DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to claims filed 07/26/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
The first claim presented in the application is missing a claim number, Examiner will interpret the unlabeled claim as Claim 1.
Claims 2-9 are being objected to as they refer to a non-existent Claim 1. Examiner will interpret the reference as being to the aforementioned first claim presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 17 recites generic placeholder language “A computing system configured to” in the preamble; however, this amounts to a single means for performing the entirety of the claim and is therefore rejected under 112(a), see MPEP § 2164.08(a).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1-16 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; Claims 17-20 are directed to a system and falls within the statutory category of machines. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1,10 and 17: The limitations of “scheduling the job(s) to be processed according a schedule determined by a scheduling process”, and “modifying the scheduling process of the scheduler with the factor, wherein the job(s) is rescheduled within the schedule”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can mentally order the tasks for order of completion. Further a person can reorder those tasks based on factors like priority or urgency, and an estimate of how long those tasks might take as needed mentally or with a pen and paper.
Therefore, Yes, claim 1, 10 and 17 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 10 and 17: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into practical applications. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements – “receiving a job(s) at a processing device within the computer system”, “placing the job(s) in a scheduler at the processing device”, and “querying an external system for a factor related to the external system” merely recite insignificant extra-solution data gathering and data storage which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, “processing the job at the processing device according to the schedule,” is a recitation of generic computing components and functions merely being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that the Claims 1, 10 and 17 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to a judicial exception as a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 10 and 17: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components that are insignificant extra-solution activity which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional. “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1, 10 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to Claims 2, 14, 15 and 19 they recite “receiving the job from a client device within the computing system”, “receiving the plurality of jobs from a client device within the computing system” or “receiving the first job from a first client device within the computing system and the second job from a second client device within the computing system” which are merely insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, MPEP § 2106.05(g). With regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, Claims 2, 14, 15 and 19 fails both prongs of Step 2A, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more, performing a well understood, routine, and conventional task of data gathering. “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Therefore, Claims 2, 14, 15 and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to Claims 3, 11 and 18 they recite “wherein the processing device is a printing device” merely link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). Claims 3,11 and 18 all fail both prongs of Step 2A as defining the processing device as a generic device performing abstract steps, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use has been identified by the courts as to not “be enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.” See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Therefore, Claims 3, 11 and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to Claims 4 and 5 they recite “wherein the scheduling process is a first in, first out (FIFO) process” and “wherein the scheduling process is based upon a priority of the job” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about performing a plurality of jobs in the order they are received or based on urgency of each job. Further Claims 4 and 5 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 4 and 5 also fails both prongs of Step 2A, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more Therefore, Claims 4 and 5 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to Claims 6, 7 and 16 they recite “wherein the factor includes a quality of service factor of the external system”, “wherein the factor includes a response time by the external system”, “wherein the factor includes a date or time of day”, and “wherein the factor includes a capacity of service” which are merely insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, MPEP § 2106.05(g). With regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, Claims 6, 7 and 16 fails both prongs of Step 2A, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more, performing a well understood, routine, and conventional task of data gathering. “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Therefore, Claims 6, 7 and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to Claims 8 and 9 recite “wherein the factor includes a date or time of day” and “wherein the factor includes a capacity of service” as drafted, is a process that, but recite insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, MPEP § 2106.05(g) and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, Claims 8 and 9 also fails both prongs of Step 2A, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Therefore, Claims 8 and 9 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to Claims 12, 13 and 20 they recite “wherein the printing device includes a digital front end (DFE)”, “wherein the scheduler is within the DFE”, and “wherein the scheduler is within a digital front end (DFE) of the printing device” merely link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). Claims 12, 13 and 20 all fail both prongs of Step 2A as defining the processing device as a generic device performing abstract steps, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use has been identified by the courts as to not “be enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.” See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Therefore, Claims 12, 13 and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 1-6, 8-11, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lawrence et al. (US 20060193006 A1) (hereinafter Lawrence), in view of Gnanasambandam et al. (US 20110255125 A1) (hereinafter Xerox).
Regarding Claim 1, Lawrence teaches:
A method for managing a workflow of a computing system;
“the system is provided to allow prioritizers to be programmed and inserted to customize the behavior of the scheduler according to different print job properties. In at least some embodiments, the system utilizes a model for the relative prioritization of print queues in the system to enforce a fair to balancing of system resources between print queues”, (Lawrence: Abstract), Examiner notes: the print jobs correspond to the computer system workflow and prioritization of print queues corresponds to managing the workflow
the method comprising: receiving a job at a processing device within the computer system;
“system 200 includes, in this example, one or more client devices 242 and one or more print servers 288”, (Lawrence: ¶035; Figure 2 Parts 288, 254n and 242), “the renderer typically receives print job data in an intermediate format (such as enhanced metadata format (EMF)), and processes the intermediate format via a pipeline of filters to produce data in a different format which is then sent on to the server for scheduling and provision to a printing device”, (Lawrence: ¶131; Figure 2 Part 254).
placing the job in a scheduler at a processing device;
“a scheduler component oversees print job management and scheduling, and works in concert with components called prioritizers to provide for ease of programming and customization”, (Lawrence: ¶013), “In the illustrated and described embodiment, the scheduler object 252 is responsible for selecting print jobs to send to a particular printer”, (Lawrence: ¶042; Fig 2, Part 252).
scheduling the job to be processed according a schedule determined by a scheduling process;
“A scheduler component oversees print job management and scheduling”, (Lawrence: Abstract; Fig 2, Part 252), “Tuples that are produced for a particular print job can then be interpreted and processed by a scheduler object to schedule the particular print jobs in the printing system”, (Lawrence: ¶032). “The scheduler also must attempt to choose an efficient and, in many if not all cases, what it considers to be the optimal number of jobs to schedule according to the available system resources”, (Lawrence: ¶118).
modifying the scheduling process of the scheduler with [a] factor, wherein the job is rescheduled within the schedule;
“a ChangePriority command and a ChangeScheduleTime command that are not accessible from clients. A prioritizer object (described below) can call commands to change the priority or scheduled time of the associated job”, (Lawrence: ¶054-055).
processing the job at the processing device according to the schedule
“Prioritizer objects also support a method called JobChange( ). This method is called by the print system whenever a job arrives, when it is finished spooling, when it starts to print and when it is done printing”, (Lawrence: ¶ 074).
Further regarding Claim 1, Lawrence fails to teach:
querying an external system for a factor related to the external system;
However, Xerox teaches: “the class 2 queue may sense/monitor/track the load/volume of activity of class 1 queue (of device and/or other devices)”… “This could be accomplished through an SNMP (simple network management protocol) and Web Services call to the concerned device's job monitoring MIB (management information base) to note the origin and status of the jobs/tasks/activities/capabilities in the queue”, (Xerox: ¶ 058), “In step 204, a plurality of data related to a plurality of tasks may be sent to a plurality of multifunction devices (MFDs), the plurality of data including at least burstiness data, priority data, and time-of-day data”, (Xerox: ¶ 083), “determine quantitatively the size of jobs (or excess capacity) for a given workload, fleet size, and fleet characteristics and therefore act as a provisioning aid”, (Xerox: ¶ 084).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine querying an external system for a factor related to the external system of Xerox with the methods and systems of Lawrence resulting in a system being able to query factors of “other devices” via a “network management protocol”, (Xerox: ¶ 058). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of making better “placement decisions” to “reduce the number of preemptions experienced by jobs/tasks, and, thereby, may reduce the average job makespan, thus increasing the overall efficiency of the system”, (Xerox: ¶ 078).
Regarding Claim 2, Lawrence teaches:
receiving the job from a client device within a computing system
“a data interface component 270 provides a mechanism by which the client device 242 and the print server 288 can communicate. Any suitable data interface and protocol can be utilized”, (Lawrence: ¶040). “a method called JobChange( ). This method is called by the print system whenever a job arrives”… “ If the prioritizer wishes to listen for other events, it can use the system's data interface notification mechanism”, (Lawrence: ¶074). “A relative priority tuple is a set of numeric weights, e.g. [W1, W2, W3, W4]. Each weight is assigned by a prioritizer object. When two print jobs are positioned in a queue, each weight is compared with the corresponding weight in the other job's tuple in order to determine the relative priority of the job”, (Lawrence: ¶078). Examiner note: the client device sends jobs to prioritizer within the print server which is used to assign weights to incoming jobs before the scheduler honors said weights. Receiving "Print Job 254" from "Client Device 242" within "System 200".
Regarding Claim 3, Lawrence teaches:
the processing device is a printing device
“The scheduler object 252 is responsible for selecting print jobs to send to a particular printer”, (Lawrence: ¶042; Fig 2). “More specifically, the renderer will schedule jobs preferentially for a downstream physical printer”, (Lawrence: ¶132).
Regarding Claim 4, Lawrence teaches:
the scheduling process is a first in, first out (FIFO) process
“the system maintains a First-In-First-Out (FIFO) queue of print jobs at that particular priority”, (Lawrence: ¶48). “A time FIFO prioritizer that utilizes a time field that allows a print job to receive an overriding boost in priority after an elapsed time“, (Lawrence: Claim 11).
Regarding Claim 5, Lawrence teaches:
the scheduling process is based upon a priority of the job
“In the illustrated and described embodiment, the scheduler object 252 is responsible for selecting print jobs to send to a particular printer. To do so, the scheduler object processes the data that are produced by the prioritizers. In addition, the scheduler object ensures that priorities on print jobs, as described below, are honored”, (Lawrence: ¶ 042-043). “A relative priority tuple is a set of numeric weights, e.g. [W1, W2, W3, W4]. Each weight is assigned by a prioritizer object. When two print jobs are positioned in a queue, each weight is compared with the corresponding weight in the other job's tuple in order to determine the relative priority of the job”, (Lawrence: ¶078). Examiner note: The prioritizer assigns priorities to an input stream of print jobs which the scheduler adheres to when generating a schedule of jobs for the printers.
Regarding claim 6, Lawrence fails to teach:
the factor including a quality-of-service factor of the external system
However, Xerox teaches: “determine a proportion of the plurality of tasks to be supported to achieve a required quality of service.”, (Xerox: Claim 1), “Additionally, when referring to statistical confidence intervals, it is noted that the reference is made to quantitative figures, such as quality of service (QoS) values being at or near SLA/set points.”, (Xerox: ¶ 078).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the factor including a quality-of-service factor of the external system of Xerox with the methods and systems of Lawrence resulting in the external system being queried relay a quality of service factor to the querying system. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of achieving a “required quality of service”, (Xerox: Abstract) and making better “placement decisions” to “reduce the number of preemptions experienced by jobs/tasks, and, thereby, may reduce the average job makespan, thus increasing the overall efficiency of the system”, (Xerox: ¶ 078).
Regarding Claim 8, Lawrence teaches:
the factor that includes a date or time of day
"A time priority queue is a priority queue that uses, as its priority, the time that the job should be rescheduled."... "The times are not stored as deltas (or changes), but rather as absolute times to prevent drift caused by small delays in the scheduler object", (Lawrence: ¶050). "For example, if a prioritizer delays large print jobs to print between 2 A.M. and 6 A.M., the user information that is returned to the client could cause the following message to be displayed for the user", (Lawrence: ¶090).
Regarding Claim 9, Lawrence fails to teach:
the factor that includes a capacity of service.
However, Xerox teaches: “the plurality of data including at least burstiness data, priority data, and time-of-day data. In step 206, the size of the requested tasks, the number of MFDs on the network, and the availability/workload of current MFDs may be determined.”, (Xerox: ¶ 015 ), “the exemplary embodiments further propose a method for computing the usable size of available excess capacity with respect to a burstiness and time-of-day aware scheduler.”, (Xerox: ¶ 023), “an assessment is made based on the information analyzed to determine a proportion of the plurality of tasks to be supported”, (Xerox: Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the factor that includes a capacity of service of Xerox with the methods and systems of Lawrence resulting in the external system being queried relay a capacity of service factor to the querying system. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of determining the “plurality of tasks to be supported”, (Xerox: Abstract) to make better “placement decisions” to “reduce the number of preemptions experienced by jobs/tasks, and, thereby, may reduce the average job makespan, thus increasing the overall efficiency of the system”, (Xerox: ¶ 078).
Regarding Claim 10, Lawrence teaches:
A method for managing jobs within a computing system;
“the system is provided to allow prioritizers to be programmed and inserted to customize the behavior of the scheduler according to different print job properties. In at least some embodiments, the system utilizes a model for the relative prioritization of print queues in the system to enforce a fair to balancing of system resources between print queues”, (Lawrence: Abstract), Examiner notes: the print jobs correspond to the computer system workflow and prioritization of print queues corresponds to managing the workflow
the method comprising: receiving a plurality of jobs at a processing device within the computer system,
“the renderer typically receives print job data in an intermediate format (such as enhanced metadata format (EMF)), and processes the intermediate format via a pipeline of filters to produce data in a different format which is then sent on to the server for scheduling and provision to a printing device”, (Lawrence: ¶131; Figure 2 Part 254).
wherein the plurality of jobs includes a first job and a second job;
“A relative priority tuple is a set of numeric weights, e.g. [W1, W2, W3, W4]. Each weight is assigned by a prioritizer object. When two print jobs are positioned in a queue, each weight is compared with the corresponding weight in the other job's tuple in order to determine the relative priority of the job”, (Lawrence: ¶078).
placing the plurality of jobs in a scheduler at the processing device;
“In the illustrated and described embodiment, the scheduler object 252 is responsible for selecting print jobs to send to a particular printer”, (Lawrence: ¶042; Fig 2, Part 252).
scheduling the plurality of jobs to be processed according a schedule determined by a scheduling process, wherein the first job is scheduled to be processed prior to the second job;
“A scheduler component oversees print job management and scheduling”, (Lawrence: Abstract; Fig 2, Part 252), “Tuples that are produced for a particular print job can then be interpreted and processed by a scheduler object to schedule the particular print jobs in the printing system”, (Lawrence: ¶032). “A relative priority tuple is a set of numeric weights, e.g. [W1, W2, W3, W4]. Each weight is assigned by a prioritizer object. When two print jobs are positioned in a queue, each weight is compared with the corresponding weight in the other job's tuple in order to determine the relative priority of the job”, (Lawrence: ¶078). “The scheduler also must attempt to choose an efficient and, in many if not all cases, what it considers to be the optimal number of jobs to schedule according to the available system resources”, (Lawrence: ¶118).
modifying the scheduling process of the scheduler with the factor, wherein the first job is rescheduled within the schedule to be processed after the second job;
“a ChangePriority command and a ChangeScheduleTime command that are not accessible from clients. A prioritizer object (described below) can call commands to change the priority or scheduled time of the associated job”, (Lawrence: ¶054-055), Examiner Note: teaches that jobs can be reordered so that the first job could be processed before or after the second job
processing the first job and the second job at the processing device according to the schedule.
“Prioritizer objects also support a method called JobChange( ). This method is called by the print system whenever a job arrives, when it is finished spooling, when it starts to print and when it is done printing”, (Lawrence: ¶ 074).
Further regarding Claim 10, Lawrence fails to teach:
querying an external system for a factor related to the external system;
However, Xerox teaches: “the class 2 queue may sense/monitor/track the load/volume of activity of class 1 queue (of device and/or other devices)”… “This could be accomplished through an SNMP (simple network management protocol) and Web Services call to the concerned device's job monitoring MIB (management information base) to note the origin and status of the jobs/tasks/activities/capabilities in the queue”, (Xerox: ¶ 058), “In step 204, a plurality of data related to a plurality of tasks may be sent to a plurality of multifunction devices (MFDs), the plurality of data including at least burstiness data, priority data, and time-of-day data”, (Xerox: ¶ 083), “determine quantitatively the size of jobs (or excess capacity) for a given workload, fleet size, and fleet characteristics and therefore act as a provisioning aid”, (Xerox: ¶ 084).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine querying an external system for a factor related to the external system of Xerox with the methods and systems of Lawrence resulting in a system being able to query factors of “other devices” via a “network management protocol”, (Xerox: ¶ 058). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of making better “placement decisions” to “reduce the number of preemptions experienced by jobs/tasks, and, thereby, may reduce the average job makespan, thus increasing the overall efficiency of the system”, (Xerox: ¶ 078).
Regarding Claim 11, Lawrence teaches:
the processing device is a printing device.
“The scheduler object 252 is responsible for selecting print jobs to send to a particular printer”, (Lawrence: ¶042; Fig 2). “More specifically, the renderer will schedule jobs preferentially for a downstream physical printer”, (Lawrence: ¶132).
Regarding Claim 14, Lawrence teaches:
receiving the plurality of jobs from a client device within the computing system.
“a data interface component 270 provides a mechanism by which the client device 242 and the print server 288 can communicate. Any suitable data interface and protocol can be utilized”, (Lawrence: ¶040). “a method called JobChange( ). This method is called by the print system whenever a job arrives”… “ If the prioritizer wishes to listen for other events, it can use the system's data interface notification mechanism”, (Lawrence: ¶074). “A relative priority tuple is a set of numeric weights, e.g. [W1, W2, W3, W4]. Each weight is assigned by a prioritizer object. When two print jobs are positioned in a queue, each weight is compared with the corresponding weight in the other job's tuple in order to determine the relative priority of the job”, (Lawrence: ¶078). Examiner note: the client device sends jobs to prioritizer within the print server which is used to assign weights to incoming jobs before the scheduler honors said weights. Receiving "Print Job 254" from "Client Device 242" within "System 200".
Regarding Claim 15, Lawrence teaches:
receiving the first job from a first client Device within the computing system and the second job from a second client device within the computing system.
“system 200 includes, in this example, one or more client devices 242 and one or more print servers 288”, (Lawrence: ¶035; Fig 2). “a data interface component 270 provides a mechanism by which the client device 242 and the print server 288 can communicate. Any suitable data interface and protocol can be utilized”, (Lawrence: ¶040). “a method called JobChange( ). This method is called by the print system whenever a job arrives”… “ If the prioritizer wishes to listen for other events, it can use the system's data interface notification mechanism”, (Lawrence: ¶074). “A relative priority tuple is a set of numeric weights, e.g. [W1, W2, W3, W4]. Each weight is assigned by a prioritizer object. When two print jobs are positioned in a queue, each weight is compared with the corresponding weight in the other job's tuple in order to determine the relative priority of the job”, (Lawrence: ¶078). Examiner note: The prioritizer receives jobs from multiple client devices via the data interface and assigns weights to them. Receiving "Print Job 254" from "Client Device 242" within "System 200".
Regarding claim 16, Lawrence fails to teach:
the factor including a quality-of-service factor of the external system
However, Xerox teaches: “determine a proportion of the plurality of tasks to be supported to achieve a required quality of service.”, (Xerox: Claim 1), “Additionally, when referring to statistical confidence intervals, it is noted that the reference is made to quantitative figures, such as quality of service (QoS) values being at or near SLA/set points.”, (Xerox: ¶ 078).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the factor including a quality-of-service factor of the external system of Xerox with the methods and systems of Lawrence resulting in the external system being queried relay a quality of service factor to the querying system. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of achieving a “required quality of service”, (Xerox: Abstract) and making better “placement decisions” to “reduce the number of preemptions experienced by jobs/tasks, and, thereby, may reduce the average job makespan, thus increasing the overall efficiency of the system”, (Xerox: ¶ 078).
Regarding Claim 17, Lawrence teaches:
A computing system configured to receive a job at a processing device within the computer system
“the renderer typically receives print job data in an intermediate format (such as enhanced metadata format (EMF)), and processes the intermediate format via a pipeline of filters to produce data in a different format which is then sent on to the server for scheduling and provision to a printing device”, (Lawrence: ¶131; Figure 2 Part 254).
place the job in a scheduler at the processing device
“In the illustrated and described embodiment, the scheduler object 252 is responsible for selecting print jobs to send to a particular printer”, (Lawrence: ¶042; Fig 2, Part 252).
schedule the job to be processed according a schedule determined by a scheduling process
“A scheduler component oversees print job management and scheduling”, (Lawrence: Abstract; Fig 2, Part 252), “Tuples that are produced for a particular print job can then be interpreted and processed by a scheduler object to schedule the particular print jobs in the printing system”, (Lawrence: ¶032). “The scheduler also must attempt to choose an efficient and, in many if not all cases, what it considers to be the optimal number of jobs to schedule according to the available system resources”, (Lawrence: ¶118).
modify the scheduling process of the scheduler with the factor, wherein the job is rescheduled within the schedule
“a ChangePriority command and a ChangeScheduleTime command that are not accessible from clients. A prioritizer object (described below) can call commands to change the priority or scheduled time of the associated job”, (Lawrence: ¶054-055).
process the job at the processing device according to the schedule
“Prioritizer objects also support a method called JobChange( ). This method is called by the print system whenever a job arrives, when it is finished spooling, when it starts to print and when it is done printing”, (Lawrence: ¶ 074).
Further regarding Claim 17, Lawrence fails to teach:
query an external system for a factor related to the external system;
However, Xerox teaches: “the class 2 queue may sense/monitor/track the load/volume of activity of class 1 queue (of device and/or other devices)”… “This could be accomplished through an SNMP (simple network management protocol) and Web Services call to the concerned device's job monitoring MIB (management information base) to note the origin and status of the jobs/tasks/activities/capabilities in the queue”, (Xerox: ¶ 058), “In step 204, a plurality of data related to a plurality of tasks may be sent to a plurality of multifunction devices (MFDs), the plurality of data including at least burstiness data, priority data, and time-of-day data”, (Xerox: ¶ 083), “determine quantitatively the size of jobs (or excess capacity) for a given workload, fleet size, and fleet characteristics and therefore act as a provisioning aid”, (Xerox: ¶ 084).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine querying an external system for a factor related to the external system of Xerox with the methods and systems of Lawrence resulting in a system being able to query factors of “other devices” via a “network management protocol”, (Xerox: ¶ 058). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of making better “placement decisions” to “reduce the number of preemptions experienced by jobs/tasks, and, thereby, may reduce the average job makespan, thus increasing the overall efficiency of the system”, (Xerox: ¶ 078).
Regarding Claim 18, Lawrence teaches:
The processing device is a printing device
“The scheduler object 252 is responsible for selecting print jobs to send to a particular printer”, (Lawrence: ¶042; Fig 2). “More specifically, the renderer will schedule jobs preferentially for a downstream physical printer”, (Lawrence: ¶132).
Regarding Claim 19, Lawrence teaches:
Receive the job from a client device within the computing system.
“a data interface component 270 provides a mechanism by which the client device 242 and the print server 288 can communicate. Any suitable data interface and protocol can be utilized”, (Lawrence: ¶040). “a method called JobChange( ). This method is called by the print system whenever a job arrives”… “ If the prioritizer wishes to listen for other events, it can use the system's data interface notification mechanism”, (Lawrence: ¶074). “A relative priority tuple is a set of numeric weights, e.g. [W1, W2, W3, W4]. Each weight is assigned by a prioritizer object. When two print jobs are positioned in a queue, each weight is compared with the corresponding weight in the other job's tuple in order to determine the relative priority of the job”, (Lawrence: ¶078). Examiner note: the client device sends jobs to prioritizer within the print server which is used to assign weights to incoming jobs before the scheduler honors said weights. Receiving "Print Job 254" from "Client Device 242" within "System 200".
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lawrence in view of Xerox, further in view of Iyengar et al. (US 20050207439 A1) (hereinafter Iyengar).
Further regarding Claim 7, Lawrence in view of Xerox explicitly fails to teach:
the factor includes a response time by the external system
However, Iyengar teaches: “estimating the response time associated with the at least one server based on one or more requests sent to the at least one server within a given time period”, (Iyengar: Background ¶ 017), “Requests associated with a first one of the at least two QoS classes are withheld to allow requests associated with a second one of the at least two QoS classes to meet its response target based on the at least one estimated response time”, (Iyengar: Background ¶ 020).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the factor including a response time by the external system of Iyengar with the methods and systems of Lawrence in view of Xerox resulting in the external system being queried relay a response time factor to the querying system. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing “short response times to client requests”, (Iyengar: ¶ 005) by ensuring that “the mean response time of the requests in a class does not exceed the response time target of the class”, (Iyengar: ¶ 009).
Claims 12-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lawrence in view of Xerox, further in view of and Banton et al. (US 20090268261 A1) (hereinafter Banton).
Regarding Claim 12, Lawrence in view of Xerox fails to teach:
the printing device that includes a digital front end (DFE).
However, Banton teaches: “In one embodiment, the print controller 210 may be a Digital Front End (DFE)”, (Banton: ¶016), “the print controller 210 may be a part of the printing device itself”, (Banton: ¶018).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the printing device that includes a digital front end (DFE) of Banton with the methods and systems of Lawrence in view of Xerox resulting in the printing devices containing a DFE. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing “productivity by efficiently automating digital workflow”, (Banton: ¶ 017) with the “print controller” that “may be a Digital Front End (DFE)”, (Banton: ¶ 016) and “may be a part of the printing device itself”, (Banton: ¶018).
Regarding claim 13, Lawrence fails to teach:
the scheduler within the DFE.
However, Banton teaches: “In one embodiment, the print controller 210 may be a Digital Front End (DFE)”, (Banton: ¶016), “the print controller 210 may be a part of the printing device itself”, (Banton: ¶018), “the planner/scheduler 220 is shown being separate from the print controller 210, in some implementations, the planner/scheduler 220 may be a part of the print controller 210”, (Banton: ¶031).
Regarding claim 20, Lawrence fails to teach:
The scheduler is within a digital front end (DFE) of the printing device.
However, Banton teaches: “In one embodiment, the print controller 210 may be a Digital Front End (DFE)”, (Banton: ¶016), “the print controller 210 may be a part of the printing device itself”, (Banton: ¶018), “the planner/scheduler 220 is shown being separate from the print controller 210, in some implementations, the planner/scheduler 220 may be a part of the print controller 210”, (Banton: ¶031).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the scheduler within a digital front end (DFE) of the printing device of Banton with the methods and systems of Lawrence in view of Xerox resulting in the printing device containing a DFE with a scheduler. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing “productivity by efficiently automating digital workflow”, (Banton: ¶ 017) with the “print controller” that “may be a Digital Front End (DFE)”, (Banton: ¶ 016) and “may be a part of the printing device itself”, (Banton: ¶018).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIHAB ALAM whose telephone number is (571) 272-8705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 571-272-3338. 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.
/S.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2197 /BRADLEY A TEETS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2197