DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 06/26/24 for application number 18/755,200. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, IDS, Claims, and Certified Copy of Foreign Priority Application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 12-14 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 all outstanding rejections under 35 USC 112 are overcome.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 7, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 6, lines 1-2 recite, “The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a second controller configured to…” (emphasis added) and should instead read, “The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising the second controller configured to…” (emphasis added) as Claim 6 appears to reference the second controller introduced in Claim 1, on which Claim 6 depends.
Regarding Claim 7, lines 1-2 recite, “The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a second controller configured to…” (emphasis added) and should instead read, “The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising the second controller configured to…” (emphasis added) as Claim 7 appears to reference the second controller introduced in Claim 1, on which Claim 7 depends.
Regarding Claim 16, lines 3-4 recite, “wherein the end process event is received by detecting turning off of the power switch, and a return process event is received by detecting turning off of the power switch.” (emphasis added). Based on the Specification and Claim 8, it appears Claim 16, lines 3-4 should instead read, “wherein the end process event is received by detecting turning off of the power switch, and a return process event is received by detecting turning on of the power switch.” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothman et al., US 2018/0181411 A1, in view of Ohata et al., US 2018/0063349 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Rothman discloses an apparatus being capable of transitioning to a standby state, a suspend state that is a power saving state where current is applied to the memory and a fast start can be made, and a hibernation state that is a power saving state where current is not applied to the memory [device capable of entering suspend state, S3; hibernate, e.g. low-power suspend mode S4, par 13, 15], the apparatus comprising:
a first controller configured to, in a case where the first controller receives an end process event, cause the apparatus to transition to a power saving state, wherein in a case where the first controller determines that transition to the hibernation state is enabled, the first controller performs control to cause the image forming apparatus to transition to the hibernation state [involves the OS 108 targeting to enter a low-power S3 standby mode and the processor platform 100 targeting to enter the fast/enhanced low-power S4 suspend mode (which is different from the low-power S3 standby mode). The example process of FIG. 7 is useful for use with OSs that do not have the native ability to enter a low-power S4 suspend mode. That is, some OSs are capable to enter into the low-power S3 standby mode, but not into a suspended mode such as the low-power S4 suspend mode. As such, the example of FIG. 7 can be used to implement the fast/enhanced low-power S4 suspend mode in accordance with the teachings of this disclosure for computing devices running OSs that do not support a low-power S4 suspend mode, i.e. choosing to enter S3 (suspend state) or S4 (hibernate state), par 68].
However, Rothman does not explicitly teach an image forming apparatus including a first controller and a second controller that at least performs image processing, and a memory, the image forming apparatus being capable of transitioning to a standby state and a suspend state that is a power saving state where current is applied to the memory and a fast start can be made; and in a case where the first controller determines that transition to the suspend state is enabled, the first controller performs control to load a program for the second controller into the memory and then cause the image forming apparatus to transition to the suspend state.
In the analogous art of power control, Ohata teaches an image forming apparatus including a first controller and a second controller that at least performs image processing, and a memory, the image forming apparatus being capable of transitioning to a standby state and a suspend state that is a power saving state where current is applied to the memory and a fast start can be made [image forming apparatus/multifunction printer (MFP) 10 with main CPU 31 and sub CPU 40, Fig. 1]; and in a case where the first controller determines that transition to the suspend state is enabled, the first controller performs control to load a program for the second controller into the memory and then cause the image forming apparatus to transition to the suspend state [these values TM1, TM2, and TS1 are each calculated (obtained) in advance, provided as a notification to the sub CPU 40, and stored in a storage area under the control of the sub CPU 40 by the main CPU 31 before the MFP 10 transitions to the sleep state Q2, sleep of the reference being equivalent to suspend in the instant application, par 16].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rothman and Ohata before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the suspension as taught by Ohata into the apparatus as disclosed by Rothman, to allow for quick resumption and reprinting after the system has been turned off [Ohata, par 6].
Regarding Claim 2, Rothman and Ohata disclose the image forming apparatus according to Claim 1. Rothman further discloses a non-volatile storage unit, wherein in a case where the first controller determines that transition to the hibernation state is enabled, the first controller performs control to save data in an inside-operating-system (OS) management area on the memory in the storage unit and turn off application of current to the memory and the second controller [in the S4 suspend-to-disk mode, all OS and application context (e.g., suspend state data) is maintained by storing it in a non-volatile storage device (e.g., a magnetic hard disk drive (HDD) or a solid state drive (SSD)). Since the OS and application context data is stored in a non-volatile storage device, power is removed from the hardware platform in S4 mode. When resuming from the S4 mode, a basic input/output system (BIOS) startup screen is displayed and all firmware is re-initialized; i.e. when the system enters hibernate mode, then the data is saved to an area containing the OS, which would be an inside-OS management area, par 13].
Regarding Claim 4, Rothman and Ohata disclose the image forming apparatus according to Claim 1. Rothman further discloses a power supply controller configured to at least control supply of power to the second controller and the memory, wherein in a case where the first controller notifies the power supply controller that the image forming apparatus is to transition to the hibernation state, the power supply controller performs control not to supply power to the second controller and the memory [on the S4 suspend-to-disk mode, all OS and application context (e.g., suspend state data) is maintained by storing it in a non-volatile storage device (e.g., a magnetic hard disk drive (HDD) or a solid state drive (SSD)). Since the OS and application context data is stored in a non-volatile storage device, power is removed from the hardware platform in S4 mode. When resuming from the S4 mode, a basic input/output system (BIOS) startup screen is displayed and all firmware is re-initialized; i.e. the system receives power before entering S4, and in S4, power is removed from hardware (including controllers and memory), par 13].
Regarding Claim 8, Rothman and Ohata disclose the image forming apparatus according to Claim 1. Ohata further teaches a power switch, wherein the end process event is received by detecting turning off of the power switch, and a return process event is received by detecting turning on of the power switch [turn-on and turn-off operations via the main power switch for ending and resuming operations, par 14].
Regarding Claim 17, Rothman discloses a control method for controlling an apparatus [entering into the suspend state S3 and hibernate state S4, par 13, 15]. The remainder of Claim 17 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 1, and is rejected accordingly.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothman and Ohata, and further in view of Park et al., US 2023/0088998 A1.
Regarding Claim 5, Rothman and Ohata disclose the image forming apparatus according to Claim 4. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein in a case where the first controller notifies the power supply controller that the image forming apparatus is to transition to the suspend state, the power supply controller performs control not to supply power to the second controller.
In the analogous art of power management, Park teaches wherein in a case where the first controller notifies the power supply controller that the image forming apparatus is to transition to the suspend state, the power supply controller performs control not to supply power to the second controller [after the first suspend operation SP1 is performed, the second sub-processor cluster 114 may be powered off, par 72].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rothman, Ohata, and Park before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate not supplying power to the second controller as taught by Park, into the apparatus as disclosed by Rothman and Ohata, to reduce power by terminating power to unused components [Park, par 72].
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothman and Ohata, and further in view of ACPI Spec 6.4, https://uefi.org/htmlspecs/ACPI_Spec_6_4_html/16_Waking_and_Sleeping/sleeping-states.html#s3-sleeping-state.
Regarding Claim 6, Rothman and Ohata disclose the image forming apparatus according to Claim 1. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach a second controller configured to, in a case where the second controller receives a return process event, return the image forming apparatus from a power saving state to the standby state, wherein in a case where the image forming apparatus returns from the suspend state, the second controller performs control to return the image forming apparatus to the standby state by the second controller reading the program loaded into the memory before the transition to the suspend state.
The ACPI specification on suspend states (S3) is well-known in the art, and defines a return from suspend state as reading memory loaded before the transition to suspend state as part of the process of resuming from suspend state.
Regarding Claim 7, Rothman and Ohata disclose the image forming apparatus according to Claim 1. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach a second controller configured to, in a case where the second controller receives a return process event, return the image forming apparatus from a power saving state to the standby state, wherein in a case where the image forming apparatus returns from the hibernation state, the second controller performs control to return the image forming apparatus to the standby state by loading the program for the second controller into the memory after current is applied to the memory, and reading the loaded program.
The ACPI specification on hibernation states (S4) is well-known in the art, and defines a return from hibernation state as returning an apparatus to the standby state by loading the program for a processor into the memory after current is applied to the memory, and reading the loaded program as part of the process of resuming from hibernation.
Claims 9, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothman and Ohata, and further in view of Sampath et al., US 10,572,270 B1.
Regarding Claim 9, Rothman discloses an apparatus being capable of transitioning to a standby state, a suspend state that is a power saving state where current is applied to the memory and a fast start can be made, and a hibernation state that is a power saving state where current is not applied to the memory [device capable of entering suspend state, S3; hibernate, e.g. low-power suspend mode S4, par 13, 15].
However, Rothman does not explicitly teach a first controller configured to, in a case where the first controller receives an end process event, perform control to load a program for the second controller into the memory and cause the image forming apparatus to transition to the suspend state; and a second controller configured to, in a case where the image forming apparatus transitions to the suspend state and a predetermined condition is satisfied, perform control to cause the image forming apparatus to transition to the hibernation state.
In the analogous art of power control, Ohata teaches an image forming apparatus [image forming apparatus/multifunction printer (MFP) 10 with main CPU 31 and sub CPU 40, Fig. 1]; a first controller configured to, in a case where the first controller receives an end process event, perform control to load a program for the second controller into the memory and cause the image forming apparatus to transition to the suspend state [these values TM1, TM2, and TS1 are each calculated (obtained) in advance, provided as a notification to the sub CPU 40, and stored in a storage area under the control of the sub CPU 40 by the main CPU 31 before the MFP 10 transitions to the sleep state Q2, sleep of the reference being equivalent to suspend in the instant application, par 16].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rothman and Ohata before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the suspension as taught by Ohata into the apparatus as disclosed by Rothman, to allow for quick resumption and reprinting after the system has been turned off [Ohata, par 6].
However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach a second controller configured to, in a case where the image forming apparatus transitions to the suspend state and a predetermined condition is satisfied, perform control to cause the image forming apparatus to transition to the hibernation state.
In the analogous art of power control, Sampath teaches a second controller configured to, in a case where the image forming apparatus transitions to the suspend state and a predetermined condition is satisfied, perform control to cause the image forming apparatus to transition to the hibernation state [device 100 may transition to a hibernate mode 110 after a brief period of time in a suspend mode, col. 5, ll. 4-6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rothman, Ohata, and Sampath before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the transition to hibernation after a duration of time, as taught by Sampath, into the apparatus as disclosed by Rothman and Ohata, to reduce power consumption after a period of idle time [Sampath, col. 1,ll. 14-19].
Regarding Claim 15, Rothman, Ohata, and Sampath disclose the image forming apparatus according to Claim 9. Sampath further teaches a setting unit configured to set enabling of a hybrid sleep function for transitioning to the hibernation state in a case where a predetermined time elapses after the image forming apparatus transitions to the suspend state; and a timer, wherein in a case where the first controller receives the end process event, and in a case where the hybrid sleep function is enabled, the first controller performs control to start the timer immediately before the image forming apparatus transitions to the suspend state [device 100 may transition to a hibernate mode 110 after a brief period of time in a suspend mode (a timer is necessarily started in order to determine whether a period of time in suspend mode has occurred), col. 5, ll. 4-6].
Regarding Claim 16, Rothman, Ohata, and Sampath disclose the image forming apparatus according to Claim 9. Claim 16 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 8, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 18, Rothman discloses a control method for controlling an apparatus [entering into the suspend state S3 and hibernate state S4, par 13, 15]. The remainder of Claim 18 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 9, including “a case where a predetermined time elapses” as recited in Claim 18, which corresponds to the limitation of “a case where… a predetermined condition is satisfied” presented in Claim 9. As Claim 18 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 9, Claim 18 is rejected accordingly.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothman, Ohata, and Sampath, and further in view of Park.
Regarding Claim 10, Rothman, Ohata, and Sampath disclose the image forming apparatus according to Claim 9. Claim 10 recites limitations similar to those presented in Claim 5, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 11, Rothman, Ohata, Sampath, and Park disclose the image forming apparatus according to Claim 10. Claim 11 recites limitations similar to those presented in Claim 4, and is rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
Applicant is reminded that in amending a response to a rejection of claims, the patentable novelty must be clearly shown in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited and the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid such references and objections. See 37 CFR §1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 PT.
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, Andrew J Jung can be reached at (571) 270-3779. 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.
/Paul Yen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175