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 amendments dated 02/11/2026, applicant(s) amended claims 1, 12 and 13. Claims 1 – 13 are still pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
In the remarks on page 7 the applicant notes that the title have been amended to overcome the prior objections. In view of the amendments to the title the prior objections regarding the title is hereby withdrawn.
In the Remarks on pages 8 the Applicant notes that claim 13 have been clarified that the means plus function is accepted. In view of the clarification the prior 35 USC §112 (f) interpretations are hereby withdrawn.
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 Kurian et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2016/0371622 A1, hereinafter ‘Kurian’).
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. 9J); but fails to teaches wherein in response to the processor receiving an instruction to add a new part obtained by combining the plurality of parts to the workflow, the processor is configured to generate a workflow comprising 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 Kurian. In particular, Kurian teaches wherein in response to the processor receiving an instruction to add a new part obtained by combining the plurality of parts to the workflow, the processor is configured to generate a workflow comprising the new part and the plurality of parts (e.g., Upon dragging/dropping a portion to add the portion, as new portion, into an existing workflow, automatically generate a new workflow including the added new portion along with the portions of the existing workflow, ¶0013, ¶0028, ¶0043, ¶0051 - ¶0053).
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 Kurian since Kurian suggested within ¶0013, ¶0028, ¶0043, ¶0051 - ¶0053 that such modification of adding/incorporating a new part, portion or task would allow the apparatus to perform the workflow along with new part, portion or task; thereby convenient to obtain the product/article with the new part/portion/task performed.
With respect to claim 2, Kobashi in view of Kurian 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 Kurian 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 Kurian 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 Kurian 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 Kurian 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 Kurian 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 Kurian 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 Kurian 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 Kurian 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:
Oishi (U.S PG Publication No. 2020/0301713 A1)1
Ikeda (U.S PG Publication No. 2018/0165048 A1)2
Sharma et al. (U.S PG Publication No. 2023/0067168 A1)3
Porter et al. (U.S Patent No. 11,106,331 B1)4
1This reference teaches an information processing apparatus configured to receive a new creating instruction, display a new creating screen in order to add a part of a workflow and then save/update the workflow as a new workflow.
2This reference teaches a server receiving the workflow generation request, then inputting information received with the workflow generation request to a workflow controller. With this configuration, the workflow controller generates a new workflow information based on the received information, and stores the new workflow information in a workflow information storage.
3This reference teaches a workflow selection interface makes it possible to combine one or more processes or events available in workflow selection interface to create a workflow, wherein the workflow selection interface makes it possible to create one or more new workflows. Optionally, workflow selection interface makes it possible to modify one or more existing workflows. Optionally, workflow selection interface is configured to display workflows available in workflow manager, added to workflow manager.
4This reference teaches a workflow step number indicator 140 may be included to show a user where in the workflow creation process the user currently is. In some embodiments, the workflow step number indicator 140 also includes one or more step selectors to allow a user to seamlessly move to a different step in the process by selecting the step selectors. For example, the workflow step number indicator 140 may include clickable selectors that link directly to a different step in the process. Various other selectors, such as a new workflow selector 136 and/or a workflow progress save selector 144, can be included to allow users additional functionality, such as creating a new workflow and/or saving a current workflow to be updated at a later time.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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