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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed 9/10/24 and 4/30/25 are acknowledged, the references therein relating to the general background of applicant’s invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: current language of “determining appropriateness … based on the ratio to a printing machine” is awkward language and does not appear to be applicant’s intended invention as disclosed in paragraph 167 of the specification publication. Examiner suggests aligning the language with paragraph 167. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: last limitation appears to be missing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 10 recites “a screen ratio calculation means … a print processing determination means”. Inspection of the specification reveals that a CPU (figure 3) corresponds to the calculation and determination means.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the plurality of printing methods" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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.
1) Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. patent application publication 2013/0027717 by Hashimoto.
2) Regarding claim 1, Hashimoto teaches A printing method determination method determining a printing method for printing a screen including visual content, comprising: obtaining a ratio of an area of a content component to a page region (paragraph 52; area ratios for the plurality of frames of a page can be obtained); and determining the printing method based on the ratio (figure 3, item S123; particular frame can be automatically set according to the ratio thereby determining what is printed [i.e. any print setting, content or otherwise, being considered a “method” of printing]), wherein the screen is regulated by page data, a range of a page in the screen is regulated by the page region, and the page data includes the content component arranged in the page region and regulating the content (figure 4; frame map detailing the content components [i.e. the different frames] of page data in the range of one page, as shown, can be displayed and interacted with).
3) Regarding claim 2, Hashimoto teaches the printing method determination method according to claim 1, wherein the page data includes: page content; and form content (examiner notes that the claim has not made a distinction between page and form content nor is the distinction obvious from the diction as page data is inherently from a page and has a form), the page content and the form content individually include the content component, the content component included in the page content is arranged in the page region (figure 4; paragraph 52; page frame with an image is arranged in a page as shown), and the content component included in the form content is arranged in the page region by a predetermined image conversion (figure 3, item S108; content with text can be converted to a particular size and arranged in a page layout as shown in figure 4).
4) Regarding claim 3, Hashimoto teaches the printing method determination method according to claim 2, wherein all of the content components are any of an image component expressing an image in the screen, a gradation component expressing a shading in the screen, and a screen tint component expressing a screen tint in the screen (paragraph 52; content components can be at least an image).
5) Regarding claim 5, Hashimoto teaches the printing method determination method according to claim 1, wherein a parameter for the printing is set based on the ratio to determine the printing method (paragraph 52; frame output for printing [i.e. a parameter] is set based on ratio).
6) Regarding claim 8, Hashimoto teaches the printing method determination method according to claim 1, wherein one of the plurality of printing methods different from each other is selected based on the ratio to determine the printing method (paragraph 52; figures 2-4; frame with largest ratio is selected for the printing method).
7) Claim 10 is taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
8) Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2013/0027717 by Hashimoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2004/0109054 by Martin et al.
Hashimoto teaches the printing method determination method according to claim 5, wherein the printing method is computer-to-print (figure 1; PC can print from printer 100).
Hashimoto does not specifically teach the parameter controls drying in the computer-to-print.
Martin teaches the parameter controls drying in the computer-to-print (paragraphs 28 and 29; ink coverage ratio parameters controls a drying process).
Hashimoto and Martin are combinable because they are both from the printing field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Hashimoto with Martin to add a parameter controlling a drying process based on other print settings. The motivation for doing so would have been to maintain the air’s ability for removing moisture (paragraph 28). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Hashimoto and Martin to obtain the invention of claim 6.
9) Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2013/0027717 by Hashimoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2023/0236781 by Hosomizo.
Hashimoto does not specifically teach the printing method determination method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining appropriateness of the printing method determined based on the ratio to a printing machine executing the printing.
Hosomizo teaches the printing method determination method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining appropriateness of the printing method determined based on the ratio to a printing machine executing the printing (abstract and paragraph 35; printer settings are determined proper based on selected output device).
Hashimoto and Hosomizo are combinable because they are both from the printing field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Hashimoto with Hosomizo to add printer capability determination. The motivation for doing so would have been notify a user of incompatible settings (abstract). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Hashimoto and Hosomizo to obtain the invention of claim 7.
10) Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2013/0027717 by Hashimoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent 11,470,205 by Matsuo.
Hashimoto does not specifically teach the printing method determination method according to claim 8, wherein the plurality of printing methods include computer-to-print and plate printing.
Matsuo teaches the printing method determination method according to claim 8, wherein the plurality of printing methods include computer-to-print and plate printing (figure 1, items 2 and 3; column 13, lines 21-26; printing method can be digital printing or offset printing [i.e. plate printing]).
Hashimoto and Matsuo are combinable because they are both from the printing field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Hashimoto with Matsuo to add a plate printing method. The motivation for doing so would have been for printing a large amount (column 3, line 15). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Hashimoto and Matsuo to obtain the invention of claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights