DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
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 controller” in claim 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.
“A controller” is claim 10 is read as the CPU (Fig.1, item 111).
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki’494 (US 2010/0238494), and further in view of Ariomi’395 (US 2005/0190395) and Matsui’740 (US 2017/0262740).
With respect to claim 10, Araki’494 teaches an information processing apparatus [The PC (Fig.1, item 100)] having an application program [regarding to the plugin (Fig.2, items 113 and 114)] for supporting a software program [regarding to the core driver (Fig.2, item 111)], the information processing apparatus comprising:
a display (Fig.31, item 3105); and
a controller (Fig.31, item 3101) that causes, by executing the application program (Fig.2, items 113 and 114), a display of an information processing apparatus to display a print setting screen for receiving a print setting (Fig.13, Fig. 14, Fig. 29 and Fig. 30),
wherein the controller controls, based on the print setting by executing the application program, the software program not to convert vector data to raster data [as shown in Fig.25, the drawing unit 133 of the stamp plug-in (Fig.2, items 113) adds stamp to the page (convert vector data to raster data) and the drawing unit of the borderline plug-in (Fig.2, items 113) adds borderline to the page (convert vector data to raster data) which are not being performed by the core driver (Fig.2, item 111)], and
wherein the controller edits, by executing the application program, the vector data which is not converted to the raster data by the software program [as shown in Fig.25, the drawing unit 133 of the stamp plug-in (Fig.2, items 113) adds stamp to the page (convert vector data to raster data) and the drawing unit of the borderline plug-in (Fig.2, items 113) adds borderline to the page (convert vector data to raster data) which are not being performed by the core driver (Fig.2, item 111)].
Araki’494 does not teach a software program for obtaining capability information of a printer to an Internet Print Protocol.
Ariomi’395 teaches that the driver is provided a function to retrieve capability of a printer (paragraphs 72 and 73).
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 Araki’494 according to the teaching of Ariomi’395 to enable the core driver having a plug-in function to retrieve capability of a printer because the will allow the printer driver setting to be provided more effectively.
The combination of Araki’494 and Ariomi’395 does not teach using an Internet Print Protocol to obtain capability of a printer.
Matsui’740 teaches using an Internet Print Protocol to obtain capability of a printer (paragraph 32).
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 Araki’494 and Ariomi’395 according to the teaching of Matsui’740 to use an Internet Print Protocol to obtain capability of a printer because this will allow the printer’s capability to be obtained more effectively.
With respect to claim 1, it is a claim regarding a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing thereon a computer program. Claim 1 claims how the information processing apparatus to execute to display print setting screens and process print data. Claim 1 is obvious in view of Araki’494, Ariomi’395 and Matsui’740 because the claimed combination operates at the same manner as described in the rejected claim 10. In addition, the reference discloses a process, the process would be implemented by a processor that requires a non-transitory computer readable medium, e.g., a RAM, to function, thus, the medium is inherently present.
With respect to claim 2, which further limits claim 1, Araki’494 teaches wherein, if the print setting is a predetermined setting, the software program is controlled not to convert the vector data to the raster data [as shown in Fig.25, the drawing unit 133 of the stamp plug-in (Fig.2, items 113) adds stamp to the page (convert vector data to raster data) and the drawing unit of the borderline plug-in (Fig.2, items 113) adds borderline to the page (convert vector data to raster data) which are not being performed by the core driver (Fig.2, item 111)].
With respect to claim 6, which further limits claim 1, Araki’494 teaches wherein the software program is controlled based on the print setting not to convert the vector data to the raster data by instructing the software program to deliver the vector data to the application program without passing through the software program [as shown in Fig.25, the drawing unit 133 of the stamp plug-in (Fig.2, items 113) adds stamp to the page (convert vector data to raster data) and the drawing unit of the borderline plug-in (Fig.2, items 113) adds borderline to the page (convert vector data to raster data) which are not being performed by the core driver (Fig.2, item 111)].
With respect to claim 9, it is a method claim that claims how the information processing apparatus to display print setting screens and process print data. Claim 1 is obvious in view of Araki’494, Ariomi’395 and Matsui’740 because the claimed combination operates at the same manner as described in the rejected claim 10.
In addition, the reference has disclosed an information processing apparatus to display print setting screens and process print data, the process (method) to display print setting screens and process print data is inherent disclosed to be performed by a processor in the information processing apparatus when the information processing apparatus performs the operation to display print setting screens and process print data.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki’494 (US 2010/0238494), Ariomi’395 (US 2005/0190395), Matsui’740 (US 2017/0262740) and further in view of Lemonik’317 (US 2015/0199317).
With respect to claim 3, which further limits claim 2, the combination of Araki’494, Ariomi’395 and Matsui’740 does not teach wherein the predetermined setting is a print setting requiring editing involving enlargement of the vector data.
Lemonik’317 teaches wherein the predetermined setting is a print setting requiring editing involving enlargement of the vector data [the print layout add-on may offer support for printing documents on various paper sizes, envelopes, labels, etc. (paragraph 229). 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 scaling unit in a print layout add-on to enlarge or reduce the vector data of each page in the document in order to fit them in each different size of the papers because this will enhance the printout quality associated with different paper size. ].
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 Araki’494, Ariomi’395 and Matsui’740 according to the teaching of Lemonik’317 to include a scaling unit in a print layout add-on to enlarge or reduce the vector data of each page in the document in order to fit them in each different size of the papers because this will enhance the printout quality associated with different paper size
With respect to claim 4, which further limits claim 2, the combination of Araki’494, Ariomi’395 and Matsui’740 does not teach wherein the predetermined setting is a print setting requiring editing involving reduction of the vector data.
Lemonik’317 teaches wherein the predetermined setting is a print setting requiring editing involving reduction of the vector data [the print layout add-on may offer support for printing documents on various paper sizes, envelopes, labels, etc. (paragraph 229). 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 scaling unit in a print layout add-on to enlarge or reduce the vector data of each page in the document in order to fit them in each different size of the papers because this will enhance the printout quality associated with different paper size. ].
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 Araki’494, Ariomi’395 and Matsui’740 according to the teaching of Lemonik’317 to include a scaling unit in a print layout add-on to enlarge or reduce the vector data of each page in the document in order to fit them in each different size of the papers because this will enhance the printout quality associated with different paper size
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki’494 (US 2010/0238494), Ariomi’395 (US 2005/0190395), Matsui’740 (US 2017/0262740) and further in view of Skurdal’975 (US 2003/0160975).
With respect to claim 5, which further limits claim 2, the combination of Araki’494, Ariomi’395 and Matsui’740 does not teach wherein the predetermined setting is a print setting regarding an N-Up print function.
Skurdal’975 teaches wherein the predetermined setting is a print setting regarding an N-Up print function (paragraph 37 and 51).
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 Araki’494, Ariomi’395 and Matsui’740 according to the teaching of Skurdal’975 to include a N-UP analysis module for determine how logical page should be printed on a physical paper because this will enhance the printout quality for a print job more effectively.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki’494 (US 2010/0238494), Ariomi’395 (US 2005/0190395), Matsui’740 (US 2017/0262740) and further in view of Hideyuki’444 (JP 2016126444).
With respect to claim 7, which further limits claim 1, the combination of Araki’494, Ariomi’395 and Matsui’740 does not teach wherein the software program is an IPP class driver.
Hideyuki’444 teaches wherein the software program is an IPP class driver [According to the IPP printing function, it is possible to issue a print execution instruction without a driver. Specific examples of the IPP printing function include AirPrint (registered trademark) and Mopria (registered trademark). AirPrint is an IPP printing function of iOS (registered trademark) or MacOS (registered trademark). Mopria is Android (registered trademark) IPP printing function. IPP is an example of a common printing protocol that performs communication under printing conditions common to a plurality of models (page 4). As a result, the Airprint is considered as the IPP class driver].
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 Araki’494, Ariomi’395 and Matsui’740 according to the teaching of Hideyuki’444 to include Airprint as the IPP class driver for instructing a printer to perform printing because this will allow the print job to be processed more effectively.
With respect to claim 8, which further limits claim 1, the combination of Araki’494, Ariomi’395 and Matsui’740 does not teach wherein the software program is included in an operating system.
Hideyuki’444 teaches wherein the software program is included in an operating system. [According to the IPP printing function, it is possible to issue a print execution instruction without a driver. Specific examples of the IPP printing function include AirPrint (registered trademark) and Mopria (registered trademark). AirPrint is an IPP printing function of iOS (registered trademark) or MacOS (registered trademark). Mopria is Android (registered trademark) IPP printing function. IPP is an example of a common printing protocol that performs communication under printing conditions common to a plurality of models (page 4). As a result, the Airprint is considered as the IPP class driver].
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 Araki’494, Ariomi’395 and Matsui’740 according to the teaching of Hideyuki’444 to include Airprint as the IPP class driver for instructing a printer to perform printing 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