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.
Claim limitations reciting “first/second receiving unit”, “designation unit”, “generation unit”, “first/second transmission unit” and “detection unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “configured to …” 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(s) 2-5 has/have 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: the units of the printing apparatus may be configured as hardware such as electrical circuitry, or may be configured as software such as programs to perform their functions. Also, the units may be configured as a combination of both of these. See paragraph [0144].
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 § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim elements “first/second receiving unit”, “designation unit”, “generation unit”, “first/second transmission unit” and “detection unit” are limitations that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. The specification discloses that the “first/second receiving unit”, “designation unit”, “generation unit”, “first/second transmission unit” and “detection unit” can be any component that can performing those functions (p. 0144); thus it is unclear what is the corresponding structure, material, or acts that performs the claimed function.
Dependent claims 2-5 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reason as set forth above.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakana (US 9235786) in view of Tsujimoto (US 7436532) and Ohtani (US 5678000)
Regarding claim 1, Wakana teaches a printing system comprising: a printing control apparatus; and a printing apparatus (fig. 1), wherein the printing control apparatus (101 PC in fig. 1) includes:
a first receiving unit configured to receive a sheet type setting (col. 6, lines 25-30: type and size match with the paper type and paper size that are instructed by the print job), a designation unit configured to designate a profile based on the sheet type setting (col. 6, lines 10-15:print job transmitted to the MFP 102), a generation unit configured to generate bitmap data based on the designated profile (col. 6, lines 10-20:the transmitted print job or image data that is obtained by deploying the print job), and a first transmission unit configured to transmit, to the printing apparatus, the generated bitmap data and information on the profile including the sheet type setting (col. 6, lines 10-20:the transmitted print job or image data that is obtained by deploying the print job. And Col. 7, lines: 5-15:printer driver 303 transmits the print job including PDL data and the like to the MFP 102 ), wherein the printing apparatus includes: a second receiving unit configured to receive the bitmap data and the information on the profile (Col. 7, lines: 5-15:printer driver 303 transmits the print job including PDL data and the like to the MFP 102 ).
Wakana does not teach a detection unit configured to detect a type of sheet being conveyed along a conveyance path , and a second transmission unit configured to transmit to the printing control apparatus, in a case where the type of sheet detected by the detection unit does not match a sheet type corresponding to the information on the profile, a request for generation of bitmap data based on the type of sheet detected by the detection unit, wherein the first transmission unit transmits, to the printing apparatus, the bitmap data that has been generated based on the request, and wherein the printing apparatus is configured to print an image on a sheet, based on the bitmap data that has been received by the second receiving unit.
Tsujimoto teaches a detection unit configured to detect a type of sheet being conveyed along a conveyance path (fig. 1 S101-103: sensor specify sheet) , and
wherein the first transmission unit transmits, to the printing apparatus, the bitmap data that has been generated based on the request, and wherein the printing apparatus is configured to print an image on a sheet, based on the bitmap data that has been received by the second receiving unit (Fig. 1 S110 mismatch, s114 updated information, s116: form data. S120 transmit print data to printer).
Wakana and Tsujimoto 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 Wakana with the teaching of Tsujimoto for purpose of improve printing quality.
Wakana in view of Tsujimoto still does not teach a second transmission unit configured to transmit to the printing control apparatus, in a case where the type of sheet detected by the detection unit does not match a sheet type corresponding to the information on the profile, a request for generation of bitmap data based on the type of sheet detected by the detection unit.
Ohtani teaches a second transmission unit configured to transmit to the printing control apparatus, in a case where the type of sheet detected by the detection unit does not match a sheet type corresponding to the information on the profile, a request for generation of bitmap data based on the type of sheet detected by the detection unit (col. 1, lines 10-16: when the print data is received from the host computer and the paper size designated in the print data is different from the paper size of a paper which can be fed, the printer merely executes a control such as to notify a user of an error and to request to change output conditions of the print data or the like),
Wakana in view of Tsujimoto and Ohtani 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 Wakana in view of Tsujimoto with the teaching of Ohtani for purpose of to provide a printer system with good operability suggested by (Ohtani: col. 1 lines: 10-25).
Regarding claim 2, Wakana in view of Tsujimoto and Ohtani teaches the printing system according to claim 1, wherein the second transmission unit transmits the request to the printing control apparatus regardless of whether the type of sheet detected by the detection unit matches the sheet type corresponding to the information on the profile (Tsujimoto: fig. 1: S106 transmit sheet information).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 3, Wakana in view of Tsujimoto and Ohtani teaches the printing system according to claim 1, wherein the first transmission unit transmits, in a case where an instruction has been issued by a user, the bitmap data generated based on the request (Tasjimoto:fig. 1 Ss109-s115).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 4, Wakana in view of Tsujimoto and Ohtani teaches the printing system according to claim 3, further comprising: a display unit configured to display, on a display device, a screen on which the instruction is to be issued, wherein the display unit is provided on at least one of the printing control apparatus and the printing apparatus (Tsujimoto: fig. 1: user and PC).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 5, Wakana in view of Tsujimoto and Ohtani teaches the printing system according to claim 1, wherein the second transmission unit transmits, in a case where the detected type of sheet does not match the sheet type corresponding to the information on the profile, information on the detected sheet type instead of or in addition to the request (Ohtani: col. 1, lines 10-16: when the print data is received from the host computer and the paper size designated in the print data is different from the paper size of a paper which can be fed, the printer merely executes a control such as to notify a user of an error and to request to change output conditions of the print data or the like), wherein the first transmission unit transmits the bitmap data that has been generated based on the information on the sheet type setting, and wherein the printing of the image on the sheet by the printing apparatus is based on the bitmap data that has been received by the second receiving unit and generated based on the information on the profile including the sheet type setting (Tsujimoto: fig. 1 s113-s120).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 6, The structural elements of apparatus claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 6. Thus, claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
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