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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on January 14, 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims received on January 14, 2026 has been entered.
The amendment of claims 1, 2, 19 and 20 is acknowledged.
The cancelation of claims 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 is acknowledged.
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, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 17-21rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato’866 (US 2005/0111866), and further in view of MURAYAMA’530 (US 2005/0226530) and KYOKUN’997 (JP 2019/211997).
With respect to claim 1, Sato’866 teaches an information processing apparatus [regarding to the MFP shown in Fig.2) comprising:
a processor [the MFP shown in Fig.2 is inherent disclosed with at least one processor to perform its desired function] configured to:
obtain an operation history including content of transition of screens and a history of changing of settings (Fig.11, step s802 and paragraph 172); and
Sato’866 does not teach generate and display, on a display, an operation tree having a tree structure identifying the transitioned screens reflected in the obtained operation history, wherein each distinct screen among the transitioned screens is identified in the operation tree as a separate node, a position of each node in the operation tree is determined based on a preset menu position of the corresponding screen, in hierarchical levels of preset menu positions of the screens, regardless of a chronological sequence of the transition of the screens, and the preset menu position is an access location of the corresponding screen, such that, even when the operation history indicates a transition to a certain screen multiple times, the operation tree includes only one node representing the preset menu position of the certain screen.
MURAYAMA’530 teaches generate and display, on a display, an operation tree having a tree structure identifying the transitioned screens reflected in the obtained operation history [as shown in Fig.1, the history display area 3 provides the tree format thumbnail image 5 displayed with image processing operation executed by the user of the history record. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that the tree format thumbnail image is the operation tree representing each of the screens transitioned and each of the settings changed as indicated in the operation history when the image editing setting is being configured via multiple operation screens since the tree format thumbnail image 5 is displayed with image processing operation executed by the user of the history record]
Therefore, 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 the invention of Sato’866 according to the teaching of MURAYAMA’530 to generate the tree view of all operations which has been performed previously because this will allow the operations which have been perform in the past to be analyzed more effectively.
The combination of Sato’866 and MURAYAMA’530 does not teach wherein each distinct screen among the transitioned screens is identified in the operation tree as a separate node, a position of each node in the operation tree is determined based on a preset menu position of the corresponding screen, in hierarchical levels of preset menu positions of the screens, regardless of a chronological sequence of the transition of the screens, and the preset menu position is an access location of the corresponding screen, such that, even when the operation history indicates a transition to a certain screen multiple times, the operation tree includes only one node representing the preset menu position of the certain screen.
KYOKUN’997 teaches a preset hierarchical structure of operation screens of the image forming apparatus has multiple levels and each level connects with each other using one node (Fig.3 and page 5). Therefore, the menu position of the corresponding screen is considered being preset.
Therefore, 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 the combination of Sato’866 and MURAYAMA’530 according to the teaching of KYOKUN’997 to store a hierarchical structure of operation screens of the image forming apparatus in a storage of the said image forming apparatus because this will allow the operation screens of the image forming apparatus to be provided more effectively.
The combination of Sato’866, MURAYAMA’530 and KYOKUN’997 does not teach wherein each distinct screen among the transitioned screens is identified in the operation tree as a separate node, a position of each node in the operation tree is determined based on a preset menu position of the corresponding screen, in hierarchical levels of preset menu positions of the screens, regardless of a chronological sequence of the transition of the screens, and the preset menu position is an access location of the corresponding screen, such that, even when the operation history indicates a transition to a certain screen multiple times, the operation tree includes only one node representing the preset menu position of the certain screen.
Since Sato’866 has suggested that recording and providing the operation history (Fig.5), MURAYAMA’530 has suggested generating an operation tree having a tree structure identifying the operations reflected in the obtained operation history (Fig.1, item 3), and MURAYAMA’530 has suggested that a preset hierarchical structure of operation screens of the image forming apparatus has multiple levels and each level connects with each other using one node (Fig.3 and page 5) and the operation history is being stored and provided (Fig.4 and abstract), therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize to generate an operation tree for operation history information having multiple levels of operation screens and each level connects with each other using one node according to the preset menu position of the corresponding screens (wherein each distinct screen among the transitioned screens is identified in the operation tree as a separate node, a position of each node in the operation tree is determined based on a preset menu position of the corresponding screen, in hierarchical levels of preset menu positions of the screens, regardless of a chronological sequence of the transition of the screens, and the preset menu position is an access location of the corresponding screen, such that, even when the operation history indicates a transition to a certain screen multiple times, the operation tree includes only one node representing the preset menu position of the certain screen) because this will allow the operation history to be reviewed and analyzed more effectively.
Therefore, 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 the combination of Sato’866, MURAYAMA’530 and KYOKUN’997 to generate an operation tree for operation history information having multiple levels of operation screens and each level connects with each other using one node according to the preset menu position of the corresponding screens (wherein each distinct screen among the transitioned screens is identified in the operation tree as a separate node, a position of each node in the operation tree is determined based on a preset menu position of the corresponding screen, in hierarchical levels of preset menu positions of the screens, regardless of a chronological sequence of the transition of the screens, and the preset menu position is an access location of the corresponding screen, such that, even when the operation history indicates a transition to a certain screen multiple times, the operation tree includes only one node representing the preset menu position of the certain screen) because this will allow the operation history to be reviewed and analyzed more effectively.
With respect to claim 2, which further limits claim 1, the combination of Sato’866, MURAYAMA’530 does not teach wherein the menu positions of the screens indicate positions of the screen to be displayed on a menu screen.
KYOKUN’997 teaches wherein the menu positions of the screens indicate positions of the screen to be displayed on a menu screen [a preset hierarchical structure of operation screens of the image forming apparatus has multiple levels and each level connects with each other using one node (Fig.3 and page 5). Therefore, the menu positions of the screens indicate positions of the screen to be displayed on a menu screen is considered being disclosed in the preset hierarchical structure of the operation screens]
Therefore, 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 the combination of Sato’866 and MURAYAMA’530 according to the teaching of KYOKUN’997 to store a hierarchical structure of operation screens of the image forming apparatus in a storage of the said image forming apparatus because this will allow the operation screens of the image forming apparatus to be provided more effectively.
With respect to claim 4, which further limits claim 1, Sato’866 does not teach wherein the processor is configured to generate the operation tree so that the operation tree extends in a horizontal direction or in a vertical direction
MURAYAMA’530 teaches wherein the processor is configured to generate the operation tree so that the operation tree extends in a horizontal direction or in a vertical direction (Fig.1, item 5).
Therefore, 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 the combination of Sato’866 and KYOKUN’997 according to the teaching of MURAYAMA’530 to generate the tree view of all operations which has been performed previously because this will allow the operations which have been perform in the past to be analyzed more effectively.
With respect to claim 5, which further limits claim 2, Sato’866 does not teach wherein the processor is configured to generate the operation tree so that the operation tree extends in a horizontal direction or in a vertical direction.
MURAYAMA’530 teaches wherein the processor is configured to generate the operation tree so that the operation tree extends in a horizontal direction or in a vertical direction (Fig.1, item 5).
Therefore, 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 the combination of Sato’866 and KYOKUN’997 according to the teaching of MURAYAMA’530 to generate the tree view of all operations which has been performed previously because this will allow the operations which have been perform in the past to be analyzed more effectively.
With respect to claim 7, which further limits claim 4, Sato’866 does not teach wherein the processor is configured to: receive a selection result regarding whether the operation tree is to be generated in the horizontal direction or in the vertical direction; and generate the operation tree in accordance with the received selection result.
MURAYAMA’530 teaches wherein the processor is configured to: receive a selection result regarding whether the operation tree is to be generated in the horizontal direction or in the vertical direction [as shown in Fig.1, the generated operation tree is being generated in the vertical direction. Therefore, the processor of the system is considered being instruct to generated to the operation tree in vertical direction (receive a selection result regarding whether the operation tree is to be generated in the horizontal direction)]; and
generate the operation tree in accordance with the received selection result (Fig.3).
Therefore, 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 the combination of Sato’866 and KYOKUN’997 according to the teaching of MURAYAMA’530 to generate the tree view of all operations which has been performed previously because this will allow the operations which have been perform in the past to be analyzed more effectively.
With respect to claim 8, which further limits claim 5, Sato’866 does not teach wherein the processor is configured to: receive a selection result regarding whether the operation tree is to be generated in the horizontal direction or in the vertical direction; and generate the operation tree in accordance with the received selection result.
MURAYAMA’530 teaches wherein the processor is configured to: receive a selection result regarding whether the operation tree is to be generated in the horizontal direction or in the vertical direction [as shown in Fig.1, the generated operation tree is being generated in the vertical direction. Therefore, the processor of the system is considered being instruct to generated to the operation tree in vertical direction (receive a selection result regarding whether the operation tree is to be generated in the horizontal direction)]; and
generate the operation tree in accordance with the received selection result (Fig.1).
Therefore, 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 the combination of Sato’866 and KYOKUN’997 according to the teaching of MURAYAMA’530 to generate the tree view of all operations which has been performed previously because this will allow the operations which have been perform in the past to be analyzed more effectively.
With respect to claim 17, which further limits claim 1, Sato’866 teaches wherein the processor is configured to: generate, by using the operation history, a flow diagram in which operations are arranged in one direction in a screen transition order (Fig.5, item 105); and
output at least one of the generated operation trees and the generated flow diagram (Fig.5, item 105).
With respect to claim 18, which further limits claim 17, Sato’866 teaches wherein the processor is configured to: receive a selection result regarding whether to output the generated operation tree and/or the generated flow diagram (Fig.5, item 105); and
output the generated operation tree and/or the generated flow diagram in accordance with the received selection result (Fig.5, item 105).
With respect to claim 19, it is a claim regarding to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing thereon a computer program. Claims 19 rejected for the same manner as described in the rejected claim 1.
With respect to claim 20, it is a method claim that claims how the information processing apparatus of claim 1 to process the operation history. Claims 20 is rejected for the same manner as described in the rejected claim 1. In addition, the reference has disclosed an information processing apparatus to process the operation history, the process (method) to process the operation history is inherent disclosed to be performed by a processor in the information processing apparatus when the information processing apparatus performs the operation to process the operation history.
With respect to claim 21, which further limits claim 1, Sato’866 does not teach wherein the transition of screens included in the operation history is a transition order list in which the transition of screens is recorded in chronological order, and the history of changing of settings included in the operation history is a setting changing order list in which the changing of settings is recorded in the chronological order.
KYOKUN’997 teaches wherein the transition of screens included in the operation history is a transition order list in which the transition of screens is recorded in chronological order [a preset hierarchical structure of operation screens of the image forming apparatus has multiple levels and each level connects with each other using one node (Fig.3 and page 5) and the operation history information indicates the transition of screens is recorded in chronological order], and
the history of changing of settings included in the operation history is a setting changing order list in which the changing of settings is recorded in the chronological order [a preset hierarchical structure of operation screens of the image forming apparatus has multiple levels and each level connects with each other using one node (Fig.3 and page 5) and the operation history information indicates the transition of screens is recorded in chronological order].
Therefore, 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 the combination of Sato’866 and MURAYAMA’530 according to the teaching of KYOKUN’997 to store a hierarchical structure of operation screens of the image forming apparatus in a storage of the said image forming apparatus because this will allow the operation screens of the image forming apparatus to be provided more effectively.
Claims 10-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato’866 (US 2005/0111866), MURAYAMA’530 (US 2005/0226530), KYOKUN’997 (JP 2019211997) and further in view of Matsuzawa’563 (US 2011/0032563).
With respect to claim 10, which further limits claim 1, the combination of Sato’866, MURAYAMA’530 and KYOKUN’997 does not teach wherein the processor is configured to: receive a selection result regarding whether to store the operation history when a screen is shifted until an end point of setting screens; and store the operation history in accordance with the received selection result.
Matsuzawa’563 teaches wherein the processor is configured to: receive a selection result regarding whether to store the operation history when a screen is shifted until an end point of setting screens (Fig.17 and paragraph 80); and
store the operation history in accordance with the received selection result [the history of the executed job is being saved when the said executed job is the type which is needed to save the job history (Fig.14, step S3002)].
Therefore, 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 the combination of Sato’866, MURAYAMA’530 and KYOKUN’997 according to the teaching of Matsuzawa’563 to only save the operation history of a job when the said job is the type which is needed to save the job history because this will allow the operation history of the job to be save more effectively.
With respect to claim 11, which further limits claim 2, the combination of Sato’866, MURAYAMA’530 and KYOKUN’997 does not teach wherein the processor is configured to: receive a selection result regarding whether to store the operation history when a screen is shifted until an end point of setting screens; and store the operation history in accordance with the received selection result.
Matsuzawa’563 teaches wherein the processor is configured to: receive a selection result regarding whether to store the operation history when a screen is shifted until an end point of setting screens (Fig.17 and paragraph 80); and
store the operation history in accordance with the received selection result [the history of the executed job is being saved when the said executed job is the type which is needed to save the job history (Fig.14, step S3002)].
Therefore, 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 the combination of Sato’866, MURAYAMA’530 and KYOKUN’997 according to the teaching of Matsuzawa’563 to only save the operation history of a job when the said job is the type which is needed to save the job history because this will allow the operation history of the job to be save more effectively.
With respect to claim 13, which further limits claim 4, the combination of Sato’866, MURAYAMA’530 and KYOKUN’997 does not teach wherein the processor is configured to: receive a selection result regarding whether to store the operation history when a screen is shifted until an end point of setting screens; and store the operation history in accordance with the received selection result.
Matsuzawa’563 teaches wherein the processor is configured to: receive a selection result regarding whether to store the operation history when a screen is shifted until an end point of setting screens (Fig.17 and paragraph 80); and
store the operation history in accordance with the received selection result [the history of the executed job is being saved when the said executed job is the type which is needed to save the job history (Fig.14, step S3002)].
Therefore, 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 the combination of Sato’866, MURAYAMA’530 and KYOKUN’997 according to the teaching of Matsuzawa’563 to only save the operation history of a job when the said job is the type which is needed to save the job history because this will allow the operation history of the job to be save more effectively.
With respect to claim 14, which further limits claim 5, the combination of Sato’866, MURAYAMA’530 and KYOKUN’997 does not teach wherein the processor is configured to: receive a selection result regarding whether to store the operation history when a screen is shifted until an end point of setting screens; and store the operation history in accordance with the received selection result.
Matsuzawa’563 teaches wherein the processor is configured to: receive a selection result regarding whether to store the operation history when a screen is shifted until an end point of setting screens (Fig.17 and paragraph 80); and
store the operation history in accordance with the received selection result [the history of the executed job is being saved when the said executed job is the type which is needed to save the job history (Fig.14, step S3002)].
Therefore, 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 the combination of Sato’866, MURAYAMA’530 and KYOKUN’997 according to the teaching of Matsuzawa’563 to only save the operation history of a job when the said job is the type which is needed to save the job history because this will allow the operation history of the job to be save more effectively.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato’866 (US 2005/0111866), MURAYAMA’530 (US 2005/0226530), KYOKUN’997 (JP 2019211997) and further in view of Ogasawara’983 (US 2021/0382983).
With respect to claim 16, which further limits claim 1, the combination of Sato’866, MURAYAMA’530 and KYOKUN’997 does not teach wherein the processor is configured to output the operation tree by performing at least one of processing for printing the operation tree as a report and processing for forming the operation tree into a document and sending the document to an external source.
Ogasawara’983 teach the operation history is being printed and/or transmitted to another device (Fig.2 and paragraph 150)
Therefore, 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 the combination of Sato’866, MURAYAMA’530 and KYOKUN’997 according to the teaching of Ogasawara’983 to print the generated operation tree and/or to transmit it another device as log file (document) (wherein the processor is configured to output the operation tree by performing at least one of processing for printing the operation tree as a report and processing for forming the operation tree into a document and sending the document to an external source) because this will allow the operation history of the job to be distributed more effectively.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUO LONG CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am - 5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tieu, Benny can be reached on (571) 272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUO LONG CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682