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 Office Action
1. Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1, 13, and 14 are independent.
Claim Interpretation
2. 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.
3. 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “associating means” and “assigning means” in claim 14.
The claimed “associating means” is read as item 93 in Fig. 7, described in [0096], [0097], [0102], and [0109] of Patent Application Publication US 2024/0163387 A1 as “an association unit 93” of the processor 11 in system 10 shown in Fig. 1 and described as a computer in [0096].
The claimed “assigning means” is read as item 94 in Fig. 7, described in [0096], [0097], [0102], and [0109] of Patent Application Publication US 2024/0163387 A1 as “an association unit 94” of the processor 11 in system 10 shown in Fig. 1 and described as a computer in [0096].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
35 U.S.C. §102 Rejection
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 5-6, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pandit et al. (US 2009/0201531 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pandit et al. (hereinafter referred to as Pandit) discloses an information processing apparatus (server 4 comprising a processor, Fig. 1, para 0016-0017) comprising:
a processor (processor in 4, see Fig. 1) configured to:
associate a production process (the printing process of a print job) for producing a product with an equipment grouping (the group of “remaining printing devices” in Fig. 2B S29 and Fig. 3 S33 and S29A) that includes a plurality of equipment (the plurality of “remaining printing devices” that remain after the comparing and eliminating in the previous steps of the automatic print job assignment process described in para 0026, which printers of the printing devices are among the printers 5-9 shown in Fig. 1; a printing device includes a printer as defined in para 0021) capable of executing the production process (para 0018, 0020-0022 and Fig. 1; para 0033-0036 and Figs. 2A, 2B and 3, note Fig. 2B, S29 and Fig. 3 S29A; the printing process of the print job mentioned above is considered being associated, by the processor of server 4, with the group of “remaining printing devices” that are “candidate printing devices, described in para 0033, since the remaining printing devices/printer were used to compare with the requirement(s) of the print job and are remained in step S29 and step S29A of Figs. 2B and 3, respectively; see para 0033-0037); and
assign, if the production process (the printing process of the print job) is associated with the equipment grouping (the “remaining printing devices” at step S29 of Fig. 2B or step 29A of Fig. 3, in the assignment process, para 0033-0036), the production process to an operating schedule of one of the plurality of equipment on a basis of a predetermined condition (pre-defined printer priority preference, para 0034) (at step S29 of Fig. 2B and step S29A of Fig. 3 of the assignment process, the processor of server 4 assigns the printing process of the print job to the operating schedule of one of the remaining printing device by selecting a printing device from remaining printing devices based on pre-defined printer priority preference and submitting the print job to the selected printing device).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the predetermined condition is a priority of the plurality of equipment (a pre-defined priority preference of the plurality of remaining printing devices, para 0034, S29 of Fig. 2B, S29A of Fig. 3), and if there is an opening in the operating schedule of the equipment with the highest priority, the processor is configured to assign the production process to that operating schedule (para 0034, “The printer priority preference is a priority list previously created by the operator. It specifies an order in which printing devices are to be selected by the server if the multiple printers can handle the print job.”). Regarding 6, it is inherent in Pandit that the processor of the server (4) is configured to assign the production process (the printing process of the print job) to the operating schedule if there is no opening in the operation schedule of the printing devices/printers with the highest priority but there is an opening in the operating schedule of the printing device/printer with the next-highest priority.
Claim 13 is rejected as being corresponding to rejected apparatus claim 1.
Claim 14, written in the means-plus-function format, are rejected as being corresponding to rejected claim 1.
35 U.S.C. §103 Rejection
6. 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.
7. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandit et al. (US 2009/0201531 A1) in view of Kaneko (US 2006/0279781 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Pandit is discussed for claim 1 above. Pandit does not discloses that the processor (in server 4 in Fig. 1) is configured to associate, assign, and assign as claimed in the claim body.
Kanedo discloses a scheduler wherein a processor is configured to
associate the production process with one of either the equipment grouping or a single piece of equipment (the process is based on the user’s selection to send the print job to a single printer (Fig. 18 and corresponding description) or to a group of printers (Fig. 19 and corresponding description));
assign, if the production process is associated with the equipment grouping, the production process to an operating schedule of one of the plurality of equipment on a basis of a predetermined condition (Fig. 17 and corresponding description, a predetermined condition can be monochrome or color); and
assign, if the production process is associated with the single piece of equipment, the production process to an operating schedule of the equipment on a basis of a predetermined condition (Fig. 16, S1610 and corresponding description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus taught by Pandit to include the scheduler taught by Kaneko in order to improve production process for the work assignment to be more effective and efficient.
8. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandit et al. (US 2009/0201531 A1) in view of Sawata et al. (US 2020/0241818 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Pandit is discussed for claim 1 above. Pandit does not discloses that the processor (in server 4 in Fig. 1) is configured to set a grace period to set a grace period from a starting date and time that serves as a starting point of assigning the production process to a first production process (a first printing process), and assign the first production process to an operating schedule of the selected printing device/printer as claimed.
Sawata discloses a print management system (1 in Fig. 1) comprising a grace period setting receiving unit (24 in 20 of system 1, Fig. 2) used to receive setting of a grace period when a print group is generated in time for post-processing (para 0056, 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of setting a grace period to Pandit, to modify the processor of Pandit, such that the processor (in server 4) is configured to set a grace period from a starting date and time that serves as a starting point of assigning the production process (the printing process of the print job) to a first production process (printing process); and assign the first production process (printing process) to an operating schedule of the equipment (the selected printing device/printer) (Pandit, Fig. 2B S29, Fig. 3 S29A) so as to leave the grace period open, to allow for better resource management and reduce conflicts.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 3-4 and 7-11 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.
Claims 3 and 4 would be allowable because the limitations of claim 3 or claim 4 in combination with the limitations of claims 1 and 2 are not taught by the prior art of record.
Claim 7 requires that the processor be configured to:
set a grace period for each piece of equipment included in the equipment grouping; and
assign, if a given production process is assigned to an operating schedule of equipment for which a grace period is set, a next production process after the given production process to an operating schedule of the equipment so as to leave the grace period open.
The above limitations in combination with all the limitations of base claim 1 are not taught by the prior art of record, including Pandit and Sawata discussed above.
Claims 8 and 9 depend on claim 7.
Claim 10 requires that the processor be configured to
set a starting point for assigning the production process to a starting date and time going back a predetermined standard period from a shipping date and time of the product; and assign, if the starting point is set and the production process is associated with the equipment grouping, the production process to an operating schedule of one of the plurality of equipment, using the starting date and time as the starting point.
The above limitations in combination with all the limitations of base claim 1 are not taught by the prior art of record, include Pandit and Sawata discussed above.
Claim 11 depends on claim 10.
Pertinent Prior Art
10. The prior art or art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lofthus et al. (US 2006/0039026 A1), Figs. 1-3, para 0044-0049
Wang et al. (US 2006/0250638 A1), para 0047
Komine (US 2010/0238484 A1), abstract
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEUKFAN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 a.m. - 6 p.m.
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 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.
/CHEUKFAN LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682