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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings received on 4/19/2023 are accepted for examination purposes.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/19/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aher (US-2023/0102319).
As to Claim 1, Aher teaches ‘An information processing apparatus comprising: a processor configured to: receive, from a first user, product information that is input and related to a finished product produced in accordance with a workflow and excludes workflow information that is related to the workflow [par 0020, 0022, 0028-0030, 0038 – system receives from a client device that can be operated by a different user (for example, individual or customer) and is configured to issue print jobs including page description (i.e. product information)]; present, to a second user, information indicated by the received product information [par 0035-0037, 0040-0041, 0047 – the manager of the print shop can visualize on a graphical user interface (GUI) and use the process mining information to assign the resources for a print job, for example, to a particular operator, printer, and a finisher to the job]; and receive from the second user the workflow information responsive to production of the finished product [par 0035-0037, 0047 – a manager, for example, of a print shop can use the process mining information to assign the resources for a print job, for example, to a particular operator, printer, and a finisher to the job]’.
Further, in regards to claim 11, the information processing apparatus of claim 1 performs the program on the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11.
Further, in regards to claim 12, the information processing apparatus of claim 1 performs the means for functions of the information processing apparatus of claim 12.
As to Claim 2, Aher teaches ‘wherein the finished product is printed matter [par 0042 – activity can be defined as a product type, which can include, for example, brochure, book, manual, etc.]’.
As to Claim 3, Aher teaches ‘wherein the product information includes at least one of a format, a finished size, a type of paper sheet, or a number of copies of the printed matter [par 0042 – activity can further include types of print jobs, for example, page count, and the number of copies]; and wherein the workflow information includes at least one piece of information related to pre-press of the printed matter, information related to an output of printing press, information related to printing, or information related to processing [par 0035-0037, 0047 – a manager, for example, of a print shop can use the process mining information to assign the resources for a print job, for example, to a particular operator, printer, and a finisher to the job]’.
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aher in view of Anno et al. (US-2022/0214842).
As to Claim 4, Aher teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claim 1. Aher does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the processor is configured to receive the product information and the workflow information from a different terminal apparatus’ as recited in dependent claim 4.
Anno in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to receive the product information and the workflow information from a different terminal apparatus [Fig 1 (111, 101), par 0044-0047, 0101 – order receiving system management terminal and a workflow management terminal]’.
Aher and Anno are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include separate management terminals, as taught by Anno. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce work man-hours to meet quality terms and further easily determine, transfer, and run an operation process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Anno with Aher to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
As to Claim 5, Anno teaches ‘wherein the first user has a sales operation role to sell the finished product [par 0046, 0101 – a sales representative may manually input an order from an end user], and the second user has a work operation role to perform work to produce the finished product [par 0044 – workflow management terminal is a terminal that a workflow manager operates]’.
Aher and Anno are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include separate management terminals, as taught by Anno. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce work man-hours to meet quality terms and further easily determine, transfer, and run an operation process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Anno with Aher to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aher in view of Anno et al. (US-2022/0214842) and further in view of Wissenbach et al. (US-2022/0391155).
As to Claim 6, Aher in view of Anno teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in dependent claims 4, 5 and independent claim 1. Aher in view of Anno does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the processor is configured to disable the product information from being edited by the user having the work operation role’.
Wissenbach in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to disable the product information from being edited by the user having the work operation role [par 0025, 0030-0031, 0064-0065 – enforcing restrictions that limit the ability to modify configuration or job settings of a recipe including workflow routing]’.
Aher in view of Anno are analogous art with Wissenbach because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include restrictions for settings, as taught by Wissenbach. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensuring print jobs are processed timely and eases the burden placed on a particular print company. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wissenbach with Aher in view of Anno to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
As to Claim 7, Wissenbach in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to, if the user having the work operation role edits the product information, notify the user having the sales operation role having entered the product information that the user having the work operation role edits the product information [par 0020, 0025, 0037-0038, 0041, 0056 – contracting print device may request an exception for deviating from the recipe and generating a notification]’.
Aher in view of Anno are analogous art with Wissenbach because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include restrictions for settings, as taught by Wissenbach. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensuring print jobs are processed timely and eases the burden placed on a particular print company. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wissenbach with Aher in view of Anno to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 (and claims 9-10 based on dependency) is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Aher in view of Anno, Reference and further in view of the art searched and/or cited does not teach nor suggest the combination of limitations including “wherein the processor is configured to receive from a user an indication of selection between a first mode and a second mode, wherein in the first mode, the product information is received from the first user; information indicated by the received product information is presented to the second user; and the workflow information is received from the second user; and wherein in the second mode, the product information and the workflow information are received from the user” as recited in dependent claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Publication No. 2023/0102319
b. US Publication No. 2022/0214842
c. US Publication No. 2022/0391155
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA J CATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 830-530.
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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/MIYA J CATO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681