DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Amendments and response received 06/22/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-6 and 9-11 are currently pending in this application. Claims 1, 9 and 10 have been amended and claims 7 and 8 canceled by this amendment. Claim 11 has been newly added. Amendments and response are addressed hereinbelow.
Specification
In light of the amendment to the title of the invention, the examiner hereby withdraws the previous grounds of objection as the new title is more indicative of the invention as claimed.
The examiner hereby acknowledges the amendments to the specification correcting minor informalities.
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.
Claims 1 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kensuke Usui et al (US 20220305828 A1) in view of Takehana Hiroki (JP 2011110926 A).
Regarding claim 1, Usui et al discloses a support apparatus that supports maintenance of a printing apparatus (¶ [50] printing control device), the support apparatus comprising:
at least one processor and at least a memory coupled to the at least one processor and having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor (¶ [51]), causes the processor to act as:
a printing execution unit configured to cause the printing apparatus to execute printing of a test pattern (¶ [46]; ¶ [16]);
a specifying unit configured to specify, based on the test pattern being printed, content of maintenance required for the printing apparatus (¶ [19] and ¶ [53]); and
a notification unit configured to notify based on the content being specified (¶ [59] notifying respective units to undergo maintenance based on previous determination; ¶ [67-68]).
Usui et al fails to explicitly disclose a counting unit configured to count a number of operations performed by the printing apparatus, wherein the printing of the test pattern is based on a counter value by the counting unit.
Hiroki, in the same field of endeavor of image forming system calibration utilizing a pattern printed as a reference for calibration (¶ [2]), teaches a counting unit configured to count a number of operations performed by the printing apparatus (¶ [25]), wherein the printing of the test pattern is based on a counter value by the counting unit (¶ [52-54]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the support apparatus that supports maintenance of a printing apparatus as disclosed by Usui comprising a printing execution unit, a notification unit and a specifying unit to utilize the teachings of Hiroki which teaches a counting unit configured to count a number of operations performed by the printing apparatus, wherein the printing of the test pattern is based on a counter value by the counting unit to ensure periodic performance of needed maintenance without wasteful processing.
Usui et al fails to explicitly disclose a setting unit configured to set priority of printing of the test pattern in execution of printing by the printing apparatus, wherein , in a case where the counter value reaches a threshold value during the execution of printing by the printing apparatus, the printing execution unit determines, based on the set priority, whether to execute printing of the test pattern such that in a case where the priority of a print job has not been set, the printing execution unit interrupts the print job and executes printing of the test pattern when the counter value reaches the threshold value during execution of the print job, and in a case where the priority of the print job has been set, the printing execution unit waits until completion of the print job and then executes printing of the test pattern when the counter value reaches the threshold value during execution of the print job.
Hiroki teaches a setting unit configured to set priority of printing of the test pattern in execution of printing by the printing apparatus (¶ [10]), wherein , in a case where the counter value reaches a threshold value during the execution of printing by the printing apparatus, the printing execution unit determines, based on the set priority, whether to execute printing of the test pattern such that in a case where the priority of a print job has not been set, the printing execution unit interrupts the print job and executes printing of the test pattern when the counter value reaches the threshold value during execution of the print job (¶ [44-45] wherein when the specific job does not have a priority designation, the default selection is “print image quality priority” where calibration interrupts the current printing), and in a case where the priority of the print job has been set, the printing execution unit waits until completion of the print job and then executes printing of the test pattern when the counter value reaches the threshold value during execution of the print job (¶ [46] wherein the specific job has a set priority of “print speed priority”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the support apparatus that supports maintenance of a printing apparatus as disclosed by Usui comprising a printing execution unit, a notification unit and a specifying unit to utilize the teachings of Hiroki which teaches a setting unit configured to set priority of printing of the test pattern in execution of printing by the printing apparatus, wherein , in a case where the counter value reaches a threshold value during the execution of printing by the printing apparatus, the printing execution unit determines, based on the set priority, whether to execute printing of the test pattern such that in a case where the priority of a print job has not been set, the printing execution unit interrupts the print job and executes printing of the test pattern when the counter value reaches the threshold value during execution of the print job, and in a case where the priority of the print job has been set, the printing execution unit waits until completion of the print job and then executes printing of the test pattern when the counter value reaches the threshold value during execution of the print job to implement appropriate calibration in accordance with a user’s desires.
Regarding claim 9, Usui et al discloses a method for a support apparatus that supports maintenance of a printing apparatus (see rejection of claim 1), the method comprising:
counting a number of operations performed by the printing apparatus (see rejection of claim 1);
causing the printing apparatus to execute printing of a test pattern, wherein printing of the test pattern is executed based on a counter value in the counting (see rejection of claim 1);
setting priority of printing of the test pattern in execution of printing by the printing apparatus, wherein, in a case where the counter value reaches a threshold value during the execution of printing by the printing apparatus, it is determined, based on the set priority, whether to execute printing of the test pattern (see rejection of claim 1) such that:
in a case where the priority of a print job has not been set, the print job is interrupted and printing of the test pattern is executed when the counter value reaches the threshold value during execution of the print job (see rejection of claim 1), and
in a case where the priority of the print job has been set, completion of the print job is waited and then printing of the test pattern is executed when the counter value reaches the threshold value during execution of the print job (see rejection of claim 1);
specifying, based on the test pattern being printed, content of maintenance required for the printing apparatus (see rejection of claim 1); and
notifying based on the content being specified (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Usui et al discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores one or more programs including instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of a support apparatus that supports maintenance of a printing apparatus (¶ [51]), cause the support apparatus to perform a control method, the control method comprising:
counting a number of operations performed by the printing apparatus (see rejection of claim 1);
causing the printing apparatus to execute printing of a test pattern, wherein printing of the test pattern is executed based on a counter value in the counting (see rejection of claim 1);
setting priority of printing of the test pattern in execution of printing by the printing apparatus, wherein, in a case where the counter value reaches a threshold value during the execution of printing by the printing apparatus, it is determined, based on the set priority, whether to execute printing of the test pattern (see rejection of claim 1) such that:
in a case where the priority of a print job has not been set, the print job is interrupted and printing of the test pattern is executed when the counter value reaches the threshold value during execution of the print job, and in a case where the priority of the print job has been set, completion of the print job is waited and then printing of the test pattern is executed when the counter value reaches the threshold value during execution of the print job (see rejection of claim 1);
specifying, based on the test pattern being printed, content of maintenance required for the printing apparatus (see rejection of claim 1); and
notifying based on the content being specified (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Usui et al discloses the support apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Usui fails to explicitly disclose wherein the counter value represents a number of printed materials output since a previous printing of the test pattern, or an elapsed time since the previous printing of the test pattern.
Hiroki teaches the counter value represents a number of printed materials output since a previous printing of the test pattern, or an elapsed time since the previous printing of the test pattern (¶ [51]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the support apparatus that supports maintenance of a printing apparatus as disclosed by Usui comprising a printing execution unit, a notification unit and a specifying unit to utilize the teachings of Hiroki which teaches the counter value represents a number of printed materials output since a previous printing of the test pattern, or an elapsed time since the previous printing of the test pattern to implement calibration when image quality is expected to be degraded.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usui et al in view of Hiroki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koji Adachi et al (JP 2007116670 A).
Regarding claim 2, Usui et al discloses the support apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Usui et al fails to explicitly disclose the at least one processor further acting as an image capturing unit configured to capture an image of a printed material output by the printing apparatus; a registration unit configured to register an image to be formed on the printed material as a correct image; and a comparison unit configured to compare the image of the printed material captured by the image capturing unit with the correct image, wherein the printing execution unit executes the printing of the test pattern based on a comparison result by the comparison unit.
Adachi et al, in the same field of endeavor of determining image quality of a printer by printing a test chart (¶ [3]), teaches an image capturing unit configured to capture an image of a printed material output by the printing apparatus (¶ [¶ [35]); a registration unit configured to register an image to be formed on the printed material as a correct image (¶ [11] reference images preliminarily registered); and a comparison unit configured to compare the image of the printed material captured by the image capturing unit with the correct image (¶ [11]), wherein the printing execution unit executes the printing of the test pattern based on a comparison result by the comparison unit (¶ [13] difference defect image pattern).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the support apparatus as disclosed by Usui et al comprising a printing execution unit, a specifying unit, and a notification unit to utilize the teachings of Adachi et al which teaches processor further acting as an image capturing unit configured to capture an image of a printed material output by the printing apparatus; a registration unit configured to register an image to be formed on the printed material as a correct image; and a comparison unit configured to compare the image of the printed material captured by the image capturing unit with the correct image, wherein the printing execution unit executes the printing of the test pattern based on a comparison result by the comparison unit to provide a failure inspection system that reduces the burden on users including service personnel and can specify a failure location with high accuracy.
Regarding claim 3, Usui et al discloses the support apparatus according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2), the at least one processor further acting as:
an adjustment unit configured to adjust a printing mode of the printing apparatus (¶ [59]) based on the comparison result by the comparison unit (see rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, Usui et al discloses the support apparatus according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2), the at least one processor further acting as:
a cleaning unit configured to clean a component of the printing apparatus (¶ [59]) based on the comparison result by the comparison unit (see rejection of claim 2).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usui et al in view of Hiroki and Adachi et al as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Masahito Yamamoto (JP 2004151885 A).
Regarding claim 5, Usui et al discloses the support apparatus according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2).
Usui et al fails to explicitly disclose the at least one processor further acting as a conversion unit configured to convert the content being specified into a code, wherein the notification unit outputs, as a notification, the code being converted to a predetermined external apparatus.
Yamamoto, in the same field of endeavor of maintaining print image quality of an image forming apparatus and notifying a maintenance entity based on quality results (¶ [1]), teaches at least one processor further acting as a conversion unit configured to convert the content being specified into a code, wherein the notification unit outputs, as a notification, the code being converted to a predetermined external apparatus (¶ [9-11]; ¶ [103] encoding maintenance instructions based on image quality results and transmitting to external device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the support apparatus as disclosed by Usui et al comprising a printing execution unit, a specifying unit, and a notification unit to utilize the teachings of Yamamoto which teaches at least one processor further acting as a conversion unit configured to convert the content being specified into a code, wherein the notification unit outputs, as a notification, the code being converted to a predetermined external apparatus to expand image quality diagnosis and repair from remote locations thereby broadening the reach of the maintenance techniques to devices not directly connected to the maintenance system.
Regarding claim 6, Usui et al discloses the support apparatus according to claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5), wherein the conversion unit generates the code based on the comparison result by the comparison unit (see rejection of claim 5 wherein the encoded information is maintenance information in accordance with the comparison of the test print pattern and stored image quality data).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usui et al in view of Hiroki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Masahito Yamamoto (JP 2004151885 A).
Regarding claim 7, Usui et al discloses the support apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Usui et al fails to explicitly disclose the at least one processor further acting as a counting unit configured to count a number of operations performed by the printing apparatus, wherein the printing execution unit causes the printing of the test pattern to be executed based on a counter value by the counting unit.
Yamamoto discloses a counting unit configured to count a number of operations performed by the printing apparatus (¶ [20]), wherein the printing execution unit causes the printing of the test pattern to be executed based on a counter value by the counting unit (¶ [20] and ¶ [51-52]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the support apparatus as disclosed by Usui et al comprising a printing execution unit, a specifying unit, and a notification unit to utilize the teachings of Yamamoto which teaches a counting unit configured to count a number of operations performed by the printing apparatus, wherein the printing execution unit causes the printing of the test pattern to be executed based on a counter value by the counting unit to ensure maintenance is performed periodically and avoid wasteful processing.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usui et al in view of Hiroki and Yamamoto as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Naoshi Fukumuro (JP 2019200306 A).
Regarding claim 8, Usui et al discloses the support apparatus according to claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7).
Usui et al fails to explicitly disclose the at least one processor further acting as a setting unit configured to set priority of the printing of the test pattern in execution of the printing by the printing apparatus, wherein, in a case where the counter value reaches a threshold value during the execution of the printing by the printing apparatus, the printing execution unit determines, based on the set priority, whether to execute the printing of the test pattern.
Fukumuro, in the same field of endeavor of performing image diagnosis and detecting image defect utilizing printed test patterns (lines 14-25), a setting unit configured to set priority of the printing of the test pattern in execution of the printing by the printing apparatus, wherein, in a case where the counter value reaches a threshold value during the execution of the printing by the printing apparatus, the printing execution unit determines, based on the set priority, whether to execute the printing of the test pattern (lines [449-458] and lines [790-793]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the support apparatus as disclosed by Usui et al comprising a printing execution unit, a specifying unit, and a notification unit to utilize the teachings of Fukumuro which teaches a setting unit configured to set priority of the printing of the test pattern in execution of the printing by the printing apparatus, wherein, in a case where the counter value reaches a threshold value during the execution of the printing by the printing apparatus, the printing execution unit determines, based on the set priority, whether to execute the printing of the test pattern to ensure diagnostic processing is performed as desired wherein printing will not be interrupted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
September 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights