 1 [p0025, claim 7].
Regarding claim 10, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Muller further teaches: A print system, comprising: a printer comprising the apparatus of claim 1 [col 3: lines 64-67].
Claims 11, 12, 15, and 16 have been analyzed and rejected with regard to claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 respectively.
Claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 11 and in accordance with Boutros et al’s further teaching on: A non-transitory computer readable medium embodying programmed instructions executed by a processor, wherein the instructions direct the processor to implement a method [p0043].
Regarding claim 18, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 17 has been incorporated herein. Claim 18 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 12.
4. Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boutros et al (US Pub: 2011/0188761) and Muller (US Patent: 6,771,267); and in further view of Kanungo et al (US Patent: 6,141,002).
Regarding claim 3, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein. Boutros et al obtains a hash value using a hash function on glyph data. In the same field of endeavor, Kanungo et al indicates glyph representation in terms of glyph bitmap: lines 1The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the apparatus at least to: compute the hash values based on at least one of glyph bitmaps and draw rules for the glyphs [col 2: lines 66-67, col 3: lines 1-13 (Bitmap glyph represented by pixel array of width and height which is bitmap representation of a glyph and outline glyph where using outline information to render the glyph.)]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to perform Boutros et al’s glyph data hashing using known glyph representation in bitmap and/or outline per implementation design choice.
Regarding claim 13, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 12 has been incorporated herein. Claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 3.
5. Claims 4, 14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boutros et al (US Pub: 2011/0188761) and Muller (US Patent: 6,771,267); and in further view of Bailor et al (US Pub: 20090150394).
Regarding claim 4, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein. Boutros et al in view of Muller does not explicitly exemplify a combined pages or files although they merge glyphs from several source fonts which could be from different page/files. In the same field of endeavor, Bailor et al teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the apparatus at least to: generate a combined file by merging the electronic files; and embed the synthesized font subset in the combined file [p0003]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to merge files and embed synthesized font subset in the merged file to avoid redundancy or confusion.
Regarding claim 14, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 12 has been incorporated herein. Claim 14 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 18 has been incorporated herein. Claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 14.
Regarding claim 20, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 19 has been incorporated herein. Claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 15.
6. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boutros et al (US Pub: 2011/0188761) and Muller (US Patent: 6,771,267); and in further view of Jazayeri et al (US Pub: 20110299110).
Regarding claim 9, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Boutros et al in view of Muller does not specify a cloud print service. In the same field of endeavor, Jazayeri et al teaches: A print system, comprising: a cloud printing service communicatively coupled to one or more printers; wherein the cloud printing service comprises the apparatus of claim 1 [fig. 1]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to couple a cloud printing service to printers for supporting remote and distributed printing.
Contact
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, 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.
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682