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 .
Request for Continued Examination
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on Jan. 27th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s remarks received on Jan. 27th, 2026 with respect to the amended independent claims have been acknowledged and are moot in view of a new ground of rejection necessitated by the corresponding amendment. Currently claims 1 and 3-10 remain rejected; and claim 2 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting
4. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,755,264 in further view of Pan et al (US Pub: 2013/0201518) and Baker (WO 91/06071).
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is an obvious variation of that of claim 7 in the referenced patent publication of US Patent: 11,755,264. The referenced patent publication and the instant application are claiming similar subject matter as indicated in in the table below.
Instant Application
1. An application server comprising: a memory; a processor, the processor capable of operating a process comprising: receiving a print request, the print request comprising a print job and a target zone for the print job; querying a host server for a list of printers located in the target zone, the host server being different from the application server; receiving, from the host server, the list of printers located in the target zone based on respective printer location signals; selecting a printer from the list of printers in the target zone; and transmitting the print job to the selected printer, wherein the print request is automatically generated and sent by a weight sensor when triggering a predetermined threshold or a maximum threshold of the weight sensor.
Patent: 11,755,264
1. A system for choosing a printer based on proximity, the system comprising: a beacon configured to broadcast a transmission including a beacon ID; a printer configured to: receive the transmission, determine a received signal strength indicator for the transmission, and generate and transmit a printer location signal including the beacon ID, the received signal strength indicator, and a printer ID associated with the printer; a host server including a processor and a memory, the server configured to: receive the printer location signal from the printer, determine a printer location based on a predetermined beacon location of the beacon, the beacon ID, and the received signal strength indicator, and associate the printer location with a printer zone; a printer proximity application configured to: receive a print request, the print request including a print data and a target zone, select the printer IP address by comparing the target zone to the printer zone, and transmit the print data to the printer via the printer IP address.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the printer proximity application is further configured to: query the host server for a list of printers associated with the printer zone corresponding to the target zone, select a printer from the list of printers, and transmit the print job to the selected printer.
11,755,264 does not specify a different server. In the same field of endeavor, Pan et al further teaches: querying a host server for a list of printers located in the target zone, the host server being different from the application server [fig. 4: 70, p0058, p0059]; receiving, from the host server, the list of printers located in the target zone based on respective printer location signals [p0059, abstract (Proximity which reflects a printer location respective to a user is usually determined by using Received Signal Strength Indicator through Bluetooth Low Energy or Ultra-Wideband.)].
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 send print request for a list of printers within specified target zone for locating and selecting a printer within the zone associated with the user location for improved user convenience.
11,755,264 in view of Pan et al does not generate a print request triggered by a weight sensor. In the same field of endeavor, Baker teaches: wherein the print request is automatically generated and sent by a weight sensor when triggering a predetermined threshold or a maximum threshold of the weight sensor [fig. 2: 109-130 (When a monitored stable weight change meets a predetermined condition, a print request is initiated.)]. Therefore, given Baker’s disclosure on monitoring weight signal and waiting for weight change to meet a predetermined condition for initiating printing, 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 initiate printing request to a printer based on weight signal for selected label printing.
The nonstatutory obviousness double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al (US Pub: 2013/0201518) (Previously cited reference) and in further view of Ikeda (US Pub: 20190268955) and Baker (WO 91/06071).
Regarding claim 1 (currently amended), Pan et al teaches: An application server comprising: memory; a processor, the processor capable of operating a process comprising: receiving a print request, the print request comprising a print job and a target zone for the print job [fig. 4: 90, p0059 (User 90 could be working on an application server for sending a print request. Location of the user is identified for proximity determination.)]; querying a host server for a list of printers located in the target zone, the host server being different from the application server [fig. 4: 70/12, p0058, p0059]; receiving, from the host server, the list of printers located in the target zone based on respective printer location signals [p0059, abstract (Proximity which reflects a printer location respective to a user is usually determined by using Received Signal Strength Indicator through Bluetooth Low Energy or Ultra-Wideband.)]; selecting a printer from the list of printers in the target zone; and transmitting the print job to the selected printer [p0060, fig. 6: R17, R18].
For a teaching on providing a list of printers based on printer location signals such as a beacon signal in compliance with BLE, Ikeda in the same field of endeavor further discloses: receiving, from the host server, the list of printers located in the target zone based on respective printer location signals [p0042, p0072, p0073]. 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 detect and receive a list of printer within a zone/proximity using printer location signals such as RSSI through BLE for improved user experience and convenience.
Pan et al in view of Ikeda does not generate a print request triggered by a weight sensor. In the same field of endeavor, Baker teaches: wherein the print request is automatically generated and sent by a weight sensor when triggering a predetermined threshold or a maximum threshold of the weight sensor [fig. 2: 109-130 (When a monitored stable weight change meets a predetermined condition, a print request is initiated.)]. Therefore, given Baker’s disclosure on monitoring weight signal and waiting for weight change to meet a predetermined condition for initiating printing, 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 initiate printing request to a printer based on weight signal for selected label printing.
Regarding claim 3 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Pan et al further teaches: The application server of claim 1, wherein the print request is manually sent by a user [p0004].
Regarding claim 4 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Pan et al further teaches: The application server of claim 1, wherein the selected printer is selected automatically [p0064 (selected automatically)].
Regarding claim 5 (previously presented), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Pan et al further teaches: The application server of claim 1, wherein the list of printers in the target zone is maintained on the host server [p0059].
Regarding claim 6 (previously presented), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Pan et al further teaches: The application server of claim 1, wherein selecting a printer from the list of printers in the target zone is done via a user interface of a mobile computing device [fig. 4, p0050 (Job request and printer selection done by cloud consumers can be implemented and performed on any computing device.)].
Regarding claim 7 (previously presented), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Pan et al further teaches: The application server of claim 1, wherein the list of printers in the target zone is maintained in a database on the application server [p0058 (The entire system can be on one cloud server/computing environment.)].
Regarding claim 8 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Pan et al further teaches: The application server of claim 1, wherein the print job comprises instructions for the selected printer to complete a task [abstract].
Regarding claim 9 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 8 has been incorporated herein. Pan et al or Ikeda does not teach label printing. In the same field of endeavor, Baker further teaches: The application server of claim 8, wherein the task is to print a label [abstract].
7. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al (US Pub: 2013/0201518) (Previously cited reference), Ikeda (US Pub: 20190268955), and Baker (WO 91/06071); and in further view of Ogawa (US Pub: 2022/0137902) (Previously cited reference).
Regarding claim 10 (previously presented), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 8 has been incorporated herein. Pan et al in view of Ikeda and Baker does not display an alert. In the same field of endeavor, Ogawa teaches: The application server of claim 8, wherein the task is to display an alert on the user interface of the selected printer [p0046]. 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 all to display an alert on printer user interface for reminding purpose.
Contact
8. 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