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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 28 August, with respect to claims 1-9 have been fully considered. The rejections of claims 1-9 under 35 USC 112(b) or 112, 2nd par. have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1-9 are acknowledged with appreciation and have been fully considered. Based on a new ground of rejection that does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments, the arguments are now moot.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-20 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07 April 2026.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narita (US 20240272850 A1) in view of Ohkawa (US 20190377529 A1).
Referring to claim 1:
Narita discloses a method for managing printing operations, the method comprising:
querying a job queue at a digital front end (DFE) of a printing device to determine a number of print jobs within the job queue (par. 29-30, Fig 2: the hardware and programing instructions that acts as the central command or control center for the printer 200 is the DFE; par. 34: the number of print jobs is determined from what is stored in storage device 210 that acts as the job queue);
estimating a production time for each print job of the number of print jobs within the job queue (par. 35: CPU 201 calculates the required time to complete each print job);
scheduling each print job of the number of print jobs within a defined printing schedule at the DFE (par. 57 & 69: printer 200 determines the start time and end time at which the execution of each print job is started and ended, that is, an execution timing of each print job), wherein each print job is completed without interruption (i.e., by avoiding overlap in print job execution time periods); and
determining a gap within the printing schedule when scheduling a print job of the number of print jobs to be printed within the gap when establishing the defined printing schedule applicable to the printing device (par. 85-86, 89, 95-113: CPU 201 schedules the print job execution time periods (Fig. 8A / S810) on the basis of the determined start or end times of print jobs so as not to overlap (Fig. 8A / S807 – expanded in Figs. 8B & 8C), the result shown for example with Jobs 1-6 in Fig. 7A/7C having an overlap in execution time period where Jobs 1-5 are then scheduled into an available slots or gaps within a defined printing schedule as shown in Fig. 7B/7D).
Narita does not disclose also determining a gap within the defined printing schedule, wherein the gap is located between two scheduled print jobs of the number of print jobs, and rescheduling a first print job of the number of print jobs to be printed within the gap in the defined printing schedule applicable to the printing device.
Ohkawa discloses a printing order determination process (performed by unit 116) that arranges print jobs by classification and in ascending order of deadline (S103) and then determines the print job with the earliest deadline among the print jobs included in the high-image-quality group (S104 / S204), determines whether the printing time of the print job selected fits within a vacant time slot in the high-image-quality-guaranteed time period of the printer prior to the deadline (S105 / S205), and in an affirmative determination, assigns the printing time of the print job selected to the vacant time slot in the high-image-quality-guaranteed time period (S106 / S206) thereby managing a printing schedule to provide improved printing results (par. 28-30, 63-64, 104). The defined order of arrangement (a print job schedule, Fig. 7A) is changed by reordering (or rescheduling) the print jobs (Fig. 9A) based on available time slots.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Narita in view of Ohkawa to perform the additional steps of determining a gap within the defined printing schedule, wherein the gap is located between two scheduled print jobs of the number of print jobs, and rescheduling a first print job of the number of print jobs to be printed within the gap in the defined printing schedule applicable to the printing device in order better accommodate the first print job in a printing schedule whereby improved printing results are achieved.
Referring to claims 2-3:
In Narita as modified in view of Ohkawa, rescheduling the first print job to be printed within the gap of the defined printing schedule results in changing the order in which the number of print jobs are to be printed, i.e., reordering the number of print jobs (In the printer 200, stored schedule information (par. 79), time designation of each print job, would be changed accordingly).
Referring to claim 6:
The combination of Narita and Ohkawa disclose the step of determining a second print job cannot be printed within its slot within the defined printing schedule (Narita par. 123: the start of the execution of the print Job 6 may be restricted, and there is a possibility that the printed matter of the print Job 6 cannot be obtained; see Figs. 7B & 7D).
Referring to claim 7:
The combination of Narita and Ohkawa disclose the first print job replaces a second print job within the defined printing schedule (Narita Figs. 7B & 7D, print Job 2 is replaced by print Job 1, or other print jobs, in a 15 min time slot where print Job 2 could otherwise be printed).
Referring to claim 9:
The combination of Narita and Ohkawa disclose generating the defined printing schedule for the printing device, wherein the defined printing schedule includes a first portion identified as at least one time slot for processing print jobs at the printing device (as described above) and a second portion identified as at least one time slot for not processing print jobs at the printing device (Narita par. 123: the start of the execution of the print Job 6 may be restricted, and there is a possibility that the printed matter of the print job 6 cannot be obtained; in Figs. 7B & 7D, a portion is identified as at least one time slot for not processing print jobs is shown).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narita in view Ohkawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morales (US 20220294910 A1).
Referring to claims 4-5:
While not disclosed in Narita or Ohkawa, Morales discloses estimating the production time for a print job that includes adding a production or maintenance penalty, which increases the production time for the print job (par. 38: print job scheduling considers the time required for maintenance when determining the possible time frame in which a print job could be printed). Morales provides the motivation to make such a production time estimate for a print job (par. 38: by scheduling printing device maintenance in the time frame to print a print job, the quality level is increased ahead of print jobs that require a higher level of accuracy, ensuring that such print jobs are printed at the required quality level).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Narita and Ohkawa in view of Morales, for the above reason or motivation taught by Morales, to estimate the production time for each print job that includes adding a production or maintenance penalty to at least one print job of the number of print jobs, the production or maintenance penalty increasing the production time for the at least one print job.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narita in view of Ohkawa as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Soriano (US 8867081 B2).
Referring to claim 8:
While not disclosed in Narita or Ohkawa, Soriano discloses splitting a print job to be printed in two slots within the defined printing schedule (abstract: dividing a print job into a plurality of sub-print jobs for printing by a print engine of the image forming apparatus, determining an estimated processing time and delay to print time each of the sub-print jobs, and managing the printing of the sub-print jobs accordingly). Soriano provides the motivation to split print jobs into sub-print jobs printed in different time slots (abstract: managing the printing of sub-print jobs in order to reduce down time of the print engine of the image forming apparatus).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Narita and Ohkawa in view of Soriano, for the above reason or motivation taught by Soriano, to split the second print job to be printed in two slots within the defined printing schedule.
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.
Cited Art
The prior art and other references made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
German (US 8218164 B2) discloses compiling profile representations of scheduled print jobs, which are representative of ink jet performance demand therefor. An ink jet failure is detected and related to the profile representations. A likely impact of ink jet failure is assessed relative to job specific print quality requirements for the scheduled print jobs. Print jobs are rescheduled for enhancing system performance efficiency by re-queuing selected jobs that can be executed with a detected ink jet failure while satisfying a job specific print quality requirement before a system repair intervention.
Goddard et al (US 9367276 B2) disclose identifying conflicts between the requirements of an incoming print job and the configuration of a printer that has been requested to print the job. The system receives a request to move a print job to a queue for a printer and identifies a requirement of the print job. The system analyzes a current and a scheduled configuration of the printer to determine whether the current configuration or the scheduled configuration of the printer can handle the print setting. Responsive to determining that the current and scheduled configuration of the printer cannot handle the print setting, the system analyzes configurations of at least one other printer to identify another printer having a current configuration or a scheduled configuration that can handle the print setting. Further, the system provides information identifying the other printer. The print server is further capable of identifying where the incoming print job can be placed in the queue for the other printer. In this embodiment, the control system receives input selecting the other printer, and responsive to receiving the input, identifies available locations in a queue for the other printer where the other printer can handle the print setting. The control system provides information identifying the available locations in the queue for the other printer, and moves the print job to an available location in the queue for the other printer.
Ferrel et al (US 10198224 B1) disclose systems and methods for scheduling high priority print jobs with minimal paper waste. One embodiment is a printing system that includes a print controller having a print data path with intermediate queues and a last queue to store print ready bitmap data. The print controller monitors the last queue to determine an estimate time for printing the print ready bitmap data stored in the last queue, determines whether the estimate time exceeds a time threshold, and determines whether a high priority print job is detected in the job storage system. In response to determining that the estimate time exceeds the time threshold and detecting the high priority print job, the print controller halts processing of at least one of the plurality of print jobs that is not the high priority print job, and advances processing of the high priority print job on the print data path.
Chakraborty (US 20100245890 A1) discloses techniques for scheduling and guaranteeing print jobs are presented. Print jobs are scheduled to process on a selected printer at user-defined dates and times. A print queue for the selected printer is managed to ensure that no subsequent print job begins on the printer when that subsequent print job cannot finish before a scheduled start time of a scheduled print job that has been guaranteed the scheduled start time on the printer.
Lofthus et al (US 20100238505 A1) disclose a system suited to scheduling print jobs for a printing system includes a first processing component which identifies preliminary attributes of print jobs to be printed on sheets. A job scheduler receives the preliminary attributes and assigns each of the print jobs to one of a plurality of job queues in time order for printing. Print jobs spanning the same time are scheduled for printing contemporaneously. In one mode of operation, the assignment of the print jobs to the job queues is based on their preliminary attributes and on the application of at least one constraint which affects contemporaneous printing of at least two of the plurality of print jobs. A second processing component identifies detailed attributes of the print jobs. A sheet scheduler receives information on the assignments of the print jobs and their detailed attributes and forms an itinerary for each sheet to be printed.
Giannetti (US 20120075662 A1) disclose a system including a profiler which calculates a “time-to-print” a first print job and a “time-to-process” a second print job. A scheduler schedules the second print job, for printing after the first print job, if the “time-to-process” the second print job is ≦ the “time-to-print” the first print job. In one example, an article discloses instructions to predict a “time-to-print” a first print job, a “time-to-process” a second print job, and then schedule the second print job, for printing, if the “time-to-process” the second print job is ≦ the “time-to-print” the first print job. In one example, the method discloses receipt of a set of print jobs having a first printing schedule, and then re-scheduling the print jobs so as to ensure that a next print job from the set is ready for printing right after a prior print job from the set has finished printing.
Gaertner et al (US 20120188587 A1) disclose systems and methods for print queue management are provided. The system performs a queue management process to identify a print job loaded in a first queue for a first printer, and to estimate a first time to print the print job on the first printer from the first queue. The system selects a second queue for a second printer, estimates a second time to print the print job on the second printer from the second queue if the print job were moved to the second queue, and calculates a difference in printing time between the first time to print and the second time to print. The system also moves the print job from the first queue to the second queue based on the calculated difference in printing time.
Gaertner et al (US 20120212770 A1) disclose methods and systems are provided for scheduling multiple types of print jobs for a printer more efficiently by scheduling jobs together that share print settings. In one embodiment, a system includes a print queue that stores print jobs scheduled for a printer. The system also includes a scheduler that receives requests to schedule a print job for the printer. The scheduler compares the print settings of the requested print job to print settings of the print jobs already in the print queue. The scheduler then schedules the requested print job among the print jobs in the print queue that have print settings corresponding with the print settings of the requested print job.
Boldt et al (US 20140300916 A1) disclose delaying a print job from being automatically rescheduled to a backup printer in response to an error at a printer scheduled to print the job. In one embodiment, a control system determines that a printer scheduled to print a job has an error condition, and identifies the error condition at the printer. The control system calculates a time delay based on the error condition before initiating a rescheduling process for the job to a backup printer. The control system initiates the rescheduling process if the time delay has expired, and cancels the rescheduling process if the error condition has ended before the time delay expires.
Henze (US 20250036460 A1) discloses a processing device within a computing system that uses a scheduler that dynamically processes jobs. Jobs are received at the processing device. The scheduler uses one or more scheduling algorithms to schedule the jobs for processing. The processing device queries one or more external systems for factors related to parameters and attributes at the external systems. Factors may include quality of service, capacity, load, time of day, and operations currently running on the external system. The scheduler uses the factors from the external system to modify the schedule for the received jobs. Jobs can be rescheduled within the schedule.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott Rogers whose telephone number is 571-272-7467. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am to 7 pm flex.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached on 571-270-5254. 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.
/Scott A Rogers/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
10 October 2025
Prosecution Insights