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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-15 are pending in this application [8/6/2026].
Title, Abstract and Claims 1, 3, 10 and 11 have been amended [8/6/2026].
Claims 12-15 have been added [8/6/2026].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 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 Takesue et al. (US-2018/0063381).
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, 7 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takesue et al. (US-2018/0063381).
As to Claim 1, Takesue teaches ‘A print control apparatus comprising: a memory containing instructions and a processor for executing the instructions to operate as: acceptance unit that accepts an editing operation of a parameter set associated with a print medium by a user on an editing screen for editing the parameter set [Fig 22 (2210, 2220, 2230), par 0101, 0103, 0108-0109, 0113-0115, 0190 – printing setting screen for a user to perform various settings changed relating to printing processing including printing grade and ink reduction associated with different types of sheets using a CPU and memory]; and a notification unit that, in a case where editing a specific parameter among a plurality of parameters included in the parameter set causes a need to execute an adjustment process related to the specific parameter, the adjustment process being different from setting of the parameter set, performs notification that prompts execution of the adjustment process related to the specific parameter [Figs 22 (2230-2233), 24 (S2402, S2404-S2405), par 0108, 0113-0114, 0121-0122 – when a user specifies a reduction in the ink amount to be used and information indicating that there is no already-existing printing mode stored in advance (i.e., color conversion LUT not created), a color conversion LUT is created (i.e., prompt) with more detailed conditions specified]’.
Further, in regards to claim 10, the print control apparatus of claim 1 performs the method of claim 10.
Further, in regards to claim 11, the method of claim 10 is fully embodied on the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 11.
As to Claim 7, Takesue teaches ‘wherein the parameters included in the parameter set include the presence or absence of white printing, a contrast ratio in white printing, drying temperature after white printing, drying temperature in color printing, conveyance speed of the print medium, tension applied to the print medium, the type of ink used or the type of color profile used in color matching [par 0100, 0103, 0108 – user specifies a printing grade (i.e., conveyance speed) and ink reduction including clear ink amount]’.
As to Claim 12, Takesue teaches ‘wherein the specific parameter is an ink amount [Figs 22 (2230-2232), 24 (S2402, S2404-S2405), par 0108, 0113-0114, 0121-0122 – a user specifies a reduction in the ink amount to be used]’.
As to Claim 13, Takesue teaches ‘wherein the adjustment process related to the ink amount is a process of creating a color profile [Figs 22, 24 (S2402, S2404-S2405), par 0108, 0113-0114, 0121-0122 – information indicating that there is no already-existing printing mode (i.e., color conversion LUT), a color conversion LUT (i.e., color profile) is created with more detailed conditions (i.e., ink reduction amount) specified]’.
As to Claim 14, Takesue teaches ‘wherein the specific parameter is a conveyance speed [Figs 22 (2210-2211), 24 (S2402, S2404-S2405), par 0103, 0108-0109, 0113-0114, 0121-0122 – a user specifies a printing grade (i.e., conveyance speed) including “Highspeed”, “Standard”, “High grade”, and “Highest grade” printing to be used]’.
As to Claim 15, Takesue teaches ‘wherein the adjustment process related to the conveyance speed is a process of executing a conveyance length correction [Figs 22, 24 (S2402, S2404-S2405), par 0108, 0113-0114, 0121-0122 – information indicating that there is no already-existing printing mode (e.g., color conversion LUT for specified printing grade), a color conversion LUT (i.e., color profile) is created with more detailed conditions including number of passes (i.e., conveyance length correction) specified]’.
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) 2, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takesue et al. in view of Kalloe et al. (US-2017/0300272).
As to Claim 2, Takesue teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claim 1. Takesue does not disclose expressly ‘wherein a parameter set before editing is also displayed on the editing screen during the editing operation’.
Kalloe in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein a parameter set before editing is also displayed on the editing screen during the editing operation [Figs 5, 6, par 0058-0064 – displaying current parameters and a pop-up window identifying parameters that needs particular attention]’.
Takesue and Kalloe are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital 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 displaying a pop-up window identifying parameters that need attention, as taught by Kalloe. The motivation for doing so would have been to reducing risks of degrading print quality and malfunctions of the printer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kalloe with Takesue to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
As to Claim 8, Kalle in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the acceptance unit accepts, as an editing operation, selection of a setting value from a menu provided for each parameter [Fig 6 (66, 68, 70), par 0062-0063 – entry fields (e.g., surface type and media family) where a user may enter missing parameters via drop down menus]’.
Takesue and Kalloe are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital 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 displaying a pop-up window identifying parameters that need attention, as taught by Kalloe. The motivation for doing so would have been to reducing risks of degrading print quality and malfunctions of the printer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kalloe with Takesue to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
As to Claim 9, Kalloe in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein contents of the menu are changed in response to changes in other parameters included in the parameter set [Fig 6 (66, 68, 70), par 0062-0063 – entry fields (e.g., surface type and media family) where a user may enter missing parameters via drop down menus and entry fields will be updated based on user input]’.
Takesue and Kalloe are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital 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 displaying a pop-up window identifying parameters that need attention, as taught by Kalloe. The motivation for doing so would have been to reducing risks of degrading print quality and malfunctions of the printer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kalloe with Takesue to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takesue et al. in view of Tsujimoto (US-2005/0111015).
As to Claim 3, Takesue teaches all the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claim 1. Takesue does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the instructions are further executed to operate as: a transition unit that shifts, in a case where editing the specific parameter among the plurality of parameters included in the parameter set causes the need to execute the adjustment process related to the specific parameter, the adjustment process being different from setting of the parameter set, to a screen for executing the adjustment process related to the specific parameter after the edited parameter set is saved’.
Takesue teaches pressing down an OK button, conditions (printing settings) to be applied to the printing processing are settled (i.e., saved) and determining whether a new color conversion LUT needs to be created (i.e., adjustment processing) [par 0108, 0113-0114].
While Tsujimoto teaches user is notified or warned of an error that needs attention displaying a dialog box [Fig 15, par 0194, 0248].
Takesue in view of Tsujimoto teaches ‘wherein the instructions are further executed to operate as: a transition unit that shifts, in a case where editing the specific parameter among the plurality of parameters included in the parameter set causes the need to execute the adjustment process related to the specific parameter, the adjustment process being different from setting of the parameter set, to a screen for executing the adjustment process related to the specific parameter after the edited parameter set is saved [Takesue: par 0108, 0113-0114; Tsujimoto: Fig 15, par 0194, 0248]’.
Takesue and Tsujimoto are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital 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 displaying a notifying of an error that needs attention, as taught by Tsujimoto. The motivation for doing so would have been to alerting a user when a trouble occurs in creation of print data based on information obtained so that a preferable image can be formed anytime. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsujimoto with Takesue to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takesue et al. in view of Young et al. (US-11,579,827).
As to Claim 4, Takesue teaches all the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claim 1. Takesue does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the notification unit performs notification using a pop-up display screen’.
Young in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the notification unit performs notification using a pop-up display screen [Fig 6 (630), col 11, lines 18-22 – carousel (i.e., pop-up display) depicts notifications that are relevant to printer and/or print review system]’.
Takesue and Young are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital 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 displaying a carousel that depicts notifications, as taught by Young. The motivation for doing so would have been to dynamically accommodating changes in printing activities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Young with Takesue to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
As to Claim 5, Young in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the notification unit performs notification in a predetermined area of the editing screen [Fig 6 (630), col 11, lines 18-22 – carousel depicts notifications that are relevant to printer and/or print review system in lower corner of GUI]’.
Takesue and Young are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital 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 displaying a carousel that depicts notifications, as taught by Young. The motivation for doing so would have been to dynamically accommodating changes in printing activities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Young with Takesue to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takesue et al. in view of Young et al. and further in view of Tsujimoto (US-2005/0111015).
As to Claim 6, Takesue in view of Young teaches all the claimed elements/features as recited in dependent claim 4. Takesue in view of Young does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the notification unit performs the notification for a certain period of time or until an operation by the user is received’.
Tsujimoto in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the notification unit performs the notification for a certain period of time or until an operation by the user is received [par 0194-0197 – the warning displayed to user is displayed until user elects to change the contents of the print setting and mismatch is resolved]’.
Takesue in view of Young are analogous art with Tsujimoto because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital 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 displaying a notifying of an error that needs attention, as taught by Tsujimoto. The motivation for doing so would have been to alerting a user when a trouble occurs in creation of print data based on information obtained so that a preferable image can be formed anytime. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsujimoto with Takesue in view of Young to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Publication No. 2018/0063381
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
b. US Publication No. 2013/0100468
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 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