CTNF 18/823,792 CTNF 82476 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-8 are pending. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 09/04/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. Examiner suggests that title maybe changed to provide more description regarding the instant invention. Therefore, a new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation The interpretation of claims under 112(f) have been obviated due to claims having a dedicated processor which is functioning as all the recited units in the claims. Objection 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1 and 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: There is no antecedent basis for the limitation “in the case” in the claims . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 4-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Takaaki Yano, JP 2016-016588 . Regarding claim 1, Yano discloses an image forming apparatus ( printing system where print server 102 and printer 100 are directly connected, paragraph 17 and also note that it could be a single apparatus, “ for example, the first image adjustment and the second image adjustment may all be performed by the printer 100 or the print server 102 ”, paragraph 66 ) comprising: at least one processor that causes the image forming apparatus to function as ( print server includes CPU 301 and printer 100 includes CPU 201, paragraphs 19, 46 ): a first setting unit ( CPU 301 ) configured to set one or more adjustment values for image formation to a sheet feeding unit ( sheet feeding unit 212, paragraph 19 ) ( second image adjustment such as tray adjustment in terms of correction is performed on the sheet feed tray such as the CPU 301 determines an adjustment amount for correcting the deviation of the image printed on the sheet (image formation) in the vertical and horizontal directions, based on an input from the user in order to be set/adjusted to the sheet feed tray, paragraphs 49, 11 ); a second setting unit ( CPU 201 ) configured to set one or more adjustment values for image formation to a sheet ( first image adjustment such as CPU 201 determines an adjustment value generated by the printer 100 for correcting the displacement of the image position on the sheet at the time of printing, paragraphs 35, 11 ); and a control unit ( CPU 201 with CPU 301 ) configured to perform control to form an image on the sheet using the adjustment values for image formation set to the sheet by the second setting unit in the case where the adjustment values for image formation have been set to the sheet by the second setting unit ( based on when (i.e., in the case) the adjustment values for printing are set, the CPU 201 prints a confirmation image for adjusting the image position, and the adjustment value is determined by the user based on the confirmation image. Then, when user presses the print button, the CPU 201 causes the image forming unit to print an image using confirmation image position adjustment values, paragraphs 39-41 ), and to perform control to form an image on the sheet using the adjustment values for image formation set to the sheet feeding unit by the first setting unit ( based on when the adjustment values for printing are set to the sheet feeding unit, CPU 301 prints a confirmation image for tray adjustment, and the user determines a read value for calculating an adjustment value based on the confirmation image. Readings are input by the user via the tray adjustment screen and when the user presses the confirmation image print button 1209, the CPU 301 performs printing on the sheet of the sheet feed stage designated by 1202, paragraphs 51-53 ) in the case where the adjustment values for image formation have not been set to the sheet by the second setting unit ( CPU 301 obtains, from the first image adjustment information, the information on the sheet feed stage storing the sheet on which the first image adjustment has been performed. It is determined whether first image adjustment has been performed or not based on the initial adjustment value. In a case, where the initial value is not stored, the CPU 301 performs the second image adjustment, otherwise, if the initial value is stored, the second adjustment is not performed, thus, second adjustment only takes place in the case where the first adjustment for image formation to the sheet have not been set or taken place, paragraphs 61-63 ). Examiner Note: since “in the case” limitations of above claim 1 are contingent limitations, therefore, broadly speaking only one of the alternate scenario’s such as “in the case when the adjustment values for image formation have been set OR have not been set” need to occur. The one or the other limitation doesn’t need to be satisfied or need to occur in Yano. As discussed in MPEP 2111.04(II): The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. Since claim recites contingent limitation, any prior art that does not trigger the condition for the contingent step and can be reasonably construed as satisfying the claim ( “[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed” [quotation omitted] Ex parte Schulhauser at 10, see MPEP 2111.04(II) ). Regarding claim 2, Yano further discloses a memory ( HDD 208 with 306, paragraphs 19-21 ) configured to store information indicating that the adjustment values for image formation have been set to the sheet ( first image adjustment information storage unit 404 includes an HDD 208, which stores the first image adjustment information determined by the first image adjustment value determination unit 407 in the first image adjustment information storage unit 404, paragraphs 25, 35-37 ), wherein the control unit ( CPU 301 ) determines whether or not the adjustment values for image formation have been set to the sheet, based on the information stored in the memory ( it is determined whether the initial value is stored or not in the HDD and based on that, CPU 301 performs or not performs the second image adjustment, thus, second adjustment only takes place in the case where the first adjustment for image formation to the sheet have not been set or taken place, paragraphs 60-63 ). Regarding claim 4, Yano further discloses wherein the adjustment values are adjustment values for an image formation position ( adjustment value generated by the printer 100 for correcting the displacement of the image position on the sheet at the time of printing, paragraph 35 and adjustment amount for correcting the deviation of the image printed on the sheet in the vertical and horizontal directions, paragraph 49 ). Regarding claim 5, Yano further discloses wherein the adjustment values include one or more adjustment values for an image formation position on a first side ( front side ) of the sheet and one or more adjustment values for an image formation position on a second side ( back side ) of the sheet ( confirmation image for the front side, and an image for the back side, which are printed on both sides of the sheet. In the confirmation image, an auxiliary line for measuring or predicting a positional deviation due to printing, and a printing direction are described. The user can estimate the direction and amount of misalignment based on the auxiliary line of the confirmation image for position adjustment. In the first embodiment, the method of determining the adjustment value is described by printing the confirmation image for image position adjustment and inputting the adjustment value estimated by the user via the +/− button 908 and also front side and the back side of the tray adjustment confirmation image on both sides of the sheet so that an image is formed at the top, bottom, left, and right, paragraphs 43, 53-55, 3 7). Regarding claim 7, is a method version of claim 1 reciting similar features and thus is rejected on the same rationale. Regarding claim 8, which recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium version of claim 1, see rationale as applied above. Note that non-transitory computer readable storage medium is taught by Yano in paragraph 67 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaaki Yano, JP 2016-016588 in view of Sato, US 2013/0201520 . Regarding claim 3, Yano further discloses wherein the control unit determines the sheet is a user-defined paper registered in the image forming apparatus by a user ( user can set and define sheet attribute settings for example, paper size, paper surface property, and various other characteristics concerning type of paper such as “PAPER1”, paragraphs 31-34 ), in the case where the control unit determines that the sheet is not the user-defined paper, the control unit performs control to form an image on the sheet using the adjustment values for image formation set to the sheet feeding unit by the first setting unit (since this “in the case” limitation is a contingent limitation, therefore, broadly speaking only one of the alternate scenarios of “in the case” need to occur. The one or the other limitation doesn’t need to be satisfied or need to occur in Yano), in the case where the control unit determines that that sheet is the user-defined paper and the adjustment values for image formation have been set to the sheet ( based on user defined sheet settings and it is determined that an adjustment value generated by the printer 100 for correcting the displacement of the image position on the sheet at the time of printing, paragraphs 31-35 ), the control unit performs control to form an image on the sheet using the adjustment values for image formation set to the sheet by the second setting unit ( based on when (i.e., in the case) the adjustment values for printing are set, the CPU 201 prints a confirmation image for adjusting the image position, and the adjustment value is determined by the user based on the confirmation image. Then, when user presses the print button, the CPU 201 causes the image forming unit to print an image using confirmation image position adjustment values, paragraphs 39-41 ), and in the case where the control unit determines that the sheet is the user-defined paper ( user can set and define sheet attribute settings for example, paper size, paper surface property, and various other characteristics concerning type of paper such as “PAPER1”, paragraphs 31-34 ) and the adjustment values for image formation have not been set to the sheet when an image is to be formed on the sheet ( CPU 301 obtains, from the first image adjustment information, the information on the sheet feed stage storing the sheet on which the first image adjustment has been performed. It is determined whether first image adjustment has been performed or not based on the initial adjustment value. In a case, where the initial value is not stored, the CPU 301 performs the second image adjustment, otherwise, if the initial value is stored, the second adjustment is not performed, thus, second adjustment only takes place in the case where the first adjustment for image formation to the sheet have not been set or taken place, paragraphs 61-63 ) housed in the sheet feeding unit ( sheet feeding unit 212, paragraph 19 ), the control unit performs control to form an image on the sheet using the adjustment values for image formation set to the sheet feeding unit by the first setting unit ( based on when the adjustment values for printing are set to the sheet feeding unit, CPU 301 prints a confirmation image for tray adjustment, and the user determines a read value for calculating an adjustment value based on the confirmation image. Readings are input by the user via the tray adjustment screen and when the user presses the confirmation image print button 1209, the CPU 301 performs printing on the sheet of the sheet feed stage designated by 1202, paragraphs 51-53, 49 ) (also note, since this “in the case” limitation is a contingent limitation, therefore, broadly speaking only one of the alternate scenarios of “in the case” need to occur. The one or the other limitation doesn’t need to be satisfied or need to occur in Yano). Yano fails to further disclose wherein control unit determines whether or not sheet is a user-defined paper registered in image forming apparatus by a user. However, Sato teaches wherein determining whether or not sheet is a user-defined paper registered in image forming apparatus ( printer 107, paragraph 195 ) by a user ( bookbinding application 104 determines whether or not the user has selected index paper with the combo box 1603 of "paper type". It is determined if the user has selected index paper and if the user has not selected any index paper, paragraph 170 ). Yano and Sato are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with registering user defined sheet settings. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yano to incorporate the teachings of Sato in order to efficiently display a screen for setting a feed unit which feeds the designated predetermined type of paper and detail information of the designated predetermined type of paper taught by Sato at paragraph 9 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaaki Yano, JP 2016-016588 in view of Maeda, US 2012/0057203 Regarding claim 6, Yano further discloses wherein the second setting unit further sets a surface property of the sheet to the sheet ( user can set items on the sheet attribute editing screen such as basis weight, size, surface property, color, image position adjustment, etc., paragraph 31 ). Yano fails to further disclose wherein setting unit further sets a grammage of sheet. However, Maeda teaches wherein setting unit further sets a grammage of sheet and a surface property of the sheet ( control unit 205 displays a paper attribute detailed setting screen to set sheet information such as a grammage, a characteristic, and a surface nature of the sheet or an adjustment value of a deviation correction amount, paragraph 110 ). Yano and Maeda are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with registering user defined sheet settings. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yano to incorporate the teachings of Maeda in order to prevent erroneous feeding of paper that has not been set for automatic paper change by securely feeding paper desired by the operator as taught by Maeda at paragraph 14 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ito et al., US 2022/0004347 Kimura et al., US 2020/0004472 Fujii, US 2015/0186761 Miyazaki, US 2012/0162669 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAWANDEEP DHINGRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-1231. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571) 270-5254. 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. /PAWAN DHINGRA/Examiner, Art Unit 2683 /ABDERRAHIM MEROUAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/823,792 Page 2 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/823,792 Page 3 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/823,792 Page 4 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/823,792 Page 5 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/823,792 Page 6 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/823,792 Page 7 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/823,792 Page 8 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/823,792 Page 9 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/823,792 Page 10 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/823,792 Page 11 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/823,792 Page 12 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/823,792 Page 13 Art Unit: 2683
Prosecution Insights