DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s remarks received on 12/02/2025 with respect to the amended independent claims have been acknowledged but not found persuasive. Currently claims 1-20 remain rejected.
With respect to the amended independent claims, Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach “display the collection order determined based on the print job type.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Iwata et al describes different print job types in terms of copy unit vs. page unit or bundled vs. not [p0213-p0218]. Those types affect how outputs are arranged across printers and displayed accordingly for how jobs can be collected as illustrated in figs. 17.
Response to Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
41066.. Claims 1-8, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima (JP Pub: 2019211999) (Applicant provided reference) and in further view of Iwata et al (US Pub: 2002/0163666) (Applicant provided reference).
Regarding claim 1 (currently amended), Fukushima teaches: A print management system comprising: a processor; and a display device [page 19: p08], wherein the processor is configured to: by executing a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program [page 6: p02], determine whether or not it is necessary to designate a collection order of printouts in a case where the print job is executed by a plurality of printing machines, according to the type of the print job [page 16: p01-p05 (Print job is divided into components/parts base on type (cover, text, leaflet, and etc.) and allocated to different printers if it is necessary that the job has different types of parts.)]; and display the collection order of the printouts on the display device in a case where it is necessary to designate the collection order [page 13: 03, page 14: p07-p09, page 16: p01-p04, p08 (Part ID of a job indicates collection order of the job.)].
Although not explicitly stated, part ID of a job is reflecting collection order. In the same field of endeavor, Iwata et al teaches the collection order for a print job as different printers are involved in [fig. 17]. Iwata et al further teaches: acquire a type of a print job [p0212, p0213], and display the collection order of the printouts on the display device in a case where it is necessary to designate the collection order and not display the collection order in a case where it is not necessary to designate a collection order [fig. 17 (When there is only one copy/page, no collection order is displayed.)], wherein the displayed collection order is designated based on the type of the print job [p0213-p0218, fig. 17 (different print job types in terms of copy unit vs. page unit or bundled vs. not. Those types affect how outputs are arranged across printers and displayed accordingly for how jobs can be collected as illustrated in figs. 17)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the two to designate a collection order of printouts a print job based on type of the print job when allocated in different devices for providing user convenience.
Regarding claim 2 (currently amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Fukushima and Iwata et al further teach: The print management system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where the type of the print job is a group job, display the collection order of a plurality of jobs constituting the group job on the display device [Fukushima: page 17: p02; Iwata: fig. 17]. Fukushima lists a group of jobs under the same order ID or output ID whereas Iwata illustrates collection order of each part of a job. Therefore, the combined teaching of the two would have made it obvious for a skilled in the art to display collection order of a plurality of jobs associated with a group ID for organizing purpose.
Regarding claim 3 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Iwata et al further teaches: The print management system according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to: display the collection order according to a print order of each job designated in the group job, on the display device [fig 17 (Jobs are listed in an order associated with printing date/time.)].
Regarding claim 4 (currently amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Iwata et al further teaches: The print management system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where the type of the print job is a page division job, display the collection order of a plurality of jobs constituting the page division job on the display device [fig. 17, p0276 (One job is divided into multiple jobs listed in collection order.)].
Regarding claim 5 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 4 has been incorporated herein. Iwata et al further teaches: The print management system according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to: display the collection order according to a predetermined page order of the print job on the display device [fig. 17].
Regarding claim 6 (currently amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Iwata et al further teaches: The print management system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where the type of the print job is a number-of-copies spread job, display the collection order according to a predetermined operation rule on the display device [p0244, p0245, p0358]. Iwata et al’s teaching on collection order illustrated in fig. 17 associated with multiple jobs obtained by dividing one job and copies divided and spread across printers would have made it obvious to a skilled in the art to display collection order associated with copies distributed to different printers.
Regarding claim 7 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 6 has been incorporated herein. Fukushima in view of Iwata et al further teaches: The print management system according to claim 6, wherein the operation rule includes at least one of a priority order, a delivery date order, a collection location after collection, or a movement distance of an operator [Fukushima: page 15; Iwata: fig. 17 (List collection order associated with collection locations in terms of different printers.)].
Regarding claim 8 (currently amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Iwata et al further teaches: The print management system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where the type of the print job is a number-of-copies spread job, determine that it is not necessary to designate the collection order [p0244, p0245]. It would have been obvious to a skilled in the art that collection order would not be necessary if a job has only one copy or a job of multiple copies of a same type with an identical output ID and printed by a same printer as disclosed by Fukushima.
Claim 19 (currently amended) has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1.
Claim 20 (currently amended) has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1.
51066.. Claims 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima (JP Pub: 2019211999) (Applicant provided reference) and Iwata et al (US Pub: 2002/0163666) (Applicant provided reference); and in further view of Fujinaga et al (EP Pub: 2361866).
Regarding claim 9 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Iwata et al further teaches: The print management system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: display a representational graphic of the printout in association with a printing machine at an output destination and an output tray of the printing machine, on the display device [figs. 33-36].
Fukushima in view of Iwata et al does not indicate an output tray of a printer. In the same field of endeavor, Fujinaga et al teaches: display a representational graphic of the printout in association with a printing machine at an output destination and an output tray of the printing machine [figs 8 and 10]. Therefore, given Fujinaga et al’s illustration on printout in association with trays of a printer, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to display printout associated with different trays to guide user for easy pickup.
Regarding claim 10 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 9 has been incorporated herein. Fujinaga et al further teaches: The print management system according to claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where a printing result of a plurality of print jobs exists in the output tray, display the representational graphic for each of the plurality of print jobs, on the display device [fig. 11].
Regarding claim 11 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 9 has been incorporated herein. Fujinaga et al further teaches: The print management system according to claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to: display a mark indicating the collection order in association with the representational graphic on the display device [fig. 10].
Regarding claim 12 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Fukushima in view of Iwata et al further teaches: The print management system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: by executing the non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, input that the printout is collected; and update the collection order displayed on the display device according to the input [Fukushima: page 18: p13, p14; Iwata: p0309].
Fukushima in view of Iwata et al updates display of field status upon removal of printed material. For a redundant teaching in the same field of endeavor, Fujinaga further discloses detecting removal of printout and coordinates with a sorter using blinking LED for reminder [p0083]. Fujinaga also disclose collection order in [p0068, fig. 10]. Therefore, give Fukushima in view of Iwata et al’s updated status data associated with remaining jobs and Fujinaga’s disclosure on monitoring printout removal, updating sorter, and signaling for next printout pickup, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to update collection order upon partial pickup for providing clear signal on collection sequence of the remaining parts.
Regarding claim 13 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein. Claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 12.
Regarding claim 14 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 3 has been incorporated herein. Claim 14 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 12.
Regarding claim 15 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 4 has been incorporated herein. Claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 12.
Regarding claim 16 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 5 has been incorporated herein. Claim 16 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 12.
Regarding claim 17 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 6 has been incorporated herein. Claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 12.
Regarding claim 18 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 7 has been incorporated herein. Claim 18 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 12.
Conclusion
6. There is no new ground of rejection necessitated by the corresponding amendment 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 mailing date of this final action.
Contact
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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 Tieu 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.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682