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 06/22/2026, applicant(s) amended claims 1, 7 and 8. Claims 1 – 8 are still pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
In the remarks on page 6 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 In view of the amendments to the title the prior objections regarding the title is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 - 8 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 - 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the " in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It' s suggested to amend to - an entire job - or define entire job earlier in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the operations" in line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It' s suggested to amend to - an entire job - or define entire job earlier in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the operations" in line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It' s suggested to amend to - an entire job - or define entire job earlier in the claim.
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 - 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaka (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2012/0084781 A1, previously cited in an IDS filed on 04/06/2025, hereinafter ‘Isaka’) in view of Cain (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2010/0328703 A1, hereinafter ‘Cain’).
With respect to claim 1, Isaka teaches an information processing system (i.e., a job distribution processing system, abstract, ¶0017, Fig. 1) comprising: a processor (e.g., a controller of a job accepting device, Fig. 1, Fig. 3) configured to: receive a job (e.g., accept and receive a job, ¶0003, Fig. 6); divide the job into a plurality of job divisions (e.g. divide said job into plurality of sub-jobs, ¶0003, ¶0017, Fig. 6); and for each job division, when the job division is set to be processed by using a local functionality processed in a local environment including the information processing system, cause the local environment to process the job division (e.g., for each sub-job, when a sub-job is assigned/set to be processed by using an “on premise” image forming apparatus 50 within said job distribution processing system, force/cause said “on premise” image forming apparatus to process/print said sub-job, ¶0017, ¶0023 - ¶0026), and, when the job division is set to be processed by using a cloud functionality processed in a cloud environment which does not include the information processing system, cause the cloud environment to process the job division (e.g., when said sub-job is assigned/set to be processed using a cloud 2 which is external to said job distribution processing system, force/cause said cloud 2 to process said sub-job, ¶0017, ¶0023, ¶0028, ¶0036 - ¶0039, ¶0059 - ¶0061, Fig. 1), but fails to teach before dividing the job into the plurality of job divisions, determine whether the local functionality or the cloud functionality is set to the entire job.
However, the aforementioned claimed limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Cain. In particular, Cain teaches before dividing job into plurality of job divisions, determine whether a local functionality or Cain: if determined that an entire job is set with all pages of a document (both colors & B&W pages), then entire job is divided/split, ¶0016 - ¶0018).
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 job distribution processing system of Isaka as taught by Cain since Cain suggested within ¶0016 - ¶0018 that such modification would flag, classify and determine how to assign a print job to be divided to appropriate printers in order to improve working environment or document analysis efficiency or to minimize total cost of printing an entire job.
With respect to claim 2, Isaka in view of Cain teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: when the job division is set to be processed by using the local functionality or the cloud functionality, cause either the local environment or the cloud environment to process the job division (e.g., when said sub-job is assigned/set to be processed by using the image forming apparatus 50 or the cloud 2, force the image forming apparatus 50 or the cloud to process the sub-job, ¶0023 - ¶0026; ¶0036 - ¶0039, ¶0059 - ¶0061 & Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 3, Isaka in view of Cain teaches the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to: receive an environment among the local environment and the cloud environment, the received environment being an environment in which the job division is to be processed; and on reception of the local environment, cause the local environment to process the job division, and, on reception of the cloud environment, cause the cloud environment to process the job division (e.g., this corresponds to any situation between said image forming apparatus and said cloud to determine a sub-job execution destination in order to process the sub-job, abstract, ¶0003, ¶0023, ¶0033, ¶0036 - ¶0039).
With respect to claim 4, Isaka in view of Cain teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: receive processed job divisions which are the job divisions each having been processed in the local environment or the cloud environment; and combine, for output, the processed job divisions of the job (e.g., obtain processed sub-jobs from the image forming apparatus 50 or cloud 2; and then in cooperation to complete the job, all sub-jobs in an execution sequence should be completed, ¶0026, ¶0030 - ¶0034, ¶0050).
With respect to claim 5, Isaka in view of Cain teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: when a functionality to be processed is not set to the entire job, divide the job into the job divisions, and, when a functionality to be processed is set to the entire job, not divide the job into the job divisions (e.g., Under examiner’s approach: when determining available capacity? If the image forming apparatus is unable to process an entire job, then divide the entire job into sub-jobs (or pages); otherwise, if the image forming apparatus is able to process the entire job, then directly proceed with printing, ¶0037, ¶0042 - ¶0044 & ¶0059).
With respect to claim 7, Yamamura notes that the invention may be realized through the execution by a CPU (e.g., a CPU, ¶0029) of instruction codes (e.g., programs, ¶0029) stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium (e.g., stored in a computer recoding media, such a CD-ROMs and DVD-ROMS, ¶0029, claim 7). The further limitations are met by the teachings as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
With respect to claim 8, this is a method claim corresponding to the system claim 1. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the system claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaka in view of Cain and further in view of Kuroda (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2022/006705 A1, hereinafter ‘Kuroda’).
With respect to claim 6, Isaka in view of Cain teaches the information processing system according to claim 5, but fails to teach wherein the processor is configured to:
when the entire job is set to be processed by using the local functionality, cause the local environment to process the job, and,
when the entire job is set to be processed by using the cloud functionality, cause the cloud environment to process the job.
However, in the same field of endeavor of determining output destination and printer(s), the aforementioned claimed limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Kuroda. In particular, Kuroda teaches wherein the processor is configured to: when the entire job is set to be processed by using the local functionality, cause the local environment to process the job (e.g., when a print job is configured/set to be processed by using a local printing, cause the local printer to process the print job, ¶0019, ¶0032, ¶0040 with ¶0116, Fig. 8A), and,
when the entire job is set to be processed by using the cloud functionality, cause the cloud environment to process the job (e.g. but when the print job is configured/set to be processed by using a cloud printing, switch to the cloud printing from a cloud platform to process the print job, ¶0032, ¶0059, ¶0067 with ¶0104 - ¶0107, Fig. 5).
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 system of Isaka in view of Cain as taught by Kuroda since Kuroda suggested within ¶0019, ¶0032, ¶0040 with ¶0104 - ¶0107 and ¶0116 and Fig. 8A that such modification of having the output destination and setting of Kuroda instead of the destination of Isaka would improve accessibility and mobility, and reduce delay between devices in order to avoid/prevent higher costs of maintaining cloud resource of a provider.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tanaka (U.S PG Publication No. 2006/0268304 A1)1
Matsubara et al. (U.S PG Publication No. 2007/0229860 A1)2
1This reference teaches when either a number-of-copies splitting process or a page-splitting process has been set, it is determined whether or not the acquired printer command is the PJL command for completing the job (step S103). In the case of the PJL command for job ending, it is determined whether or not the page-splitting process has been set (step S1112). In the case when the page-splitting process has been set, the page-splitting process is executed (step S1113).
2This reference implement a method in a server for managing print jobs and printers according to an embodiment of the present invention. When a job ticket and the associated source document are received from a customer or otherwise obtained by the server (step S11), the server analyzes the source document to detect the color pages and black and white pages within the document (step S12). Typically, a document contains metadata that indicates the nature of its contents, including whether a particular page or object contains color or only black and white data. The server uses this metadata to detect which pages in the document are color and which pages are black and white and count the number of each type of pages. Alternatively, if the pages in the document are to be re-arranged when printed, e.g., when double-sided printing (two pages printed on two sides of each sheet of paper, also referred to as duplex) or two-on-one or multiple-on-one printing (two or more pages are reduced in size and printed on one page of paper, also referred to as N-up) is desired, then the server will analyze the document to determine which printed sheet (as opposed to page in the document) is color or black and white. The server then determines whether to split the print job into a color and a black and white sub-job, or to print the entire job on a color printer (step S13). Of course, if the document only contains black and white pages, the server will decide to print the entire job on a black and white printer. The determination in step S13 is based on a cost calculation described earlier, or some other appropriate cost evaluation formula. The server then processes the print job and submits it for printing by the appropriate printer or printers based on the determination (step S14). For example, if the server has determined that the job is to be split into two sub-jobs, the server will process the job ticket to generate two sub-job tickets, one for a color printer and one for a black and white printer, and separate the color and black and white pages in the source document to generate two corresponding documents to be sent to the two printers. Exemplary methods of splitting a job ticket are described in more detail in the above-mentioned co-pending patent application entitled "Method for Printing Mixed Color and Black and White Documents". If, on the other hand, the server has determined that the entire job is to be printed on one printer, no additional processing of the source document is necessary before submitting it to a printer. Of course, if multiple copies (especially a large number of copies) are to be made, the job (whether split or not) can be printed on multiple printers simultaneously.
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
Prosecution Insights