CTNF 18/447,447 CTNF 76177 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 06-11 AIA 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 § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 4, 5, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2009/0238599) in view of Nishida (US 2001/0042047) . Regarding claims 1: Kim teaches an information processing system (fig. 1) comprising: a processor (server 200, paragraph 0057, charging server 2000 may include the operations of the terminal device 100 and performed all of the above described operation of the printing charging system 1000 and vice versa) configured to: calculate a charge (calculates printing cost, paragraph 0046) for an receive of a final product of a service (printing paragraph 0046); and when a first user who orders execution of the service is different from a second user who receives the final product of the service (if the user inputs or selects a name of a person, paragraph 0059 note: this implies the user entered the print service is different from the person that receives the print product), upon approval of both the first user and the second user (paragraph 60, the selected person authenticates whether to share printing cost is displayed. The selected person may be authenticated by inputting an ID and password, also see fig. 8: note, it is obvious that the user who select a person to receive a print product can also enter himself/herself to receive a print product, fig. 6; and hence both person would need to be authenticated; also see paragraph 52, confirms whether a person who is currently performing authentication is an appropriate person to whom printing costs are distributed, using prestored information), charge the user who received the final production of service (charging server to receive the set printing costs, paragraph 0021) Kim does not teach to exchange final product pf service, calculate a charge for an exchange of a final production of a service and change a user to be charged of the charge for the exchange of the final product of the service from the first user to the second user. Nishida teaches to exchange final product of service (paragraph 0303, a correction input screen which enables corrections … paragraph 0277 when a plurality of destination users have been selected from the destination display field 500, corresponding portion of data pertaining to the destination users are rewritten on the basis of the changes made …fig. 16, enter address of destination if print out is to be sent , paragraph 0268, changed delivery…S112, fig. 11, S112-S117). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim to allow the system to allow the user to exchange of a final product of a service to be received by a different user. The reason of doing so would have provided great convenient for the user especially when the user made a mistake in the original entry or the user changes his/her mind. Note: as seen in Kim, the portion to be pay by user are different for different user (see charge ratio, paragraph 0041). Therefore, when a user is changed, in order to charge the correct fee for the changed user, the fee needed to be recalculated for the exchange of a final product of the service to a different user. Furthermore, after the modification, a user to be charged of the service also needs to be changed to the newly entered user. If the original user enter himself (first user) to receive the final product and later exchanged himself to a different user (second user). Obviously, the system will also need to change a user to be charged of the charge/fee for the exchange of the final product of the service from the first user to the second user. Regarding claim 4: Kim teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the service is a print service, and the final product is a printed material (fig. 6, printing range page 1 to page 25, paragraph 0045, paper). Regarding claim 5: Kim teaches: The information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to: when the printed material includes a plurality of sheets, set a number of sheets to be charged to the second user among the plurality of sheets in the printed material (paragraph 0006, printing cost proportion to the number of printed sheet); and change a user to be charged of a charge for the set number of sheets from the first user to the second user. (see rejection of claim 1). Regarding claims 10: Kim teaches an information processing system (fig. 1) comprising: means (UI 120, paragraph 0046) for configured to: calculate a charge (calculates printing cost, paragraph 0046) for an receive of a final product of a service (printing paragraph 0046); and means for charging, (charging server 200, paragraph 0049) when a first user who orders execution of the service is different from a second user who receives the final product of the service (if the user inputs or selects a name of a person, paragraph 0059 note: this implies the user entered the print service is different from the person that receives the print product), upon approval of both the first user and the second user (paragraph 60, the selected person authenticates whether to share printing cost is displayed. The selected person may be authenticated by inputting an ID and password, also see fig. 8: note, it is obvious that the user who select a person to receive a print product can also enter himself/herself to receive a print product, fig. 6; and hence both person would need to be authenticated; also see paragraph 52, confirms whether a person who is currently performing authentication is an appropriate person to whom printing costs are distributed, using prestored information), charge the user who received the final production of service (charging server to receive the set printing costs, paragraph 0021) Kim does not teach to exchange final product pf service, calculate a charge for an exchange of a final production of a service and change a user to be charged of the charge for the exchange of the final product of the service from the first user to the second user. Nishida teaches to exchange final product of service (paragraph 0303, a correction input screen which enables corrections … paragraph 0277 when a plurality of destination users have been selected from the destination display field 500, corresponding portion of data pertaining to the destination users are rewritten on the basis of the changes made …fig. 16, enter address of destination if print out is to be sent , paragraph 0268, changed delivery…S112, fig. 11, S112-S117). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim to allow the system to allow the user to exchange of a final product of a service to be received by a different user. The reason of doing so would have provided great convenient for the user especially when the user made a mistake in the original entry or the user changes his/her mind. Note: as seen in Kim, the portion to be pay by user are different for different user (see charge ratio, paragraph 0041). Therefore, when a user is changed, in order to charge the correct fee for the changed user, the fee needed to be recalculated for the exchange of a final product of the service to a different user. Therefore, means for calculating would need to calculate a charge for an exchange of a final product of service. Furthermore, after the modification, a user to be charged of the service also needs to be changed to the newly entered user. If the original user enter himself (first user) to receive the final product and later exchanged himself to a different user (second user). Obviously, the system will also need to change a user to be charged of the charge/fee for the exchange of the final product of the service from the first user to the second user. Therefore, the means for charging needs to: when a first user who orders execution of the service is different from a second user who receives the final product of the service, upon approval of both the first user and the second user, a user to be charged of the charge for the exchange of the final product of the service from the first to the second user . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2009/0238599) in view of Nishida (US 2001/0042047) and Hosoda (US 2014/0380462) . Regarding claim 2: Kim teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: in presence of both the first user and the second user in front of a service providing apparatus that provides the service (paragraph 0005, public office, or a computer laboratory, friends, obviously both users can very likely to present in front of the print system show in fig. 1. Furthermore fig. 7 -9 showing a screen for entering users, also see paragraph 0059, fig. 8 further showing a user authentication screen on top of the screen that a user can be entered, paragraph 0060. Therefore, the first user who enters user’s information and the second user can both present in front of system show in fig. 1 for authentication). Kim does not teach: enable an operation button to change the user to be charged on an operation screen of the service providing apparatus. Nishida teaches an operation button to change the user to be charged on an operation screen of the service providing apparatus. (see change delivery paragraph 0253, also see paragraph 0303, a correction input screen which enables corrections … paragraph 0277 when a plurality of destination users have been selected from the destination display field 500, corresponding portion of data pertaining to the destination users are rewritten on the basis of the changes made …fig. 16, enter address of destination if print out is to be sent , paragraph 0268, changed delivery…S112, fig. 11, S112-S117). Hosoda teaches to enable a change button upon authentication of an administrator (paragraph 0098, login context and completion of the authentication process….when the role information obtained from the login context is indicative of an administrator, the scan and send 307 enables the setting change button 719). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have further modified Kim to include: after the presence of both users in front of the service providing apparatus to complete authentication process, enable an operation button to change the user to be charged on an operation screen of the service providing apparatus. The reason of doing so would have allowed the system to be properly managed and to prevent unauthorized entry/editing. Properly managed can better prevent the system from virus attack . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2009/0238599) in view of Nishida (US 2001/0042047) and Friend US 2006/0107224 . Regarding claim 3: Kim teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: selection of change of the user to be charged (fig. 6), by one of the first user or the second user (see rejection of claim 1). Kim does not teach upon selection of change of the user to be charged by one of the first user or the second user and on an operation screen of a service providing apparatus that provides the service, enable, for the other user, an operation button to approve the change of the user to be charged. Friend teaches upon data entry by a user (paragraph 0069, electronic data entry form for a purchase order) an on an operation screen (display 106, paragraph 0028) of a service providing apparatus that provides the service, enable, for the other user (enables approval buttons, paragraph 0067, managers and vice president, paragraph 0067) an operation button to approve the entry (approval button, paragraph 0067). Since the change of the user who is to be charged requires data entry, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim to include: upon selection of change of the user to be charged by one of the first user or the second user and on an operation screen of a service providing apparatus that provides the service, enable, for the other user, an operation button to approve the change of the user to be charged. The reason of doing so would have allowed the system to be properly managed and to prevent unauthorized entry/editing. Properly managed can better prevent the system from virus attack . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2009/0238599) in view of Nishida (US 2001/0042047) and Gabel US 2017/0374502) . Regarding claim 6: Kim teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, further comprising: authenticate users (paragraph 52, confirms whether a person who is currently performing authentication is an appropriate person to whom printing costs are distributed, using prestored information). Kim does not teach: the authentication is done by an image capturing device that captures images of the first user and the second user, wherein the processor is configured to identify the first user and the second user based on an image captured by the image capturing device. Gabel teaches: the authentication is done by an image capturing device (paragraph 0052 camera may also be utilized in combination with a facial recognition system) that captures images of the first user and the second user (authenticate a user, paragraph 0052 note: obvious the authentication can be done for all users captured by the camera), wherein the processor is configured to identify the first user and the second user based on an image captured by the image capturing device (authenticate a user, paragraph 0052 note: obvious the authentication can be done for all users captured by the camera). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have further modified Kim to include: the authentication is done by an image capturing device that captures images of the first user and the second user, wherein the processor is configured to identify the first user and the second user based on an image captured by the image capturing device. The reason of doing so would have allowed the process of authenticating users to be performed quickly and efficiently. Regarding claim 8: Kim teaches the information processing system according to claim 6, wherein the image capturing device is provided in a service providing apparatus that provides the service. (see rejection of claim 6). Kim further teaches the information processing system is within a service providing apparatus (paragraph 0008, printing charging system that is connected to an image forming apparatus note; the image forming apparatus with the print charging system forms a service providing apparatus). Regarding claim 9: Kim teaches the information processing system according to claim 6, further comprising an authentication unit that authenticates the first user and the second user (paragraph 52, confirms whether a person who is currently performing authentication is an appropriate person to whom printing costs are distributed, using prestored information). Kim does not teach: wherein the processor is configured to identify the first user and the second user based on an image captured by the image capturing device upon authentication by the authentication unit. Gabel teaches: the authentication is done by an image capturing device (paragraph 0052 camera may also be utilized in combination with a facial recognition system) that captures images of the first user and the second user (authenticate a user, paragraph 0052 note: obvious the authentication can be done for all users captured by the camera), wherein the processor is configured to identify the first user and the second user based on an image captured by the image capturing device (authenticate a user, paragraph 0052 note: obvious the authentication can be done for all users captured by the camera) after authentication (note, the users can’t be identified from the captured images without authentication process first). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have further modified Kim to include: wherein the processor is configured to identify the first user and the second user based on an image captured by the image capturing device upon authentication by the authentication unit. The reason of doing so would have allowed the process of authenticating users to be performed quickly and efficiently . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2009/0238599) in view of Nishida (US 2001/0042047) and Gabel US 2017/0374502) and DuBois (US 2015/0348155) . Regarding claim 7: Kim as modified teaches the information processing system according to claim 6, wherein a plurality of image capturing devices, each of which is the image capturing device (see rejection of claim 6, also see Gabel paragraph 0052, Kiosk 102 may be equipped with one or more terminals…the terminal may also be equipped with a camera). Kim further teaches the information processing system is within a service providing apparatus (paragraph 0008, printing charging system that is connected to an image forming apparatus note; the image forming apparatus with the print charging system forms a service providing apparatus). Kim as modified does not clear stated that a store where a service providing apparatus that provides the service is installed. DuBois, paragraph 20 teaches a retail store can have print service. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have further modified Kim to have Kim’s print service/service providing apparatus to be installed in a store. The reason of doing so would have allowed Kim’s print service to attract more customers looking for print services as most user looking for print service will look for a print store nearby. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KING Y POON whose telephone number is (571)270-0728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday. 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, Alexander Beck can be reached at 571-272-3750 . 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. /KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617 Application/Control Number: 18/447,447 Page 2 Art Unit: 2617 Application/Control Number: 18/447,447 Page 3 Art Unit: 2617 Application/Control Number: 18/447,447 Page 4 Art Unit: 2617 Application/Control Number: 18/447,447 Page 5 Art Unit: 2617 Application/Control Number: 18/447,447 Page 6 Art Unit: 2617 Application/Control Number: 18/447,447 Page 7 Art Unit: 2617 Application/Control Number: 18/447,447 Page 8 Art Unit: 2617 Application/Control Number: 18/447,447 Page 9 Art Unit: 2617 Application/Control Number: 18/447,447 Page 10 Art Unit: 2617
Prosecution Insights