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 .
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, 8, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morales (US 20240045625).
Regarding Claim 1, Morales ‘625 teaches a method for managing printing operations (Paragraph 1), the method comprising:
receiving a print job for a printing device, wherein the print job includes a print ticket (Paragraph 22, wherein there is a print job with a ticket);
determining a plurality of media definitions for the print job from the print ticket (Paragraph 22, wherein there are job settings, which can correspond to the paper),
wherein each media definition of the plurality of media definitions corresponds to an attribute within a paper catalog for the printing device (Paragraph 57, wherein the paper attributes can correspond to the paper catalog);
generating a list of papers for the print job from a media catalog for the printing device based on the plurality of media definitions, wherein each paper includes the respective attribute for the applicable media definition (Paragraphs 76 and 77, wherein if the user is selecting between multiple paper options, then the user is selecting from a list);
determining a paper of the list of papers to assign to the print job (Paragraph 84, wherein the paper is assigned to the job); and
processing the print job using the paper (Paragraph 86, wherein the job is produced).
Regarding Claim 8, Morales ‘625 further teaches wherein determining the paper includes selecting the paper from the list of papers (Paragraphs 76 and 77, wherein if the user is selecting between multiple paper options, then the user is selecting from a list).
Regarding Claim 19, Morales ‘625 teaches a method for assigning a paper to a print job at a printing device (Paragraph 1 and 22), the method comprising:
determining media definitions for the print job based on a print ticket having at least one attribute (Paragraph 22, wherein there are job settings, which can correspond to the paper);
generating a list of media catalog entries from a paper catalog based on the media definitions for the print job (Paragraphs 76 and 77, wherein if the user is selecting between multiple paper options, then the user is selecting from a list);
selecting a paper from the list of media catalog entries, wherein the paper includes the at least one attribute (Paragraphs 76 and 77, wherein if the user is selecting between multiple paper options, then the user is selecting from a list);
assigning the paper to the print job (Paragraph 84, wherein the paper is assigned to the job); and
printing the print job at the printing device using the paper (Paragraph 86, wherein the job is produced).
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.
Claim(s) 2-6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morales (US 2024/0045625) in view of Yokohashi (US 2022/0091795).
Regarding Claim 2, Morales ‘625 does not teach prioritizing the plurality of media definitions.
Yokohashi does teach prioritizing the plurality of media definitions (Paragraph 96, wherein the list that is displayed can be prioritized based on a sheet property).
Morales ‘625 and Yokohashi are combinable because they both deal with printing on designated media.
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 Morales ‘625 with the teachings of Yokohashi for the purpose of ensuring the user selects the preferred sheet (Yokohashi: Paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 3, Morales ‘625 does not teach wherein prioritizing the plurality of media definitions includes assigning a priority to each media definition of the plurality of media definitions.
Yokohashi does teach wherein prioritizing the plurality of media definitions includes assigning a priority to each media definition of the plurality of media definitions (Paragraph 96, wherein the list that is displayed can be prioritized based on a sheet property).
Morales ‘625 and Yokohashi are combinable because they both deal with printing on designated media.
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 Morales ‘625 with the teachings of Yokohashi for the purpose of ensuring the user selects the preferred sheet (Yokohashi: Paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 4, Morales ‘625 does not teach wherein prioritizing the plurality of media definitions includes prioritizing based on an order of the plurality of media definitions listed in the print ticket.
Yokohashi does teach wherein prioritizing the plurality of media definitions includes prioritizing based on an order of the plurality of media definitions listed in the print ticket (Paragraph 96, wherein the order is established based on the user’s designated attributes. This would correspond to the ticket of Morales ‘625).
Morales ‘625 and Yokohashi are combinable because they both deal with printing on designated media.
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 Morales ‘625 with the teachings of Yokohashi for the purpose of ensuring the user selects the preferred sheet (Yokohashi: Paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 5, Morales ‘625 does not teach ordering the list of papers according to the priority for the respective media definition.
Yokohashi does teach ordering the list of papers according to the priority for the respective media definition (Paragraph 96, wherein the list that is displayed can be prioritized based on a sheet property of the stored sheet information).
Morales ‘625 and Yokohashi are combinable because they both deal with printing on designated media.
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 Morales ‘625 with the teachings of Yokohashi for the purpose of ensuring the user selects the preferred sheet (Yokohashi: Paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 6, Morales ‘625 does not teach wherein determining the paper is based on the ordered list of papers.
Yokohashi does teach wherein determining the paper is based on the ordered list of papers (Paragraph 96, wherein the list that is displayed can be prioritized based on a sheet property).
Morales ‘625 and Yokohashi are combinable because they both deal with printing on designated media.
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 Morales ‘625 with the teachings of Yokohashi for the purpose of ensuring the user selects the preferred sheet (Yokohashi: Paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 20, Morales ‘625 does not teach prioritizing the list of media catalog entries.
Yokohashi does teach prioritizing the list of media catalog entries (Paragraph 96, wherein the list that is displayed can be prioritized based on a sheet property).
Morales ‘625 and Yokohashi are combinable because they both deal with printing on designated media.
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 Morales ‘625 with the teachings of Yokohashi for the purpose of ensuring the user selects the preferred sheet (Yokohashi: Paragraph 6).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morales (US 2024/0045625) in view of official notice.
Regarding Claim 7, Morales ‘625 does not clearly teach wherein determining the paper includes matching the paper from the list of papers to a loaded paper at the printing device.
Official notice is taken that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to only be able to select a sheet for printing that is loaded into the printer. If the sheet is not available and the job needs to be produced, then the user may not be able to print the job. If the user is relied upon to load new media, the user could load the incorrect media. The print media allowed to be selected should be the media that is present in the tray or indicated as such.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Morales ‘625 with the teachings of only listing sheets that are loaded to ensure the user is able to properly produce a print job with available sheets.
Claim(s) 9 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morales (US 2024/0045625) in view of Morales (US 10,931,842).
Regarding Claim 9, Morales ‘625 teaches a method for managing printing operations (Paragraph 1), the method comprising:
receiving a print job for a printing device, wherein the print job includes a print ticket having at least one attribute (Paragraph 22, wherein there is a print job with a ticket.);
determining a plurality of media definitions for the print job from the print ticket, wherein each media definition of the plurality of media definitions includes a value of the multiple values for the at least one attribute (Paragraph 57, wherein the paper attributes can correspond to the paper catalog);
generating a list of papers for the print job from a media catalog for the printing device based on the plurality of media definitions (Paragraphs 76 and 77, wherein if the user is selecting between multiple paper options, then the user is selecting from a list);
determining a paper of the list of papers to assign to the print job (Paragraph 84, wherein the paper is assigned to the job); and
processing the print job using the paper (Paragraph 86, wherein the job is produced).
Morales ‘625 does not teach one attribute having multiple values.
Morales ‘842 does teach one attribute having multiple values (Column 12, lines 15-63, wherein a range for paper weight can be selected).
Morales ‘625 and Morales ‘842 both relate to selecting media for printing.
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 Morales ‘625 with the teachings of Morales ‘842 for the purpose of ensuring proper media is used for printing without causing errors (Morales: ‘842, Column 1, lines 14-41).
Regarding Claim 16, Morales ‘625 further teaches wherein determining the paper includes selecting the paper from the list of papers (Paragraphs 76 and 77, wherein if the user is selecting between multiple paper options, then the user is selecting from a list).
Regarding Claim 17, Morales ‘842 further teaches wherein the multiple values of the at least one attribute includes a range of values (Column 12, lines 15-63, wherein a range for paper weight can be selected).
Morales ‘625 and Morales ‘842 both relate to selecting media for printing.
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 Morales ‘625 with the teachings of Morales ‘842 for the purpose of ensuring proper media is used for printing without causing errors (Morales: ‘842, Column 1, lines 14-41).
Regarding Claim 18, Morales ‘842 further teaches wherein the multiple values of the at least one attribute includes different attribute types (Column 10, lines 7-31, wherein the media can be requested based on coating, grain, etc.).
Morales ‘625 and Morales ‘842 both relate to selecting media for printing.
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 Morales ‘625 with the teachings of Morales ‘842 for the purpose of ensuring proper media is used for printing without causing errors (Morales: ‘842, Column 1, lines 14-41).
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morales (US 2024/0045625) in view of Morales (US 10,931,842) further in view of Yokohashi (US 2022/0091795).
Regarding Claim 10, Morales ‘625 in view of Morales ‘842 does not teach prioritizing the plurality of media definitions.
Yokohashi does teach prioritizing the plurality of media definitions (Paragraph 96, wherein the list that is displayed can be prioritized based on a sheet property).
Morales ‘625 and Yokohashi are combinable because they both deal with printing on designated media.
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 Morales ‘625 in view of Morales ‘842 with the teachings of Yokohashi for the purpose of ensuring the user selects the preferred sheet (Yokohashi: Paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 11, Morales ‘625 in view of Morales ‘842 does not teach wherein prioritizing the plurality of media definitions includes assigning a priority to each media definition of the plurality of media definitions.
Yokohashi does teach wherein prioritizing the plurality of media definitions includes assigning a priority to each media definition of the plurality of media definitions (Paragraph 96, wherein the list that is displayed can be prioritized based on a sheet property).
Morales ‘625 and Yokohashi are combinable because they both deal with printing on designated media.
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 Morales ‘625 in view of Morales ‘842 with the teachings of Yokohashi for the purpose of ensuring the user selects the preferred sheet (Yokohashi: Paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 12, Morales ‘625 in view of Morales ‘842 does not teach wherein prioritizing the plurality of media definitions includes prioritizing based on an order of the plurality of media definitions listed in the print ticket.
Yokohashi does teach wherein prioritizing the plurality of media definitions includes prioritizing based on an order of the plurality of media definitions listed in the print ticket (Paragraph 96, wherein the order is established based on the user’s designated attributes. This would correspond to the ticket of Morales ‘625).
Morales ‘625 and Yokohashi are combinable because they both deal with printing on designated media.
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 Morales ‘625 in view of Morales ‘842 with the teachings of Yokohashi for the purpose of ensuring the user selects the preferred sheet (Yokohashi: Paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 13, Morales ‘625 in view of Morales ‘842 does not teach ordering the list of papers according to the priority for the respective media definition.
Yokohashi does teach ordering the list of papers according to the priority for the respective media definition (Paragraph 96, wherein the list that is displayed can be prioritized based on a sheet property of the stored sheet information).
Morales ‘625 and Yokohashi are combinable because they both deal with printing on designated media.
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 Morales ‘625 in view of Morales ‘842 with the teachings of Yokohashi for the purpose of ensuring the user selects the preferred sheet (Yokohashi: Paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 14, Morales ‘625 in view of Morales ‘842 does not teach wherein determining the paper is based on the ordered list of papers.
Yokohashi does teach wherein determining the paper is based on the ordered list of papers (Paragraph 96, wherein the list that is displayed can be prioritized based on a sheet property).
Morales ‘625 and Yokohashi are combinable because they both deal with printing on designated media.
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 Morales ‘625 in view of Morales ‘842 with the teachings of Yokohashi for the purpose of ensuring the user selects the preferred sheet (Yokohashi: Paragraph 6).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morales (US 2024/0045625) in view of Morales (US 10,931,842) further in view of Yokohashi (US 2022/0091795) further in view of official notice.
Regarding Claim 15, Morales ‘625 in view of Morales ‘842 does not clearly teach wherein determining the paper includes matching the paper from the list of papers to a loaded paper at the printing device.
Official notice is taken that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to only be able to select a sheet for printing that is loaded into the printer. If the sheet is not available and the job needs to be produced, then the user may not be able to print the job. If the user is relied upon to load new media, the user could load the incorrect media. The print media allowed to be selected should be the media that is present in the tray or indicated as such.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Morales ‘625 in view of Morales ‘842 with the teachings of only listing sheets that are loaded to ensure the user is able to properly produce a print job with available sheets.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional cited prior art of Kanamoto (US 2016/0179439) relates to displaying media types based on selected sheet attributes for printing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS PACHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-3433. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4.
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, George Eng can be reached at 571-272-7495. 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.
/NICHOLAS PACHOL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights