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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Art Unit – Location
The Art Unit location of your application in the USPTO may have changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Art Unit 2682.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Acceptance unit in claim 1
Determination unit in claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6
Printing unit in claims 1 and 8
Cancellation unit in claims 1 and 5
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof:
A “processor 20” performing functions of the units.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 cites “any command”. The Examiner interprets claim 5 to mean any non-print command.
Claim 6 cites “the other job”. The Examiner interprets claim 6 to mean another job.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kikuchi (JP 2006181968A) machine translation “Kikuchi”.
A printing device ("printer or multifunction device" [0001]) comprising:
an acceptance unit configured to accept a print command ("In Figure 10, the image processing unit 910 first receives a print job" [0006]) and a non-print command ("the print control unit 920, in step Z2, issues a paper feed request to the engine 930 based on this print request." [0007]) as commands belonging to different command groups from each other (the image processing unit 910 and the print control unit 920 belong to different command groups); a determination unit configured to determine whether there is an association or no association between the print command and the non-print command in the different command groups ("image processing unit 910 creates an image and sends this image to the print control unit 920 as a print request" [0007-0013]. There is an association.); a printing unit configured to cause a printing mechanism to perform printing according to the print command ("the print control unit 920, in step Z2, issues a paper feed request to the engine 930 based on this print request. As a result, engine 930 begins feeding the first page of paper in step Z3." [0007]); and a cancellation unit (“image processing unit” for a “cancellation request” [0022]) configured to cancel the non-print command determined as being associated with the print command, along with the print command, in response to acceptance of a cancellation instruction for the print command ("Therefore, if a cancellation request for the print job is received in the state shown in Figure 5, … At the same time, the engine 300 will delete the paper feed start commands for the unprinted pages P2 to P4 from the internal buffer" [0053]. “This prevents the print control unit from issuing a paper feed request for images of pages” [0022]) .
The printing device according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit determines that the non-print command continuous from the print command is associated (The non print command for the paper feed is associated with the print command and is continuous as in claim 1.) .
The printing device according to claim 1, wherein when it is determined that the print command is not associated with any command ("the print control unit 920 does not perform job management, it is unable to delete the image data of the stuck pages." [0015]. The stuck pages are associated with the paper feed where the print control unit is not associated with the paper feed and is unable to delete image data.) , the cancellation unit cancels the print command that is one in response to the cancellation instruction that is one ("in step Z21, when the image processing unit 910 receives a cancellation request for print job JOB1 from the host PC 940 via the network, it compares it with the aforementioned job management table and prevents the issuance of print requests for the eighth to tenth pages, which are currently being processed " [0013]) .
The printing device according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit generates a job for each of the print commands and the non-print command determined as being associated with each other ("Then, the image processing unit 910 creates an image of the first page and, in step Z1, sends this image to the print control unit 920 as a print request. In response, the print control unit 920, in step Z2, issues a paper feed request to the engine 930 based on this print request. As a result, engine 930 begins feeding the first page of paper in step Z3." [0007]. There is an association between creating an image and feeding paper for the created image.) , and describes a designation indicating that one job is associated with the other job ("when the print control unit receives an image related to one print job from the image processing unit, it releases the job cancellation status or print cancellation reservation status of other print jobs" [0026]. Cancellation of one print job is associated with another print job.) .
9. The method of claim 9 has been analyzed in view of the method of Kikuchi “printing control method” [Description] and further in view of claim 1. Claim 9 is rejected in a similar manner to claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi (JP 2006181968A) machine translation “Kikuchi” in view of Matsuo (US 11,379,162 B1) “Matsuo”.
Kikuchi teaches: The printing device according to claim 1, having print command and the non-print commands.
Kikuchi does not explicitly teach where the print and non-print commands are included in the different command groups from each other are enclosed by a start character string and an end character string that indicates a range of the command group.
However, Matsuo teaches: where the print and non-print commands are included in the different command groups from each other are enclosed by a start character string and an end character string that indicate a range of the command group (Fig 5 shows command groups for printing and post processing having delimiters of start and end character strings with left < and right > pointing chevron type marks.)
The printing and non-printing commands of Kikuchi can be modified by Matsuo to include start and end character commands to properly command an image forming device to render images and print out the rendered images.
The motivation for the combination is provided by Matsuo to improve the production printing process [Col. 1 lines 5-27].
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi (JP 2006181968A) machine translation “Kikuchi” in view of Akiyama et al. (US 5,594,653) Akiyama.
Kikuchi teaches: The printing device according to claim 1 having a printing unit for printing.
Kikuchi does not explicitly teach wherein the printing unit causes printing to be performed on a rolled paper.
However, Akiyama teaches: printing to be performed on a rolled paper ("Receipt paper 17" [Col 5 line 35] shown in FIG. 1) .
The printing unit of Kikuchi can be modified by Akiyama to use rolled paper to achieve high throughput point-of-sale printing [Col. 1 lines 6-15].
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 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.
The closest reference of record is Kikuchi (JP 2006181968A) machine translation “Kikuchi”. In the Applicant’s dependent claims 3 and 4 the reference of Kikuchi does not teach: the determination unit determines that a command that is preset by a user, of the non-print commands immediately previous or subsequent to the print command, is not associated. Kikuchi does not teach that there are user preset non-print commands, that are neither previous nor subsequent to the print command. Kikuchi fails to directly anticipate or render the above underlined limitations obvious (to be used with other claimed limitations).
Relevant Prior Art
US 2019/0138257 A1
Abstract
An image forming apparatus stores (holds) an image formation job, and for the stored job, executes image processing in advance of performing image formation, and stores a processing result which is advance process information in association with the stored job. Also, the image forming apparatus accepts setting information related to image formation for the stored job, and if an instruction to delete a page is included in the setting information, the image formation data for the corresponding page is deleted from the stored job. Furthermore, the image forming apparatus, in accordance with the deleted page, updates the stored advance process information.
Conclusion
/TED W. BARNES/ Ph.D. Electrical Engineering
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2682
/TED W BARNES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights