DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This is an initial office action in response to communication(s) filed on February 25, 2025.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 25, 2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function (i.e. “at least one processor” from claim 1, and “information processing apparatus” in claim 18). Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a consolidation unit”, “a determination unit” of claims 1 and 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kato (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/002482 A1).
With regard to claim 1, the claim is drawn to an information processing apparatus comprising at least one memory and at least one processor which function as (see Kato, i.e. in fig. 1, 8 and etc., disclose the client/host PC 101, 102 and etc., and corresponding in para. 50, disclose that “[0050] The client PC 101 is a general-purpose personal computer. The client PC 101 has a RAM, which is used for storing software programs and data, a CPU, which executes the software programs and processes the data, and a file storage unit, such as a hard disk, which is used for saving the software programs and data as files. In addition, it is equipped with human interface devices such as a display, a keyboard, and a pointing device, as well as an NIC used for connecting to a network. Furthermore, an operating system (OS), which manages software resources and hardware resources, is installed on the client PC and is run by the CPU. In the present embodiment, the operating system is preferably one that supports XPS, e.g. Windows Vista.TM. from Microsoft Corporation.”):
a consolidation unit that configures a setting for consolidating a plurality of sets of image data on a single sheet (see Kato, i.e. in para. 8 and etc., disclose that “… a functional module for section-level setup is provided in a printer driver in order to permit different print attribute settings for different sections by saving them as section setup information files. Moreover, Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2005-250606 proposes a method for advance determination of exception print conditions that constitute exceptions to the basic setup conditions. For instance, let us suppose that the exception setup condition is A3 paper size, the print condition is "one-up" printing, and the basic setup conditions are A4 and "two-up". If the document to be printed is made up of 5 pages consecutively sized A4, A4, A3, A4, and A4, then the first and second pages are A4-sized and therefore match the basic setup conditions. For this reason, these two pages are printed two-up. In addition, the third page is A3-sized and corresponds to the exception setup condition. For this reason, the third page is printed one-up. The fourth and fifth pages match the basic setup conditions, too, and are printed two-up. It should be noted that the expression "n-up" refers to a print setting used when printing n pages of a target document on one side of a sheet using reduced scale layout. N-up printing is sometimes called "reduced scale layout"….”; also see fig. 8 and etc., for illustration of “printer driver”) and
a determination unit that automatically determines a position to perforate the sheet based on the setting configured by the consolidation unit (see Kato, i.e. fig. 4, para. 62 and etc., disclose that “[0062] FIG. 4 is an exemplary control window (finishing window) displayed when a "Finishing" tab 400 is selected by the user with the help of the button. In the finishing window, the user can configure specific setup information related to the device selected by the user in the control window of FIG. 2 from among the devices the system is equipped with. For instance, it includes paper sheet-processing settings including finishing settings, such as stapling-related settings, sorting-related settings, punching-related settings, perforating-related settings, and bookbinding-related settings, as well as settings related to whether simplex or duplex printing is to be carried out. In addition, it also includes various detailed settings, such as more finely-tuned settings associated with image processing used to change color and other printer parameters, etc. For instance, the simplex or duplex printing mode can be selected using a setup section 401 of the control window of FIG. 4. The binding position (for instance, long-edge binding) can be configured using a setup section 402. The detailed print settings shown in the finishing window of FIG. 4 are reset to their initial values using a Default button 403…”) .
With regard to claim 2, the claim is drawn to the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the consolidation unit is configured to configure the setting by receiving a first operation by a user (see Kato, i.e. in fig. 4, para. 62 and etc., disclose that “[0062] FIG. 4 is an exemplary control window (finishing window) displayed when a "Finishing" tab 400 is selected by the user with the help of the button. In the finishing window, the user can configure specific setup information related to the device selected by the user in the control window of FIG. 2 from among the devices the system is equipped with. For instance, it includes paper sheet-processing settings including finishing settings, such as stapling-related settings, sorting-related settings, punching-related settings, perforating-related settings…”),
the determination unit is configured to perform processing for determining the position by receiving a second operation by the user (see Kato, i.e. para. 62 and etc., disclose that “… In addition, it also includes various detailed settings, such as more finely-tuned settings associated with image processing used to change color and other printer parameters, etc. For instance, the simplex or duplex printing mode can be selected using a setup section 401 of the control window of FIG. 4. The binding position (for instance, long-edge binding) can be configured using a setup section 402. The detailed print settings shown in the finishing window of FIG. 4 are reset to their initial values using a Default button 403…”), and
the information processing apparatus further comprises a display control unit that displays a first setting screen as a setting screen for receiving not only the first operation but also the second operation (see Kato, i.e. the illustrations in fig. 4, and para. 72 and etc.)
With regard to claim 3, the claim is drawn to the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the consolidation unit performs N-up or image repeat, the N-up being a function to allocate and print a plurality of originals on a single sheet, the image repeat being a function to allocate and print a particular image repeatedly on a single sheet in at least one of a vertical direction and a horizontal direction of the sheet (see Kato, i.e. in para. 8 and etc., disclose that “… a functional module for section-level setup is provided in a printer driver in order to permit different print attribute settings for different sections by saving them as section setup information files. Moreover, Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2005-250606 proposes a method for advance determination of exception print conditions that constitute exceptions to the basic setup conditions. For instance, let us suppose that the exception setup condition is A3 paper size, the print condition is "one-up" printing, and the basic setup conditions are A4 and "two-up". If the document to be printed is made up of 5 pages consecutively sized A4, A4, A3, A4, and A4, then the first and second pages are A4-sized and therefore match the basic setup conditions. For this reason, these two pages are printed two-up. In addition, the third page is A3-sized and corresponds to the exception setup condition. For this reason, the third page is printed one-up. The fourth and fifth pages match the basic setup conditions, too, and are printed two-up. It should be noted that the expression "n-up" refers to a print setting used when printing n pages of a target document on one side of a sheet using reduced scale layout. N-up printing is sometimes called "reduced scale layout"….”).
With regard to claim 6, the claim is drawn to the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where a setting is configured to add margins to the sheet, the determination unit determines the position to perforate using vertical and horizontal sheet sizes excluding the margins (see Kato, i.e. in fig. 4, in the middle to the right, illustrates a “margin” setting buttons).
With regard to claim 7, the claim is drawn to the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the display control unit displays a second setting screen for receiving an operation for manually specifying a perforation position on the sheet (see Kato, i.e. in fig. 2-4, para. 62 and etc. disclose that “the user can configure specific setup information related to the device selected by the user in the control window of FIG. 2”, by disclosing “[0062] FIG. 4 is an exemplary control window (finishing window) displayed when a "Finishing" tab 400 is selected by the user with the help of the button. In the finishing window, the user can configure specific setup information related to the device selected by the user in the control window of FIG. 2 from among the devices the system is equipped with. For instance, it includes paper sheet-processing settings including finishing settings, such as stapling-related settings, sorting-related settings, punching-related settings, perforating-related settings, and bookbinding-related settings, as well as settings related to whether simplex or duplex printing is to be carried out. In addition, it also includes various detailed settings, such as more finely-tuned settings associated with image processing used to change color and other printer parameters, etc. For instance, the simplex or duplex printing mode can be selected using a setup section 401 of the control window of FIG. 4. The binding position (for instance, long-edge binding) can be configured using a setup section 402. The detailed print settings shown in the finishing window of FIG. 4 are reset to their initial values using a Default button 403.”).
With regard to claim 16, the claim is drawn to the information processing apparatus according to claim l, further comprising an instruction unit that instructs a printing and processing apparatus to execute printing and processing based on the consolidation unit and the determination unit (see Kato, i.e. in fig. 10, step S1005, and para. 90 and etc., disclose that “[0090] In S1005, the graphic commands directed to the OS 802 are input into the graphic driver 807. The graphic driver 807 converts the received graphic commands into print code that can be interpreted by the printer 809 and transmits it to the printer…”).
With regard to claim 17, the claim is drawn to a method of controlling an information processing apparatus (see Kato, i.e. in para. 2 and etc., disclose that “[0002] The present invention relates to a document processing apparatus and a method for controlling a document processing apparatus for processing documents with print settings…”), comprising:
configuring a setting for consolidating a plurality of sets of image data on a single sheet (see Kato, i.e. in para. 8 and etc., disclose that “… a functional module for section-level setup is provided in a printer driver in order to permit different print attribute settings for different sections by saving them as section setup information files. Moreover, Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2005-250606 proposes a method for advance determination of exception print conditions that constitute exceptions to the basic setup conditions. For instance, let us suppose that the exception setup condition is A3 paper size, the print condition is "one-up" printing, and the basic setup conditions are A4 and "two-up". If the document to be printed is made up of 5 pages consecutively sized A4, A4, A3, A4, and A4, then the first and second pages are A4-sized and therefore match the basic setup conditions. For this reason, these two pages are printed two-up. In addition, the third page is A3-sized and corresponds to the exception setup condition. For this reason, the third page is printed one-up. The fourth and fifth pages match the basic setup conditions, too, and are printed two-up. It should be noted that the expression "n-up" refers to a print setting used when printing n pages of a target document on one side of a sheet using reduced scale layout. N-up printing is sometimes called "reduced scale layout"….”; also see fig. 8 and etc., for illustration of “printer driver”) and
automatically determining a position to perforate the sheet based on the setting configured in the configuring (see Kato, i.e. fig. 4, para. 62 and etc., disclose that “[0062] FIG. 4 is an exemplary control window (finishing window) displayed when a "Finishing" tab 400 is selected by the user with the help of the button. In the finishing window, the user can configure specific setup information related to the device selected by the user in the control window of FIG. 2 from among the devices the system is equipped with. For instance, it includes paper sheet-processing settings including finishing settings, such as stapling-related settings, sorting-related settings, punching-related settings, perforating-related settings, and bookbinding-related settings, as well as settings related to whether simplex or duplex printing is to be carried out. In addition, it also includes various detailed settings, such as more finely-tuned settings associated with image processing used to change color and other printer parameters, etc. For instance, the simplex or duplex printing mode can be selected using a setup section 401 of the control window of FIG. 4. The binding position (for instance, long-edge binding) can be configured using a setup section 402. The detailed print settings shown in the finishing window of FIG. 4 are reset to their initial values using a Default button 403…”) .
With regard to claim 18, the claim is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program which functions in an information processing apparatus and causes the information processing apparatus to function as (see Kato, i.e. in para. 142-143 and etc., disclose that “… the object of the present invention is also achieved if a storage medium containing a record of program code implementing the functionality of the above-described embodiment is supplied to a system or apparatus and the computer of the system or apparatus reads and executes the program code stored on the storage medium. In such a case, the program code read from the storage medium implements the functionality of the above-described embodiment and therefore the program code itself and the storage medium, on which the program code is stored, form part of the present invention…”):
a consolidation unit that configures a setting for consolidating a plurality of sets of image data on a single sheet (see Kato, i.e. in para. 8 and etc., disclose that “… a functional module for section-level setup is provided in a printer driver in order to permit different print attribute settings for different sections by saving them as section setup information files. Moreover, Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2005-250606 proposes a method for advance determination of exception print conditions that constitute exceptions to the basic setup conditions. For instance, let us suppose that the exception setup condition is A3 paper size, the print condition is "one-up" printing, and the basic setup conditions are A4 and "two-up". If the document to be printed is made up of 5 pages consecutively sized A4, A4, A3, A4, and A4, then the first and second pages are A4-sized and therefore match the basic setup conditions. For this reason, these two pages are printed two-up. In addition, the third page is A3-sized and corresponds to the exception setup condition. For this reason, the third page is printed one-up. The fourth and fifth pages match the basic setup conditions, too, and are printed two-up. It should be noted that the expression "n-up" refers to a print setting used when printing n pages of a target document on one side of a sheet using reduced scale layout. N-up printing is sometimes called "reduced scale layout"….”; also see fig. 8 and etc., for illustration of “printer driver”) and
a determination unit that automatically determines a position to perforate the sheet based on the setting configured by the consolidation unit (see Kato, i.e. fig. 4, para. 62 and etc., disclose that “[0062] FIG. 4 is an exemplary control window (finishing window) displayed when a "Finishing" tab 400 is selected by the user with the help of the button. In the finishing window, the user can configure specific setup information related to the device selected by the user in the control window of FIG. 2 from among the devices the system is equipped with. For instance, it includes paper sheet-processing settings including finishing settings, such as stapling-related settings, sorting-related settings, punching-related settings, perforating-related settings, and bookbinding-related settings, as well as settings related to whether simplex or duplex printing is to be carried out. In addition, it also includes various detailed settings, such as more finely-tuned settings associated with image processing used to change color and other printer parameters, etc. For instance, the simplex or duplex printing mode can be selected using a setup section 401 of the control window of FIG. 4. The binding position (for instance, long-edge binding) can be configured using a setup section 402. The detailed print settings shown in the finishing window of FIG. 4 are reset to their initial values using a Default button 403…”).
Allowable Subject Matter
With regard to Claims 4-5 and 8-15, claims 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 and overcoming the corresponding rejections and/or objection (if any) set forth in the Office Action above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 4, the closest prior arts of record, Kato, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “…the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein in a case where the consolidation unit performs the N-up, the determination unit obtains a size of the sheet and a value of N (N is a multiple of 2) set for the N-up, the determination unit determines a position of a horizontal perforation line by repeating, (N/2 - 1) times, setting a horizontal perforation line from a position corresponding to a length obtained by dividing a vertical size of the sheet by N/2, and the determination unit determines a position of a vertical perforation line by setting a vertical perforation line from a position an”. These additional features in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by Kato.
With regard to claim 5, the claim is drawn to the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein in a case where the consolidation unit performs the image repeat, the determination unit obtains a size of the sheet, a value of X (X is a natural number) indicative of a vertical image repeat count, and a value of Y (Y is a natural number) indicative of a horizontal image repeat count, the determination unit determines a position of a horizontal perforation line by repeating, (X - 1) times, setting a horizontal perforation line from a position corresponding to a length obtained by dividing a vertical size of the sheet by X, and the determination unit determines a position of a vertical perforation line by repeating, (Y - 1) times, setting a vertical perforation line from a position corresponding to a length obtained by dividing a horizontal size of the sheet by Y.
With regard to claim 8, the closest prior arts of record, Kato, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “…the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein in a case where the second operation is already received on the first setting screen, the display control unit performs control not to receive the operation for manually specifying a perforation position on the sheet on the second setting screen”. These additional features in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by Kato.
With regard to claims 9-15, the claims are depending directly or indirectly from the independent Claim 8, each encompasses the required limitations recited in the independent claim discussed above.
Therefore, claim 4-5 and 8-15 are objected to.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kageyama et al. (U.S. Pat/Pub No. 200) disclose an invention relates to tandem continuous paper printer; more specifically, in para. 14, 117, 237 and etc., disclose the teachings of page partition and perforations.
The Art Unit (or Workgroup) location of your application in the USPTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Art Unit 2681.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacky X. Zheng whose telephone number is (571) 270-1122. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, alt. Friday Off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached on (571) 272-3438. 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.
/JACKY X ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights