DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Double Patenting
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrinegrounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The limitations of the instant claims 1-9 are substantially identically in claims 1-9 of the US Patent 12,190,182. Claims 1-9 of the US Patent 12,190,182 only further defines more functions and limitation but invention scope of the instant claims 1-9 and claims 1-9 of the US Patent 12,190,182 are the same.
The limitations of the instant claims 10-16 are substantially identically in claims 10-16 of the US Patent 12,190,182. Claims 10-16 of the US Patent 12,190,182 only further defines more functions and limitation but invention scope of the instant claims 10-16 and claims 10-16 of the US Patent 12,190,182 are the same.
The limitations of the instant claims 17-20 are substantially identically in claims 10-12 of the US Patent 12,190,182. Claims 10-12 of the US Patent 12,190,182 only further defines more functions and limitation but invention scope of the instant claims 17-20 and claims 10-12 of the US Patent 12,190,182 are the same.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klassen’433 (US 2011/0122433), and further in view of Akai’101 (JP 2019-206101), Nguyen’888 (US 2010/0245888) and Christiansen’779 (US 2005/0015779).
With respect to claim 10, Klassen’433 teaches a method for performing printing operations, the method comprising:
receiving a job at a raster image processing (RIP) system [as shown in Fig.1, the DEF 14 receives print jobs from the client workstation 10 to be contributed to the printers (Fig.1, items 11 and 12) for printing];
assigning a first RIP to process a segment of the job (paragraph 63), wherein the first group of the plurality of RIPs include a first configuration [as shown in Fig.3, the group of the RIPs 64, 66 and 68 processes the job chuck to be transmitted by the engine 1 interface 36. Therefore, the group of the RIPs 64, 66 and 68 is considered to have a first configuration to perform received job chuck];
assigning a second RIP to process the segment of the job [as shown in Fig.3, the group of the RIPs 70, 72 and 74 process the job chuck to be transmitted by the engine 2 interface 40 (paragraph 63)];
processing the segment of the job by the second RIP (paragraph 63).
Klassen’433 does not teach wherein the first RIP includes a first configuration having a first interpreter and a first number of renderers; determining that the first RIP is not able to process the segment of the job; wherein the second RIP includes a second configuration having a second interpreter and a second number of renderers different than the first configuration of the first RIP, wherein the second number of renderers is two or more and is greater than the first number of renderers.
Akai’101 teaches that a RIP unit (Fig.4, item 205) includes the PDL analysis modules (Fig.4, items 411-414) (an interpreter) and rendering modules (Fig.4, items 451-454)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Klassen’433 according to the teaching of Akai’101 to include a number of the PDL analysis modules (an interpreter) and a number of rendering modules in each of the RIP nodes (Fig.3, item 64, 66, 68, 70, 72 and 74) because this will allow the print job to be processed more effectively.
The combination of Klassen’433 and Henry’900 does not teach determining that the first RIP is not able to process the segment of the job; wherein the second RIP includes a second configuration having a second interpreter and a second number of renderers different than the first configuration of the first RIP, wherein the second number of renderers is two or more and is greater than the first number of renderers.
Nguyen’888 teaches as shown in Fig.21, the printer server (RIP) includes an interpreter 620 and a number of renders. As shown in Fig.6, Fig.7, Fig.10, Fig.12 and Fig.14, different number of renderers are being used.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Klassen’433 and Henry’900 according to the teaching of Nguyen’888 to include at least two more number renderers in a second group of a plurality of RIPs (Fig.3, the group of the RIPs 70, 72 and 74 in Klassen’433) than in a first group of a plurality of RIPs (Fig. 3, item the group of the RIPs 64, 66 and 68 in Klassen’433) (wherein the second RIP includes a second configuration having a second interpreter and a second number of renderers different than the first configuration of the first RIP, wherein the second number of renderers is two or more and is greater than the first number of renderers) because this will allow the printing system handle the print job more effectively.
The combination of Klassen’433, Henry’900 and Nguyen’888 does not teach determining that the first RIP is not able to process the segment of the job.
Christiansen’779 teaches determining that the first group of the plurality of RIPs are not able to process the job [the job partition is being re-assigning to another RIP engine when the original assigned RIP for the said job partition is being determined not having enough memory to process the said job partition (paragraph 47)];
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Klassen’433, Henry’900 and Nguyen’888 according to the teaching of Christiansen’779 to re-assign a portion of the job to another RIP to perform image processing when the original assigned RIP is being determined not able to process the said portion of the job because this will allow the print job to be processed and printed more effectively.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klassen’433 (US 2011/0122433), Akai’101 (JP 2019-206101), Nguyen’888 (US 2010/0245888), Christiansen’779 (US 2005/0015779) and further in view of
Mima’707 (US 2006/0039707).
With respect to claim 11, which further limits claim 10, the combination of Klassen’433, Henry’900, Nguyen’888 and Christiansen’779 does not teach wherein the first RIP is a standard RIP.
Mima’707 teaches wherein the first RIP is a standard RIP [a plurality of type RIP modules are provided in the print manager and to use the RIP modules by switching between one RIP module to the other in accordance with the type of the data (paragraph 334). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least one standard RIP in the print manager to perform the image processing for a job having the standard type of data because this will allow the job having the standard type of data to be processed more effectively].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Klassen’433, Henry’900, Nguyen’888 and Christiansen’779 according to the teaching of Mima’707 to include at least one standard RIP in DFE to perform the image processing for a job chunk having the standard type of data because this will allow the job having the standard type of data to be processed more effectively.
With respect to claim 13, which further limits claim 11, the combination of Klassen’433, Henry’900, Nguyen’888 and Christiansen’779 does not teach wherein the second RIP is very high performance RIP.
Mima’707 teaches wherein the second RIP is very high performance RIP [a plurality of type RIP modules are provided in the print manager and to use the RIP modules by switching between one RIP module to the other in accordance with the type of the data (paragraph 334). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least a very high performance RIP module in the print manager to perform the image processing for the non-Document Structuring Conventions (DSC) postscript job having the type of date which is required to be processed by a very high performance RIP module because this will allow the non-Document Structuring Conventions (DSC) postscript job having the type of date which is required to be processed by a very high performance RIP module to be processed more effectively].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Klassen’433, Henry’900, Nguyen’888 and Christiansen’779 according to the teaching of Mima’707 to include at least a very high performance RIP in the DEF to perform the image processing for the non-Document Structuring Conventions (DSC) postscript job having the type of date which is required to be processed by a very high performance RIP module because this will allow the non-Document Structuring Conventions (DSC) postscript job having the type of date which is required to be processed by a very high performance RIP module to be processed more effectively.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klassen’433 (US 2011/0122433), Akai’101 (JP 2019-206101), Nguyen’888 (US 2010/0245888), Christiansen’779 (US 2005/0015779), Mima’707 (US 2006/0039707) and further in view of Eguchi’741 (US 2021/0117741).
With respect to claim 12, which further limits claim 11, the combination of Klassen’433, Henry’900, Nguyen’888, Christiansen’779 and Mima’707 does not teach wherein the second RIP is a high performance RIP, wherein the high performance RIP is used to process a first page of the job.
Eguchi’741 teaches wherein the second RIP is a high performance RIP, wherein the high performance RIP is used to process a first page of the job [a page with large RIP prediction, the said page is being processed with a RIP having a high processing capability (paragraph 58). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize to include a high processing capability (high performance RIP) to process a first page with large RIP prediction because this will allow the first page required complicate rasterization to be processed more effectively.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Klassen’433, Henry’900, Nguyen’888, Christiansen’779 and Mima’707 according to the teaching of Eguchi’741 to include a high processing capability RIP engine in a DFE system because this will allow the print job to be processed more effectively.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klassen’433 (US 2011/0122433), Akai’101 (JP 2019-206101), Nguyen’888 (US 2010/0245888), Christiansen’779 (US 2005/0015779), Mima’707 (US 2006/0039707) and further in view of Barry’679 (US 2006/0139679).
With respect to claim 14, which further limits claim 11, the combination of Klassen’433, Henry’900, Ito’844, Christiansen’779 and Mima’707 does not teach wherein the second RIP is a preview RIP, wherein the preview RIP is used to process pages for a rendered content preview.
Barry’679 teaches wherein the second RIP is a preview RIP, wherein the preview RIP is used to process pages for a rendered content preview (paragraph 144).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Klassen’433, Henry’900, Ito’844, Christiansen’779 and Mima’707 according to the teaching of Barry’679 to include a RIP engine in the DEF to generate image data for previewing because this will allow the print job to be previewed by a user more effectively.
With respect to claim 15, which further limits claim 11, the combination of Klassen’433, Henry’900, Ito’844, Christiansen’779 and Mima’707 does not teach wherein the second RIP is an estimation RIP, wherein the estimation RIP is used to process the job in order to estimate the amount of toner or ink that will be used to print the job.
Barry’679 teaches wherein the second RIP is an estimation RIP, wherein the estimation RIP is used to process the job in order to estimate the amount of toner or ink that will be used to print the job (paragraph 144).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Klassen’433, Henry’900, Ito’844, Christiansen’779 and Mima’707 according to the teaching of Barry’679 to include a RIP engine in the DEF to perform toner estimation processing for a print job because this will allow the toner usage of print job to be estimated more effectively.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klassen’433 (US 2011/0122433), Akai’101 (JP 2019-206101), Nguyen’888 (US 2010/0245888), Christiansen’779 (US 2005/0015779), and further in view of Eldridge’789 (US 2008/0218789).
With respect to claim 16, which further limits claim 10, Klassen’433 does not teach wherein determining the first RIP is not to process the print job includes determining that the first configuration of the first RIP does include enough renderers to process the print job.
Eldridge’789 teaches wherein determining the first RIP is not to process the print job includes determining that the first configuration of the first RIP does include enough renderers to process the print job [the complexity page image is being processed by the high-performance RIP and the simple page image is being processed by the low- performance RIP (paragraph 4). In addition, it was well known in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the RIP with more number of renderers has higher performance than the RIP with less number of renderers because more renderers will allow the print job to be processed faster].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the combination of Klassen’433, Henry’900, Ito’844, Christiansen’779 according to the teaching of Eldridge’789 to assign the job or segments of the job to the second group of a plurality of RIPs (Fig.3, the group of the RIPs 70, 72 and 74 in Klassen’433) or the first group of a plurality of RIPs (Fig. 3, item the group of the RIPs 64, 66 and 68 in Klassen’433) according to the complexity of page image in the job or the segments of the job and the performance of the first group of a plurality of RIPs and the second group of a plurality of RIPs because this will allow the print job to be processed more effectively.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUO LONG CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am - 5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tieu, Benny can be reached on (571) 272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUO LONG CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights