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
Claims 1-9 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings received on 9/30/2024 are accepted for examination purposes.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/30/2024 and 12/3/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno et al. (US-2021/0198063) in view of Okabe et al. (US-2004/0257612).
As to Claim 1, Mizuno teaches ‘A conveyance control device comprising: a memory; and a processor configured to control a conveyance device in a printing system, the printing system including: a plurality of printers, each of the printers being configured to perform printing on a recording medium based on print data; and the conveyance device configured to convey, to any one of the plurality of printers, a platen on which the recording medium is placed [par 0022, 0057-0059, 0067-0073, 0076-0080 – a platen conveyance mechanism of a print system including a conveyance control device with a CPU, ROM and RAM, where a platen is conveyed to printer(s) determined for printing on a cloth based on acquired print data and that satisfies the conditions of the print data]’.
Mizuno does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the memory is configured to store computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform processes including: receiving second print data included in the print data; and determining, among the plurality of printers, an execution printer that is a printer performing printing based on the second print data, based on the received second print data and history information stored in a storage, the storage being configured to store the history information in which first print data and the printer are associated with each other, the first print data being included in the print data, the printer performing the printing based on the first print data’.
Okabe in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the memory is configured to store computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform processes including: receiving second print data included in the print data; and determining, among the plurality of printers, an execution printer that is a printer performing printing based on the second print data, based on the received second print data and history information stored in a storage, the storage being configured to store the history information in which first print data and the printer are associated with each other, the first print data being included in the print data, the printer performing the printing based on the first print data [Fig 5 (S122-S128), par 0042 – receiving a next divisional job (i.e., second print data) to be processed next and analyzes the print management data to determine whether a printer used for printing is specified in the print management data and retrieves a divisional job having identical ‘image file name’ and ‘customer ID’ with those of the next divisional job, among divisional jobs set either in an allocated state or a printed state to the ‘execution status’ and determines whether there is any matching divisional job in the print management table (i.e. history information) having the identical ‘image file name’ and ‘customer ID’, where when a matching divisional job is present (i.e., first print data) is spooled to the corresponding printer of the matching divisional job]’.
Mizuno and Okabe are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to incorporate Mizuno’s printer selection conveyance mechanism with Okabe’s selection of a same printer of a previous divisional job. The motivation for doing so would have been to attaining color reproduction that gives a customer a less sense of dissatisfaction by adequate allocation of printing requests of received print demand. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Okabe with Mizuno to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Further, in regards to claim 8, the conveyance control device of claim 1 performs the control method of claim 8.
Further, in regards to claim 9, the control method of claim 8 is fully embodied on the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 9.
As to Clam 2, Okabe in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein in a case where a degree of similarity between the first print data and the second print data is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, the processor determines, as the execution printer, the printer associated with the first print data in the history information [par 0048-0049 – divisional jobs of the same job ID identified by a page number and copy numbers having identical image file names and identical customer ID with those corresponding of the corresponding divisional job for the first copy is allocated to the same printer as the first copy printed]’.
Mizuno and Okabe are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to incorporate Mizuno’s printer selection conveyance mechanism with Okabe’s selection of a same printer of a previous divisional job. The motivation for doing so would have been to attaining color reproduction that gives a customer a less sense of dissatisfaction by adequate allocation of printing requests of received print demand. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Okabe with Mizuno to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
As to Claim 3, Okabe in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein in a case where the first print data having the degree of similarity with the second print data equal to or greater than the predetermined value is not present in the history information, the processor determines, among the plurality of printers, the execution printer based on color reproducibility of the second print data in a print result on the recording medium [par 0006, 0029, 0042, 0044 – when there is no matching divisional job having the identical ‘image file name’ and ‘customer ID’, the CPU allocates the next divisional job to a printer corresponding to a printer’s spooler having any vacancy for print data including color reproduction]’.
Mizuno and Okabe are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to incorporate Mizuno’s printer selection conveyance mechanism with Okabe’s selection of a same printer of a previous divisional job. The motivation for doing so would have been to attaining color reproduction that gives a customer a less sense of dissatisfaction by adequate allocation of printing requests of received print demand. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Okabe with Mizuno to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
As to Claim 4, Okabe in the proposed combination of Mizuno teaches ‘wherein the history information includes first medium information associated with the first print data, the first medium information being information related to a recording medium on which printing based on the first print data is performed, and the processor is configured to acquire second medium information from an image obtained by capturing an image of the recording medium placed on the platen with a camera; and determine the execution printer based on the acquired second medium information, the second print data, and the history information, the second medium information being information related to the recording medium [Okabe: par 0027-0028, 0030, 0040, 0042, 0047 – print management data includes paper types (for example, matte and luster) of respective divisional jobs and spools to the corresponding printer of a matching divisional job; Mizuno: par 0061-0062, 0067 – a cloth determination processing determines the specification of a cloth based on the platen and specifies the printer that satisfies the conditions of the print data]’.
Mizuno and Okabe are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to incorporate Mizuno’s printer selection conveyance mechanism with Okabe’s selection of a same printer of a previous divisional job. The motivation for doing so would have been to attaining color reproduction that gives a customer a less sense of dissatisfaction by adequate allocation of printing requests of received print demand. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Okabe with Mizuno to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
As to Claim 6, Okabe in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein in a case where the execution printer determined based on the second print data and the history information is in a state where the printing based on the second print data cannot be performed, the processor determines the execution printer based on an other second print data newly received and the history information, the execution printer being for performing the printing based on the other second print data [par 0040-0042, 0045, 0047-0049 – when a corresponding spooler of a specified printer has no vacancy for the identical next divisional print data, allocation of the divisional job for the specified printer is not allowed at the moment (a paused job) and subsequent jobs become a next divisional job to be processed and analyzed to determine a specified printer]’.
Mizuno and Okabe are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to incorporate Mizuno’s printer selection conveyance mechanism with Okabe’s selection of a same printer of a previous divisional job. The motivation for doing so would have been to attaining color reproduction that gives a customer a less sense of dissatisfaction by adequate allocation of printing requests of received print demand. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Okabe with Mizuno to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno et al. in view of Okabe et al. and further in view of Inada Ryohei (JP-2012-096503A) [hereinafter Inada].
As to Claim 5, Mizuno in view of Okabe teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claim 1. Mizuno in view of Okabe does not disclose expressly ‘wherein in a case where the execution printer determined based on the second print data and the history information is in a state where the printing based on the second print data cannot be performed, the processor determines one printer as an alternative printer, the one printer being selected based on a comparison result of each color gamut between the execution printer and a printer other than the execution printer among the plurality of printers, the alternative printer being a printer performing the printing based on the second print data, instead of the execution printer’.
Okabe teaches when a corresponding spooler of a specified printer has no vacancy for the identical next divisional print data, allocation of the divisional job for the specified printer is not allowed at the moment (a paused job) and subsequent jobs become a next divisional job to be processed and analyzed to determine a specified printer [par 0040-0042, 0045, 0047-0049].
Inada in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein in a case where the execution printer determined based on the second print data and the history information is in a state where the printing based on the second print data cannot be performed, the processor determines one printer as an alternative printer, the one printer being selected based on a comparison result of each color gamut between the execution printer and a printer other than the execution printer among the plurality of printers, the alternative printer being a printer performing the printing based on the second print data, instead of the execution printer [par 0007-0008 – when a printing device is not in a printable state, determining the color gamut for the print data and a pre-stored printer profile of the printing device and comparing the color gamut information of each printing device to select a printing device that has a color gamut for printing the print data]’.
Mizuno in view of Okabe are analogous art with Inada because they are from the same field of endeavor digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to incorporate determination of a color gamut to select a printing device, as taught by Inada with Mizuno’s printer selection conveyance mechanism and Okabe’s determination that a printer of a previous divisional job is unavailable. The motivation for doing so would have been to print with similar color tones even when an alternative output is performed using another printing device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Inada with Mizuno in view of Okabe to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno et al. in view of Okabe et al. and further in view of Martin et al. (US-2010/0007910).
As to Claim 7, Mizuno in view of Okabe teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claim 1. Mizuno in view of Okabe does not disclose expressly ‘wherein in a case where the execution printer determined based on the second print data and the history information is in a state where the printing based on the second print data cannot be performed, the processor causes a display to display a selection indicating one or a plurality of pieces of processing executable by the printing system and information related to time required for each piece of processing’.
Okabe teaches when a corresponding spooler of a specified printer has no vacancy for the identical next divisional print data, allocation of the divisional job for the specified printer is not allowed at the moment (a paused job) and subsequent jobs become a next divisional job to be processed and analyzed to determine a specified printer [par 0040-0042, 0045, 0047-0049].
Martin in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein in a case where the execution printer determined based on the second print data and the history information is in a state where the printing based on the second print data cannot be performed, the processor causes a display to display a selection indicating one or a plurality of pieces of processing executable by the printing system and information related to time required for each piece of processing [par 0030-0032, 0044 – displaying printing devices and their ability scores corresponding to an estimated turnaround time (i.e., time required to complete a job) for a user to select the printing device].
Mizuno in view of Okabe are analogous art with Martin because they are from the same field of endeavor digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to incorporate determining a turnaround time for printing devices for a user to select, as taught by Martin with Mizuno’s printer selection conveyance mechanism and Okabe’s determination that a printer of a previous divisional job is unavailable. The motivation for doing so would have been to calculate an ability score on each printing device’s ability to meet printing specification requested by a user for selection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Martin with Mizuno in view of Okabe to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Publication No. 2021/0198063
b. US Publication No. 2004/0257612
c. JP Publication No. 2012-096503A
d. US Publication No. 2010/0007910
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
e. US Patent No. 8,498,017
f. US Patent No. 7,221,465
g. US Publication No. 2021/0198062
h. US Patent No. 7,099,029
i. US Patent No. 12,019,933
j. US Publication No. 2021/0107291
k. US Publication No. 2021/0331506
l. US Publication No. 2002/0039131
m. US Publication No. 2004/0158654
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
Prosecution Insights