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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 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.
The term “preferentially” in claims 1 and 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term preferentially typically relates one thing to another. In this case, the displaying of services is designated as preferentially displayed. However, it is not stated as to what it is preferentially displayed over. There is no relation to the cloud services being displayed in relation to other services being displayed.
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) 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 2014/0365655) in view of Takenaka (US 2021/0157532).
Regarding Claim 1, Takahashi teaches an information processing system (Paragraph 28) comprising:
one or more processors (Paragraph 33, wherein there is a CPU) configured to:
receive registration, by a user, of cases (Paragraphs 30, 31, and 45, wherein the job is sent the appropriate cloud server and stored at the cloud server).
Takahashi does not teach cases waiting for processing that are cases for which predetermined additional processing is scheduled to be executed in a target apparatus for any of a plurality of types of cloud services;
execute processing of preferentially displaying, as selection candidates, a list of cloud services in which the cases waiting for processing are registered among the plurality of types of cloud services on the target apparatus in a case where the user selects the cloud services in which the corresponding cases waiting for processing are registered from the plurality of types of cloud services in the target apparatus in order to execute the additional processing.
Takenaka does teach registration of cases waiting for processing that are cases for which predetermined additional processing is scheduled to be executed in a target apparatus for any of a plurality of types of cloud services (Paragraph 112, wherein the jobs can be registered to wait for additional processing);
execute processing of preferentially displaying, as selection candidates, a list of cloud services in which the cases waiting for processing are registered among the plurality of types of cloud services on the target apparatus in a case where the user selects the cloud services in which the corresponding cases waiting for processing are registered from the plurality of types of cloud services in the target apparatus in order to execute the additional processing (Paragraph 171, wherein the user can select the job to be processed based on the cloud service).
Takahashi and Takenaka are combinable because they both deal with processing jobs with cloud services.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Takahashi with the teachings of Takenaka for the purpose of being able to utilize all settings when producing jobs with cloud services (Takenaka: Paragraph 3).
Regarding Claim 2, Takenaka further teaches wherein the additional processing is processing of adding predetermined additional information (Paragraph 30, wherein the extended function includes additional services/settings).
Takahashi and Takenaka are combinable because they both deal with processing jobs with cloud services.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Takahashi with the teachings of Takenaka for the purpose of being able to utilize all settings when producing jobs with cloud services (Takenaka: Paragraph 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Takahashi further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
execute the processing of displaying the list of cloud services by using cloud services available to a login user who logs in to the target apparatus as targets to be preferentially displayed (Paragraph 46, wherein the cloud services are authorized to the user).
Regarding Claim 5, Takahashi further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
execute the processing of displaying the list of cloud services by using the cloud services in which the cases waiting processing registered by the login user are registered as targets to be preferentially displayed (Paragraph 46, wherein the cloud services are authorized to the user).
Regarding Claim 6, Takahashi further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
execute processing of emphasizing and displaying, as the selection candidates, a list of cloud services in which the cases waiting for processing are registered on the target apparatus in accordance with a predetermined condition (Paragraph 55, wherein cost and speed are considered for cloud services).
Regarding Claim 8, Takenaka further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
execute processing of displaying, as the selection candidates, a list of only cloud services in which the cases waiting for processing are registered on the target apparatus (Paragraph 170, wherein when using the extended cloud, only the jobs waiting can be selected).
Takahashi and Takenaka are combinable because they both deal with processing jobs with cloud services.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Takahashi with the teachings of Takenaka for the purpose of being able to utilize all settings when producing jobs with cloud services (Takenaka: Paragraph 3).
Regarding Claim 9, Takahashi further teaches wherein the processing by the case waiting for processing is processing by a workflow (Paragraph 30, wherein there can be multiple cloud services used, workflow).
Regarding Claim 10, Takenaka further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
execute processing of displaying, as the selection candidates, only the cases waiting for processing registered by the user on the target apparatus, among the cases waiting for processing registered in the selected cloud service, in a case where a desired cloud service is selected by the user from the displayed list of selection candidates (Paragraph 170, wherein when using the extended cloud, only the jobs waiting can be selected).
Takahashi and Takenaka are combinable because they both deal with processing jobs with cloud services.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Takahashi with the teachings of Takenaka for the purpose of being able to utilize all settings when producing jobs with cloud services (Takenaka: Paragraph 3).
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 2014/0365655) in view of Takenaka (US 2021/0157532) further in view of Oki (2016/0105586).
Regarding Claim 3, Takahashi further teaches wherein
the target apparatus is an image processing apparatus having an image reading function (Paragraphs 28 and 35, wherein there is a scanner/copier function).
Takahashi in view of Takenaka does not teach the additional information is scanned image information read by the image reading function of the image processing apparatus.
Oki does teach the additional information is scanned image information read by the image reading function of the image processing apparatus (Paragraphs 33, 56, and 133, wherein the attribute information corresponds to the second image data which is read by the scanner. This is to modify the first image data, which is image data waiting.).
Takahashi and Oki are combinable because they both deal with processing image data for formation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Takashi in view of Takenaka with the teachings of Oki for the purpose of reducing the data required for producing jobs at a later time (Oki: Paragraph 6).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 2014/0365655) in view of Takenaka (US 2021/0157532) further in view of official notice.
Regarding Claim 7, Takahashi in view of Takenaka does not teach wherein the predetermined condition includes at least one of display in order of delivery dates when the additional processing is performed and display in order of registration dates of the cases.
Official notice is taken that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to show dates of delivery for producing jobs. Takahashi already discloses speed as a consideration. This speed could easily refer to dates of delivery. It would have been obvious to have the speed correspond to dates of delivery when producing larger jobs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Takahashi in view of Takenaka for the purpose of properly reflecting expectations of delivery of a job to the user to allow for most informed choices to be made.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional cited prior of Yamamichi (US 2021/0382671) is directed towards registering printing with cloud print services. The additional cited prior art of Sato (US 2020/0364018) is directed towards selecting printing of jobs in association with cloud printing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS PACHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-3433. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4.
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, George Eng can be reached at 571-272-7495. 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.
/NICHOLAS PACHOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights