DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tanimoto (US Pub: 2006/0053137).
Regarding claim 1, Tanimoto teaches: An image forming apparatus, comprising: one or more controllers that control giving of additional information to image information [fig. 3: S14]; and an image former that forms an image of a code related to the additional information to be given to an image of the image information in a case where the additional information is given under control of the one or more controllers [fig. 3: S16-S22], wherein the one or more controllers give, to the image information, the additional information that differs in response to a type of the image information [p0018, p0019].
Regarding claim 13, Tanimoto further teaches: The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a setter that receives, from a user, a setting of a giving mode relating to giving the additional information, wherein the one or more controllers control giving of the additional information based on the giving mode received via the setter [p0018, p0019].
Claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected in regard to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 of this title, 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. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto (US Pub: 2006/0053137) and in further view of Speasl et al (US Patent: 2022/0070330) and Tanaka (US Pub: 2007/0012769).
Regarding claim 2, Tanimoto teaches conditional selection based on document type. Tanimoto does not specify information set for certified documents. In the same field of endeavor, Speasl et al teaches a predetermined information set for certification documents: The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the type of the image information is image information of a document that certifies authenticity of contents, the one or more controllers give specific information including organization information regarding an organization to which a user who executes a job relating to image formation of the document belongs as the additional information to the image information [p0026, p0027]; and Tanaka provides additional information for ordinary printing documents: and in a case where the type of the image information is image information of another document different from the document that certifies authenticity of contents, the one or more controllers give job specific information including job information relating to image formation and apparatus information of the image forming apparatus as the additional information to the image information [p0056, p0068-p0071]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tanimoto’s type dependent selection structure using Speasl et al and Tanaka’s teaching to add different information so that certified documents associated with authorized party information and common print jobs associated with printer/document identification information for selecting different content according to document type for flexibility.
Regarding claim 3, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein. Tanaka teaches: The image forming apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the specific information or the job specific information includes login information of the user with respect to the image forming apparatus, and date and time information of image formation [p0108-p0110].
6. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto (US Pub: 2006/0053137), Speasl et al (US Patent: 2022/0070330) and Tanaka (US Pub: 2007/0012769); and in further view of Foong (GB Pub: 2454211).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein. Speasl does not specify that certified document is a print job. In the same field of endeavor, Foong teaches: The image forming apparatus according to claim 2, wherein in a case where the job relating to image formation of the document that certifies authenticity of contents is a print job, the one or more controllers decide that image information related to the document is a target to be given with the additional information, and give the additional information to the image information [abstract, fig. 3]; wherein in a case where the job relating to image formation of another document different from the document that certifies authenticity of contents is a print job or a copy job, the one or more controllers decide that image information related to the another document is a target to be given with the additional information, and gives the additional information to the image information [page 5: lines 1-15 (No activation code is embedded for non-secure document so security feature would not be printed with the document.)].
Therefore, given Foong’s teaching on printing security feature with a document upon identifying embedded activation code for a secure document and Tanaka’s disclosure on generating code on any printed document, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to retrieve and print a security mark on a document by identifying secure document data and add identification information for none secure print job for identifying and differentiating secure printing job process.
7. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto (US Pub: 2006/0053137) and in further view of Tanaka (US Pub: 2007/0012769).
Regarding claim 6, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Tanimoto does not specify storing job history although it would have been a common practice. In the same field of endeavor, Tanaka teaches: The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: one or more storages that store a history of a job having formed an image by giving additional information [fig. 8]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the two to store job history for record keeping.
8. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto (US Pub: 2006/0053137), Speasl et al (US Patent: 2022/0070330) and Tanaka (US Pub: 2007/0012769); and in further view of Hayashi (US Pub: 2012/0133972).
Regarding claim 7, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 3 has been incorporated herein. Tanimoto in view of Speasl and Tanaka does not specify user login. In the same field of endeavor, Hayashi teaches: The image forming apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the one or more controllers include user login information with respect to the image forming apparatus in the specific information or the job specific information in a case where a user authentication function is enabled [p0035-p0037]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to combine code image with printer data based on user login for user/document authentication and identification purpose.
9. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto (US Pub: 2006/0053137), Speasl et al (US Patent: 2022/0070330) and Tanaka (US Pub: 2007/0012769); and in further view of Maki (US Pub: 2016/0275297).
Regarding claim 8, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein. Tanimoto in view of Speasl and Tanaka does not restrict image formation. In the same field of endeavor, Maki teaches: The image forming apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the one or more controllers restrict image formation of the document that certifies authenticity of contents in a case where a user authentication function is disabled [fig. 11, p0070, p0071]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to restrict secure printing when authentication function is disabled to ensure document security.
10. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto (US Pub: 2006/0053137) and in further view of Takagi (US Pub: 2005/0286088).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Tanimoto does not specify overlapping. In the same field of endeavor, Takagi teaches: The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where an image forming position of the code overlaps with an image forming position of another image different from the code, the one or more controllers perform image formation while prioritizing the code [p0007, p0008]; wherein the another image is an image related to a watermark, a stamp, or a date print [abstract]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the two to arrange printing position of watermark to overlap/not overlap the document for improving readability.
11. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto (US Pub: 2006/0053137) and in further view of JP948’ (JP Pub: 4159948).
Regarding claim 11, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Tanimoto does not specify code size across different paper size. In the same field of endeavor, JP948’ teaches: The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a size of the code is constant regardless of a size of a medium on which an image is to be formed [page 7: p06, page 8: p01]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the two to maintain constant code size across various sized sheets for easy recognition per design choice.
12. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto (US Pub: 2006/0053137), Speasl et al (US Patent: 2022/0070330) and Tanaka (US Pub: 2007/0012769); and in further view of JP602’ (JP Pub: 5104602).
Regarding claim 12, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein. Tanimoto in view of Speasl and Tanaka does not disclose a delimiter. In the same field of endeavor, JP602’ teaches: The image forming apparatus according to claim 2, wherein a character string represented by decoding the code included in the image of the document that certifies authenticity of contents is connected without a delimiter, and a character string represented by decoding the code included in the image of the another document different from the document that certifies authenticity of contents is connected with a delimiter [page 13: p02]. Therefore, given Tanimoto in view of Speasl and Tanaka’s teaching on selecting different additional information based on document type and JP602’ teaching on different formatting of barcode generation data with or without using delimiter related data, it would have been within grasp of an ordinary skilled in the art to decide whether to be connected with or without a delimiter per design choice.
13. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto (US Pub: 2006/0053137) and in further view of Foong (GB Pub: 2454211) and Yagishita (US Pub: 2011/0051173).
Regarding claim 14, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Tanimoto determines type of document data and select different attributes or settings for different document type [p0018, p0019]. In the same field of endeavor, Foong teaches: The image forming apparatus according to claim 13, wherein in a case where a first giving mode is selected by the user, the one or more controllers forcibly give the additional information to the image information of the document that certifies authenticity of contents [fig. 3]. And Yagishita teaches: and decides whether to give the additional information to image information of another document different from the document that certifies authenticity of contents based on the selection by the user [figs. 3 and 5 (User sets whether secure printing or not)]. Therefore, given Tanimoto’s teaching on determining document type and selecting different attribute for different type; Yagishita teaches selectable mandatory information leak proofed printing setting and when the setting is not mandatory a person can choose not to implement it; and Foong’s disclosure on secure feature must be implemented on a secure mode document for printing, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all for different treatment according to document type to provide protection on secure document and user flexibility on other documents.
Regarding claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 14 and in accordance with Yagishita’s further teaching on: The image forming apparatus according to claim 13, wherein in a case where a second giving mode is selected by the user, the one or more controllers give the additional information to the image information of the document that certifies authenticity of contents, and to image information of another document different from the document that certifies authenticity of contents [p0050, p0083 (When it is mandatory, user choice is removed.)].
14. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto (US Pub: 2006/0053137), Speasl et al (US Patent: 2022/0070330) and Tanaka (US Pub: 2007/0012769); and in further view of Kimura (US Pub: 2008/0068655).
Regarding claim 16, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein. It has been well practiced in the art that any previous setting would be applicable for future jobs until user changes it, which would have made the claimed limitation obvious. In the same field of endeavor, Kimura also teaches: The image forming apparatus according to claim 2, wherein in a case where the one or more controllers form again the image information of the document that certifies authenticity of contents and the image information of the another document different from the document that certifies authenticity of contents, the one or more controllers decide whether to give the additional information based on a setting at a time of previous image formation [p0075, p0076]. Therefore, the combined teaching would have made reuse previous setting of previous image formation obvious to a skilled in the art.
Contact
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights