DETAILED ACTION
Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are currently pending.
Claims 3, 5, 7 and 9 have been previously withdrawn from consideration.
The previous objection to the title of the invention is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 11 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.
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, 4, 6, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori US Publication 2015/0077776 (hereafter “Hori”) and Kikuchi US Publication 2012/0154840 (hereafter “Kikuchi”).
Referring to claims 1 and 10, Hori discloses an image forming apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to:
form an image (paragraph 38, the multifunction peripheral 20 scans a sheet to thereby capture image data and perform data processing according to the program for the captured image data);
transmit the image to a server via an external communication line, wherein the server generates a processed image of the image by executing a designated image process on the image (paragraph 51, The information processing apparatus that performs each task receives data to be processed that represents a result of a preceding task and performs the task relative to the received data to be processed) (paragraph 49, FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating a correspondence between the tasks performed by the information processing system 10 and a specific information processing apparatus assuming the host device that performs the tasks [FIG. 2 shows that task 2 is performed by the work flow server 30]) and is outside of a firewall (paragraph 173, each of the devices within the intranet system 510 is connected to, for example, an external server via a firewall 511);
receive the processed image from the server via the external communication line (paragraph 49, FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating a correspondence between the tasks performed by the information processing system 10 and a specific information processing apparatus assuming the host device that performs the tasks [FIG. 2 shows that task 3 is performed by the multifunction peripheral 20]).
Hori does not disclose expressly causing an alternative apparatus to fax-transmit the processed image.
Kikuchi discloses a processor configured to:
detect an alternative apparatus connected to the image forming apparatus via an internal communication line provided on an inside of the firewall (paragraph 83, the Scan To FAX is processing that remotely uses the FAX function of another machine, and hence a MFP other than the MFP 101 which is remotely used by the user is selected by device selection 931); and
in a case where the image includes designation information designating the processed image to be transmitted to an instructed transmission destination via a fax line, transfer the processed image received from the server to the alternative apparatus to cause the alternative apparatus to fax-transmit the processed image to the transmission destination acquired from the image (paragraph 122, In step S1402, a network I/F 218 of the MFP 101 transmits the image data acquired by the scanning to the MFP 102 via a LAN 104).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to cause an alternative apparatus to fax-transmit an image. The motivation for doing so would have been to enhance the function of a printing device that does not have faxing capability by allowing the device to use another device’s faxing capability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kikuchi with Hori to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1 and 10.
Referring to claim 4, Hori discloses wherein the processor is configured to:
detect one alternative apparatus from a plurality of the alternative apparatuses set in advance by an administrator (paragraph 82, In response to a request from the administrator terminal 32, for example, the administrative server 31 transmits screen data and a device list table to the administrator terminal 32 at step S111).
Referring to claim 6, Kikuchi discloses wherein the processor is configured to:
detect the alternative apparatus by referring to a management information base of each apparatus that is on the inside of the firewall together and is connected to the internal communication line (paragraph 60, The function response unit 460 transmits, as a response to the inquiry, a remotely usable image processing function of the MFP 101 to the web server 103 via the network I/F 218).
Referring to claim 11, Hori discloses an image forming system comprising:
a server being on an outside of a firewall (paragraph 178, FIG. 22 illustrates exemplary exchanges of data between the multifunction peripheral 20 and the work flow server 30 in the cloud system 500) and including a first processor configured to:
acquire an image (paragraph 49, FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating a correspondence between the tasks performed by the information processing system 10 and a specific information processing apparatus assuming the host device that performs the tasks [FIG. 2 shows that task 2 is performed by the work flow server 30]);
generate a processed image of the acquired image by executing a designated image process on the image (paragraph 51, The information processing apparatus that performs each task receives data to be processed that represents a result of a preceding task and performs the task relative to the received data to be processed) (paragraph 49, FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating a correspondence between the tasks performed by the information processing system 10 and a specific information processing apparatus assuming the host device that performs the tasks [FIG. 2 shows that task 3 is performed by the multifunction peripheral 20]); and
specify a transmission destination of the processed image (paragraph 44, The work flow server 30 provides to the information processing apparatus (the multifunction peripheral 20, the client terminal 21, or the portable device 22) that requests performance of the work flow, with the requested work flow information); and
an image forming apparatus including a second processor configured to:
form an image (paragraph 38, the multifunction peripheral 20 scans a sheet to thereby capture image data and perform data processing according to the program for the captured image data);
transmit the image to the server via an external communication line (paragraph 49, FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating a correspondence between the tasks performed by the information processing system 10 and a specific information processing apparatus assuming the host device that performs the tasks [FIG. 2 shows that task 2 is performed by the work flow server 30]);
receive the processed image from the server via the external communication line (paragraph 49, FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating a correspondence between the tasks performed by the information processing system 10 and a specific information processing apparatus assuming the host device that performs the tasks [FIG. 2 shows that task 3 is performed by the multifunction peripheral 20]);
Hori does not disclose expressly causing an alternative apparatus to fax-transmit the processed image.
Kikuchi discloses an image forming apparatus including a second processor configured to:
detect an alternative apparatus connected to the image forming apparatus via an internal communication line provided on an inside of the firewall (paragraph 83, the Scan To FAX is processing that remotely uses the FAX function of another machine, and hence a MFP other than the MFP 101 which is remotely used by the user is selected by device selection 931); and
in a case where the transmission destination of the processed image acquired from the image by the server is an apparatus connected via a fax line, transfer the processed image received from the server to the alternative apparatus to cause the alternative apparatus to fax-transmit the processed image to the transmission destination acquired from the image (paragraph 122, In step S1402, a network I/F 218 of the MFP 101 transmits the image data acquired by the scanning to the MFP 102 via a LAN 104).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to cause an alternative apparatus to fax-transmit an image. The motivation for doing so would have been to enhance the function of a printing device that does not have faxing capability by allowing the device to use another device’s faxing capability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kikuchi with Hori to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori US Publication 2015/0077776 and Kikuchi US Publication 2012/0154840 as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ferlitsch US Publication 2005/0068562 (hereafter “Ferlitsch”).
Referring to claim 8, Hori discloses the image forming apparatus, but does not disclose expressly considering the work status of the devices processing the image.
Ferlitsch discloses wherein the processor is configured to:
in a case where a plurality of the alternative apparatuses are detected, acquire a fax usage status in each of the alternative apparatuses via the internal communication line (paragraph 67, Regarding a first available printer device, considerations may include a printer that is ready to print, (i.e., online, not in an error state, and not busy printing) and/or differences in the ready to print state, such as in the warm up cycle and power save modes) (paragraph 35, In the disclosure and in the claims, the term "print job" shall refer to any type of job that can be rendered using toner. Examples include fax jobs); and
request the alternative apparatus that is not performing fax transmission to fax-transmit the processed image to the transmission destination among the plurality of detected alternative apparatuses (paragraph 71, With reference back to FIG. 4, once the best-fit printer devices are determined at step 100, a determination is made at decision block 102 as to whether or not multiple best-fit devices have been identified. If it is determined that multiple printer devices have not been determined, then execution proceeds directly to step 108 for the rendering of the print job(s)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to request a device that is not performing fax transmission to fax-transmit the processed image. The motivation for doing so would have been to decrease the time required to complete the job. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ferlitsch with Hori to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
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 PETER K HUNTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Benny Q Tieu can be reached at 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 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.
/PETER K HUNTSINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights