DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This is an initial office action in response to communication(s) filed on May 14 2024.
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 14, 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Owen (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0070375 A1).
With regard to claim 1, the claim is drawn to an image processing apparatus that distributes raster image processor (RIP) processing of a print job that is divided into pages to the image processing apparatus itself and another image processing apparatus with which there is a network connection (see Owen, i.e. in fig. 3, disclose the host 302, and further in para. 51-52 and etc., disclose that “[0051] In the embodiments discussed above in connection with FIGS. 1 and 2, an RIP control unit was located on the host. In contrast, the system 300 shown in FIG. 3 includes a print server 334, and the RIP control unit 314 is located on the print server 334. The print server 334 is in electronic communication with the host 302 and the printing device 304 via the network 338. [0052] As before, the host 302 includes an RIP unit 316, and the printing device 304 includes an RIP unit 328. In addition, there are several other RIP units in the system 300 shown in FIG. 3. In particular, the print server 334 includes an RIP unit 336. Also, one or more RIP units 342 may be included on one or more additional hosts 340 that are connected to the network 338. Also, one or more RIP units 346 may be included on one or more side servers 344 that are connected to the network 338…”; in addition, in fig. 4, fig. 5 and etc., disclose the host 402, and in para. 53, disclose that “[0053] FIG. 4 illustrates the operation of various components in an embodiment of a system 400 for heuristics-based load balancing of hybrid PDL/raster printing that is similar to the system 300 shown in FIG. 3. When an application 406 on the host 402 is instructed to print one or more documents on the printing device 404 (e.g., by a user, a scheduled task, etc.), the application 406 generates a print job 408. The print job 408 includes graphics commands 410. The graphics commands 410 are provided to a driver 412 for the printing device 404….”), the image processing apparatus comprising:
a hardware processor (see Owen, i.e. in fig. 4, disclose the host 402; and further see fig. 9, para. 75, disclose the processor 903 and etc.), wherein
the hardware processor (see Owen, i.e. in fig. 9, processor 903) is configured to:
predict, for each page of the print job, a state of a RIP-processed image of the page when the other image processing apparatus is allocated the page for RIP processing (see Owen, i.e. in fig. 4, para. 56, and etc., disclose that “[0056] More specifically, the RIP control unit 414 instructs the driver 412 on the host 402 to rasterize the graphics commands 410 that correspond to a single print job segment 426, and to render the graphics commands 410 that correspond to N-1 print job segments 426 into PDL data 422 (where N is the number of available RIP units). In the illustrated embodiment, there are five RIP units, namely the RIP unit 416 on the host 402, the RIP unit 436 on the print server 434, the RIP unit 428 on the printing device 404, the RIP unit 442 on the additional host 440, and the RIP unit 446 on the side server 444. The RIP control unit 414 instructs the driver 412 to rasterize the first set of graphics commands 410a that corresponds to the first print job segment 426a. In addition, the RIP control unit 414 instructs the driver 412 to render the following sets of graphics commands into PDL data 422: the second set of graphics commands 410b that corresponds to the second print job segment 426b, the third set of graphics commands 410c that corresponds to the third print job segment 426c, the fourth set of graphics commands 410d that corresponds to the fourth print job segment 426d, and the fifth set of graphics commands 410e that corresponds to the fifth print job segment 426e…”); and
allocate, for each page of the print job, RIP processing of the page to the image processing apparatus itself or the other image processing apparatus based on the state of a RIP-processed image of the page (see Owen, i.e. in fig. 4, para. 57-58 and etc., discloses that “[0057] In response to the instructions 424 provided by the RIP control unit 414, the first set of graphics commands 410a that corresponds to the first print job segment 426a is provided to the RIP unit 416 of the driver 412. The RIP unit 416 rasterizes the first set of graphics commands 410a, thereby generating raster data 420. The raster data 420 is provided to the print server 434, which sends the raster data 420 to the printing device 404. The second set of graphics commands 410b, third set of graphics commands 410c, fourth set of graphics commands 410d, and fifth set of graphics commands 410e are provided to the PDL unit 418. The PDL unit 418 renders these sets of graphics commands 410b, 410c, 410d, 410e into PDL data 422. The PDL data 422 is provided to the print server 434. The print server 434 sends the PDL data 422 corresponding to different print job segments 426 to the various RIP units in the system 400 for rasterization. [0058] As before, the RIP control unit 414 does not initially instruct the driver 412 about how to process all of the segments 426 of the print job 408. Rather, the RIP control unit 414 only provides instructions for processing enough print job segments 426 so that all of the RIP units in the system are busy. In the illustrated embodiment, because there are five RIP units in the system 400, the RIP control unit 414 does not initially instruct the driver 412 how the graphics commands 410f that correspond to the sixth print job segment 426f should be processed. As will be explained below, the instructions that the RIP control unit 414 provides about how this print job segment 426f should be processed may depend on which RIP unit first becomes available to rasterize this print job segment 426f…”; also see fig. 6, steps, 604, 612 and etc.). .
With regard to claim 4, the claim is drawn to the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the state of a RIP-processed image of the page is predicted based on object configuration information, the object configuration information including attribute information of an object that constitutes said page, resolution, and a number of one or more objects of said page (see Owen, i.e. in fig. 6, para. 65-68 and etc., disclose that “[0065] The method 600 begins when the RIP control unit 114 receives 602 a request from a printing device driver 112 for instructions regarding how to process graphics commands 110 for a print job 108. The graphics commands 110 have been sorted into segments 126 by a sorting component 107. Each segment 126 may be a page band, i.e., a portion of a page of the print job 108. In response to the request, the RIP control unit 114 identifies 604 the RIP units that are available to assist with rasterization of the print job 108. [0066] The RIP control unit 114 arbitrarily distributes 608 raster image processing of an initial set of print job segments 126 among the available RIP units. In some embodiments, this step may involve instructing the driver 112 on the host 102 to rasterize the graphics commands 110 that correspond to a single print job segment 126, and to render the graphics commands 110 that correspond to N-1 print job segments 126 into PDL data 122 (where N is the number of available RIP units). [0067] The RIP control unit 114 monitors 610 the availability of the RIP units. In some embodiments, the RIP control unit 114 may perform this task by sending availability inquiries to the RIP units. Alternatively, the RIP control unit 114 may perform this task by simply waiting to receive availability notification messages from the RIP units. [0068] The RIP control unit 114 continues to monitor 610 the availability of the RIP units until the RIP control unit 114 determines 612 that one of the RIP units is available to perform additional raster image processing. When this occurs, the RIP control unit 114 effects 614 rasterization of the next print job segment by the available RIP unit…”).
With regard to claim 5, the claim is drawn to the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is configured to: measure a network communication speed between the image processing apparatus itself and the other image processing apparatus; and allocate, for each page of the print job, RIP processing of the page to the image processing apparatus itself or the other image processing apparatus based on the measured network communication speed and the state of a RIP-processed image of the page (see Owen, i.e. in para. 10 and etc., disclose that “[0010] Some known techniques for load balancing the raster image processing of a print job involve the use of complex algorithms that take into consideration various factors, such as the host's capabilities, the printing device's capabilities, a print server's capabilities, the status of the available RIP units, RIP unit statistics, network capacity, network performance, graphics commands statistics, and so forth. However, known approaches suffer from various drawbacks. Accordingly, benefits may be realized by improved systems and methods for load balancing the raster imaging processing of a print job. Some exemplary systems and methods for load balancing the raster imaging processing of a print job are described herein….”).
With regard to claim 6, the claim is drawn to the image processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the hardware processor is configured to:
calculate, as predicted RIP-processing time, time taken to perform RIP processing of each page of the print job by the other image processing apparatus (see Owen, i.e. in para. 10 and etc., disclose that “[0010] Some known techniques for load balancing the raster image processing of a print job involve the use of complex algorithms that take into consideration various factors, such as the host's capabilities, the printing device's capabilities, a print server's capabilities, the status of the available RIP units, RIP unit statistics, network capacity, network performance, graphics commands statistics, and so forth. However, known approaches suffer from various drawbacks. Accordingly, benefits may be realized by improved systems and methods for load balancing the raster imaging processing of a print job. Some exemplary systems and methods for load balancing the raster imaging processing of a print job are described herein….”); and
allocate, to the other image processing apparatus, a page that may be transmitted in time for a transmission timing of transmitting RIP-processed images to a printer based on the network communication speed, the state of a RIP-processed image of each page of the print job, and the calculated, predicted RIP-processing time of each page of the print job (see Owen, i.e. in para. 10 and etc., disclose that “[0010] Some known techniques for load balancing the raster image processing of a print job involve the use of complex algorithms that take into consideration various factors, such as the host's capabilities, the printing device's capabilities, a print server's capabilities, the status of the available RIP units, RIP unit statistics, network capacity, network performance, graphics commands statistics, and so forth. However, known approaches suffer from various drawbacks. Accordingly, benefits may be realized by improved systems and methods for load balancing the raster imaging processing of a print job. Some exemplary systems and methods for load balancing the raster imaging processing of a print job are described herein….”).
With regard to claim 8, the claim is drawn to the image processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the hardware processor is configured to determine an upper limit of a number of pages to be allocated to the other image processing apparatus in accordance with a ratio of computing power of the image processing apparatus itself to computing power of the other image processing apparatus (see Owen, i.e. in para. 10 and etc., disclose that “[0010] Some known techniques for load balancing the raster image processing of a print job involve the use of complex algorithms that take into consideration various factors, such as the host's capabilities, the printing device's capabilities, a print server's capabilities, the status of the available RIP units, RIP unit statistics, network capacity, network performance, graphics commands statistics, and so forth. However, known approaches suffer from various drawbacks. Accordingly, benefits may be realized by improved systems and methods for load balancing the raster imaging processing of a print job. Some exemplary systems and methods for load balancing the raster imaging processing of a print job are described herein….”).
With regard to claim 9, the claim is drawn to the image processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the hardware processor is configured to determine the following as an upper limit of a total value of data sizes of compressed data after RIP processing that may be processed by the other image processing apparatus: data size that may be processed by the other image processing apparatus at the network communication speed of the other image processing apparatus within processing time of RIP processing when all pages of the print job are to be processed by the image processing apparatus itself (see Owen, i.e. in para. 10 and etc., disclose that “[0010] Some known techniques for load balancing the raster image processing of a print job involve the use of complex algorithms that take into consideration various factors, such as the host's capabilities, the printing device's capabilities, a print server's capabilities, the status of the available RIP units, RIP unit statistics, network capacity, network performance, graphics commands statistics, and so forth. However, known approaches suffer from various drawbacks. Accordingly, benefits may be realized by improved systems and methods for load balancing the raster imaging processing of a print job. Some exemplary systems and methods for load balancing the raster imaging processing of a print job are described herein….”).
With regard to claim 10, the claim is drawn to an image processing method of an image processing apparatus that distributes raster image processor (RIP) processing of a print job that is divided into pages to the image processing apparatus itself and another image processing apparatus with which there is a network connection (see Owen, i.e.in fig. 6, para. 17 and etc., disclose that “[0017] FIG. 6 is a flow diagram that illustrates an embodiment of a method for heuristics-based load balancing of hybrid PDL/raster printing…”), the image processing method comprising:
predicting, for each page of the print job, a state of a RIP-processed image of the page when the other image processing apparatus is allocated the page for RIP processing (see Owen, i.e. in fig. 4, para. 56, and etc., disclose that “[0056] More specifically, the RIP control unit 414 instructs the driver 412 on the host 402 to rasterize the graphics commands 410 that correspond to a single print job segment 426, and to render the graphics commands 410 that correspond to N-1 print job segments 426 into PDL data 422 (where N is the number of available RIP units). In the illustrated embodiment, there are five RIP units, namely the RIP unit 416 on the host 402, the RIP unit 436 on the print server 434, the RIP unit 428 on the printing device 404, the RIP unit 442 on the additional host 440, and the RIP unit 446 on the side server 444. The RIP control unit 414 instructs the driver 412 to rasterize the first set of graphics commands 410a that corresponds to the first print job segment 426a. In addition, the RIP control unit 414 instructs the driver 412 to render the following sets of graphics commands into PDL data 422: the second set of graphics commands 410b that corresponds to the second print job segment 426b, the third set of graphics commands 410c that corresponds to the third print job segment 426c, the fourth set of graphics commands 410d that corresponds to the fourth print job segment 426d, and the fifth set of graphics commands 410e that corresponds to the fifth print job segment 426e…”); and
allocating, for each page of the print job, RIP processing of the page to the image processing apparatus itself or the other image processing apparatus based on the state of a RIP-processed image of the page (see Owen, i.e. in fig. 4, para. 57-58 and etc., discloses that “[0057] In response to the instructions 424 provided by the RIP control unit 414, the first set of graphics commands 410a that corresponds to the first print job segment 426a is provided to the RIP unit 416 of the driver 412. The RIP unit 416 rasterizes the first set of graphics commands 410a, thereby generating raster data 420. The raster data 420 is provided to the print server 434, which sends the raster data 420 to the printing device 404. The second set of graphics commands 410b, third set of graphics commands 410c, fourth set of graphics commands 410d, and fifth set of graphics commands 410e are provided to the PDL unit 418. The PDL unit 418 renders these sets of graphics commands 410b, 410c, 410d, 410e into PDL data 422. The PDL data 422 is provided to the print server 434. The print server 434 sends the PDL data 422 corresponding to different print job segments 426 to the various RIP units in the system 400 for rasterization. [0058] As before, the RIP control unit 414 does not initially instruct the driver 412 about how to process all of the segments 426 of the print job 408. Rather, the RIP control unit 414 only provides instructions for processing enough print job segments 426 so that all of the RIP units in the system are busy. In the illustrated embodiment, because there are five RIP units in the system 400, the RIP control unit 414 does not initially instruct the driver 412 how the graphics commands 410f that correspond to the sixth print job segment 426f should be processed. As will be explained below, the instructions that the RIP control unit 414 provides about how this print job segment 426f should be processed may depend on which RIP unit first becomes available to rasterize this print job segment 426f…”; also see fig. 6, steps, 604, 612 and etc.).
With regard to claim 11, the claim is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program causing a computer to perform operations of an image processing apparatus that distributes raster image processor (RIP) processing of a print job that is divided into pages to the image processing apparatus itself and another image processing apparatus with which there is a network connection (in addition to the discussions of claims 1 and 10 above, further in para. 28, disclose that “[0028] A computer system that is configured to implement a method for heuristics-based load balancing of hybrid PDL/raster printing is also disclosed. The computer system includes a processor, and memory in electronic communication with the processor. Instructions are stored in the memory. The instructions are executable to implement the method described above for heuristics-based load balancing of hybrid PDL/raster printing. A computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions for implementing a method for heuristics-based load balancing of hybrid PDL/raster printing is also disclosed…”), the operations comprising:
predicting, for each page of the print job, a state of a RIP-processed image of the page when the other image processing apparatus is allocated the page for RIP processing (see Owen, i.e. in fig. 4, para. 56, and etc., disclose that “[0056] More specifically, the RIP control unit 414 instructs the driver 412 on the host 402 to rasterize the graphics commands 410 that correspond to a single print job segment 426, and to render the graphics commands 410 that correspond to N-1 print job segments 426 into PDL data 422 (where N is the number of available RIP units). In the illustrated embodiment, there are five RIP units, namely the RIP unit 416 on the host 402, the RIP unit 436 on the print server 434, the RIP unit 428 on the printing device 404, the RIP unit 442 on the additional host 440, and the RIP unit 446 on the side server 444. The RIP control unit 414 instructs the driver 412 to rasterize the first set of graphics commands 410a that corresponds to the first print job segment 426a. In addition, the RIP control unit 414 instructs the driver 412 to render the following sets of graphics commands into PDL data 422: the second set of graphics commands 410b that corresponds to the second print job segment 426b, the third set of graphics commands 410c that corresponds to the third print job segment 426c, the fourth set of graphics commands 410d that corresponds to the fourth print job segment 426d, and the fifth set of graphics commands 410e that corresponds to the fifth print job segment 426e…”); and
allocating, for each page of the print job, RIP processing of the page to the image processing apparatus itself or the other image processing apparatus based on the state of a RIP-processed image of the page (see Owen, i.e. in fig. 4, para. 57-58 and etc., discloses that “[0057] In response to the instructions 424 provided by the RIP control unit 414, the first set of graphics commands 410a that corresponds to the first print job segment 426a is provided to the RIP unit 416 of the driver 412. The RIP unit 416 rasterizes the first set of graphics commands 410a, thereby generating raster data 420. The raster data 420 is provided to the print server 434, which sends the raster data 420 to the printing device 404. The second set of graphics commands 410b, third set of graphics commands 410c, fourth set of graphics commands 410d, and fifth set of graphics commands 410e are provided to the PDL unit 418. The PDL unit 418 renders these sets of graphics commands 410b, 410c, 410d, 410e into PDL data 422. The PDL data 422 is provided to the print server 434. The print server 434 sends the PDL data 422 corresponding to different print job segments 426 to the various RIP units in the system 400 for rasterization. [0058] As before, the RIP control unit 414 does not initially instruct the driver 412 about how to process all of the segments 426 of the print job 408. Rather, the RIP control unit 414 only provides instructions for processing enough print job segments 426 so that all of the RIP units in the system are busy. In the illustrated embodiment, because there are five RIP units in the system 400, the RIP control unit 414 does not initially instruct the driver 412 how the graphics commands 410f that correspond to the sixth print job segment 426f should be processed. As will be explained below, the instructions that the RIP control unit 414 provides about how this print job segment 426f should be processed may depend on which RIP unit first becomes available to rasterize this print job segment 426f…”; also see fig. 6, steps, 604, 612 and etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harris et al. (U.S Patent No. 8,314,961 B1, hereinafter as “Harris”).
With regard to claim 2, the claim is drawn to the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the state of a RIP-processed image of the page is a compression ratio when the RIP-processed image is compressed.
The teachings of Owen do not explicitly disclose the aspect relating to “wherein the state of a RIP-processed image of the page is a compression ratio when the RIP-processed image is compressed”.
However, Harris discloses an analogous invention relates to method and apparatus for printing raster page. More specifically, in Harris, i.e. in col. 8, ll 44-49, discloses that “In addition, a compression ratio criterion can be used to evaluate the printable raster page. For pages of different resolution, the compression ratio criterion can be different. Pages having larger resolution may need larger compression ratio to shrink data size to ensure successful printing…”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Owen to include the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Harris, with the aspect(s) discussed above, as the cited prior arts are at least considered to be analogous arts if not also in the same field of endeavor relating to image processing arts. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Owen by the teachings of Harris, and to incorporate the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Harris, thereby allowing “… the method can compare the compression ratio of the printable raster page data with a compression ratio criterion that is associated with the print resolution, the communication link transfer rate and the print rate” (see Harris, i.e. in col. 2, ll 25-29).
With regard to claim 3, the claim is drawn to the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the state of a RIP-processed image of the page is a data size of compressed data obtained by compressing the RIP-processed image (see Harris, i.e. in col. 2, ll 16-29 and etc., discloses that “According to aspects of the disclosure, the method can compare a data size of the printable raster page with a size criterion associated with the print rate and the transfer rate of the communication link, to determine whether the printable raster page can be transferred to the printer fast enough to satisfy the print rate of the printer,. Alternatively, the method can compare print rate and a page transfer rate that is associated with data size of the printable raster page and the communication link transfer rate. Further, the method can compare the compression ratio of the printable raster page data with a compression ratio criterion that is associated with the print resolution, the communication link transfer rate and the print rate”).
Allowable Subject Matter
With regard to Claim 7, claims are 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 and overcoming the corresponding rejections and/or objection (if any) set forth in the Office Action above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 7, the closest prior arts of record, Owen and Harris, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “the image processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the hardware processor is configured to: perform the following operations for pages of the print job starting with a page with the highest compression ratio: determine whether the page may be transmitted in time for the transmission timing of transmitting RIP-processed images to the printer; and allocate the page to the other image processing apparatus when the page may be transmitted in time for the transmission timing of transmitting RIP-processed images to the printer”. These additional features in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by prior art(s) of record.
Therefore, claim 7 is objected to.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ferlitsch (U.S. Pat/Pub No. 7,339,687) disclose an invention relates to printing and printing system devices, and more particularly to systems and methods for sharing rasterization tasks among several print system devices.
The Art Unit (or Workgroup) location of your application in the USPTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Art Unit 2681.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacky X. Zheng whose telephone number is (571) 270-1122. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, alt. Friday Off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached on (571) 272-3438. 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.
/JACKY X ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681