DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Oath/Declaration
3. The receipt of Oath/Declaration is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawing(s) filed on 03/21/2025 are accepted by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
6. Claims 1-9 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
10. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
11. Claims 1-3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery et al. (US 2006/0136706 A1 ‘Montgomery’) in view of Dahlberg et al. (US 2017/0109104 A1 ‘Dahlberg’).
Regarding Claim 1:
Montgomery discloses an image forming apparatus (Montgomery: Fig. 1 ‘printer 100’) comprising:
an image forming device that forms an image on a sheet (Montgomery: Fig. 1 ‘printer 100 and its printing elements, including duplex operation’ (¶¶[0010-0012]);
a first storage device that stores firmware for the image forming apparatus (Montgomery: ‘memory 125/storage 130 retains operating software and configuration data’ (¶¶[0010-0012]); a stored firmware image is updated at step 240 (¶[0018]); and
a control device that includes a processor and functions, through the processor executing a control program, as a controller that controls the image forming apparatus (Montgomery: Fig. 1 ‘CPU 120 executes the printer software’ (¶¶[0009-0012]),
wherein the firmware contains:
a (Montgomery: ‘a configuration file governs duplexing, speed and other printer functions’ (¶[0012]));
the controller reads, upon startup of the image forming apparatus, the (Montgomery: ‘the bootloader loads the operating system and applies stored configuration at power-up’ (¶[0012])).
Montgomery does not disclose wherein the firmware contains a binary file in the function-activating configuration file.
Dahlberg discloses wherein the firmware contains a binary file in the function-activating configuration file (Dahlberg’s package includes firmware and configuration files (Fig. 4: ¶¶[0069-0071]), recognizes boot/kernel binary entries (¶¶[0080-0083]), and reads the stored configuration at startup (¶¶[0098-0099])).
Montgomery & Dahlberg are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of printer software configuration and maintenance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Montgomery’s printer firmware as the binary and configuration-file arrangement taught by Dahlberg.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to simplify and speed up the update procedure as disclosed by Dahlberg. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Montgomery with Dahlberg to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2:
The proposed combination of Montgomery in view of Dahlberg further discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the function-activating configuration file describes an operating condition for the binary file that controls hardware capable of realizing a function installed in one or some of all models of the image forming apparatus (Montgomery uses common code with configuration-selected capabilities, including duplexing and different speeds (¶[0022]); Dahlberg identifies resources by printer type or family (¶[0068]).
Montgomery & Dahlberg are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of printer software configuration and maintenance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the operating settings in the modified apparatus according to the installed capabilities of the target model.
The suggestion/motivation for doing is so that the hardware functions work on the specific model that is receiving the firmware. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Montgomery with Dahlberg to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3:
The proposed combination of Montgomery in view of Dahlberg further discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the function-activating configuration file is a rewritable file (Montgomery writes updated configuration into persistent memory (¶[0017]; Fig. 2, step 230). Dahlberg updates or replaces the stored configuration file (¶[0099])).
Montgomery & Dahlberg are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of printer software configuration and maintenance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein the function-activating configuration file is a rewritable file. The suggestion/motivation for is to simplify and speed up the update procedure as disclosed by Dahlberg. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Montgomery with Dahlberg to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding Claim 7:
The proposed combination of Montgomery in view of Dahlberg further discloses the image formation system comprising the image forming apparatus according to claim 1 and a server,
the image forming apparatus further comprising a first communication device that sends and receives data to and from the server via a network (Dahlberg: Fig. 3 ‘AEP server 102 communicates with printers 108 over network 106’ (¶¶[0065-0067])., the server comprising:
a second storage device that stores the binary file and the function-activating configuration file, each file compatible with individual models of the image forming apparatus (Dahlberg: Figs. 3-4 ‘server-stored packages contain the specified resources, with target-platform identification’ (¶¶[0065-0074], [0080-0086]); and
a second communication device that sends and receives data to and from the image forming apparatus via the network (Dahlberg: Fig. 2 ‘the network interfaces support the server/printer exchange (¶[0055]; ¶¶[0066-0067]),
wherein the controller of the image forming apparatus downloads the binary file and the function-activating configuration file through the first communication device from the server and allows the first storage device to update the binary file and the function-activating configuration file in the first storage device to the downloaded binary file and function-activating configuration file and store the updated binary file and function-activating configuration file (Dahlberg: ‘package retrieval, installation, firmware upgrading, and configuration replacement are disclosed in ¶¶[0066-0071], [0090-0099]).
Montgomery & Dahlberg are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of printer software configuration and maintenance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified apparatus with this server distribution arrangement so the executable binary and its associated configuration could be delivered and maintained remotely for compatible printer models. The suggestion/motivation for is to simplify and speed up the update procedure as disclosed by Dahlberg. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Montgomery with Dahlberg to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 4-6, 8 and 9 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.
13. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 4:
The prior art applied in this action does not teach or render obvious the claimed combination in which the controller displays an error message when the binary file lacks the program whose operating condition should be described in the function activating configuration file and which should be executed by the controller.
Regarding Claim 5:
The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a display device, wherein, on failure to read the function-activating configuration file from the first storage device, the controller allows the display device to display an error message.
Regarding Claim 6:
The prior art applied in this action does not teach or render obvious the claimed combination in which failure to read the function activating configuration file from the first storage device causes the controller to display an error message.
Regarding Claim 8:
The prior art applied in this action does not teach or render obvious the claimed combination wherein when the binary file does not contain any program the operating condition for which should be described in the function-activating configuration file and which should be executed by the controller, the controller of the image forming apparatus allows the first communication device to download the binary file containing the program from the server and allows the first storage device to make an update to the downloaded binary file and store the updated binary file.
Regarding Claim 9:
The prior art applied in this action does not teach or render obvious the claimed combination in which failure to read the function-activating configuration file causes the controller to download a normal function-activating configuration file from the server and update and store.
Relevant Prior Art
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kwon (US 2010/0107153) relate to installing a file in an image forming apparatus, and more particularly, to a method of installing an integrated file in an image forming apparatus, wherein various types of files (such as an application program, a driver, and firmware) are integrated to be installed in the image forming apparatus, and an image forming apparatus to install the integrated file therein.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL R MCLEAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6AM - 4PM, PST.
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, Akwasi M Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/NEIL R MCLEAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights