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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed 12/2/24 is acknowledged, the reference therein relating to the general background of applicant’s invention.
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.
1) Claim(s) 1-4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2019/0294386 by Iwamoto, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2020/0076970 by Chiba.
2) Regarding claim 1, Iwamoto teaches an image forming apparatus comprising: an execution screen on which first setting values related to execution of a job have been reflected (figure 7, items 58; various first setting values can be displayed); one or more storages that store therein second setting values related to execution of the job as a batch setting (figure 7, item 62 ad figure 8; paragraph 46; batch of settings can be predefined and stored [paragraph 30]); and one or more controllers that execute the job based on the batch setting, wherein if any of the first setting values have been changed to third setting values before a calling instruction to call the batch setting is given (figure 10, items S108 and S110; job settings may be changed prior to a user selecting a shortcut), the one or more controllers display a confirmation screen presenting an inquiry to a user regarding whether or not to discard the third setting values and update the first setting values with the second setting values, and update the first setting values with the second setting values or the third setting values based on a result of the inquiry confirmed by the user (figure 18; paragraphs 77 and 78; checkmarks [item 72] are an inquiry to the user for determining whether a setting is overridden by the shortcut settings or not).
Iwamoto does not specifically teach an image forming apparatus comprising: a display that displays an execution screen (screen in Iwamoto controls a printer but is not specifically displayed by the printer).
Chiba teaches an image forming apparatus comprising: a display that displays an execution screen (figures 5 and 10; a screen displayed on a printer for making setting selections with batch setting selections available).
Iwamoto and Chiba are combinable because they are both from the printer settings display field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Iwamoto with Chiba to add a settings screen displayed by a printer. The motivation for doing so would have been to “allow the user to call a desired setting without performing a detailed setting” (paragraph 2). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Iwamoto with Chiba to obtain the invention of claim 1.
3) Regarding claim 2, Iwamoto teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more controllers update the first setting values with the second setting values if the result of the inquiry confirmed by the user indicates that the first setting values are to be updated with the second setting values (figure 18; paragraphs 77 and 78; setting value can be updated by the shortcut selection value if the box is checked).
4) Regarding claim 3, Iwamoto teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more controllers update the first setting values with the third setting values if the result of the inquiry confirmed by the user indicates that the first setting values are not to be updated with the second setting values (figure 18; paragraphs 77 and 78; setting value that can be changed by user at S108 [figure 10] is not updated by the shortcut selection value if the box is unchecked).
5) Regarding claim 4, Iwamoto teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein if any of the first setting values have been changed to the third setting values, the one or more controllers display, to the user, a screen for receiving selection for each of the changed first setting values regarding whether or not to update the changed first setting value with a third setting value corresponding to the changed first setting value instead of a second setting value corresponding to the changed first setting value, and receive the selection regarding whether or not to update the changed first setting value with the third setting value corresponding to the changed first setting value (figure 18; selection for each displayed value can be received by the corresponding checkbox).
6) Regarding claim 8, Chiba (as combined with Iwamoto in the rejection of claim 1 above) teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the one or more controllers display all of the second setting values stored as the batch setting that is other than the second setting value corresponding to the changed first setting value as well as the third setting values corresponding to the changed first setting values (figure 10; paragraph 47; screen 700 [i.e. figure 10] is displayed with every setting a batch setting shown when a conflict is determined).
6) Claim 9 is taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (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.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights