CTNF 18/886,321 CTNF 84829 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. DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-11 are pending in this application. Drawings The drawings received on 9/16/2024 are accepted for examination purposes. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/16/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. 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 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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: “acquisition unit” and “display control unit” in claim 11. 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. Acquisition unit corresponds to input/output control module [Applicant’s Specification: par 0044] Display control unit corresponds to display operation unit interface [Applicant’s Specification: par 0036-0037] 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 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) 1-3, 6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Ogata (US-2015/0055147) . As to Claim 11, Ogata teaches ‘An information processing apparatus communicable with a printing apparatus through a network, the information processing apparatus comprising: an acquisition unit configured to acquire information on a function of setting a folding position of a sheet to be folded in three-part folding processing performed by a sheet processing apparatus included in the printing apparatus [Figs 5, 7, par 0040-0042, 0045-0047 – host computer includes a printer driver using print data obtained, sheet size information and printing according to fold lines to be added to, and printed by printer at boundaries of respective logical pages enable acquisition of three-fold printing ]; and a display control unit configured to perform display control to display, on a display unit, a screen in which the folding position is settable based on the information acquired by the acquisition unit [Fig 5, par 0042, 0046-0047, 0056 – three-fold setting selection display unit displays the three-fold printing setting screen corresponding to sheet size suitable, prompting the user to set a set value for three folds (select an arrangement mode) ]’. Further, in regards to claim 10, the information processing apparatus of claim 11 performs the method of claim 10. Further, in regards to claim 1, the method of claim 10 is fully embodied on the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1. As to Claim 2, Ogata teaches ‘wherein the method further comprising specifying another folding position different from the folding position, based on the folding position [Fig 5, par 0042, 0056 – displaying different arrangement modes for three folds to be set by user ]’. As to Claim 3, Ogata teaches ‘wherein the folding position of the sheet is indicated by a length from an end of the sheet to a position where the sheet is folded [Fig 18, par 0080-0089 – making a length of page c somewhat shorter, allocating the shortened page length to pages a and b, and providing an extra area thereon as a binding margin where a user can set the amount of binding margin ]’. As to Claim 6, Ogata teaches ‘wherein the screen displays an icon of a sheet folded in the three-part folding processing [Fig 5, par 0042, 0056 – displaying different arrangement modes for three folds of logical pages to be set by user as preview print results ]’. As to Claim 9, Ogata teaches ‘wherein the program is a printer driver [Fig 6 (5), par 0044 – printer driver ]’ . 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 (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. 07-20-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 (s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata (US-2015/0055147) in view of Nakamura et al. (US-2012/0194828) . As to Claim 4, Ogata teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in dependent claim 3 and independent claim 1. Ogata does not disclose expressly ‘wherein a maximum value of the length from the end of the sheet to the position where the sheet is folded, the maximum value of the length being settable in the screen, is varied depending on a type of the sheet’. Nakamura teaches ‘wherein a maximum value of the length from the end of the sheet to the position where the sheet is folded, the maximum value of the length being settable in the screen, is varied depending on a type of the sheet [Fig 3, par 0065 – predetermined values a and b may be set by causing display section to display a setting screen and prompting a user to input settings with values of -50 mm or greater and 50 mm (i.e., maximum) or less ]’. Ogata and Nakamura are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include maximum length settings, as taught by Nakamura. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensuring a plurality of surfaces are divided and arranged at regions having approximately the same sizes when a plurality of sets of manuscript data are printed on sheets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nakamura with Ogata to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata (US-2015/0055147) in view of Aizono (US-2023/0183036) . As to Claim 5, Ogata teaches ‘wherein a maximum value of the length from the end of the sheet to the position where the sheet is folded, the maximum value of the length being settable in the screen [Fig 18, par 0080-0089 – making a length of page c somewhat shorter, allocating the shortened page length to pages a and b, and providing an extra area thereon as a binding margin where a user can set the amount of binding margin ]. Ogata does not disclose expressly ‘is varied depending on a number of sheets in one bundle output with the sheet’. Aizono in the proposed combination teaches ‘is varied depending on a number of sheets in one bundle output with the sheet [Fig 7D, par 0075-0076 – displaying a number (number of sheets of overlappingly folding) of sheets which are bundled by being folded inwardly in three is displayed in the saddle inward tri-folding screen ]’. Ogata and Aizono are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include setting a number of sheets, as taught by Aizono. The motivation for doing so would have been to restricting setting a certain number of sheets when performing a tri-folding operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Aizono with Ogata to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata (US-2015/0055147) in view of Pierce et al. (US-2010/0134825) . As to Claim 7, Ogata teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claim 1. Ogata does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the information is information indicating whether the printing apparatus includes a function of setting the folding position of the sheet to be folded in the three-part folding processing’. Pierce teaches ‘wherein the information is information indicating whether the printing apparatus includes a function of setting the folding position of the sheet to be folded in the three-part folding processing [Figs 9, 10, par 0017-0021, 0029-0030, 0035 – output options shown as unavailable or grayed out on a display device based on allowable finishing options (i.e., folding) according to hardware constraints ]’. Ogata and Pierce are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include graying out unavailable output options, as taught by Pierce. The motivation for doing so would have been to improving user interface systems that provides user interface mimics to assist in predicting the output prior to actually printing on digital printing device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Pierce with Ogata to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7. As to Claim 8, Pierce teaches ‘wherein the method further comprises determining whether the printing apparatus has the function of setting the folding position of the sheet to be folded in the three-part folding processing, based on the information, and wherein, in the display control, in a case where it is determined in the determining that the printing apparatus does not have the function of setting the folding position of the sheet to be folded in the three-part folding processing, the screen in which the folding position is settable is not displayed on the display unit, and in a case where it is determined in the determining that the printing apparatus has the function of setting the folding position of the sheet to be folded in the three-part folding processing, the screen in which the folding position is settable is displayed on the display unit [Figs 9, 10, par 0017-0021, 0029-0030, 0035 – output options shown as available, unavailable or grayed out on a display device based on allowable finishing options (i.e., folding) according to hardware constraints ]’. Ogata and Pierce are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include graying out unavailable output options, as taught by Pierce. The motivation for doing so would have been to improving user interface systems that provides user interface mimics to assist in predicting the output prior to actually printing on digital printing device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Pierce with Ogata to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8 . Conclusion The prior art made of record a. US Publication No. 2015/0055147 b. US Publication No. 2012/0194828 c. US Publication No. 2023/0183036 d. US Publication No. 2010/0134825 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. e. US Publication No. 2007/0146784 f. US Publication No. 2009/0227436 g. US Publication No. 2024/0417207 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA J CATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 830-530. 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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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. /MIYA J CATO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/886,321 Page 2 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/886,321 Page 3 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/886,321 Page 4 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/886,321 Page 5 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/886,321 Page 7 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/886,321 Page 8 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/886,321 Page 9 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/886,321 Page 10 Art Unit: 2681
Prosecution Insights