DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
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: “unit” in all claims.
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.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtake (2020/0241618) in view of Kawano et al. (2015/0158393).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 15, Ohtake teaches a printing apparatus, method and computer readable storage medium including a power storage unit capable of storing power supplied via a USB cable and can operate using the power supplied from the power storage unit, the printing apparatus comprising:
a printing unit (fig. 6, item 1) configured to perform printing on a printing medium ([0024]); and
a notification unit (fig. 8, item 85) configured to provide notification of charging time in which the power storage unit is charged with power supplied from the USB cable and time based on printing time in which the printing medium is printed by the printing unit ([0034, see fig. 8, Note that the notification unit states that the battery is being charged at the time. Note also that the notification unit estimates a printing time for a print job).
Ohtake does not teach wherein the notification unit is configured to provide the notification based on a comparison result between (i) a time obtained by adding, to a reference printing time for printing the printing medium by the printing unit, time corresponding to the charging time, and (ii) the reference printing time. Kawano teaches obtaining a reference time and adding a charging time to the reference time to arrive at a new reference time (Kawano, [0092], Note that if the wait time is taken as analogous to the printing time disclosed by Ohtake, the calculation is the same. That is, a charging time is added to a wait time for some action to be completed, i.e., waiting time until a vehicle is plugged in or waiting time until a print job is finished, and the result of that addition is compared with the original wait time to arrive at a new wait time). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the charging time addition technique disclosed by Kawano to the printer disclosed by Ohtake because doing so would allow for the calculation of more accurate waiting times for print jobs to be completed.
Regarding claim 2, Ohtake teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a first acquisition unit (fig. 1, item 19) configured to acquire power supply information on power supply from the USB cable ([0025]); and a second acquisition unit (fig. 1, item 41) configured to acquire time based on the printing time based on the power supply information, wherein the second acquisition unit adds the charging time to the printing time ([0069], see fig. 8, Note that the charging time and printing time are added to arrive at an overall greater total printing time).
Regarding claim 3, Ohtake teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the second acquisition unit acquires printing time per printing medium as the printing time (see fig. 8, Note that to calculate a total printing time as shown, the printing time per unit medium must necessarily be known).
Regarding claim 4, Ohtake teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the second acquisition unit, based on the power supply information, in a case where an amount of power required for a printing operation is less than an amount of power supplied via the USB cable, acquires time required for printing on one printing medium as the printing time at a time of performing printing at a set printing speed (see fig. 8, note that, to calculate the total printing time of a print job executed while the printer is charging, the print time per one print medium must be acquired by the second acquisition unit, and note that any job can be said to be completed at a “set printing speed”), and-based on the power supply information, in a case where an amount of power required for a printing operation is greater than or equal to an amount of power supplied via the USB cable, adds the charging time to the time required for printing one printing medium at the time of performing printing at the printing speed in a case where the printing time is acquired ([0069], see fig. 8, Note that the charging time and printing time are added to arrive at an overall greater total printing time).
Regarding claim 5, Ohtake teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the charging time is time required for one charge (see fig. 8, Note that this can mean any number of things. While Ohtake does teach this as intended, “one charge” could mean any duration in which charging is taking place and has not been recited as a full refilling of the battery or any comparable language).
Regarding claim 6, Ohtake teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the second acquisition unit acquires remaining printing time in a printing operation being executed as the printing time ([0023], see fig. 8, Note that the control program knows the remaining printing time at all times).
Regarding claim 12, Ohtake teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a display unit (fig. 8, item 85) configured to display information, wherein the notification unit displays a notification screen for providing notification of the printing time on the display unit (see fig. 8)
Regarding claim 13, Ohtake teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the notification unit displays a notification screen for providing notification of the printing time on a display unit provided in a terminal device connected to the printing apparatus with the USB cable or a display unit provided on a terminal device connected to the printing apparatus by a wireless connection ([0068], see fig. 6).
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtake in view of Kawano as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Owada (2015/0042705).
Regarding claim 7, Ohtake in view of Kawano teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 6,
wherein the printing unit performs printing on a printing medium and the second acquisition unit, based on the power supply information, in a case where an amount of power required for a printing operation is less than an amount of power supplied via the USB cable, acquires the printing time, and based on the power supply information, in a case where an amount of power required for a printing operation is greater than or equal to an amount of power supplied via the USB cable, acquires the printing time by adding, to time required for the printing, the charging time required for remaining printing and calculated from a number of times the power storage unit is charged with power supplied from the USB cable and time required for one charge.
Ohtake in view of Kawano does not teach wherein the printing unit performs printing while performing scanning in a direction intersecting a direction in which the printing medium is conveyed, or wherein the second acquisition unit acquires the printing time based on a number of first scans on a printing medium being printed, a number of second scans on a printing medium that has not yet been printed, and time required for one scan. Owada teaches a printing unit that prints by scanning, and wherein a printing time calculation unit (Owada, fig. 1, Note that printing unit 20 prints while scanning. [0040]-[0044], [0056], Note that the number of scans/passes is used by the printing time calculation section to determine a total print time based on the time required for a single scan). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to applying the charging time/printing time printing method of Ohtake in view of Kawano to the scan-type printer disclosed by Owada because doing so would amount to applying a known technique to a known device in need of improvement to yield predictable results.
Upon combination of Owada with Ohtake in view of Kawano, the resultant device would always know the print time of sheets already printed based on the number of scans already completed and also know the print time required for the rest of the scans based on the total time for the rest of the scans to be completed.
Regarding claim 8, Ohtake in view of Kawano and Owada teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the time required for the printing and the charging time differ based on operation modes different in operation speed (Ohtake, [0057]-[0058], Note that the charging time differs for high and low resolution printing, and note that high resolution printing necessarily takes longer than low resolution printing).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtake in view of Kawano as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of official notice.
Regarding claim 9, Ohtake in view of Kawano teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 6, further comprising: a reading unit (Ohtake, [0101], scanner) capable of reading an original document. Ohtake in view of Kawano does not expressly teach wherein the second acquisition unit acquires remaining reading time in a reading operation being executed based on the power supply information. Examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found it obvious to apply the same remaining time approach of Ohtake in view of Kawano’s printing unit to Ohtake in view of Kawano’s reading unit because both processes require time and would benefit from the same user notification.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtake in view of Kawano and official notice as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Owada.
Regarding claim 10, Ohtake in view of Kawano and official notice teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the second acquisition unit based on the power supply information: in a case where an amount of power required for a copying operation is less than an amount of power supplied via the USB cable, in a reading operation during the copying operation, acquires, as the reading time, time required for reading; and in a case where an amount of power required for a copying operation is greater than or equal to an amount of power supplied via the USB cable, acquires the reading time by adding, to the time required for reading, charging time required for remaining reading and calculated from a number of times the power storage unit is charged with power supplied from the USB cable and time required for one charge.
Ohtake in view of Kawano oes not teach wherein the time required for reading is calculated from a remaining moving distance of the reading unit for reading an original document being read, time required to read one original document, and a moving distance of the reading unit required to read one original document. Owada teaches a printing unit that prints by scanning, and wherein a printing time calculation unit that calculates a total printing time according to how many times the printing unit must be scanned over a medium to be processed. This teaching would be equally applicable to a printing unit as to a scanning unit, and thus the same logic applied in the rejection of claim 7 is applied here except instead of applying the logic to a printing unit, it is applied to a scanning unit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights