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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are 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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: processing means for: (processor) in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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) 1-6, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokoyama (US 2002/0174104).
With respect to claim 1 (similarly claims 10-11), Yokoyama teaches an information processing apparatus (e.g. print server 10 Fig 1 [0038]) comprising:
a processor (e.g. CPU 101 Fig 2 [0045]) configured to:
acquire plan information indicating a plan for a printing process to be executed by a printer in a predetermined processing time (e.g. receive a job ticket Fig 2 S201 [0056]-[0057], the job ticket includes plan information indicating a plan for a printing process to be executed by printer 20 Fig 1 in a predetermined processing time, see Fig 6 [0084]-[0092]);
derive planned quantity information on a basis of the plan information, the planned quantity information indicating a printing target quantity in executing the printing process according to the plan (e.g. CPU 101 calculates, from the job information and document information stored in HDD 104 for example in step S301, the number of sheets necessary for making prints thereon for each sheet size (S303) [0065], the number of sheets necessary for making prints indicating a printing target quantity in executing the printing process according to the plan/job ticket);
acquire actual quantity information indicating a printing target quantity of a printing target placed in the printer, the printing target quantity allowing the printing process to be executed (e.g. 101 of print server 10 reads the number of stocked sheets of the size necessary for making prints thereon as per the instruction from the client received in step S201, as well as a free space of the storage location (S302) [0064], the number of stocked sheets allowing the printing process to be executed);
on a basis of the planned quantity information and the actual quantity information, estimate estimated quantity information indicating a printing target quantity for implementing the plan (e.g. CPU 101 of print server 10 compares the number of sheets in stock for each sheet size that is read in step S302 with the number of sheets necessary for making prints thereon that is calculated in step S303 (S304) [0066], the comparison estimates estimated quantity information indicating a printing target quantity for implementing the plan/job ticket i.e. there is either shortage of stock or no shortage of stock and calculate a number of lacking sheets based on that [0067]-[0071]); and perform control to make a notification of the estimated quantity information (e.g. calculating the number of lacking sheets of [0069] performs control to make a notification of the estimated quantity information).
With respect to claim 2, Yokoyama teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
estimate, as the estimated quantity information, information indicating a shortfall in the printing target quantity in the actual quantity information compared with the planned quantity information (e.g. estimate information indicating shortage in stock in the number of stocked sheets compared with the number of sheets necessary for making prints Fig 4 S304 [0066]-[0069]).
With respect to claim 3, Yokoyama teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the printing target is a sheet (e.g. the printing target is a sheet, see Fig 7 [0093]-[0097]), and the printing target quantity includes a count of the sheet (e.g. the number of packs in Fig 7), and wherein the processor is configured to: estimate information indicating the count of the sheet as the estimated quantity information (e.g. estimate/calculate the number of lacking sheets [0066]-[0071]).
With respect to claim 4, Yokoyama teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the printing target is a sheet (e.g. the printing target is a sheet, see Fig 7 [0093]-[0097]), and a quantity of the sheet includes a count of the sheet on a per-sheet-type basis (e.g. Fig 7 discloses a quantity of the sheet includes a count of the sheet on a per-sheet-type basis), and wherein the processor is configured to: estimate, as the estimated quantity information, information indicating the count of the sheet on the per-sheet-type basis (e.g. estimate/calculate, as the estimated quantity information, information indicating the count of the sheet on the per-sheet-type basis [0066]-[0071]).
With respect to claim 5, Yokoyama teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: perform control to notify a responsible device responsible for supplying a sheet to the printer of the estimated quantity information (e.g. print server 10 transmits the order slip to a supplier of the sheets by means of facsimile 40 (S307) [0075]).
With respect to claim 6, Yokoyama teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the printer includes a plurality of different printers, and wherein the processor is configured to: estimate the printing target quantity for each of the plurality of printers (e.g. the system of Fig 1 can be scaled to more than one printer 20 and CPU 101 estimate the printing target quantity for each of the plurality of printers 20, see also [0128] where the system may include such network equipment as copying machine and facsimile, instead of printer 20, that performs a similar operation to that of printer 20. In this case, print server 10 manages the network equipment as does for printer 20).
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) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama (US 2002/0174104) in view of Ozaki (US 8,985,580).
With respect to claim 9, Yokoyama teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
However, Yokoyama fails to teach wherein the processor is configured to: perform control to display, as the notification, information indicating an estimated quantity of a printed material.
Ozaki teaches to perform control to display, as a notification, information indicating an estimated quantity of a printed material (e.g. Fig 7 displays, as a notification, information indicating an estimated quantity of printed material, col 8 ln 1-61).
Yokoyama and Ozaki are analogous art because they all pertain to printing copies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to people having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yokoyama with the teachings of Ozaki to include: wherein the processor is configured to: perform control to display, as the notification, information indicating an estimated quantity of a printed material, as suggested by Ozaki in col 8 ln 1-61.
The benefit of the modification would be notify the user that the stacking by the designated number of copies has been completed, Ozaki col 8 ln 43-47.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM SIDDO whose telephone number is (571)272-4508. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30PM.
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 5712703438. 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.
/IBRAHIM SIDDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681