CTNF 19/058,495 CTNF 72641 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/20/2025 was considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings filed on 2/20/2025 are acceptable for examination by the examiner. Title 06-11 AIA 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. Claim Objection Claims 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 12 recites “… the image forming device such that the image forming device forms an image for a writing failure on the printing region “. This phrase contains non-idiomatic English. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 4, and 6-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SATO (US 2021/0306512 A1) in view of NAKATA et al. (US 2007/0194098 A1) . SATO teaches regarding claim 1, an image forming apparatus (shown in figure 1), comprising: an interface (104, 1042, 1041) configured to input a printing job; a supply device (200, 210) configured to supply, on a basis of the printing job, one or more media to which a predetermined number, [which is two or more, of wireless tags are attached; a wireless communication device configured to communicate with the predetermined number of wireless tags of the one or more supplied media on a basis of the printing job and write tag information to the predetermined number of wireless tags of the one or more supplied media]; an image forming device configured to form images on a predetermined number of printing regions corresponding to the predetermined number of wireless tags of the one or more supplied media on a basis of the printing job; an input/output device configured [to output information for checking whether or not retry processing, which is executed in accordance with a failure to write the tag information, is necessary and receive a request for the retry processing]; and a processor configured to detect whether or not writing of the tag information has failed, instruct, where the failure to write the tag information has been detected, [the input/output device to output the information for checking whether or not retry processing is necessary, and control, where the input/output device has received the request for the retry processing, execution of the retry processing] (figures 1-2, 6, [0019-0022], [0100-0125] discusses figure 6; ACT27, ACT36). Regarding claim 2, the interface inputs the first and second printing jobs, and the processor is further configured to instruct, where writing of the tag information has failed in the first printing job (ACT25), [the input/output device to output the information for checking whether or not retry processing is necessary after executing the first printing job and before executing the second printing job]. Regarding claim 6, each of the media has one surface to which a wireless tag is attached and the other surface having a printing region corresponding to the wireless tag (ACT33-ACT35). Regarding claim 7, the tag information to be written to the wireless tag and the image to be formed on the printing region are pieces of information in a corresponding relationship [0064]. Regarding claim 8, the media are media for forming a label of a product, the tag information is code data of the product, and the image to be formed on the printing region is a barcode of the product (the examiner takes official notice that it is known in the art to conventionally print a barcode and/or symbolic information that is written in a tag of a medium such as discussed by SATAKE et al. in [0006-0007]. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to use the teaching of SATAKE with the teaching of SATO to conventionally utilized tags media in a conventional manner in an image forming process. ). SATO teaches regarding claim 9, an image forming apparatus, comprising: an interface configured to input a printing job; a supply device configured to supply, on a basis of the printing job, [one or more media to which a predetermined number, which is two or more, of wireless tags are attached]; a wireless communication device configured to communicate with the predetermined number of wireless tags of the one or more supplied media on a basis of the printing job and write tag information to the predetermined number of wireless tags of the one or more supplied media; an image forming device configured to form images on a predetermined number of printing regions corresponding to the predetermined number of wireless tags of the one or more supplied media on a basis of the printing job; an input/output device configured to output information relating to a failure to write the tag information; and a processor configured to detect whether or not writing of the tag information has failed, and control, where the number of wireless tags which have failed to be written is the predetermined number or an integer multiple of the predetermined number, execution of retry processing (figures 1-2, 6, [0013, 0019-0022, 0100-0125], ACT27, ACT36). SATO teaches regarding claim 12, an image forming apparatus, comprising: an interface 104 configured to input a printing job; a supply device 200 configured to supply, on a basis of the printing job, one or more media [to which a predetermined number, which is two or more, of wireless tags are attached]; a wireless communication device 103 configured to communicate with the predetermined number of wireless tags of the one or more supplied media on a basis of the printing job and write tag information to the predetermined number of wireless tags of the one or more supplied media [0034, 0062-0063]; an image forming device configured to form images on a predetermined number of printing regions corresponding to the predetermined number of wireless tags of the one or more supplied media on a basis of the printing job (shown in figures 1-3); an input/output device 104 configured to output information relating to a failure to write the tag information; and a processor configured to detect whether or not writing of the tag information has failed, and control, where the failure to write the tag information has been detected, the image forming device such that the image forming device forms an image for a writing failure on the printing region [0026] (figures 1-2, 6, [0013, 0019-0022, 0100-0125], ACT27, ACT36). Regarding claim 13, the processor is further configured to control the image forming device such that the image forming device forms a white image as the image for a writing failure [0138-0139]. Regarding claim 14, the forming the white image includes forming no image on the printing region [0138-0139]. Regarding claim 15, the processor is further configured to control, where the failure to write the tag information has been detected, the image forming device such that the image forming device forms a warning image corresponding to the failure to write the tag information on the printing region [0026]. SATO does not teach a process that involves checking if retry is desired. NAKATA teaches communicating to the user the issues that arises with respect to tagged media. NAKATA teaches the input/output device to output the information for checking whether or not retry processing is necessary, and control, where the input/output device has received the request for the retry processing, execution of the retry processing [regarding claim 1]. NAKATA teaches one or more media to which a predetermined number, which is two or more, of wireless tags (figures 2B-2C) are attached ([0116]; regarding claim 12). NAKATA teaches one or more media to which a predetermined number, which is two or more, of wireless tags (figures 2B-2C; [0116]) are attached [regarding claim 9]. Regarding claim 4, the retry processing includes supplying one or more media, writing the tag information which has failed to be written in the printing job to the predetermined number of wireless tags of the one or more supplied media, and forming images on printing regions corresponding to the wireless tags to which the tag information has been written (figures 2B-2C; the same one media is supplied by SATO). Regarding claim 10, the processor is further configured to cause, where the number of wireless tags which have failed to be written is neither the predetermined number nor an integer multiple of the predetermined number, the input/output device to output, as the information relating to a failure to write the tag information, information for checking whether or not the retry processing is necessary (when the wireless tags failed, the retry request is offered to the user). Regarding claim 11, the input/output device outputs the information for checking whether or not the retry processing is necessary and receives a request for the retry processing, and the processor is further configured to control, where the input/output device has received the request for the retry processing, execution of the retry processing (figures 10-11; NAKATA teaches giving an error message when there is a problem with the tag media printing process. The user communicates his/her desire [0088] for tagged and un-tags documents). SATO and NAKATA are concerned with printing media that contain tags. The rationale for combi3ning the teachings of NAKATA with the teachings of SATO relates to the rationale of using a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and the rationale that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to use the teaching of NAKATA with the teaching of SATO to allow the user to control printing process throughout the entire image forming process . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 3 and 5 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. Claim 3 recites the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information for checking whether or not retry processing is necessary includes, where the number of wireless tags which have failed to be written in the printing job is not an integer multiple of the predetermined number, information indicating that the retry processing will result in one or more excess wireless tags in one medium. Claim 5 recites the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to instruct, where a failure to write the tag information to a predetermined number of wireless tags has been detected at a time point when writing of the tag information and formation of an image on a predetermined medium were completed in the printing job for a plurality of media, the input/output device to output the information for checking whether or not retry processing is necessary, and execute the retry processing on a basis of reception of the request for the retry processing, and the retry processing includes supplying one medium, writing the tag information which has failed to be written to a predetermined number of wireless tags of the one supplied medium, and forming images on printing regions corresponding to the wireless tags to which the tag information has been written. Prior Art 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. SATAKE et al. (US 2005/0116034 A1) teaches a conventional printing system that uses a RFID reader/writer . Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANA GRAINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-2135. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9-5. 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, Walter Lindsay can be reached on 571-272-1674. 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. /QUANA GRAINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852 QG Application/Control Number: 19/058,495 Page 2 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/058,495 Page 3 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/058,495 Page 4 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/058,495 Page 5 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/058,495 Page 6 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/058,495 Page 7 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/058,495 Page 8 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/058,495 Page 9 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/058,495 Page 10 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/058,495 Page 11 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/058,495 Page 12 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/058,495 Page 13 Art Unit: 2852
Prosecution Insights