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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2024 and 06/16/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 are pending in this application.
Oath/Declaration
The receipt of Oath/Declaration is acknowledged.
Drawings
6. The receipt of Drawings is acknowledged.
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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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:
a printing device capable of executing continuous print processing for continuously forming images on a plurality of sheets in claims 1 and 7 (See Applicant’s. Spec. Para. [0017] and [0045], Applicant’s Dwg. Fig. 1, Printing Device 1).
an image reading device capable of executing a reading process of reading the images formed on the sheets in claims 1 and 7 (See Applicant’s. Spec. Para. [0048]-[0049], Applicant’s Dwg. Fig. 1, Image Reading Device 5).
a control device causing the printing device to execute the continuous print processing in claims 1 and 6 (See Applicant’s. Spec. Para. [0040]-[0042], Applicant’s Dwg. Fig. 2, Main Control Portion 8a and Print Control Portion 8b of CPU 81).
10. 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.
11. 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “most recently” in claim 1 line 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “most recently” is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. It is unclear if the term “most recently” means “the most recent element generated or modified.”. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Here, the term “most recently” is considered vague and ambiguous because it lacks an objective baseline under 35 USC § 112, which requires claims to be clear and to explicitly define a specific step, message, or component. Please amend the claim to define the term “most recently” in order to provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree and base meaning of the term by using concrete identifiers (i.e. the step occurring immediately prior to,” “the final generated element,” or specifically reciting the step by name.).
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claims 2-7 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.
16. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1:
The prior art(s) searched, cited and/or of record fails to explicitly teach, disclose or suggest the teaching(s) of:
“a control device causing the printing device to execute the continuous print processing;
the control device causing the printing device to execute a test print process of forming a test image on a sheet every time a print process of a page at a test timing during the continuous print processing is executed;
the control device causing the image reading device to execute the reading process for the test image;
the control device executing a determination process of determining whether a read image obtained by the reading process is normal or abnormal;
the control device causing the printing device to suspend the continuous print processing when it is determined that the read image is abnormal;
the control device causing the printing device to re-execute a target print process of a page after the page at the test timing corresponding to the determination process in which a result of determination as normal was obtained most recently, among executed print processes already executed in the continuous print processing when an adjusted event indicating that the printing device has been adjusted while the continuous print processing is suspended occurs; and
the control device causing the printing device to execute a subsequent process in the continuous print processing following the target print process.”, in addition to all the limitations as required by the independent claim 1.
In the primary prior art cited but not relied upon, Lubin (US PG. Pub. 202/0068167 A1) teaches in Fig. 16, Sect. [0077], FIG. 16 illustrates a computerized device that is a printing device 304, which can be used with systems and methods herein and can comprise, for example, a printer, copier, multi-function machine, multi-function device (MFD), etc. The printing device 304 includes many of the components mentioned above and at least one marking device (printing engine(s)) 340 operatively connected to a specialized job image processor 334 (that is different from a general purpose computer because it is specialized for processing job image data), a media path 336 positioned to supply continuous media or sheets of media from a sheet supply 330 to the marking device(s) 340, etc. After receiving various markings from the printing engine(s) 340, the sheets of media can optionally pass to a finisher 334 which can fold, staple, sort, etc., the various printed sheets. Also, the printing device 304 can include at least one accessory functional component (such as a scanner/document handler 332 (automatic document feeder (ADF)), etc.) that also operate on the power supplied from the external power source 330 (through the power supply 318).
In the secondary prior art cited but not relied upon, Hidaka (US PG. Pub. 2022/065465 A1) discloses in Sect. [0048], The image formation process is a period where electrostatic latent images of the image to be actually formed on the recording material S and output are formed, toner images are formed, the toner images are transferred, and the toner images are fixed to the recording material S. An image formation period refers to this period. The preliminary rotation process is a period after the input of the start instruction and before the start of the actual image formation, during which preparatory operations before the image formation process are performed. The inter-sheet process is a period corresponding to the interval between the recording materials S during continuous image formation for continuously forming images on the plurality of recording materials S.
In particular, the closest applied reference of Lubin fails to disclose and would not have rendered obvious the claimed subject matter of independent claim 1. Also, secondary prior art of Hidaka does not remedy the deficiencies required by claim 1 as follows:
“a control device causing the printing device to execute the continuous print processing;
the control device causing the printing device to execute a test print process of forming a test image on a sheet every time a print process of a page at a test timing during the continuous print processing is executed;
the control device causing the image reading device to execute the reading process for the test image;
the control device executing a determination process of determining whether a read image obtained by the reading process is normal or abnormal;
the control device causing the printing device to suspend the continuous print processing when it is determined that the read image is abnormal;
the control device causing the printing device to re-execute a target print process of a page after the page at the test timing corresponding to the determination process in which a result of determination as normal was obtained most recently, among executed print processes already executed in the continuous print processing when an adjusted event indicating that the printing device has been adjusted while the continuous print processing is suspended occurs; and
the control device causing the printing device to execute a subsequent process in the continuous print processing following the target print process.”, since both Lubin and Hidaka fail to teach an image processing device for continuous print execution of plural sheet prints including image read processing of a test print page for determination of normal or abnormal print imaging with a control device causing the printing device to re-execute a target print process of a page after the page at the test timing corresponding to the determination process in which a result of determination as normal was obtained most recently, among executed print processes already executed in the continuous print processing when an adjusted event indicating that the printing device has been adjusted while the continuous print processing is suspended occurs as suggested by the claim.
17. Therefore, whether taken individually or in combination therof, the prior arts searched, cited and/or of record to include Lubin and Hidaka fails to explicitly teach the claimed limitation(s) as required by independent claim 1.
18. It follows that claims 2-7 are then inherently allowable for depending on an allowable base claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRYL V DOTTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/DARRYL V DOTTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
/DARRYL V DOTTIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Cited Art
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Tokuda et al. (US PG. PUB. No. 2020/0387332 A1) discloses a virtual printer service according to the present disclosure acquires a response to a device search request from an actual printer and a virtual printer, determines based on the acquired response whether or not each device that has responded to the device search request is a virtual device, and presents, to a user, information on one or more devices in which a device determined as the virtual printer is excluded from the plurality of devices that have responded. A virtual device that transmits a print job to one device is then created based on information on the one device selected by the user from the presented information on one or more devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRYL V DOTTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/DARRYL V DOTTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
/DARRYL V DOTTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights