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 .
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 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: print data acquisition unit, information acquisition unit, determination unit, execution unit, count unit, total number storage unit, notification unit in claim 1-11.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Paragraphs [0052] and [0125] of published specification discloses the units performed by a CPU.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiohara (US 2022/0066707 A1) in view of Naganuma et al. (US 2021/0141578 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Shiohara’707 shows a relay server (figure 9, cloud management service system 122) that relays between a first print processing system (figure 9, fist cloud printing service system 120) and a second print processing system (figure 9, second cloud printing service system 121) coupled to an image forming apparatus (figure 9. Printing apparatus 112), the relay server comprising:
a print data acquisition unit configured to acquire print data from the first print processing system (figure 9 S908 acquire print job);
an information acquisition unit (figure 10, information acquisition processing unit 1012) configured to acquire transmitter information indicating a transmitter who transmits the print data to the first print processing system (paragraph [0036] managing user information regarding a user who uses the first cloud printing service system 120 verifies the validity of an account and a password, and issues a token indicating authority information regarding authority to access the first cloud printing service system 120, figure 9 S906);
[ ]; and
an execution unit configured to execute, via the second print processing system, print processing in the image forming apparatus on the print data acquired by the print data acquisition unit (Figure 9 S916), [ ].
Shiohara’707 does not specifically show a determination unit configured to determine, based on the transmitter information, whether a first threshold indicating an upper limit number of users of the relay server is exceeded; to execute when the determination unit determines that the first threshold is not exceeded.
Naganuma’578 shows a determination unit configured to determine, based on the transmitter information, whether a first threshold indicating an upper limit number of users of the relay server is exceeded (paragraph [0068] having a condition set that the number of users who log in the print server device is the threshold value or less); to execute when the determination unit determines that the first threshold is not exceeded (paragraph [0068] to avoid overload of the print server by having a condition set that the number of users who log in the print server device is the threshold value or less to execute).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify Shiohara’707 to include a determination unit configured to determine, based on the transmitter information, whether a first threshold indicating an upper limit number of users of the relay server is exceeded; to execute when the determination unit determines that the first threshold is not exceeded method taught by Naganuma’578. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the system’s ability to be able to decrease the load on the printer server (paragraph [0068]).
With respect to Claim 2, the combination of Shiohara’707 and Naganuma’578 shows the relay server according to claim 1, wherein the information acquisition unit acquires the transmitter information from the first print processing system (in Shiohara’707: Figure 9 S905-S906).
With respect to Claim 9, the combination of Shiohara’707 and Naganuma’578 shows the relay server according to claim 1, further comprising: a notification unit configured to notify the first print processing system when the determination unit determines that the first threshold is exceeded (in Shiohara’707: paragraph [0068] notification of completion, in Naganuma’578: paragraph [0067] not perform processing when threshold condition is not satisfied).
With respect to Claim 10, the combination of Shiohara’707 and Naganuma’578 shows the relay server according to claim 1, further comprising: the second print processing system (in Shiohara’707: paragraph [0031] an example in which each of the first cloud printing service system 120, the second cloud printing service system 121, and the cloud printing management service system 122 according to the present exemplary embodiment is composed of a single server).
With respect to Claim 11, Shiohara’707 shows a printing system (figure 1 printing system) comprising:
a relay server coupled to a first print processing system (figure 9, cloud management service system 122 and fist cloud printing service system 120); and
a second print processing system coupled to the relay server and coupled to an image forming apparatus (figure 9 cloud management service system 122, second cloud printing service system 121 and Printing apparatus 112),
wherein the relay server is a server that relays between the first print processing system and the second print processing system (figure 9 S905-S914), and includes a print data acquisition unit configured to acquire print data from the first print processing system (figure 9 S908 acquire print job),
an information acquisition unit configured to acquire transmitter information indicating a transmitter who transmits the print data to the first print processing system (paragraph [0036] managing user information regarding a user who uses the first cloud printing service system 120 verifies the validity of an account and a password, and issues a token indicating authority information regarding authority to access the first cloud printing service system 120, figure 9 S906),
[ ], and
an execution unit configured to execute processing of outputting, to the second print processing system, an instruction of print processing in the image forming apparatus on the print data acquired by the print data acquisition unit, [ ], and the second print processing system instructs the image forming apparatus to execute the print processing according to the instruction (Figure 9 S916).
Shiohara’707 does not specifically show a determination unit configured to determine, based on the transmitter information, whether a first threshold indicating an upper limit number of users of the relay server is exceeded; execute processing of outputting when the determination unit determines that the first threshold is not exceeded.
Naganuma’578 shows a determination unit configured to determine, based on the transmitter information, whether a first threshold indicating an upper limit number of users of the relay server is exceeded (paragraph [0068] having a condition set that the number of users who log in the print server device is the threshold value or less); execute processing of outputting when the determination unit determines that the first threshold is not exceeded (paragraph [0068] to avoid overload of the print server by having a condition set that the number of users who log in the print server device is the threshold value or less to execute).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify Shiohara’707 to include a determination unit configured to determine, based on the transmitter information, whether a first threshold indicating an upper limit number of users of the relay server is exceeded; execute processing of outputting when the determination unit determines that the first threshold is not exceeded method taught by Naganuma’578. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the system’s ability to be able to decrease the load on the printer server (paragraph [0068]).
With respect to Claims 12-13, rejection analogous to those presented for claim 1, are applicable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Petit (US 2003/0187982 A1): shows in paragraphs [0056], [0060]-[0065] connected user calculation module 400, a concurrent user counter 410, transaction timer module 420 and user think time module 430. The connected user calculation module 400 calculates the maximum number of users or sessions connected to the portal server 200. A connected user is a user who has a valid portal session open, but who may not be active at a certain time. The maximum number of users is generally a percentage of the user base that can be obtained from different sources, such as usage statistics or web traffic analysis for an already existing portal or web application. The concurrent user counter module 410 is coupled to the connected user calculation module 400 to tabulate the maximum number of concurrent users connected to the portal server 200 at any point in time. The contents of the concurrent user counter module 410 is provided to the load detection module 360 during a load sampling period to enable the load detection module 360 to determine whether the current count of concurrent users or requests exceed the pre-determined threshold values.
Naganuma et al. (US 2020/0341706 A1): paragraph [0087] condition regarding the print server device may include, for example, a condition that a load of the print server device is reduced as a predetermined condition is satisfied (for example, a CPU power is consumed only by a threshold value or smaller), or a condition that the number of users logging in the print server device is equal to or smaller than a threshold value.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRIANA CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3246. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6.
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 M. Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/IRIANA CRUZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681