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
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 limitations “a setting unit” and “display unit”, have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “cipher structure” coupled with functional language “configured to receive… and perform” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“a setting unit” and “display unit” appear to be hardware including a processor and memory (par [0052 and 0057] of the specification).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claims 1,8 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa (US 20260003551) in view of Kametani (US 20220180134).
Regarding claim 1, Ichikawa teaches an image forming apparatus that stores sheet information in which setting methods are associated with each sheet tray, wherein a sheet corresponding to the sheet information is a specific sheet which can be set on a sheet tray by a plurality of methods, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to function as:
a setting unit configured to set a sheet size for the sheet tray designated by a print job (p0041:sheet sizes that can be loaded into each feed trays of the printer 2, or the sheet sizes specified for or detected in the feed trays),
wherein the sheet size of a sheet which can be set on the sheet tray designated by the print job is a sheet size designated by the print job (fig. 3 and fig. 4); and
a display unit configured to display, in a case where a specific sheet size of the specific sheet is designated by the print job, a guidance about a setting method which makes it possible to set the specific sheet of the specific sheet size on the sheet tray designated by the print job, based on the pecific sheet size and the sheet information (fig. 4: orientation).
Ichikawa does not teach a guidance about a setting method which makes it possible to set the specific sheet of the specific sheet size on the sheet tray.
Kametani teaches a guidance about a setting method which makes it possible to set the specific sheet of the specific sheet size on the sheet tray (fig. 7).
Ichikawa and Kametani are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Ichikawa with the teaching of Kametani for purpose of setting an operation sequence in conformance with the type of envelopes and the designated placement direction (p0005).
Regarding claim 11, The structural elements of apparatus claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 11. Thus, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Ichikawa’s further teaching on: A computer-readable memory that contains instructions, which when executed by a processor perform steps in a method (abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Ichikawa and Kametani teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the specific sheet is an envelope (Kametani: fig. 7).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Claims 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa and Kametani as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sasaguri (US 20220269446).
Regarding claim 2, Ichikawa and Kametani does not teach the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where no sheet size is set for the sheet tray designated by the print job, the operation of the setting unit is executed.
Sasaguri teaches wherein in a case where no sheet size is set for the sheet tray designated by the print job, the operation of the setting unit is executed (p0026:a paper size setting and p0032: a setting value of a certain setting item in the job setting information causes a specific error, an option for an appropriate setting value is presented and fig. 5: 203 return to the operation screen).
Ichikawa in view of Kametani and Sasaguri are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Ichikawa in view of Kametani with the teaching of Sasaguri for purpose of resolve the job is stopped due to a specific error caused by the job setting information (p0004).
Regarding claim 3, Ichikawa and Kametani and Sasaguri teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the sheet size set for the sheet tray designated by the print job is different from the sheet size designated by the print job, the operation of the setting unit is executed (Sasaguri: a setting value of a certain setting item in the job setting information causes a specific error, an option for an appropriate setting value is presented and fig. 5: 203 return to the operation screen).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporate herein.
Regarding claim 4, Ichikawa and Kametani and Sasaguri teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where a sheet of the sheet size designated by the print job has not been set on the sheet tray designated by the print job, the display unit displays the guidance (Sasaguri:fig. 6. Fig. 6 is example for paper feed cassette. P0026 discloses print job setting include a paper size setting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to replace paper feed cassette with paper size in the example).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 5, Ichikawa in view of Kametani and Sasaguri teaches image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the display unit displays the guidance according to a display instruction from a user (Sasaguri: fig. 5 and fig. 6).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 6, Ichikawa and Kametani and Sasaguri teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the processor is caused to also function as a reception unit configured to receive a display instruction from the user (Sasaguri: fig. 5 and fig. 6).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein.
Claims 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa and Kametani as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirano et al. (US 20200033772).
Regarding claim 7, Ichikawa and Kametani does not explicitly disclose the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the display unit displays all of setting methods which make it possible to set a sheet of the sheet size designated by the print job on the sheet tray designated by the print job, on the guidance display.
Hirano teaches wherein the display unit displays all of setting methods which make it possible to set a sheet of the sheet size designated by the print job on the sheet tray designated by the print job, on the guidance display (fig. 9a).
Ichikawa in view of Kametani and Hirano are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Ichikawa in view of Kametani with the teaching of Hirano for purpose of reducing wrinkle is formed on an envelope (p0004).
Regarding claim 9, Ichikawa and Kametani and Hirano teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the specific sheet is a postcard (Hirano:p0033:postcard).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 7 has been incorporated herein.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa and Kametani as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gardner et al. (US 20200310698).
Regarding claim 10, Ichikawa and Kametani does not teach the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the sheet size set for the sheet tray designated by the print job is a sheet size of a sheet different from the specific sheet, the display unit does not display the guidance.
Gardner teaches wherein in a case where the sheet size set for the sheet tray designated by the print job is a sheet size of a sheet different from the specific sheet, the display unit does not display the guidance (p0034: the second printer endpoint 216 may not have an A4 paper tray, and the print job may be modified, with or without user confirmation, to use a paper tray for a different size of paper).
Ichikawa in view of Kametani and Gardner are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Ichikawa in view of Kametani with the teaching of Gardner for purpose for users may access the computing resources and data storage capabilities on an as-needed basis (p0002).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN Q ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1600. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
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, Merouan, Abderrahim can be reached on (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.
HELEN ZONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/HELEN ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights