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 . 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.
Priority
The USPTO has retrieved certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 to obtain the benefit of foreign priority. These papers have been placed of record in the file. A certified English translation is not currently required and has not been filed. Filing of a certified English translation may become necessary during prosecution of this application, such as in the event of an interference or intervening reference. Applicant is advised that should a certified English translation be required, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in order for applicant to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). See 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e) or 37 CFR 1.55 and MPEP § 201.15, respectively. In that event, failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed September 16, 2025, are responsive to the office action mailed May 21, 2025. Claims 1-16 and 18 were previously pending. Claims 1-2, 6-7, 12-14, and 16, have been amended, claims 4 and 15 have been cancelled, and claims 19-21 are new. Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16, and 18-21 are therefore currently pending and considered in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Pertaining to objection to the specification in the previous office action
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed September 16, 2025, with respect to the NIC (network interface controller) have been fully considered and are persuasive. This objection has been withdrawn.
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 112 in the previous office action
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed September 16, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement have been fully considered and are persuasive. This rejection has been traversed.
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 101 in the previous office action
Applicant's arguments filed September 16, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1-16 and 18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 4 and 15 have been cancelled and this rejection is maintained with regard to the remaining claims 1-3, 5-14, 16, and 18-21.
Applicant argues
“page 6 of the Office Action, with regard to Prong One of Step 2A, merely recites some, but not all, limitations of only Claim 14 with a conclusion "that each [limitation] on its own recites an abstract idea and in combination they altogether simply recite a more detailed abstract idea”. Remarks p.10.
Applicant has not understood the rejection. The reason that some but not all limitations are cited is because the office action separated out additional elements from abstract ideas. At step 2A prong one, it is determined whether an abstract idea is recited, hence the abstract ideas were cited at that point in the office action. Additional elements were treated under step 2A prong two as clearly identified in the action. Applicant continues with argument directed to step 2A prong one that “Claim 1 recites a network interface coupled to at least one processor,” to support the proposition that an abstract idea is not recited. Again, additional elements are addressed at prong two. The abstract idea is identified at prong one. This argument does not address the relevant factors and so is not persuasive.
Addressing prong 2 applicant directs argument to the prior art relied upon in the rejection, asserting that the present disclosure discloses an improvement upon those references. Applicant does not assert any particular factor in the prong 2 analysis that applicant is attempting to address, however examiner is treating this as intending to imply that applicants specification describes technical improvements realized by the claim over the relied upon prior art. As noted in the rejection the disclosure, while it may suggest improvements over the relied upon prior art, does not describe any improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. This improvement would further need to be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims.
Applicant’s argument directed to step 2B does not identify any technical problem or technical solution. The argument is therefore not persuasive.
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 103 in the previous office action
Applicant's arguments filed September 16, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1-9, 11-16, and 18, were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAGNON (Paper No. 20240419; Pub. No. US 2013/0054297 A1) in view of RUIZ (Paper No. 20241104; Pub. No. US 2018/0275935 A1). A new ground of rejection has nonetheless been necessitated by the amendment.
Applicant argues
“that the rejecting references do not (a) receive their requests from a plurality of orderer systems, nor (b) use a common electronic format. Instead, Applicant understands that the rejecting references receive their requests from a single intermediary system and do not contemplate the claimed electronic format…. because the rejecting references (Ruiz and Gagnon) are understood to receive their requests from a single intermediary system, they consequently have not been found to teach the claimed receiving of the claimed plurality of sets of quotation request information from a plurality of orderer systems via the claimed network interface”. Remarks pp.15-16.
This is not persuasive for multiple reasons. First, as shown in the additional cites provided below in the detailed rejection, both references disclose a plurality of orderer systems and at least Gagnon discloses common format. Second, “using a common electronic format” is a broader concept than applicant acknowledges. For example, html is a common format. If all requests are received over the internet in html format, that reads on the claim. See also Comstock et al. (Paper No. 20241104; Pub. No. US 2015/0170244 A1) cited as relevant though not relied upon in the office action mailed May 21, 2025. Gagnon also discloses "the possibility of placing an order without an intermediary." Gagnon ¶0317.
Applicant argues that the Gagnon reference relates to artwork and therefore not to a print product. Examiner responds that artwork is printed, frequently appears in print and as printed work, and it is commonly known to order a print or prints of artwork. Applicant does not explain how artwork is distinguishable from printed products.
Applicant argues
“the Ruiz reference is silent about deriving a submission deadline for submission data based on information indicating time required for producing the print product, wherein the submission data is original data of a print product.” Remarks p.16.
This is disclosed primarily in Gagnon as noted because there is no reasonable distinction between printed artwork and any other print product. It is also disclosed in Ruiz, and citations to both references appear below under the detailed rejection.
Applicant argues
“neither the Gagnon reference nor the Ruiz reference, taken separately or in any proper combination, have not been found to teach or suggest updating, when receiving an order, the claimed production capacity by subtracting an amount of production capacity to be assigned to production of the print product from the production capacity according to the quotation information corresponding to the order.” Ibid.
This is persuasive. The feature is taught by Taoka in the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and recites the limitation “create the quotation information for all products corresponding to the product specification.” Claim 5 recites “create the quotation information for all products corresponding to the product specification, and associate identification information with each of the products.” Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16, and 18-21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (step 2B). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 189 L. Ed. 2d 296, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4303, 110 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1976, 82 U.S.L.W. 4508, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 870, 2014 WL 2765283 (U.S. 2014); MPEP 2106.
Step 1:
In the instant case claims 1-12, 15-16, and 18-21, are directed to a machine, claim 13 is directed to a manufacture, and claim 14 is directed to a process. All claims are therefore within statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03, Eligibility Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
These claims also recite, inter alia,
“receiving a plurality of sets of quotation request information in a common electronic transaction format from a plurality of orderer systems … one set of the plurality of sets of quotation request information being particular quotation request information received … from a particular orderer system from the plurality of orderer systems, and the particular quotation request information indicating a quotation request for a print product from the particular orderer system; obtaining information including a product specification and a delivery date from the particular quotation request information; deriving a submission deadline for submission data based on information indicating time required for producing the print product, wherein the submission data is original data of a print product, and the time required for producing the print product is determined according to (i) the product specification and (ii) the delivery date included in the obtained information and (iii) a production capacity…; creating quotation information including the derived submission deadline; transmitting the quotation information to the particular orderer system; receiving an order of the print product based on the quotation information from the particular orderer system; updating, when receiving the order, the production capacity by subtracting an amount of production capacity to be assigned to production of the print product from the production capacity according to the quotation information corresponding to the order; … create the print product in a case where the submission data is accepted by the derived submission deadline; and transmitting, to the particular orderer system, a response indicating a rejection of the submission data in a case where the submission data is accepted after the derived submission deadline.” Claim 14.
A careful analysis of the above limitations, each on its own and all together combined, results in the conclusion that each on its own recites an abstract idea and in combination they altogether simply recite a more detailed abstract idea. The recited abstract idea falls within the grouping of abstract ideas described as certain methods of organizing human activity, for example commercial interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). See MPEP 2106.04(a); Eligibility Step 2A1. The claims must therefore be analyzed under the second prong of Eligibility Step 2 (Step 2A2; MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In order to address prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step2A2) we must identify whether there are any additional elements beyond the abstract ideas and determine whether those additional elements (if there are any) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step 2A2. The additional elements in the present claims are at least one processor, a network interface connected to the at least one processor, at least one memory in which at least one program is stored, “print product,” and printing device, in claims 1-12, 15-16, and 18-21, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing at least one program, a network interface connected to a computer, “print product,” and printing device, in claim 13, and a network interface, “print product,” and printing device, in claim 14.
The additional elements in claims 1-12, 15-16, and 18-21, have been considered individually, in combination, and altogether as a whole together with the functions they perform, e.g., in claims 1-12, 15-16, and 18-21, the processor executes a program and the medium of claim 13 stores a program that (when executed) causes a computer (processor) to perform the program. In all of claims 1-13, 15-16, and 18-21, the executed program is broadly and generally recited as performing all steps in terms of the intended results of functionally nonspecific activities involved in the business transaction of ordering a printed product. In all claims, including claim 14, the network interface performs no particular function other than to serve as the ether through which the transfer of information occurs, the “print product” merely describes the topic of the information being transferred, it performs no particular role in the claims other than to serve as the topic of the order process, and the printing device is only the topic of the data concerning capacity. It is “caused” to create the print product, but is only a field of use and is not recited as performing any particular function other than the basic generic printing that any printing device must necessarily perform, i.e., to “apply it”. In method claim 14 it may not even perform that function because it is claimed as an alternative that may not occur.
The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the process is recited only by descriptions of abstract intended results of steps recited as abstract ideas, without indicating any particular technological functions or acts performed by any device or structural element. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of any computer or other technology or technical field, they do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, they do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, and they fail to apply or use the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05.
The disclosure does not describe any improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. This improvement would further need to be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim limitations can integrate a judicial exception into a practical application by implementing the judicial exception with or using it in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of generic computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2106.05(b),(f). There are no particular machines or manufactures identified in the present claims. Claimed elements that are not abstract are identified broadly and generically as field of use applying the method, and the method itself is described only by way of the abstractly described results of unidentified activities, without reference to any particular technical acts or specific functions performed by any particularly identified machines, and without reference to its use in conjunction with any particular item of manufacture.
The claims do not effect the transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which data, thoughts, impressions, or human based actions are "changed" are not considered a transformation. MPEP 2106.05(c).
The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. As a result the claim as a whole appears to be a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. MPEP 2106.05(e),(h).
The additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Although the additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application the claims could still be eligible if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more” than the judicial exception). MPEP 2106.05, Eligibility Step 2B.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the claim are only props supporting instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception by using computing devices. MPEP 2106.05(f). The “printing device” is a generic element and performs only the insignificant extra-solution activity of printing the print product. It is also not affirmatively claimed as part of the claimed invention, i.e., it could be literally any printing device, and rather than being recited as performing any function, it is merely caused to do so as part of a process recited entirely as being performed by a processor. The mere act of printing a resulting print product has not been found to change an abstract idea to eligible subject matter. See Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 126 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55. “An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report.” MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claims invoke computers or other machinery merely as tools to perform an abstract process. Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9721, 115 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”). The elements fail to present a technical solution to a technical problem created by the use of the surrounding technology. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. See Ret. Capital Access Mgmt. Co. v. U.S. Bancorp, 611 Fed. Appx. 1007, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“It may be very clever; it may be very useful in a commercial context, but they are still abstract ideas,” said Circuit Judge Alan Lourie.). MPEP 2106.05(h).
No technical problem is indicated and the claims are not directed to a technical solution to such a problem. The method claimed is a nontechnical series of steps taken to practice an entrepreneurial activity. This conclusion is supported by applicant's disclosure, which elaborates upon the performance of the presently claimed method by describing the abstract ideas in detail while only incidentally or tangentially explaining the preexisting (prior art) computer equipment, without identifying any technical problem that arises within said equipment and without offering a technical solution to any such problem. It ultimately only describes the abstract idea while indicating the intention to “apply it.” Confining the abstract idea to a particular field is insufficient to render it eligible subject matter.
Finally, dependent claims 2-3, 5-12, 16, and 18-20, do not add "significantly more" to establish eligibility because they merely recite additional abstract ideas that further describe the identification and manipulation of data used in implementing the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea is still abstract. PricePlay.com, Inc. v. AOL Adver., Inc., 627 Fed. Appx. 925, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 611, 2016 WL 80002 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2016) (in addressing a bundle of abstract ideas stacked together during oral argument, U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said, "All of these ideas are abstract…. It’s like you want a patent because you combined two abstract ideas and say two is better than one.").
All of the above leads to the conclusion that additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the claimed subject matter into significantly more than an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05; Eligibility Step 2B. As a result the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because they recite an abstract idea without being directed to a practical application, and they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05, supra..
The preceding analysis applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-14, 16, and 18-21, are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101 based upon the same analysis.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16, and 18-21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAGNON (Paper No. 20240419; Pub. No. US 2013/0054297 A1) in view of RUIZ (Paper No. 20241104; Pub. No. US 2018/0275935 A1) and further in view of Taoka et al. (Paper No. 20240419; Patent Number 5,657,453).
Gagnon discloses receiving a request for a quotation and producing a quotation based on product specification and production capacity, and Gagnon further discloses, regarding
Claim 1. An order management system comprising:
● at least one processor (see at least Gagnon ¶0002 “computerized system”);
● a network interface connected to the at least one processor (see at least Gagnon ¶¶0320, 0324 “web interface used to explore, create, and place orders”); and
● at least one memory (see at least Gagnon fig. 1) in which at least one program (see at least Gagnon ¶0156 “software application”) is stored, wherein the at least one program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor at least to: ● receive a plurality of sets of quotation request information in a common electronic transaction format from a plurality of orderer systems via the network interface, one set of the plurality of sets of quotation request information being particular quotation request information received via the network interface from a particular orderer system from the plurality of orderer systems, and the particular quotation request information indicating a quotation request for a print product from the particular orderer system (see at least Gagnon abstract “receiving a request for artwork from a requester, the request including a requested style identifier and a performance condition; identifying an available skilled producer among the list of producers, by comparing the performance condition to the availability data... generating an order request,” figs. 2, 4, ¶0009 “Requesters also often ask the producer to use a style whereof the features are obtained by a mix of various elements from disparate sources,” ¶0116 “Native format: standard file format with encoding specific to the image processing software used,” ¶0117 “Inherited format: open file format, with encoding type recognized by several image processing software applications,” ¶0180 “The request receiver 200 receives and redirects the requests. They will either be rejected, if they are not compliant, or sent to the request analyst 202 to be processed, if they are compliant,” ¶0181 “request must also contain complete information. This information comes from lists of terms preapproved or recognized by the request receiver 200. It is associated with each parameter, i.e. production times and dates, anticipated delivery dates,” ¶0203-0204 “To be compliant, a model must be recorded in a file in the native format of an image-generating software application…. If the model is deemed compliant 304, it will be transferred 308 by means of a proposal. If not, it will be redirected. It will therefore be returned to the producer”. Please note: all of this clearly describes that requests are received from a plurality of requesters and that a compliant commonly formatted request must be received in order to be accepted as a proposal. See also Ruiz for numerous references to receiving requests from a “plurality of remote computing devices.”);
● obtain information including a product specification and a delivery date from the particular quotation request information (see at least Gagnon abstract “receiving a request for artwork from a requester, the request including a requested style identifier and a performance condition,” figs. 2, 4, ¶0005 “set a price and a turnaround time for the order,” ¶0196 “a validity period/expiration date may be indexed with certain objects. If necessary, the generator 214 attaches an error message to the submission”);
● derive a submission deadline for submission data based on information indicating time required for producing the print product, wherein the submission data is original data of a print product, and the time required for producing the print product is determined according to (i) the product specification and (ii) the delivery date included in the obtained information and (iii) a production capacity of a printing device that produces the print product (see at least Gagnon fig. 4 (420) “evaluate the detail level of the image for time + production cost,” (time cost is time to produce thus it is equivalent to deadline for submission), ¶0014 “retrieving a production time per production unit for said requested style identifier; receiving an estimation of a number of production units required for the order request, … generating a time submission for the order request by multiplying the number of production units by the time per production unit,” ¶0021 “performance condition includes at least one performance data among the following: production time, partial delivery date, final delivery date,” ¶0029 “In one example embodiment, the list of styles includes a production time per production unit required to produce artwork in each style, … estimating a number of production units required for the request from the performance condition; generating a submission for the request by multiplying the number of production units by the time per production unit,” ¶0191 “To produce a submission, the order generator 214 queries the rights, permissions, restrictions DBS 216 to append those corresponding to the style elements making up the module thereto. It also calculates … the production times, which are determined by multiplying the number of units to be produced for each element by its performance time per production unit,” ¶0196 “a contrary case would explain that conditions are no longer or can no longer be respected, for example because they have expired; a validity period/expiration date may be indexed with certain objects. If necessary, the generator 214 attaches an error message to the submission.... If compliance with all of the rights, permissions, and restrictions related to the order is possible, the generator 214 creates a quotation.” Please note: production capacity includes time per production unit. Although not required to disclose this limitation, see also Ruiz fig.5, ¶0014 “The printing service can preview the electronic document to estimate how much processing time will be required to complete the job, along with the user's target date for printing. The printing service can set a cutoff date and time,” ¶0016 “printing company 230 may have pre-examined one or more versions of the user's electronic document to estimate or re-estimate when the document must be received to make the user's deadline”).
Gagnon teaches all of the above as noted and teaches, a) a quotation request, b) product specification and delivery date, and c) a submission deadline, but does not explicitly disclose create quotation information including the derived submission deadline.
Ruiz also teaches a) a quotation request, b) product specification and delivery date, and c) a submission deadline, and further discloses
● create quotation information including the derived submission deadline (see at least Ruiz fig. 5, ¶0014 “The printing service can preview the electronic document to estimate how much processing time will be required to complete the job, along with the user's target date for printing. The printing service can set a cutoff date and time for document editing completion in order to make the user's printing schedule,” claims 5-6).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Gagnon to include create quotation information including the derived submission deadline, as taught by Ruiz since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from Ruiz in the method of Gagnon. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Gagnon in view of Ruiz discloses
● transmit the quotation information to the particular orderer system (see at least Gagnon figs. 2, 4, ¶0030);
● receive an order of the print product based on the quotation information from the
particular orderer system (see at least Gagnon abstract “generating an order request for artwork to the available skilled producer,” figs. 2, 4, ¶¶0012 “generating an order request for artwork to the available skilled producer,” ¶0017 “receiving a quotation for said request, … and assigning said quotation to said order request,” ¶0027 “obtaining a request for artwork from a requester, the request including a style identifier and a performance condition… comparing the performance condition to be availability data and … generating an order for artwork and sending that order to the available skilled producer,” ¶0030 “obtaining the quotation for the request, … and attaching the quotation to the order,” ¶0252 “The sending step 438 may be undertaken as a confirmation of the quotation 430. It consists, inter alia, of sending the order …. producers will receive a copy of the complete order”).
Gagnon in view of Ruiz teaches all of the above as noted. It teaches, a) receiving a quotation request, b) creating a quotation including a submission deadline, c) basing the quotation on product specification, and d) production capacity, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one program further causes the at least one processor to update, when receiving the order, the production capacity by subtracting an amount of production capacity to be assigned to production of the print product from the production capacity according to the quotation information corresponding to the order.
Taoka also teaches a) receiving a quotation request, b) creating a quotation including a submission deadline, c) basing the quotation on product specification, and d) production capacity, and further discloses wherein the at least one program further causes the at least one processor to update, when receiving the order, the production capacity by subtracting an amount of production capacity to be assigned to production of the print product from the production capacity according to the quotation information corresponding to the order, therefore Gagnon in view of Ruiz and further in view of Taoka teaches
● update, when receiving the order, the production capacity by subtracting an amount of production capacity to be assigned to production of the print product from the production capacity according to the quotation information corresponding to the order (see at least Taoka c4:15-25 "allocate data for the required production quantity of each type of product to a series of time buckets from Tl to Tn," c9:55-65 "difference between the required production quantity and the designated production quantity is transferred as a request remainder," c12:45-67 "the difference between the designated production quantity and the required production quantity is transferred to the required production of the next time bucket as a request remainder." Please note: examiner’s position is that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that determining the difference between the required production quantity (required for the quoted order) and the designated production quantity (the designated capacity during the allotted time span) is the same as subtracting an amount of production capacity to be assigned to production of the print product from the total production capacity during the same time frame.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Gagnon in view of Ruiz to include wherein the at least one program further causes the at least one processor to update, when receiving the order, the production capacity by subtracting an amount of production capacity to be assigned to production of the print product from the production capacity according to the quotation information corresponding to the order, as taught by Taoka since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from Taoka in the method of Gagnon in view of Ruiz. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Gagnon in view of Ruiz and further in view of Taoka discloses
● cause the printing device to create the print product in a case where the submission data is accepted by the derived submission deadline (see at least Gagnon abstract “producing an order for artwork,” fig. 4, in view of Ruiz fig. 5); and
● transmit, to the particular orderer system, a response indicating a rejection of the submission data in a case where the submission data is accepted after the derived submission deadline (see at least Gagnon fig. 2, ¶0180 “request receiver 200 receives and redirects the requests. They will … be rejected, if they are not compliant,” ¶0193 “to produce the quotation, it must first have identified the submission as being accepted,” ¶0196 “The contrary case would explain that conditions are no longer or can no longer be respected, for example because they have expired; …. If necessary, the generator 214 attaches an error message to the submission and returns it to the requester”. Also see Ruiz fig. 5, ¶0014 “printing service can set a cutoff date and time for document editing completion,” ¶0019 “If the deadline is reached and it is determined that the document is not complete at block 536, then the print order is cancelled”).
Claim 2. The order management system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one program further causes the at least one processor at least to, if the derived submission deadline is prior to the timing at which the particular quotation request information is received, transmit to the particular orderer system a response indicating that the particular quotation request information is rejected (see at least Gagnon fig. 2, ¶0196 “conditions are no longer or can no longer be respected, for example because they have expired; a validity period/expiration date may be indexed with certain objects. If necessary, the generator 214 attaches an error message to the submission”).
Claim 3. The order management system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one program further causes the at least one processor at least to, in a case where, in the particular quotation request information, necessary information for derivation of the quotation information is insufficient, make a request for the necessary information to the particular orderer system (see at least Gagnon figs. 3-4, ¶0204 “request for identification and correction of the noncompliant aspects”).
Claim 5. The order management system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one program further causes the at least one processor at least to create the quotation information for all products corresponding to the product specification, and associate identification information with each of the products (see at least Gagnon figs. 2-4, abstract “retrieving availability data for the producers,” ¶0196 “If compliance with all of the rights, permissions, and restrictions related to the order is possible, the generator 214 creates a quotation”).
Claim 6. The order management system according to claim 5, wherein the at least one program further causes the at least one processor at least to:
● create the quotation information for all products corresponding to the product specification (see at least Gagnon figs. 2-4, abstract “retrieving availability data for the producers,” ¶0196 “If compliance with all of the rights, permissions, and restrictions related to the order is possible, the generator 214 creates a quotation”).
Claim 7. The order management system according to claim 5, wherein the at least one program further causes the at least one processor at least to, in a case where the derived submission deadline for all of the products is prior to a timing at which the quotation request is received, transmit to the particular orderer system a response indicating that the particular quotation request information is rejected (see at least Gagnon fig. 2, ¶0180 “request receiver 200 receives and redirects the requests. They will … be rejected, if they are not compliant,” ¶0193 “to produce the quotation, it must first have identified the submission as being accepted,” ¶0196 “conditions are no longer or can no longer be respected, for example because they have expired; a validity period/expiration date may be indexed with certain objects. If necessary, the generator 214 attaches an error message to the submission”).
Claim 8. The order management system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one program further causes the at least one processor at least to, in accordance with the delivery date, create the quotation information that allows a plurality of different submission deadlines, and makes a quotation money amount different for each of the submission deadlines (see at least Gagnon ¶0005 “set a price and a turnaround time for the order” ¶¶0020 and 0033 go into detail regarding price modification reflecting variation in conditions).Claim 9. The order management system according to claim 8, wherein the at least one program further causes the at least one processor at least to:
● determine an invoice amount for the particular orderer system, and in a case where there is a submission corresponding to an order, determine, as an invoice amount, a quotation money amount corresponding to an earliest submission time after a submission time corresponding to the order (see at least Gagnon ¶¶0005, 0020-0021, 0033 as previously cited).
Claim 10. The order management system according to claim 8, wherein the at least one program further causes the at least one processor at least to create the quotation information so that a quotation money amount is less for an earlier submission deadline (see at least Gagnon ¶¶0005, 0020-0021, 0033, in view of Taoka figs. 1-4, 7).
Claim 11. The order management system according to claim 8, wherein the at least one program further causes the at least one processor at least to, in accordance with the delivery date, derive a latest submission deadline and the quotation information, and create the quotation information by progressing through submission deadlines that are progressively earlier each by a predetermined amount of time from the latest submission deadline until a time where the submission deadline is earlier than when the quotation request is received (see at least Gagnon ¶¶0005, 0020-0021, 0033).
Claim 12. The order management system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one program further causes the at least one processor at least to receive the submission data corresponding to the particular quotation request information, and in a case where a submission time is before the submission deadline corresponding to the particular quotation request information, produce a print product by steps according to the product specification based on the received submission data (see at least Gagnon abstract, figs. 2-4).
Claim 13. A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing at least one program, the at least one program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer at least to:
● receive a plurality of sets of quotation request information in a common electronic transaction format from a plurality of orderer systems via a network interface connected to the computer, one set of the plurality of sets of quotation request information being particular quotation request information received via the network interface from a particular orderer system from the plurality of orderer systems, and the particular quotation request information indicating a quotation request for a print product from the particular orderer system (see at least Gagnon abstract “receiving a request for artwork from a requester, the request including a requested style identifier and a performance condition; identifying an available skilled producer among the list of producers, by comparing the performance condition to the availability data... generating an order request,” figs. 2, 4, ¶0009 “Requesters also often ask the producer to use a style whereof the features are obtained by a mix of various elements from disparate sources,” ¶0116 “Native format: standard file format with encoding specific to the image processing software used,” ¶0117 “Inherited format: open file format, with encoding type recognized by several image processing software applications,” ¶0180 “The request receiver 200 receives and redirects the requests. They will either be rejected, if they are not compliant, or sent to the request analyst 202 to be processed, if they are compliant,” ¶0181 “request must also contain complete information. This information comes from lists of terms preapproved or recognized by the request receiver 200. It is associated with each parameter, i.e. production times and dates, anticipated delivery dates,” ¶0203-0204 “To be compliant, a model must be recorded in a file in the native format of an image-generating software application…. If the model is deemed compliant 304, it will be transferred 308 by means of a proposal. If not, it will be redirected. It will therefore be returned to the producer”. Please note: all of this clearly describes that requests are received from a plurality of requesters and that a compliant commonly formatted request must be received in order to be accepted as a proposal.);
● obtain information including a product specification and a delivery date from the particular quotation request information (see at least Gagnon abstract “receiving a request for artwork from a requester, the request including a requested style identifier and a performance condition,” figs. 2, 4, ¶0005 “set a price and a turnaround time for the order,” ¶0196 “a validity period/expiration date may be indexed with certain objects. If necessary, the generator 214 attaches an error message to the submission”);
● derive a submission deadline for submission data based on information indicating time required for producing the print product, wherein the submission data is original data of a print product, and the time required for producing the print product is determined according to (i) the product specification and (ii) the delivery date included in the obtained information and (iii) a production capacity of a printing device that produces the print product (see at least fig. 4 (420) “evaluate the detail level of the image for time + production cost,” (time cost is time to produce thus it is equivalent to deadline for submission), ¶0014 “retrieving a production time per production unit for said requested style identifier; receiving an estimation of a number of production units required for the order request, … generating a time submission for the order request by multiplying the number of production units by the time per production unit,” ¶0021 “performance condition includes at least one performance data among the following: production time, partial delivery date, final delivery date,” ¶0029 “In one example embodiment, the list of styles includes a production time per production unit required to produce artwork in each style, … estimating a number of production units required for the request from the performance condition; generating a submission for the request by multiplying the number of production units by the time per production unit,” ¶0191 “To produce a submission, the order generator 214 queries the rights, permissions, restrictions DBS 216 to append those corresponding to the style elements making up the module thereto. It also calculates … the production times, which are determined by multiplying the number of units to be produced for each element by its performance time per production unit,” ¶0196 “a contrary case would explain that conditions are no longer or can no longer be respected, for example because they have expired; a validity period/expiration date may be indexed with certain objects. If necessary, the generator 214 attaches an error message to the submission.... If compliance with all of the rights, permissions, and restrictions related to the order is possible, the generator 214 creates a quotation.” Please note: production capacity includes time per production unit. Although not required to disclose this limitation, see also Ruiz fig.5, ¶0014 “The printing service can preview the electronic document to estimate how much processing time will be required to complete the job, along with the user's target date for printing. The printing service can set a cutoff date and time,” ¶0016 “printing company 230 may have pre-examined one or more versions of the user's electronic document to estimate or re-estimate when the document must be received to make the user's deadline”);
● create quotation information including the derived submission deadline (see at least Ruiz fig. 5, ¶0014 “The printing service can preview the electronic document to estimate how much processing time will be required to complete the job, along with the user's target date for printing. The printing service can set a cutoff date and time for document editing completion in order to make the user's printing schedule,” claims 5-6);
● transmit the quotation information to the particular orderer system (see at least Gagnon figs. 2, 4, ¶0030);
● receive an order of the print product based on the quotation information from the
particular orderer system (see at least Gagnon abstract “generating an order request for artwork to the available skilled producer,” figs. 2, 4, ¶¶0012 “generating an order request for artwork to the available skilled producer,” ¶0017 “receiving a quotation for said request, … and assigning said quotation to said order request,” ¶0027 “obtaining a request for artwork from a requester, the request including a style identifier and a performance condition… comparing the performance condition to be availability data and … generating an order for artwork and sending that order to the available skilled producer,” ¶0030 “obtaining the quotation for the request, … and attaching the quotation to the order,” ¶0252 “The sending step 438 may be undertaken as a confirmation of the quotation 430. It consists, inter alia, of sending the order …. producers will receive a copy of the complete order”);
● update, when receiving the order, the production capacity by subtracting an amount of production capacity to be assigned to production of the print product from the production capacity according to the quotation information corresponding to the order (see at least Taoka c4:15-25 "allocate data for the required production quantity of each type of product to a series of time buckets from Tl to Tn," c9:55-65 "difference between the required production quantity and the designated production quantity is transferred as a request remainder," c12:45-67 "the difference between the designated production quantity and the required production quantity is transferred to the required production of the next time bucket as a request remainder." Please note: examiner’s position is that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that determining the difference between the required production quantity (required for the quoted order) and the designated production quantity (the designated capacity during the allotted time span) is the same as subtracting an amount of production capacity to be assigned to production of the print product from the total production capacity during the same time frame.);
● cause the printing device to create the print product in a case where the submission data is accepted by the derived submission deadline (see at least Gagnon abstract “producing an order for artwork,” fig. 4, in view of Ruiz fig. 5); and
● transmit, to the particular orderer system, a response indicating a rejection of the submission data in a case where the submission data is accepted after the derived submission deadline (see at least Gagnon fig. 2, ¶0180 “request receiver 200 receives and redirects the requests. They will … be rejected, if they are not compliant,” ¶0193 “to produce the quotation, it must first have identified the submission as being accepted,” ¶0196 “The contrary case would explain that conditions are no longer or can no longer be respected, for example because they have expired; …. If necessary, the generator 214 attaches an error message to the submission and returns it to the requester”. Also see Ruiz fig. 5, ¶0014 “printing service can set a cutoff date and time for document editing completion,” ¶0019 “If the deadline is reached and it is determined that the document is not complete at block 536, then the print order is cancelled”).
Claim 14. An order management method executed by an order management system, the method comprising:
● receiving a plurality of sets of quotation request information in a common electronic transaction format from a plurality of orderer systems via a network interface of the order management system, one set of the plurality of sets of quotation request information being particular quotation request information received via the network interface from a particular orderer system from the plurality of orderer systems, and the particular quotation request information indicating a quotation request for a print product from the particular orderer system (see at least Gagnon abstract “receiving a request for artwork from a requester, the request including a requested style identifier and a performance condition; identifying an available skilled producer among the list of producers, by comparing the performance condition to the availability data... generating an order request,” figs. 2, 4, ¶0009 “Requesters also often ask the producer to use a style whereof the features are obtained by a mix of various elements from disparate sources,” ¶0116 “Native format: standard file format with encoding specific to the image processing software used,” ¶0117 “Inherited format: open file format, with encoding type recognized by several image processing software applications,” ¶0180 “The request receiver 200 receives and redirects the requests. They will either be rejected, if they are not compliant, or sent to the request analyst 202 to be processed, if they are compliant,” ¶0181 “request must also contain complete information. This information comes from lists of terms preapproved or recognized by the request receiver 200. It is associated with each parameter, i.e. production times and dates, anticipated delivery dates,” ¶0203-0204 “To be compliant, a model must be recorded in a file in the native format of an image-generating software application…. If the model is deemed compliant 304, it will be transferred 308 by means of a proposal. If not, it will be redirected. It will therefore be returned to the producer”. Please note: all of this clearly describes that requests are received from a plurality of requesters and that a compliant commonly formatted request must be received in order to be accepted as a proposal.);
● obtaining information including a product specification and a delivery date from the particular quotation request information (see at least Gagnon abstract “receiving a request for artwork from a requester, the request including a requested style identifier and a performance condition,” figs. 2, 4, ¶0005 “set a price and a turnaround time for the order,” ¶0196 “a validity period/expiration date may be indexed with certain objects. If necessary, the generator 214 attaches an error message to the submission”);
● deriving a submission deadline for submission data based on information indicating time required for producing the print product, wherein the submission data is original data of a print product, and the time required for producing the print product is determined according to (i) the product specification and (ii) the delivery date included in the obtained information and (iii) a production capacity of a printing device that produces the print product (see at least Gagnon fig. 4 (420) “evaluate the detail level of the image for time + production cost,” (time cost is time to produce thus it is equivalent to deadline for submission), ¶0014 “retrieving a production time per production unit for said requested style identifier; receiving an estimation of a number of production units required for the order request, … generating a time submission for the order request by multiplying the number of production units by the time per production unit,” ¶0021 “performance condition includes at least one performance data among the following: production time, partial delivery date, final delivery date,” ¶0029 “In one example embodiment, the list of styles includes a production time per production unit required to produce artwork in each style, … estimating a number of production units required for the request from the performance condition; generating a submission for the request by multiplying the number of production units by the time per production unit,” ¶0191 “To produce a submission, the order generator 214 queries the rights, permissions, restrictions DBS 216 to append those corresponding to the style elements making up the module thereto. It also calculates … the production times, which are determined by multiplying the number of units to be produced for each element by its performance time per production unit,” ¶0196 “a contrary case would explain that conditions are no longer or can no longer be respected, for example because they have expired; a validity period/expiration date may be indexed with certain objects. If necessary, the generator 214 attaches an error message to the submission.... If compliance with all of the rights, permissions, and restrictions related to the order is possible, the generator 214 creates a quotation.” Please note: production capacity includes time per production unit. Although not required to disclose this limitation, see also Ruiz fig.5, ¶0014 “The printing service can preview the electronic document to estimate how much processing time will be required to complete the job, along with the user's target date for printing. The printing service can set a cutoff date and time,” ¶0016 “printing company 230 may have pre-examined one or more versions of the user's electronic document to estimate or re-estimate when the document must be received to make the user's deadline”);
● creating quotation information including the derived submission deadline (see at least Ruiz fig. 5, ¶0014 “The printing service can preview the electronic document to estimate how much processing time will be required to complete the job, along with the user's target date for printing. The printing service can set a cutoff date and time for document editing completion in order to make the user's printing schedule,” claims 5-6); and
● transmitting the quotation information to the particular orderer system (see at least Gagnon figs. 2, 4, ¶0030);
● receiving an order of the print product based on the quotation information from the particular orderer system (see at least Gagnon abstract “generating an order request for artwork to the available skilled producer,” figs. 2, 4, ¶¶0012 “generating an order request for artwork to the available skilled producer,” ¶0017 “receiving a quotation for said request, … and assigning said quotation to said order request,” ¶0027 “obtaining a request for artwork from a requester, the request including a style identifier and a performance condition… comparing the performance condition to be availability data and … generating an order for artwork and sending that order to the available skilled producer,” ¶0030 “obtaining the quotation for the request, … and attaching the quotation to the order,” ¶0252 “The sending step 438 may be undertaken as a confirmation of the quotation 430. It consists, inter alia, of sending the order …. producers will receive a copy of the complete order”);
● updating, when receiving the order, the production capacity by subtracting an amount of production capacity to be assigned to production of the print product from the production capacity according to the quotation information corresponding to the order (see at least Taoka c4:15-25 "allocate data for the required production quantity of each type of product to a series of time buckets from Tl to Tn," c9:55-65 "difference between the required production quantity and the designated production quantity is transferred as a request remainder," c12:45-67 "the difference between the designated production quantity and the required production quantity is transferred to the required production of the next time bucket as a request remainder." Please note: examiner’s position is that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that determining the difference between the required production quantity (required for the quoted order) and the designated production quantity (the designated capacity during the allotted time span) is the same as subtracting an amount of production capacity to be assigned to production of the print product from the total production capacity during the same time frame.);
● causing the printing device to create the print product in a case where the submission data is accepted by the derived submission deadline (see at least Gagnon abstract “producing an order for artwork,” fig. 4, in view of Ruiz fig. 5); and
● transmitting, to the particular orderer system, a response indicating a rejection of the submission data in a case where the submission data is accepted after the derived submission deadline (see at least Gagnon fig. 2, ¶0180 “request receiver 200 receives and redirects the requests. They will … be rejected, if they are not compliant,” ¶0193 “to produce the quotation, it must first have identified the submission as being accepted,” ¶0196 “The contrary case would explain that conditions are no longer or can no longer be respected, for example because they have expired; …. If necessary, the generator 214 attaches an error message to the submission and returns it to the requester”. Also see Ruiz fig. 5, ¶0014 “printing service can set a cutoff date and time for document editing completion,” ¶0019 “If the deadline is reached and it is determined that the document is not complete at block 536, then the print order is cancelled”).
Claim 16. The order management system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor at least to
● control acceptance of the submission data by controlling whether or not to accept the submission data based on the derived submission deadline (see at least Gagnon fig. 2, ¶0180 “request receiver 200 receives and redirects the requests. They will … be rejected, if they are not compliant,” ¶0193 “to produce the quotation, it must first have identified the submission as being accepted,” ¶0196 “The contrary case would explain that conditions are no longer or can no longer be respected, for example because they have expired; …. If necessary, the generator 214 attaches an error message to the submission and returns it to the requester”. Also see Ruiz fig. 5, ¶0014 “printing service can set a cutoff date and time for document editing completion,” ¶0019 “If the deadline is reached and it is determined that the document is not complete at block 536, then the print order is cancelled”), and wherein, in the control of the acceptance of the submission data, the at least one program, when executed by the at least one processor, further causes the at least one processor at least to:
● obtain the submission deadline in a case where the submission data is received (see at least Gagnon fig. 5, ¶0014 “The printing service can preview the electronic document to estimate how much processing time will be required to complete the job, along with the user's target date for printing. The printing service can set a cutoff date and time for document editing completion in order to make the user's printing schedule,” claims 5-6); and
● delete the submission data and transmit a response indicating that the submission data is not accepted in a case where the submission deadline is prior to the time at which the submission data is received (see at least Ruiz fig. 5, ¶0014 “printing service can set a cutoff date and time for document editing completion,” ¶0019 “If the deadline is reached and it is determined that the document is not complete at block 536, then the print order is cancelled”).
Claim 18. The order management system according to claim 1, wherein the submission deadline for the submission data is derived based on information indicating the product specification, the delivery date, and a production capacity of an apparatus for producing the print product (see at least Gagnon ¶0020 “can be reproduced by different producers, production time, delivery date, anticipated budget, origin of a writer, difficulty coefficient, quantity, availability of a qualified producer/co-producer,” ¶0021 “performance condition includes at least one performance data among the following: production time, partial delivery date, final delivery date,” ¶¶0034, 0196).
Claim 19. (New) The order management system according to claim 1, wherein the production capacity is reserved to produce the print product not when the order of the print product is received but when the quotation information is created and finalized in a case where the order of the print product based on the quotation information is received from the particular orderer system (see at least Ruiz ¶0014 “printing service can set a cutoff date and time for document editing completion…. The printing service may also budget or allocate its resources in advance, taking into consideration the user's deadlines,” ¶0016 “printing company 230 may also budget or reserve resources in advance of the deadline as needed”).
Claim 20. (New) The order management system according to claim 19, wherein the production capacity reserved to produce the print product is released in a case where the order of the print product based on the quotation information is not received from the particular orderer system within a validity period of the quotation information (see at least Ruiz fig. 5 “Printing order is cancelled and third party printing resources are released,” ¶0019 “If the deadline is reached and it is determined that the document is not complete at block 536, then the print order is cancelled at block 540 and any allocate print resources may be reallocated to other jobs”).
Claim 21. (New) A system comprising:
● at least one processor (see at least Gagnon ¶0002 “computerized system”);
● a network interface connected to the at least one processor (see at least Gagnon ¶¶0320, 0324 “web interface used to explore, create, and place orders”); and
● at least one memory (see at least Gagnon fig. 1) in which at least one program (see at least Gagnon ¶0156 “software application”) is stored, wherein the at least one program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor at least to: ● receive quotation request information of a print product (see at least Gagnon abstract “receiving a request for artwork from a requester, the request including a requested style identifier and a performance condition,” figs. 2, 4);
● obtain information including a product specification and a delivery date from the
quotation request information (see at least Gagnon abstract “receiving a request for artwork from a requester, the request including a requested style identifier and a performance condition,” figs. 2, 4, ¶0005 “set a price and a turnaround time for the order,” ¶0196 “a validity period/expiration date may be indexed with certain objects. If necessary, the generator 214 attaches an error message to the submission”);
● derive a submission deadline for submission data based on information indicating time required for producing the print product, wherein the submission data is original data of a print product, and the time required for producing the print product is determined according to (i) the product specification and (ii) the delivery date included in the obtained information and (iii) a production capacity of a printing device that produces the print product (see at least Gagnon fig. 4 (420) “evaluate the detail level of the image for time + production cost,” (time cost is time to produce thus it is equivalent to deadline for submission), ¶0014 “retrieving a production time per production unit for said requested style identifier; receiving an estimation of a number of production units required for the order request, … generating a time submission for the order request by multiplying the number of production units by the time per production unit,” ¶0021 “performance condition includes at least one performance data among the following: production time, partial delivery date, final delivery date,” ¶0029 “In one example embodiment, the list of styles includes a production time per production unit required to produce artwork in each style, … estimating a number of production units required for the request from the performance condition; generating a submission for the request by multiplying the number of production units by the time per production unit,” ¶0191 “To produce a submission, the order generator 214 queries the rights, permissions, restrictions DBS 216 to append those corresponding to the style elements making up the module thereto. It also calculates … the production times, which are determined by multiplying the number of units to be produced for each element by its performance time per production unit,” ¶0196 “a contrary case would explain that conditions are no longer or can no longer be respected, for example because they have expired; a validity period/expiration date may be indexed with certain objects. If necessary, the generator 214 attaches an error message to the submission.... If compliance with all of the rights, permissions, and restrictions related to the order is possible, the generator 214 creates a quotation.” Please note: production capacity includes time per production unit. Although not required to disclose this limitation, see also Ruiz fig.5, ¶0014 “The printing service can preview the electronic document to estimate how much processing time will be required to complete the job, along with the user's target date for printing. The printing service can set a cutoff date and time,” ¶0016 “printing company 230 may have pre-examined one or more versions of the user's electronic document to estimate or re-estimate when the document must be received to make the user's deadline”);
● create quotation information including the derived submission deadline (see at least Ruiz fig. 5, ¶0014 “The printing service can preview the electronic document to estimate how much processing time will be required to complete the job, along with the user's target date for printing. The printing service can set a cutoff date and time for document editing completion in order to make the user's printing schedule,” claims 5-6);
● receive an instruction to create the print product based on the quotation information (see at least Gagnon abstract “generating an order request for artwork to the available skilled producer,” figs. 2, 4, ¶¶0012 “generating an order request for artwork to the available skilled producer,” ¶0017 “receiving a quotation for said request, … and assigning said quotation to said order request,” ¶0027 “obtaining a request for artwork from a requester, the request including a style identifier and a performance condition… comparing the performance condition to be availability data and … generating an order for artwork and sending that order to the available skilled producer,” ¶0030 “obtaining the quotation for the request, … and attaching the quotation to the order,” ¶0252 “The sending step 438 may be undertaken as a confirmation of the quotation 430. It consists, inter alia, of sending the order …. producers will receive a copy of the complete order”);
● update, when receiving the instruction, the production capacity by subtracting an amount of production capacity to be assigned to production of the print product from the production capacity according to the quotation information corresponding to the instruction (see at least Taoka c4:15-25 "allocate data for the required production quantity of each type of product to a series of time buckets from Tl to Tn," c9:55-65 "difference between the required production quantity and the designated production quantity is transferred as a request remainder," c12:45-67 "the difference between the designated production quantity and the required production quantity is transferred to the required production of the next time bucket as a request remainder." Please note: examiner’s position is that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that determining the difference between the required production quantity (required for the quoted order) and the designated production quantity (the designated capacity during the allotted time span) is the same as subtracting an amount of production capacity to be assigned to production of the print product from the total production capacity during the same time frame.);
● cause the printing device to create the print product in a case where the submission data is accepted by the derived submission deadline (see at least Gagnon abstract “producing an order for artwork,” fig. 4, in view of Ruiz fig. 5); and
● transmit a response indicating a rejection to the submission data in a case where the submission data is accepted after the derived submission deadline (see at least Gagnon fig. 2, ¶0180 “request receiver 200 receives and redirects the requests. They will … be rejected, if they are not compliant,” ¶0193 “to produce the quotation, it must first have identified the submission as being accepted,” ¶0196 “The contrary case would explain that conditions are no longer or can no longer be respected, for example because they have expired; …. If necessary, the generator 214 attaches an error message to the submission and returns it to the requester”. Also see Ruiz fig. 5, ¶0014 “printing service can set a cutoff date and time for document editing completion,” ¶0019 “If the deadline is reached and it is determined that the document is not complete at block 536, then the print order is cancelled”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM LEVINE whose telephone number is (571)272-8122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-7:30pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571.272.6764. 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.
/ADAM L LEVINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 December 17, 2025
Prosecution Insights