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 § 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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US 2020/0409633) in view of Zehler (US 2017/0180606).
Regarding Claim 1, Liang teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a processor (Paragraph 38) to execute a process comprising:
distinguishing a user’s account among a plurality of accounts (Paragraph 111, wherein it is determined what type of account is used); and
outputting after determining whether or not to print a document based on a result of the distinguishment (Paragraph 150, wherein a determination of what type of documents can be printed is made based on the user account).
Liang does not teach outputting after determining whether or not to print a document based on a result of positional information obtained in a case where the user instructs printing.
Zehler does teach outputting after determining whether or not to print a document based on a result of positional information obtained in a case where the user instructs printing (Paragraph 35, wherein the document that is able to be printed is determined based on location information).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
In combination, Liang performs the same function as it does separately of determining what documents can be printed based on user account’s. Zehler performs the same function as it does separately of determining what jobs can be printed based on location information.
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
The result of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in modifying the invention of Liang to include determining what documents to print based on location, as disclosed by Zehler thereby allowing for determination to include both account information and location information for printing jobs.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention made.
Regarding Claim 2, Liang further teaches wherein the outputting includes outputting after determining that printing of a business use document is possible in a case where the distinguished account is for business use (Paragraph 150, wherein a determination of what type of documents can be printed is made based on the user account. The job can be a business job).
Zehler further teaches does teach the positional information matches a position registered in advance as being possible to perform business use printing (Paragraph 35, wherein the document that is able to be printed is determined based on location information for printing business jobs).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
In combination, Liang performs the same function as it does separately of determining what documents can be printed based on user account’s. Zehler performs the same function as it does separately of determining what jobs can be printed based on location information.
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
The result of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in modifying the invention of Liang to include determining what documents to print based on location, as disclosed by Zehler thereby allowing for determination to include both account information and location information for printing jobs.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention made.
Regarding Claim 3, Liang further teaches wherein the outputting includes displaying the business use document on a display device to be selectable and not displaying a private use document to be selectable (Paragraph 61, wherein the list being displayed only corresponds to what can be printed).
Regarding Claim 4, Liang further teaches wherein the outputting includes outputting after determining that printing of a private use document is possible in a case where the distinguished account is for private use (Paragraph 150, wherein a determination of what type of documents can be printed is made based on the user account. The job can be a business job or private job).
Zehler further teaches does teach the positional information does not match a position registered in advance as being possible to perform business use printing (Paragraph 35, wherein the document that is able to be printed is determined based on location information for printing business jobs).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
In combination, Liang performs the same function as it does separately of determining what documents can be printed based on user account’s. Zehler performs the same function as it does separately of determining what jobs can be printed based on location information.
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
The result of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in modifying the invention of Liang to include determining what documents to print based on location, as disclosed by Zehler thereby allowing for determination to include both account information and location information for printing jobs.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention made
Regarding Claim 5, Liang further teaches wherein the outputting includes displaying the private use document on a display device to be selectable and not displaying a business use document to be selectable (Paragraph 61, wherein the list being displayed only corresponds to what can be printed).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US 2020/0409633) in view of Sadakuni (US 2023/0035111).
Regarding Claim 6, Liang teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a processor (Paragraph 38) to execute a process comprising:
distinguishing a user’s account among a plurality of accounts (Paragraph 111, wherein it is determined what type of account is used); and
outputting after determining whether or not to print a document based on a result of the distinguishment (Paragraph 150, wherein a determination of what type of documents can be printed is made based on the user account).
Liang does not teach and outputting after determining whether or not to print a document based on a result of time information obtained in a case where the user instructs printing.
Sadakuni does teach outputting after determining whether or not to print a document based on a result of time information obtained in a case where the user instructs printing (Paragraph 103, wherein based on the time of the day, it is determined what type of documents are printed).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
In combination, Liang performs the same function as it does separately of determining what documents can be printed based on user account’s. Sadakuni performs the same function as it does separately of determining what jobs can be printed based on time of day.
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
The result of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in modifying the invention of Liang to include determining what documents to print based on time of day, as disclosed by Sadakuni thereby allowing for determination to include both account information and time information for printing jobs.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention made
Regarding Claim 7, Liang further teaches wherein the outputting includes outputting after determining that printing of a business use document is possible in a case where the distinguished account is for business use (Paragraph 150, wherein a determination of what type of documents can be printed is made based on the user account. The job can be a business job)
Sadakuni further teaches the time information matches time registered in advance as work time (Paragraph 103, wherein based on the time of the day, it is determined what type of documents are printed).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
In combination, Liang performs the same function as it does separately of determining what documents can be printed based on user account’s. Sadakuni performs the same function as it does separately of determining what jobs can be printed based on time of day.
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
The result of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in modifying the invention of Liang to include determining what documents to print based on time of day, as disclosed by Sadakuni thereby allowing for determination to include both account information and time information for printing jobs.
Regarding Claim 8, Liang further teaches wherein the outputting includes outputting after determining that printing of a private use document is possible in a case where the distinguished account is for private use (Paragraph 150, wherein a determination of what type of documents can be printed is made based on the user account. The job can be a business job or private job)
Sadakuni further teaches the time information does not match time registered in advance as work time (Paragraph 103, wherein based on the time of the day, it is determined what type of documents are printed).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
In combination, Liang performs the same function as it does separately of determining what documents can be printed based on user account’s. Sadakuni performs the same function as it does separately of determining what jobs can be printed based on time of day.
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
The result of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in modifying the invention of Liang to include determining what documents to print based on time of day, as disclosed by Sadakuni thereby allowing for determination to include both account information and time information for printing jobs.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US 2020/0409633) in view of Zehler (US 2017/0180606) further in view of Sadakuni (US 2023/0035111).
Regarding Claim 9, Liang further teaches wherein the outputting includes further outputting after determining whether or not to print the document based on the result of the distinguishment (Paragraph 150, wherein a determination of what type of documents can be printed is made based on the user account).
Liang does not teach wherein the outputting includes further outputting after determining whether or not to print the document based on the result of the positional information and at least any of time information and network connection information obtained in a case where the user instructs printing.
Zehler does teach wherein the outputting includes further outputting after determining whether or not to print the document based on the result of the positional information (Paragraph 35, wherein the document that is able to be printed is determined based on location information).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
In combination, Liang performs the same function as it does separately of determining what documents can be printed based on user account’s. Zehler performs the same function as it does separately of determining what jobs can be printed based on location information.
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
The result of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in modifying the invention of Liang to include determining what documents to print based on location, as disclosed by Zehler thereby allowing for determination to include both account information and location information for printing jobs.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention made.
Liang in view of Zehler does not teach wherein the outputting includes further outputting after determining whether or not to print the document based on the result of at least any of time information and network connection information obtained in a case where the user instructs printing.
Sadakuni does teach wherein the outputting includes further outputting after determining whether or not to print the document based on the result of at least any of time information and network connection information obtained in a case where the user instructs printing (Paragraph 103, wherein based on the time of the day, it is determined what type of documents are printed).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
In combination, Liang performs the same function as it does separately of determining what documents can be printed based on user account’s. Sadakuni performs the same function as it does separately of determining what jobs can be printed based on time of day.
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
The result of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in modifying the invention of Liang to include determining what documents to print based on time of day, as disclosed by Sadakuni thereby allowing for determination to include both account information and time information for printing jobs.
Regarding Claim 10, Liang in view of Zehler further in view of Sadakuni further teaches wherein the outputting includes outputting after determining that printing of a business use document is possible in a case where the distinguished account is for business use (Liang: Paragraph 150, wherein a determination of what type of documents can be printed is made based on the user account. The job can be a business job), the positional information matches a position registered in advance as being possible to perform business use printing (Zehler: Paragraph 35, wherein the document that is able to be printed is determined based on location information for printing business jobs), and the time information matches time registered in advance as work time (Sadakuni: Paragraph 103, wherein based on the time of the day, it is determined what type of documents are printed).
Regarding Claim 11, Liang in view of Zehler further in view of Sadakuni further teaches wherein the outputting includes outputting after determining that printing of a private use document is possible in a case where the distinguished account is for private use (Liang: Paragraph 150, wherein a determination of what type of documents can be printed is made based on the user account. The job can be a private job), the positional information does not match a position registered in advance as being possible to perform business use printing (Zehler: Paragraph 35, wherein the document that is able to be printed is determined based on location information for printing business jobs), and the time information does not match time registered in advance as work time (Sadakuni: Paragraph 103, wherein based on the time of the day, it is determined what type of documents are printed).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
In combination, Liang performs the same function as it does separately of determining what documents can be printed based on user account’s. Zehler performs the same function as it does separately of determining what jobs can be printed based on location information.
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
The result of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in modifying the invention of Liang to include determining what documents to print based on location, as disclosed by Zehler thereby allowing for determination to include both account information and location information for printing jobs.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention made
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
In combination, Liang performs the same function as it does separately of determining what documents can be printed based on user account’s. Sadakuni performs the same function as it does separately of determining what jobs can be printed based on time of day.
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
The result of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in modifying the invention of Liang to include determining what documents to print based on time of day, as disclosed by Sadakuni thereby allowing for determination to include both account information and time information for printing jobs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional cited references of US 2020/0409631, US 2020/0409630, and US 2020/0409621 are similar disclosures to US 2020/0409633 which is used as a reference above.
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