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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot regarding the added limitation of the secondary job being “one of a process and hold job, an ink estimation job, and a preview job” because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, see the citation of the Schenk et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2018/0203654) reference in the rejection that follows. However, applicant’s arguments that Duggan et al. does not disclose “generating at least one rendered page for the print job by a first renderer of the RIP system while the print engine is not operating” as recited in the amended claims is unpersuasive. Specifically, Duggan notes in column 6, lines 59-65 noting that rasterization occurs before printing. Therefore, at a time of printing the first job through the printer, rasterization would necessarily occur at a time when the print engine is not operating as the print engine would have not yet have any data to print before the rasterization. Consequently, applicant’s argument to the contrary is unpersuasive in this regard. See the rejection below for more detail.
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) 1-6, 10, 12, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duggan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,334,303) in view of Beck et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,159,681) in further view of Schenk et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2018/0203654).
Regarding claim 1, Duggan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,334,303) discloses:
A method for managing printing operations, the method comprising:
detecting that a print engine in a printing device is not operating, wherein a plurality of print jobs is not printing at the print engine (column 13, line 58 through column 14, line 7, a subset of RIPs are idle);
processing a print job of the plurality of print jobs at a raster image processing (RIP) system corresponding to a digital front end (DFE) of the printing device (column 13, line 58 through column 14, line 7, a variable data document is processed in a cycle of chunks by a RIP; the RIP corresponds to a DFE)
generating at least one rendered page for the print job by a first renderer of the RIP system while the print engine is not operating (column 13, line 58 through column 14, line 7, pages are processed by the RIP; see also column 6, lines 59-65 noting that rasterization occurs before printing— at a time of printing the first job through the printer, rasterization would occur at a time when the print engine is not operating);
allocating a second renderer of the RIP system to a secondary job at the printing device, wherein the secondary job is a rendering job processed by the DFE in parallel to the plurality of print jobs (column 13, line 58 through column 14, line 7, idle RIPs can process a next variable data document while the other RIPs process chunks of the first); and
processing the secondary job with the second renderer of the RIP system (column 13, line 58 through column 14, line 7, idle RIPs can process a next variable data document while the other RIPs process chunks of the first);
Even assuming arguendo that Duggan et al. does not explicitly disclose:
detecting that a print engine in a printing device is not operating
Beck et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,159,681) discloses:
detecting that a print engine in a printing device is not operating (column 8, lines 30-42, the print engine is determined as idle)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system Beck et al. of with the system of Duggan et al. such that the system would have been configured to detecting that a print engine in a printing device is not operating as described in Beck et al. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “not…disturb[ing] memory during printing” (column 6, lines 52-54 of the Beck et al. reference).
The combination of Duggan and Beck et al. does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the secondary job is one of a process and hold job, an ink estimation job, and a preview job
Schenk et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2018/0203654) discloses:
wherein the secondary job is one of a process and hold job, an ink estimation job, and a preview job (see, for example, Abstract and paragraph [0054], the system utilizes a preview RIP-job)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Schenk et al. with the combination of Duggan and Beck such that the system would have been configured to utilize a secondary job that is a rendering job processed by the DFE in parallel to the plurality of print jobs that is a preview job as described in Schenk. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “allowing the user to check prior to printing whether the image is rendered as intended by the user and does not contain undesired artefacts” (paragraph [0016] of the Schenk et al. reference).
Regarding claim 2, Duggan et al. additionally discloses:
further comprising storing the at least one rendered page at a first data storage accessible by the DFE (column 7, lines 25-38, the rasters are stored)
Regarding claim 3, Duggan et al. additionally discloses:
further comprising determining that a storage threshold is reached for the first data storage (column 8, lines 3-12, it is determined that the storage runs low)
Regarding claim 4, Duggan et al. additionally discloses:
further comprising storing the at least one rendered page at a second data storage accessible by the DFE (column 8, lines 7-9, in the case of the storage running low, the RIP that delivers the rasters to be printed has space in short term storage to deliver those rasters into)
Regarding claim 5, Duggan et al. additionally discloses:
further comprising determining that the at least one rendered page is a complex page (column 8, line 65 through column 9, line 3, the chunk sized can be adjusted depending on complexity)
Regarding claim 6, Duggan et al. additionally discloses:
further comprising storing the at least one rendered page at a hard disk storage accessible by the DFE (column 7, lines 25-33, the rendered page can be saved to disk or other long -term storage)
Regarding claim 10, Duggan et al. discloses:
A method for managing printing operations, the method comprising:
detecting that a print engine in a printing device is not operating, wherein a plurality of print jobs is not printing at the print engine (column 13, line 58 through column 14, line 7, a subset of RIPs are idle);
processing a print job of the plurality of print jobs at a raster image processing (RIP) system corresponding to a digital front end (DFE) of the printing device (column 13, line 58 through column 14, line 7, a variable data document is processed in a cycle of chunks by a RIP; the RIP corresponds to a DFE);
determining that a storage threshold for a first data storage configured to receive rendered pages from the RIP system is reached (column 8, lines 3-12, it is determined that the storage runs low), wherein the first data storage is accessible by the DFE of the printing device (column 8, lines 7-9, in the case of the storage running low, the RIP that delivers the rasters to be printed has space in short term storage to deliver those rasters into);
allocating a first renderer of the RIP system to process at least one page of the print job while the print engine is not operating (column 13, line 58 through column 14, line 7, pages are processed by the RIP; see also column 6, lines 59-65 noting that rasterization occurs before printing— at a time of printing the first job through the printer, rasterization would occur at a time when the print engine is not operating), wherein the at least one page is a complex page (column 8, line 65 through column 9, line 3, the chunk sized can be adjusted depending on complexity); and
allocating a second renderer of the RIP system to process a secondary job received at the DFE wherein the secondary job is a rendering job processed by the DFE in parallel to the plurality of print jobs (column 13, line 58 through column 14, line 7, idle RIPs can process a next variable data document while the other RIPs process chunks of the first).
Even assuming arguendo that Duggan et al. does not explicitly disclose:
detecting that a print engine in a printing device is not operating
Beck et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,159,681) discloses:
detecting that a print engine in a printing device is not operating (column 8, lines 30-42, the print engine is determined as idle)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system Beck et al. of with the system of Duggan et al. such that the system would have been configured to detecting that a print engine in a printing device is not operating as described in Beck et al. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “not…disturb[ing] memory during printing” (column 6, lines 52-54 of the Beck et al. reference).
The combination of Duggan and Beck et al. does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the secondary job is one of a process and hold job, an ink estimation job, and a preview job
Schenk et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2018/0203654) discloses:
wherein the secondary job is one of a process and hold job, an ink estimation job, and a preview job (see, for example, Abstract and paragraph [0054], the system utilizes a preview RIP-job)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Schenk et al. with the combination of Duggan and Beck such that the system would have been configured to utilize a secondary job that is a rendering job processed by the DFE in parallel to the plurality of print jobs that is a preview job as described in Schenk. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “allowing the user to check prior to printing whether the image is rendered as intended by the user and does not contain undesired artefacts” (paragraph [0016] of the Schenk et al. reference).
Regarding claim 12, Duggan et al. additionally discloses:
further comprising storing the at least one rendered page at a second data storage accessible by the DFE (column 8, lines 7-9, in the case of the storage running low, the RIP that delivers the rasters to be printed has space in short term storage to deliver those rasters into)
Regarding claim 13, Duggan et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the second data storage is a hard disk storage accessible by the DFE (column 7, lines 25-33, the rendered page can be saved to disk or other long -term storage)
Regarding claim 16, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. The processor and storing instructions that perform the functions of claim 1 are explicitly taught by column 14, line 29 through column 15, line 7 of Duggan.
Regarding claim 17, Duggan additionally discloses:
wherein the operations further include storing the at least one rendered page at a first data storage accessible by the DFE (column 7, lines 25-38, the rasters are stored)
Regarding claim 18, Duggan additionally discloses:
wherein the operations further include determining that a storage threshold is reached for the first data storage (column 8, lines 3-12, it is determined that the storage runs low)
Regarding claim 19, Duggan additionally discloses:
wherein the operations further include storing the at least one rendered page at a second data storage accessible by the DFE (column 8, lines 7-9, in the case of the storage running low, the RIP that delivers the rasters to be printed has space in short term storage to deliver those rasters into)
Regarding claim 20, Duggan additionally discloses:
wherein the operations further include determining that the at least one rendered page is a complex page (column 8, line 65 through column 9, line 3, the chunk sized can be adjusted depending on complexity)
Claim(s) 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duggan in view of Beck and Schenk et al., in further view of Morales (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0052892).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Duggan, Beck et al., and Schenk et al. discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 1).
The combination of Duggan, Beck, and Schenk et al. does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the secondary job is an ink estimation job.
Morales (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0052892) discloses:
wherein the secondary job is an ink estimation job (paragraph [0037], the print job is used to generate estimated ink use)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Morales with the combination of Duggan, Beck et al., and Schenk et al. such that the system would have been configured to include as a secondary job an ink estimation job as described in Morales. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “provid[ing] more accurate ink use estimations for future print jobs” (paragraph [0040] of the Morales reference).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Duggan, Beck et al., and Schenk et al. discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 10).
The combination of Duggan, Beck, and Schenk et al. does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the secondary job is an ink estimation job.
Morales (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0052892) discloses:
wherein the secondary job is an ink estimation job (paragraph [0037], the print job is used to generate estimated ink use)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Morales with the combination of Duggan, Beck et al., and Schenk et al. such that the system would have been configured to include as a secondary job an ink estimation job as described in Morales. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “provid[ing] more accurate ink use estimations for future print jobs” (paragraph [0040] of the Morales reference).
Claims 8, 9, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duggan in view of Beck and Schenk et al., in further view of Misawa (U.S. Patent No. 8,928,912).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Duggan, Beck et al., and Schenk et al. discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 1).
Duggan et al. additionally discloses:
further comprising releasing the renderer from processing the at least one page of the print job to allocate to the secondary job (column 13, line 58 through column 14, line 7, a set of pages within chunks is load balanced across multiple RIPs)
Even assuming arguendo that Duggan et al. does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising releasing the renderer from processing the at least one page of the print job to allocate to the secondary job
Misawa (U.S. Patent No. 8,928,912) discloses:
further comprising releasing the renderer from processing the at least one page of the print job to allocate to the secondary job (Figures 5, 10, column 5, lines 39-45, the renders shown send pages from one job to other renderers but also will take pages from a different job)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Misawa with the combination of Duggan et al., Beck, and Schenk et al. such that the system was configured to release the renderer from processing the at least one page of the print job to allocate to the secondary job as described in Misawa. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “fasten[ing] the processing time…from the beginning of printing to the completion” (column 5, lines 57-59 of the Misawa reference)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Duggan, Beck et al., and Misawa discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 8).
Misawa additionally discloses:
re-allocating the renderer back to processing the print job when the print engine is printing (Figures 5, 10, column 5, lines 29-48, the processing occurs while the print engine is printing)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Misawa with the combination of Duggan et al., Beck, and Schenk such that the system was configured to release the renderer from processing the at least one page of the print job to allocate to the secondary job as described in Misawa. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “fasten[ing] the processing time…from the beginning of printing to the completion” (column 5, lines 57-59 of the Misawa reference)
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Duggan, Beck et al., and Schenk et al. discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 10).
Duggan et al. additionally discloses:
further comprising releasing the renderer from processing the at least one page of the print job to allocate to the secondary job (column 13, line 58 through column 14, line 7, a set of pages within chunks is load balanced across multiple RIPs)
Even assuming arguendo that Duggan et al. does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising releasing the renderer from processing the at least one page of the print job to allocate to the secondary job
Misawa (U.S. Patent No. 8,928,912) discloses:
further comprising releasing the renderer from processing the at least one page of the print job to allocate to the secondary job (Figures 5, 10, column 5, lines 39-45, the renders shown send pages from one job to other renderers but also will take pages from a different job)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Misawa with the combination of Duggan et al., Beck, and Schenk et al. such that the system was configured to release the renderer from processing the at least one page of the print job to allocate to the secondary job as described in Misawa. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “fasten[ing] the processing time…from the beginning of printing to the completion” (column 5, lines 57-59 of the Misawa reference)
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Duggan, Beck et al., Schenk et al., and Misawa discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 10).
Misawa additionally discloses:
re-allocating the renderer back to processing the print job when the print engine is printing (Figures 5, 10, column 5, lines 29-48, the processing occurs while the print engine is printing)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Misawa with the combination of Duggan et al., Beck, and Schenk et al. such that the system was configured to release the renderer from processing the at least one page of the print job to allocate to the secondary job as described in Misawa. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “fasten[ing] the processing time…from the beginning of printing to the completion” (column 5, lines 57-59 of the Misawa reference)
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 JOHN R WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benny Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/JOHN R WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights