DETAILED ACTION
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 .
In a RCE and amendment dated 05/21/2026, applicant(s) amended claims 1, 12 and 13. Claims 1 – 13 are still pending in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 - 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobashi (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2022/0027109 A1, cited in an Office Action dated 11/21/2025, hereinafter ‘Kobashi’) in view of Smyth et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2014/0240754 A1, hereinafter ‘Smyth’).
With respect to claim 1, Kobashi teaches an information processing apparatus (i.e., an information processing apparatus 101, ¶0032, Fig. 2A) comprising: a processor (e.g., a CPU 201, ¶0032, Fig. 2A) configured to: receive information on a plurality of parts that configure a product (e.g., receiving information related to parts that configure a product (e.g., “a book”), ¶0036 - ¶0037, ¶0075, Fig. 8A, Fig. 8B); display process candidates for manufacturing the parts on a display unit (e.g., display icons corresponding to the parts on a display 207, ¶0007, ¶0038, Fig. 8A, Fig. 8B); receive selection of a process from among the process candidates, for each of the parts (e.g., add/select a process from among the processes, ¶0042 - ¶0043, ¶0061, Fig. 9I); and create a workflow related to manufacturing of the product, including the selected process (e.g., generate/create a workflow associated to commercial printing industry of the product, including the added/selected process, ¶0062 - ¶0065, Fig. 9); but fails to teaches wherein response to the processor receiving an instruction to add a new part that configured the product, the processor is configured to display a workflow combining the new part and the plurality of parts.
However, in the same field of endeavor of generating workflow for an article of manufacture, the aforementioned claimed limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Smyth. In particular, Smyth teaches wherein response to the processor receiving an instruction to add a new part that configured the product, the processor is configured to display a workflow combining the new part and the plurality of parts (e.g., after dragging/dropping an activity to add into a workflow, a workflow should be displayed or previewed after adding said ‘new’ activity together with a plurality of activities, abstract, ¶0006, ¶0019 with ¶0024, ¶0036 - ¶0038 and Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the information processing apparatus of Kobashi as taught by Smyth since Smyth suggested within ¶006, ¶0019, ¶0024, ¶0036 - ¶0038 and Fig. 2 that such modification of dragging/drooping a new activity would understand, visually, the order in which workflow activities will be performed.
With respect to claim 2, Kobashi in view of Smyth teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: add the received process to the workflow, every time the selection of the process is received (e.g., any process can be added/set to the workflow each time the workflow is edited, ¶0042, ¶0051 - ¶0053).
With respect to claim 3, Kobashi in view of Smyth teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: arrange the process selected for each part in a predetermined order and add the process to the workflow (e.g., any process can be added/selected in an order to the workflow each time the workflow is edited, ¶0042, ¶0051 - ¶0053, ¶0061).
With respect to claim 4, Kobashi in view of Smyth teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the predetermined order is determined based on a relationship between the selected process and a process that has already been added to the workflow (e.g., the order to the workflow can be determined based on an association between the added/selected process and a process that has been already registered, ¶0033, ¶0045, ¶0051 - ¶0053, ¶0061).
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Kobashi in view of Smyth teaches the information processing apparatus according to claims 2 and 3, respectively, wherein in a case where the process displayed on the display unit is designated by a user and selection of another process is received, the selected process is added to a workflow at a position next to the designated process (e.g., in a case where the process displayed on the display 207 is set by the user and another process is set, the set process is already added to the workflow next to the set process, ¶0060 - ¶0063, Figs. 7A – 7E, Figs. 9A – 9J).
With respect to claim 7, Kobashi in view of Smyth teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein in a case where a part displayed on the display unit is designated by a user and selection of the process is received, the selected process is added to a workflow at a last position of the part (e.g. it simply manipulating the order of the parts to be processed as desired by the user, where the part(s) can be set/selected as the last part while setting workflow, ¶0042, ¶0059, Fig. 3B; also it’s well known in the art of UI to add a process/part while dragging the part into any position in a workflow).
With respect to claim 8, Kobashi in view of Smyth teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein in a case where a part displayed on the display unit is designated by a user and selection of the process is received, the selected process is added to a workflow at a last position of the part (e.g. it simply manipulating the order of the parts to be processed as desired by the user, where the part can be set/selected as the last part while setting workflow, ¶0042, ¶0059, Fig. 3B; also it’s well known in the art of UI to add a process/part while dragging & dropping the part into any position in a workflow).
With respect to claim 9, Kobashi in view of Smyth teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where the information on the plurality of parts is received, add an intermediate part obtained by combining the plurality of parts to the workflow (e.g. it simply manipulating/editing the order of the parts to be processed as desired by the user, where certain parts can be added, deleted or disabled, ¶0042, ¶0059, ¶0075 - ¶0077, Fig. 3B; also it’s well known in the art of UI to add/set a part in a middle of a workflow while dragging the part into a middle position in a workflow).
With respect to claim 10, Kobashi in view of Smyth teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to: with respect to a part on which information is received after generation of a workflow including the intermediate part, create a workflow in which the process of the part is connected to the intermediate part (e.g. it simply manipulating/editing the order of the parts to be processed as desired by the user, where certain parts can be added, deleted or disabled, ¶0042, ¶0059, ¶0074 - ¶0077, Fig. 3B; also it’s well known in the art of UI to add/set a part in a middle of a workflow while dragging the part into a middle position in a workflow).
With respect to claim 11, Kobashi in view of Smyth teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where a part is designated by a user and information on another part is received, add an intermediate part created from the part designated by the user and the other part on which the information is received to a workflow (e.g. it simply manipulating/editing the order of the parts to be processed as desired by the user, where others processes are optional processes. For example, It is also defined that an imposition process is allowed to be set only once, and the other processes are allowed to be set multiple times, ¶0042, ¶0059, ¶0074 - ¶0077, Fig. 3B; also it’s well known in the art of UI to add/set a part while the other is set/selected into any position of the workflow).
With respect to claim 12, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. The use of a non-transitory computer readable medium executed by at least a computer (CPU) as described in claim 12 is explicitly taught by ¶0081 of Kobashi.
With respect to claim 13, it's rejected for the similar reasons as those described in connection with claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kobashi (U.S PG Publication No. 2020/0081677 A1)1
Watanabe (U.S PG Publication No. 2020/0081675 A1)2
1This reference provides an information processing apparatus configured to generate a workflow including a plurality of operation processes combined together for generating a product, including a first display control unit configured to display a setting screen for adding an operation process and setting a parameter related to the operation process, an accepting unit configured to accept an instruction to add an operation process via the setting screen, a first setting unit configured to set a parameter related to an operation process via the setting screen, and a first generation unit configured to generate a workflow including the operation process added according to the instruction and the set parameter related to the operation process.
2This reference teaches an information processing apparatus for editing workflow information is provided that defines a procedure for combining pieces of part information with each other to create a product, the part information defining parts. The information processing apparatus is configured to change, for each part, settings of the part included in the part information, according to an operation; and adjust settings of another part that is to be combined with the part, according to a change that has been made to the settings of the part.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN M GUILLERMETY whose telephone number is (571)270-3481. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benny Q TIEU can be reached at 571-272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN M GUILLERMETY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights