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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/19/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendment filed with an RCE on 3/19/2026. Claims 1-4 have been amended. Claims 1-4 are pending in the case. Claims 1 and 4 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-3 have been amended and rejections withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 3/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the reference do not disclose the amendment limitation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Sato discloses “the developer also granted access to update the development history information during the operational phase and the maintenance phase and grants, among the users, a person who constructs a service, a right to access the model in the operation phase and the maintenance phase.” (Fig. 1 and [0026] of Sato, “FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a configuration of a job history data inspection system, in which a client PC 102, a digital multifunction peripheral 103, a data processing server 104, a database server 105, a search server 106, and an LDAP server 107 are connected to each other via a network 101. The digital multifunction peripheral 103 is an example of an image processing processor, and the data processing server 104 is an example of a data processing apparatus. Further, the database server 105 is an example of a memory processor, and the search server 106 is an inspection control processor”. Further, as shown in Fig. 7, and [0065]-[0070] of Sato, where the process includes different phases as claimed, and also right to access the job histories. [0093]-[0095] of Sato, “if an inspector has an access right that is determined based on the access right definition 901, the inspector may be allowed to refer to all the contents of a job history. As another example, if an inspector has an access right based on the job execution user acquired in step S403, the inspector may be allowed to refer to only the job name and the job execution date and time of the job history. For example, the inspector "Administrator1" illustrated in FIG. 8 has the access right "Design Dept Administrator", this inspector is allowed to browse all the contents of the job history having the job history ID "00001" and [0077] of Sato, “The access right definition unit 902 includes a Web application function of changing the access right definition 901. Administrators of the job history management system can access to the access right definition unit 902 via a Web browser to check or update (edit) current contents of the access right definition 901.” Hence, the administrator/developer has management access to update contents of the job history which can be job access right information which was set before but can be changed or edited by the developer/administrator)
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 20110032572 A1) in view of Liberty et al (US 11537439 B1).
Referring to claims 1 and 4, Sato discloses an information processing system comprising:
a processor configured to:
acquire design information for machine learning and target data for the machine learning; ([0072]-[0075] of Sato, design configuration for the job. The Specification does not give “machine learning” any special meaning, under BRI, “machine learning” is a software module that receives data and outputs data)
an environment setting processor configured to set a framework environment and library information for executing the design information that has been acquired, and a software configuration for assisting an execution of the machine learning in the framework environment according to version information of the framework environment and the library information; (Fig. 1 and [0026] of Sato, “FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a configuration of a job history data inspection system, in which a client PC 102, a digital multifunction peripheral 103, a data processing server 104, a database server 105, a search server 106, and an LDAP server 107 are connected to each other via a network 101. The digital multifunction peripheral 103 is an example of an image processing processor, and the data processing server 104 is an example of a data processing apparatus. Further, the database server 105 is an example of a memory processor, and the search server 106 is an inspection control processor”)
generate or update a model by executing learning for the target data using the design information that has been acquired and the framework environment that has been set; ([0036] of Sato, “A database management system (DBMS) that operates on the database server 105 manages the DB and ensures the consistency of data during data addition, update, search, or the like. Job histories are stored in the database server 105 via the DBMS. As long as job histories can be stored in a memory processor, an arbitrary server may be used as a database server applicable to the first exemplary embodiment. A file server may be used as the database server, for example.”)
manage the design information and the target data that has been acquired, information on the framework environment that has been set, and information on the model that has been generated or updated as development history information; and ([0063] of Sato, user’s access right to certain job history) and
wherein the processor manages phases used by the user by dividing them into an introduction phase in which the processor acquires the design information and the target data, a construction phase in which the processor generates or updates the model, an operation phase in which the processor performs the inference processing using the model, and a maintenance phase in which the processor maintains the model, the processor grants, among the users, a developer who develops the design information, a right to access the development history information in the introduction phase and the construction phase, the developer also granted access to update the development history information during the operational phase and the maintenance phase and grants, among the users, a person who constructs a service, a right to access the model in the operation phase and the maintenance phase. (Fig. 1 and [0026] of Sato, “FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a configuration of a job history data inspection system, in which a client PC 102, a digital multifunction peripheral 103, a data processing server 104, a database server 105, a search server 106, and an LDAP server 107 are connected to each other via a network 101. The digital multifunction peripheral 103 is an example of an image processing processor, and the data processing server 104 is an example of a data processing apparatus. Further, the database server 105 is an example of a memory processor, and the search server 106 is an inspection control processor”. Further, as shown in Fig. 7, and [0065]-[0070] of Sato, where the process includes different phases as claimed, and also right to access the job histories. [0093]-[0095] of Sato, “if an inspector has an access right that is determined based on the access right definition 901, the inspector may be allowed to refer to all the contents of a job history. As another example, if an inspector has an access right based on the job execution user acquired in step S403, the inspector may be allowed to refer to only the job name and the job execution date and time of the job history. For example, the inspector "Administrator1" illustrated in FIG. 8 has the access right "Design Dept Administrator", this inspector is allowed to browse all the contents of the job history having the job history ID "00001" and [0077] of Sato, “The access right definition unit 902 includes a Web application function of changing the access right definition 901. Administrators of the job history management system can access to the access right definition unit 902 via a Web browser to check or update (edit) current contents of the access right definition 901.” Hence, the administrator/developer has management access to update contents of the job history which can be job access right information which was set before but can be changed or edited by the developer/administrator)
wherein the processor receives a request from the user to provide recommendation information, (the Specification is silent as to what is “recommendation information” and what this information is, under BRI, it is treated as providing result to user using the system) then searches user information and the environment setting information, and obtains a search result of the environment setting information corresponding to the development history information in a disclosable range (Fig. 8 and [0072]-[0074] of Sato, “depending on the contents of a job history, the data processing server 104 sets an access right to the job history. Thus, the range of an inspection by an inspector can be limited, and unnecessary inspection of confidential information or personal information can be prevented” hence the user can search and limit the job history of an inspector by range of inspection) according to an access authority of the user, then presents the development history information of the search result to the user, ([0093]-[0095] of Sato, “if an inspector has an access right that is determined based on the access right definition 901, the inspector may be allowed to refer to all the contents of a job history. As another example, if an inspector has an access right based on the job execution user acquired in step S403, the inspector may be allowed to refer to only the job name and the job execution date and time of the job history. For example, the inspector "Administrator1" illustrated in FIG. 8 has the access right "Design Dept Administrator", this inspector is allowed to browse all the contents of the job history having the job history ID "00001".” Here, the user/inspector who has access right can search and browse all the job history associated with job history ID “00001”.)
the processor receives an interface providing request from the user, and the processor provides a requested development interface to the user. (Fig. 1 and [0026] of Sato, “FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a configuration of a job history data inspection system, in which a client PC 102, a digital multifunction peripheral 103, a data processing server 104, a database server 105, a search server 106, and an LDAP server 107 are connected to each other via a network 101. The digital multifunction peripheral 103 is an example of an image processing processor, and the data processing server 104 is an example of a data processing apparatus. Further, the database server 105 is an example of a memory processor, and the search server 106 is an inspection control processor” here, the processor can receive and provide requests from user and/or to users.)
Sato does not specifically disclose “receive an output instruction of environment setting information from a user of the own system, present the setting information recommended to the user, and set the environment based on the setting information selected by the user.”
However, Liberty discloses receive an output instruction of environment setting information from a user of the own system, present the setting information recommended to the user, and set the environment based on the setting information selected by the user (col. 7, line 40-col. 8, line 19 of Liberty, where the user select from recommended configurations)
Sato and Liberty are analogous art because both references concern training job environments. Accordingly, 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 Sato’s job history data management system with ML resource configuration system as taught by Liberty. The motivation for doing so would have been provide training data to a computer, to allow the computer to automatically learn from the training data to generate a model that can make predictions for other data—implementing machine learning techniques in practice can be tremendously difficult. (background of Liberty)
Referring to claim 2, Sato in view of Liberty disclose the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor receives a request for changing a setting from the user of the information processing system, and provides an environment setting that reflects a received change content, and the processor also manages whether or not the setting has been changed. (col. 7, line 40-col. 8, line 19 of Liberty, where the user select from recommended configurations, and col. 17, lines 13-24 of Liberty, some information can be changed and some not changed)
Referring to claim 3, Sato in view of Liberty disclose the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor recognizes a disclosable range in which the development history information can be disclosed to the user according to an access authority set for the user of the information processing system, and provides the user with the development history information in the recognized disclosable range as recommendation information. ([0073] of Sato, “According to the first exemplary embodiment, depending on the contents of a job history, the data processing server 104 sets an access right to the job history. Thus, the range of an inspection by an inspector can be limited, and unnecessary inspection of confidential information or personal information can be prevented.”)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Rico (US 20190245812 A1): Methods and systems for using a robot to interact in a social media includes receiving a request for registering the robot in the social media from a user. In response to the request, user profile of the user is retrieved. The user profile of the user identifies privileges assigned to the user for interacting in the social media. The robot is paired to the user account of the user by generating a second user account for the robot in the social media and assigning, to the robot, a subset of the privileges associated with the user account. The privileges allow the robot to access the social interactions available in the user account and to generate social interactions on behalf of the user, which are then posted to the social media for the user.
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://;www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e- mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIMEI JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Mariela D Reyes can be reached on 571-270-1006. 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.
/HAIMEI JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Processor 2175