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 Office Action
1. Claims 1-9 are pending. Claims 1, 7, and 9 are independent.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102
2. 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.
3. Claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kojima (US 2008/0106604 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Kojima discloses an image processing device (printer 20 having controller 21, of direct printing system 10 in Fig. 1 of Kojima) (Fig. 6 showing the image print processing routine of the printer 20 as described in para 0050-0052) comprising:
an image processor (CPU 22 and flash memory 25 of Fig. 2 under control of controller 21 of printer 20 of Fig. 1, and printing mechanism 26 of Fig. 1) that processes document data described in a predetermined document format (JPEG, for example, Fig. 3; para 0063) (para 0042; Fig. 6, para 0050-0052); and
one or more controllers (CPU 22 of printer 20 in Fig. 1) that control a response to an acquisition request (“a confirmation command for transmitting the RAW format compatibility information 25a, which is information of the RAW file formats directly printable by the printer 20”, para 0054) of capability information from a terminal device (digital camera 40 having controller 41 which includes CPU 42 ……) in accordance with a status of compatibility of the image processor with the predetermined document format (para 0042, 0054, para 0043 but note “Thus, even if the file is a RAW file of an incompatible format, the development processing and the print processing can be performed on the RAW data included in the RAW file.” on page 5, in about the last third portion of the left side long paragraph; Fig. 6 and para 0050-0052, note in 0052 the last two sentences “As described above, even if a RAW file of a format incompatible with the direct printing is generated by the digital camera 40 due to a model change and so forth, for example, the development processing and the print processing of the RAW file can be performed with the use of the development enabling parameter. Accordingly, the print processing utilizing the characteristic of the RAW file can be preferentially performed.”), wherein
even when there is incompatibility with a first document format as a capability of the image processor (of printer 20), the one or more controllers (22) receive a setting of enabling or disabling a print function for the document data and respond to the acquisition request of the capability information (Kojima, para 0065, 0042, 0043 but note “Thus, even if the file is a RAW file of an incompatible format, the development processing and the print processing can be performed on the RAW data included in the RAW file.” on page 5, in about the last third portion of the left side long paragraph; Fig. 6 and para 0050-0052, note in 0052 the last two sentences “As described above, even if a RAW file of a format incompatible with the direct printing is generated by the digital camera 40 due to a model change and so forth, for example, the development processing and the print processing of the RAW file can be performed with the use of the development enabling parameter. Accordingly, the print processing utilizing the characteristic of the RAW file can be preferentially performed.” Since, in such a case, print processing of the RAW file can be performed with the use of the development enabling parameter, a setting of enabling a print function(s) for the image data of the RAW file, or document data, is received at the controller of Kojima because the printer 20 print the image of the RAW file in accordance with print functions in order for the printed image to be at least reasonably viewable to a user).
Regarding claims 3/1 and 4/1 (see further discussion of claim 4/1 below), as the response to the acquisition request of the capability information (a confirmation command of transmitting the RAW format compatibility information 25a shown in Fig. 2 of Kojima, Fig. 6, S300 YES and S310), the controller (of printer 20) restricts output of definition information indicating that there is compatibility with the first document format (Fig. 6, in S310 after S300 YES, the information relating to “RAW FORMAT” in the “RAW FORMAT COMPATIBILITY INFORMATION” is considered restricted output of definition information indicating that there is compatibility with the document format, also see para 0050 the last sentence).
Further regarding claim 4/1, note that in Fig. 2, the flash memory (25 of printer 20), there are a plurality of RAW FORMATS, which are document formats, see para 0042 the lower portion thereof with regard to Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5/4, Kojima discloses at para 0042 “The flash memory 25 stores, for example, the RAW format compatibility information 25a, which is information of the format of a file directly printable by the printer 20. In the present example, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the RAW format compatibility information 25a includes information corresponding to the first to fourth RAW formats, which are formats of RAW files generated by a variety of digital cameras and so forth.” File formats generated by a variety of digital cameras are generally considered vendor-specific document formats because they are designed to work with a particular manufacturer’s software, hardware, or workflow. Therefore, the limitation of claim 5 is met by Kojima.
Claim 6/1 recites “the print function is a print function provided by a print support application installed in the terminal device,” This limitation is also met by Kojima, although the disclosure of Kojima does include the exact phrase “print support application” (the claimed “terminal device” is met by the digital camera 40 in Fig. 1 of Kojima as discussed for claim 1 above). Note in Fig. 3, the digital camera (40) (the terminal device) has a flash memory (46) that stores not only RAW files (A, B, C) but also development enabling parameters (64a, 64b, 64c) generated together with the corresponding RAW file (para 0043, Fig. 3). The development enabling parameters (64a, 64b, 64c) are used in a later analysis of the contents of the RAW files. See Fig. 4 the flowchart, step S200 for the digital camera (40), “TRANSMIT DEVELOPMENT ENABLING PARAMETER OF SELECTED FILE” (para 0048 of Kojima); and see Fig. 6 the flowchart, step S320 (and S330) for the printer (20), “IS DEVELOPMENT ENABLING PARAMETER RECEIVED?” (para 0051 of Kojima).
Regarding claim 7, Kojima discloses a terminal device (digital camera 40 in Fig. 1) (para 0043; Fig. 4 and para 0045-0049) comprising:
a storage that stores an application program supporting a print setting corresponding to an image processing device (printer 20 in Fig. 1 of Kojima) in cooperation with a printer driver (Figs. 3 and 1);
a controller (controller 41 including CPU 42 in Fig. 1) that functions as a print support application by reading the application program stored in the storage, wherein
based on capability information acquired from the image processing device (20) (Fig. 4, step S110 “IS RAW FORMAT COMPATIBILITY INFORMATION RECEIVED?” para 0045; para 0010, 0013, 0020, 0045-0046, 0049), the controller outputs, to the image processing device (20), a print instruction in a document format with which the image processing device is compatible (Fig. 4, step S190 YES, step S260, para 0048 and 0049, respectively).
Regarding claim 8/7, the controller restricts output of the print instruction when the image processing device (printer 20) has no compatible document format (Fig. 4, step S130 NO and para 0045, steps S190 NO and S200 and para 0048).
Claim 9 is rejected as being a method claim corresponding to rejected apparatus claim 1.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
4. 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.
5. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima (US 2008/0106604 A1) in view of Fujii et al. (US 2020/0174722 A1).
Regarding claim 2/1, the image processing device (printer 20 in Fig. 1) of Kojima is shown to includes a display disposed at the front of the device (20), the display inherently having a setting screen via which the controller (CPU 22 of controller 21) inherently receives settings related to print functions.
Kojima does not explicitly disclose that the controller receives the setting of enabling or disabling the print function via the setting screen as claimed.
The feature of the controller (22 of printer 20 of Kojima) receiving a setting of enabling or disabling a print function for the document data and responding to the acquisition request of the capability information (the transmission command of the format compatibility information 25a, from digital camera 40), when there is incompatibility with a first document format as a capability of the image processor (of printer 20), is discussed for claim 1 above (cited for claim 1 above includes: Fig. 6 and para 0050-0052, note in 0052 the last two sentences “As described above, even if a RAW file of a format incompatible with the direct printing is generated by the digital camera 40 due to a model change and so forth, for example, the development processing and the print processing of the RAW file can be performed with the use of the development enabling parameter. Accordingly, the print processing utilizing the characteristic of the RAW file can be preferentially performed.” Since, in such a case, print processing of the RAW file can be performed with the use of the development enabling parameter, a setting of enabling a print function(s) for the image data of the RAW file, or document data, inherently is received at the controller of Kojima because printing the image of the RAW file by the printer 20 has to be in accordance with some set print functions in order for the printed image to be at least properly presentable/viewable to a user).
Fujii et al. discloses an image processing device (101 and 102, Fig. 1) (para 0025 and 0049, Fig. 5A) having a screen (500) including a setting (504), which is a combo box for making a setting of a printing function (1), and the user can select between ON and OFF (“enable or disable”) of the printing function (1) for document data (Fig. 5A and para 0049). The setting of enabling or disabling the printing function (1) is received by the controller (in 101, Fig. 2A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of Fujii et al. to include in Kojima the feature of displaying on the display (discussed above) of the printer (20) a setting screen for a user to provide a setting of enabling or disabling the print function, and the feature of the controller receiving the setting of enabling the print function via the setting screen, in order to provide the user an option of setting a enabled state or a disabled state of the print function.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEUKFAN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 a.m. - 6 p.m.
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.
/CHEUKFAN LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights