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 .
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 (i.e., a descriptive title that distinguishes the invention and is not a generic or general description). The new title should take into account any amendments to the claims to best indicate the claimed invention.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitations are: “a digital front end (DFE)” and “a raster image processing system (RIP)” in claim 18.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification in the application publication US 2026/0181080 shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification of the patent publication for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
[0061] Computing platform 201 may host one or more processors, such as CPU 202. These processors are capable of executing instructions 215 stored at one or more storage locations 214. By executing these instructions, the processors cause printing device 104 to perform various operations. The processors also may incorporate processing units for specific purposes, such as application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) and field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs). Other processors may be included for executing operations particular to components 220, 222, 224, and 226. In other words, the particular processors may cause printing device 104 to act as a printer, copier, scanner, and a facsimile device.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations 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 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 limitations recite 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded 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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 9-15, 17-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/987075 in view of Ishi (US 2020/0379690). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim
App. No. 18987062
Claim
App. No.18987075 (‘075)
1, 4-6 10-12, 15, 16
1. A method for managing printing operations within a printing system, the method comprising: receiving a print job having a plurality of pages at a printing device, wherein the printing device includes a digital front end having a raster image processing (RIP) system to process the print job; determining a first page of the plurality of pages is a complex page according to the RIP system; dividing the first page into a number of portions; rendering the number of portions using a number of first parallel RIPs of a plurality of RIPs of the RIP system, wherein each portion of the number of portions is processed by a respective parallel RIP of the number of first parallel RIPs; assembling the number of processed portions into the first page; and training a machine learning model with the first page and the number of portions, wherein the machine learning model is used within the printing system to determine if a subsequent page is complex.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a speed of rendering the first page and training the machine learning model with the speed.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a second page of the plurality of pages is a simple page according to the RIP system; and rendering the second page using a second RIP of the plurality of RIPs of the RIP system.
6. The method of claim 5, further comprising training the machine learning model with the second page.
10. A method for managing printing operations in a printing system, the method comprising: inputting a first page of a job into a machine learning model; determining the first page is complex using the machine learning model; determining a number of portions of the first page, wherein each portion of the number of portions is processed by a respective raster image processor (RIP) of a number of first parallel RIPs in a RIP system of a printing device; rendering the number of portions using the number of first parallel RIPs of a plurality of RIPs of the RIP system; assembling the number of processed portions into the first page; and providing the assembled first page to another component of the printing device for further printing operations.
11. The method of claim 10, further comprising determining a second page is not complex using the machine learning model.
12. The method of claim 11, further comprising rendering the second page using a second RIP of the plurality of RIPs of the RIP system, wherein the second RIP is not within the number of first parallel RIPs.
15. The method of claim 10, further comprising determining a speed for rendering the number of portions of the first page.
16. The method of claim 15, further comprising updating the machine learning model with the speed for rendering the number of portions.
17. The method of claim 10, wherein the machine learning model and the RIP system are within a digital front end (DFE) of the printing device.
17
A method for managing printing operations, the method comprising: receiving a print job having a plurality of pages at a printing device, wherein the printing device includes a digital front end having a raster image processing (RIP) system to process the print job; determining a first page of the plurality of pages is a complex page according to the RIP system; determining a second page of the plurality of pages is a simple page according to the RIP system; dividing the first page into a number of portions; rendering the number of portions using a number of first parallel RIPs of a plurality of RIPs of the RIP system, wherein each portion of the number of portions is processed by a respective parallel RIP of the number of RIPs; assembling the number of processed portions into the first page; rendering the second page using a second RIP of the plurality of RIPs of the RIP system; and providing the first page and the second page to a print engine of the printing device.
2, 13, 19
The method of claim 1, wherein the number of portions includes a number of bands within the first page.
18
The method of claim 17, wherein the number of portions includes a number of bands within the first page.
3, 14, 20
The method of claim 1, wherein the number of portions includes a number of tiles within the first page.
19
The method of claim 17, wherein the number of portions includes a number of tiles within the first page.
9
The method of claim 1, further comprising using the machine learning model to determine a complexity score for the first page.
20
The method of claim 17, wherein the first page and the second page are assigned complexity scores.
6
7
Regarding claim 1, ‘075 does not explicitly teach training a machine learning model with the first page and the number of portions, wherein the machine learning model is used within the printing system to determine if a subsequent page is complex.
However, Ishi teaches training a machine learning model with the first page and the number of portions, wherein the machine learning model is used within the printing system to determine if a subsequent page is complex (machine learning unit 42; ¶ 0095).
‘075 and Ishi are in the same field of endeavor of methods and systems for optimizing print processing. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the printing system of ‘075 to include a machine learning model as taught by Ishi. The combination improves the system by automating the process to determine if print data requires optimizing.
Regarding claim 10, ‘075 does not explicitly teach inputting a first page of a job into a machine learning model; determining the first page is complex using the machine learning model.
However, Ishi teaches inputting a first page of a job into a machine learning model; determining the first page is complex using the machine learning model (the printing speed predicting unit 13 inputs the data size of the document data, the print setting conditions, and the initially set RIP setting conditions to the learned model; ¶¶ 0057-0059).
‘075 and Ishi are in the same field of endeavor of methods and systems for optimizing print processing. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the printing system of ‘075 to include a machine learning model as taught by Ishi. The combination improves the system by automating the process to determine if print data requires optimizing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Coulter et al. (US 2020/0285430) teaches a print controllers that interpret and rasterize incoming print jobs.
Achiwa (US 2017/0206628) teaches an image processing apparatus which allows rendering processes to be executed in a plurality of rendering processing units in parallel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT YIP whose telephone number is (571)270-5244. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 PM PST.
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 M. 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.
/KENT YIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights