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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “selection unit”, there is no adequate description about the “selection unit”.
Dependent claims 2-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the same reason asset forth above.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1and 9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim element “selection unit” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function.
The term “selection unit” is unclear; port control process 140 (port control unit) (specification paragraph p0073).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 2-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reason asset forth above.
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.
Claims 1, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hata (US 20120153000), in view of Narita (US 20230333790) and Nakano et al. (US 20240208247)
Regarding claim 9, Hata teaches a printing system including a printing apparatus and an information processing apparatus communicably connected to the printing apparatus, wherein the printing apparatus comprises (fig. 2):
a printing unit configured to print an image on a print sheet by executing a print job (206 in fig. 2);
a sheet feeding unit configured to have cut paper and roll paper selectably set therein each as the print sheet for feeding to the printing unit (103 and 104 in fig. 2 and fig. 3: roll-sheet and cut sheet); and
a conveying unit configured to convey the print sheet from the sheet feeding unit to the printing unit (205 conveyance controller in fig. 2), and
Hata does not teach wherein the information processing apparatus comprises: a selection unit configured to enable a selection operation for prompting a user to select one of execution of the print job and stoppage of execution of the print job, in a case where, when a direction orthogonal to a direction in which the print sheet is conveyed by the conveying unit is defined as a direction of a width of the print sheet, a width of cut paper as a print sheet to be used in execution of the print job is larger than a width of the roll paper selected in the sheet feeding unit.
Narita teaches wherein the information processing apparatus comprises: a selection unit configured to enable a selection operation for prompting a user to select one of execution of the print job and stoppage of execution of the print job, in a case where, when a direction orthogonal to a direction in which the print sheet is conveyed by the conveying unit is defined as a direction of a width of the print sheet, a width of cut paper as a print sheet to be used in execution of the print job is larger than a width of the roll paper selected in the sheet feeding unit (p0050:A warning is a message indicating, for example, that the size of the printed image is inappropriate for the sheet size in the print settings, as shown in FIGS. 4A and 4B. The supporting program 42 asks the user whether to continue printing as is or cancel printing by means of a warning message).
Hata and Narita are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Hata with the teaching of Narita for purpose of when sheet size does not conform to the image size, the information processing device performs a warning process of displaying a warning message using a user interface (abstract).
Hata in view of Narita still does not teach print sheet to be used in execution of the print job is larger than a width of the roll paper selected in the sheet feeding unit.
Nakano teaches print sheet to be used in execution of the print job is larger than a width of the roll paper selected in the sheet feeding unit (P0002: an element configured to calculate a sheet size for borderless printing from the width of the roll sheet and an aspect ratio of an input image, and an element configured to enlarge and reduce the input image according to the width size of the roll sheet).
Hata in view of Narita and Nakano are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Hata in view of Narita with the teaching of Nakano for purpose of enlarge and reduce the input image according to the width size of the roll sheet (p0002).
Regarding claim 1, claim 9 recites all the limitations of claim 1, therefore it is rejection for the same reason as claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, The structural elements of apparatus claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 10. Thus, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Narita’s further teaching on: A computer-readable memory that contains instructions, which when executed by a processor perform steps in a method (p0005).
Regarding claim 2, Hata in view of Narita and Nakano teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where execution of the print job is selected by the selection unit, the printing unit reduces the image and prints the reduced image on the roll paper selected in the sheet feeding unit (Nakano: P0002: an element configured to calculate a sheet size for borderless printing from the width of the roll sheet and an aspect ratio of an input image, and an element configured to enlarge and reduce the input image according to the width size of the roll sheet).
The rational applied to rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 3, Hata in view of Narita and Nakano teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein when the image is reduced, the printing unit reduces the image according to a ratio between a width of cut paper to be used in execution of the print job and the width of the roll paper selected in the sheet feeding unit (Nakano: p0002: The printing system includes an element configured to identify a width of the roll sheet to be used, an element configured to calculate a sheet size for borderless printing from the width of the roll sheet and an aspect ratio of an input image, and an element configured to enlarge and reduce the input image according to the width size of the roll sheet).
The rational applied to rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 5, Hata in view of Narita and Nakano teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a display unit configured to display a screen, and wherein the selection unit is formed by an operation screen displayed on the display unit, on which the selection operation can be performed (Narita:p0014:The user IF 13 includes hardware configured to display a screen to inform the user of information and hardware configured to receive operations by the user).
The rational applied to rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 6, Hata in view of Narita and Nakano teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the operation screen includes a button for determining execution of the print job and a button for determining stoppage of execution of the print job (Narita:p0050: The supporting program 42 asks the user whether to continue printing as is or cancel printing by means of a warning message and p0051: a button 51 that receives an instruction to perform printing, and a button 52 that receives an instruction to cancel printing.).
The rational applied to rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Claims 4, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hata in view of Narita and Nakano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murakami et al. (US 20080246993).
Regarding claim 8, Hata in view of Narita and Nakano does not teach the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sheet feeding unit has a plurality of types of the cut paper, which are different in width, selectably set therein, and wherein in a case where, in spite of the roll paper being selected in the sheet feeding unit, the roll paper has not been set in the sheet feeding unit, the selection unit enables a selection operation for prompting a user to select one of execution of the print job on the current print sheet, execution of the print job on a print sheet changed to the cut paper, and stoppage of execution of the print job.
Murakami teaches wherein the sheet feeding unit has a plurality of types of the cut paper, which are different in width (p0077), selectably set therein, and wherein in a case where, in spite of the roll paper being selected in the sheet feeding unit, the roll paper has not been set in the sheet feeding unit, the selection unit enables a selection operation for prompting a user to select one of execution of the print job on the current print sheet, execution of the print job on a print sheet changed to the cut paper, and stoppage of execution of the print job (p0099: user cancels the job after the print job is issued, because the user notices that the paper feeding cassette for paper of the designated size is empty).
Hata in view of Narita and Nakano and Murakami are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Hata in view of Narita and Nakano with the teaching of Murakami for purpose of provide an image processing apparatus, a job management method, a program and a recording medium that enable users to fully grasp status of job requests actually issued by the users, and realize precise job management that reflects the users' demand (p0010).
Regarding claim 7, Hata in view of Narita and Nakano and Murakami teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the operation screen includes a message to the effect that a width of cut paper to be used in execution of the print job is larger than the width of the roll paper selected in the sheet feeding unit (Murakami: fig. 14).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 8 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 4, Hata in view of Narita and Nakano and Murakami teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is caused to further function as an information acquisition unit configured to acquire first sheet information concerning a width of cut paper to be used in execution of the print job and second sheet information concerning the width of the roll paper selected in the sheet feeding unit (Murakami:user has requested a print job using letter size paper even though no letter size paper is in the paper box, a message shown in FIG. 14 may be displayed), and a determination unit configured to determine, based on the first sheet information and the second sheet information, which are acquired by the information acquisition unit, whether or not the width of cut paper to be used in execution of the print job is larger than the width of the roll paper selected in the sheet feeding unit, wherein in a case where it is determined by the determination unit that the width of cut paper to be used in execution of the print job is larger than the width of the roll paper selected in the sheet feeding unit, the selection unit enables the selection operation (Murakami:fig.14).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 8 has been incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN Q ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1600. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
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, Merouan, Abderrahim 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.
HELEN ZONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/HELEN ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights