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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/10/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takeshi Kaneda (US 20200341708 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kaneda discloses a printer configured to perform printing (¶ [22]) based on a print job received from an external device (¶ [25] print data from mobile device), in accordance with a plurality of setting values associated with the received print job (¶ [7]), wherein
the printer is configured to:
notify the external device of resolution information in response to a first request from the external device (¶ [48]), the resolution information being information to resolve a combination of setting values not to be associated with each other at a same time, the resolution information being information in which a specific setting value is set for a predetermined setting item (¶ [49]), the specific setting value indicating that the printer replaces the specific setting value with another setting value (¶ [49-50]);
select one setting value in accordance with a situation of the printer from a plurality of setting values with which the specific setting value is replaceable (¶ [50]), in a case where the printer has notified the external device of the resolution information in response to the first request from the external device and then the printer receives a print job associated with the specific setting value from the external device (¶ [50]); and
perform the printing based on the print job in accordance with the one setting value that has been selected (¶ [65]).
Regarding claim 2, Kaneda discloses the printer according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein
the specific setting value includes a first specific setting value corresponding to a first setting item and a second specific setting value corresponding to a second setting item (¶ [29]),
the first specific setting value is replaceable with one of a plurality of first setting values and the second specific setting value is replaceable with one of a plurality of second setting values (¶ [94-96]), and
in a case where the printer has notified the external device of the resolution information in response to the first request from the external device and then the printer receives the print job associated with at least one of the first specific setting value and the second specific setting value from the external device (see rejection of claim 1), the printer is configured to:
select one setting value in accordance with the situation of the printer from the plurality of first setting values with which the first specific setting value is replaceable, in a case where the received print job is associated with the first specific setting value (¶ [94-96]);
select one setting value in accordance with the situation of the printer from the plurality of second setting values with which the second specific setting value is replaceable, in a case where the received print job is associated with the second specific setting value (¶ [94-96]); and
perform the printing based on the print job in accordance with the one setting value which has been selected (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Kaneda discloses the printer according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the combination of the setting values not to be associated with each other at the same time includes a first combination and a second combination (¶ [31]), and in response to the first request from the external device, the printer is configured to:
notify the external device of the resolution information in which the first setting item has the first specific setting value, as the resolution information for the first combination (¶ [67-68]); and
notify the external device of the resolution information in which the second setting item has the second specific setting value, as the resolution information for the second combination (¶ [74] post-setting may be notified/changed).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi Kaneda (US 20200341708 A1) in view of Michael Sweet et al (PWG “IPP: Job and Printer Extensions”; 2012).
Regarding claim 4, Kaneda discloses the printer according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3).
Kaneda fails to explicitly disclose wherein in a case where the printer receives a "job-resolvers-supported" command as the first request from the external device in accordance with an Internal Printing Protocol standard, the printer is configured to notify the external device of the resolution information.
Sweet et al, in the same field of endeavor of resolving print attribute conflicts by substituting a setting value (Pg. 11 /Sect. 1.3/ Para. 3 “Clients submit a Validate-Document or Validate-Job request with Template attributes that will be used in the actual document or job creation request. If conflicts are present in the supplied Template attributes, the Printer returns a "preferred-attributes" collection attribute indicating which substitute values will be used to resolve those conflicts”), teaches wherein in a case where the printer receives a "job-resolvers-supported" command as the first request from the external device in accordance with an Internal Printing Protocol standard, the printer is configured to notify the external device of the resolution information (Pg. 35/Sect: 5.6.8/Para. 2 and Pg. 35/Sect. 5.6.11/Para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the printer as disclosed by Kaneda configured to notify an external device of resolution information in response to a first request from the external device, the resolution information being information to resolve a combination of setting values not to be associated with each other at a same time to utilize the teachings of Sweet et al which teaches in a case where the printer receives a "job-resolvers-supported" command as the first request from the external device in accordance with an Internal Printing Protocol standard, the printer is configured to notify the external device of the resolution information to provide appropriate collections that allow a client options for resolving setting conflicts.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda in view of Yoshiko Sueshige (US 20120224207 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kaneda discloses the printer according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3).
Kaneda fails to explicitly disclose the combination of the setting values not to be associated with each other at the same time includes a first specific combination in which a size unsuitable for a specific sheet discharge tray is set for a sheet size and the specific sheet discharge tray is set for a sheet discharge tray, and in response to the first request from the external device, the printer is configured to notify the external device of the resolution information in which the predetermined setting item is the sheet discharge tray and one of the plurality of first setting values is set for the sheet discharge tray as the specific setting value, as the resolution information resolving the first specific combination.
Sueshige, in the same field of endeavor of a printing system capable of determining if print setting values cause inconsistencies and resolving inconsistencies by changing one of the setting items (Abstract), teaches the combination of the setting values not to be associated with each other at the same time includes a first specific combination in which a size unsuitable for a specific sheet discharge tray is set for a sheet size and the specific sheet discharge tray is set for a sheet discharge tray (¶ [75]), and in response to the first request from the external device, the printer is configured to notify the external device of the resolution information in which the predetermined setting item is the sheet discharge tray and one of the plurality of first setting values is set for the sheet discharge tray as the specific setting value, as the resolution information resolving the first specific combination (¶ [77]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the printer as disclosed by Kaneda configured to notify an external device of resolution information in response to a first request from the external device, the resolution information being information to resolve a combination of setting values not to be associated with each other at a same time to utilize the teachings of Sueshige which teaches the combination of the setting values not to be associated with each other at the same time includes a first specific combination in which a size unsuitable for a specific sheet discharge tray is set for a sheet size and the specific sheet discharge tray is set for a sheet discharge tray, and in response to the first request from the external device, the printer is configured to notify the external device of the resolution information in which the predetermined setting item is the sheet discharge tray and one of the plurality of first setting values is set for the sheet discharge tray as the specific setting value, as the resolution information resolving the first specific combination to prevent generation of print setting information that is predicted to be inconvenient to the user or requires the printer to execute an impossible operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMARES Q WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4:30pm.
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 M. 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.
/JAMARES Q WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
September 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights