DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-14 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The IDS filed 8/17/2023 and 3/07/2024 is considered.
Specification
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
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.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “a plurality of the stop display elements”. “the stop display elements” lacks antecedent basis as only a single stop display element is previously recited. This limitation should recite “a plurality of stop display elements”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claim(s) 1-4, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishiguro Kazuhiro (JP 5962318 (B2)), hereinafter referred to as Kazuhiro.
NOTE: the below text citations are with respect to the provided machine translation of Ishiguro Kazuhiro (JP 5962318 (B2)) provided with the copy in the IDS dated 3/7/2024.
In regard to claim 1, Kazuhiro discloses an information processing system comprising: one or a plurality of processors configured to:
display a processing button indicating each of a plurality of processes to be executed on a file in one direction on a display unit, and in a case where the plurality of processes corresponding to a plurality of processing buttons are executed as a series of processes, display a stop display element indicating a stop location at which the series of processes is to be stopped, in association with the processing button (Fig. 5, Fig. 12, Paragraph 0062, Paragraph 0065, and Paragraph 0085: plurality of processing icons arranged sequentially for performing processing on an input image, where a stop display element is added in order to stop the processing at the location of the stop display element);
and in a case where an instruction to execute the series of processes is accepted from a user, automatically execute a process among the plurality of processes, corresponding to the processing button included up to the processing button associated with the stop display element, in succession according to an arrangement order of the processing buttons (Paragraph 0062, Paragraph 0065, Paragraph 0085: the processing according to the processing icons is performed in order on the input image up to the stop display element).
In regard to claim 2, Kazuhiro discloses wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: in a case where the instruction to execute the series of processes is accepted from the user, not automatically execute a process corresponding to the processing button that is not included up to the processing button associated with the stop display element (Paragraph 0062, Paragraph 0065, Paragraph 0085, and Paragraph 0086: processing is performed up to the stop display element the processing icons arranged after the stop element are not automatically executed until the user performs an operation).
In regard to claim 3, Kazuhiro discloses wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: in a case where the instruction to execute the series of processes is accepted from the user, temporarily stop a process corresponding to the processing button that is not included up to the processing button associated with the stop display element (Paragraph 0062, Paragraph 0065, Paragraph 0085, and Paragraph 0086: processing is performed up to the stop display element and automatically resumed after a predetermined period of time).
In regard to claim 4, Kazuhiro discloses wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: in a case where a condition for resuming is satisfied, automatically execute the temporarily stopped process among the plurality of processes in succession according to the arrangement order of the processing buttons (Paragraph 0062, Paragraph 0065, Paragraph 0085, and Paragraph 0086: processing is performed up to the stop display element and automatically resumed after a predetermined period of time).
In regard to claim 13, medium claim 13 corresponds generally to system claim 1 and recites similar features in medium form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claim 14, method claim 14 corresponds generally to system claim 1 and recites similar features in method form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
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.
7. Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhiro (JP 5962318 (B2)), hereinafter referred to as Kazuhiro, and further in view of Ishiguro (US 2013/0335765 A1).
In regard to claim 5, while Kazuhiro teaches in a case where the process corresponding to the processing button that is not included up to the processing button associated with the stop display element is temporarily stopped (The rejections of claims 3 and 4 are incorporated herein in their entirety), they fail to show the display a resume instruction image for accepting an instruction to resume automatic execution on the temporarily stopped process among the plurality of processes from the user, on the display unit, as recited in the claims. Ishiguro teaches a temporarily stopped process similar to that of Kazuhiro. In addition, Ishiguro further teaches
display a resume instruction image for accepting an instruction to resume automatic execution on a temporarily stopped process among a plurality of processes from a user, on a display unit (Paragraph 0082 and Paragraph 0105: restart key B5 provided on display for restarting temporarily suspended execution).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kazuhiro and Ishiguro before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kazuhiro to include the display a resume instruction image for accepting an instruction to resume automatic execution on a temporarily stopped process among a plurality of processes from a user, on a display unit of Ishiguro, in order to obtain display a resume instruction image for accepting an instruction to resume automatic execution on the temporarily stopped process among the plurality of processes from the user, on the display unit. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as canceling a temporary suspension would have been obtained, as suggested by Ishiguro (Paragraph 0068 lines 16-23).
In regard to claim 12, while Kazuhiro teaches in a case where the instruction to execute the series of processes is accepted from the user, automatically execute a process among the plurality of processes, that corresponds to the processing button included up to the processing button associated with the stop display element, in succession according to the arrangement order of the processing buttons (The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein in its entirety), they fail to show the in a state in which the plurality of processes include a single process that is not included in the series of processes, as recited in the claims. Ishiguro teaches a process similar to that of Kazuhiro. In addition, Ishiguro further teaches
in a state in which a plurality of processes includes a single process that is not included in the series of processes, automatically execute a process among the plurality of processes, not including the single process (Fig. 9, Fig. 10 and Paragraph 0083: user can edit a plurality of processes to cancel a configured processing (e.g. cancel GD2 so that the processing of GD2 is not performed with respect to G11)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kazuhiro and Ishiguro before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the in a case where the instruction to execute the series of processes is accepted from the user, automatically execute a process among the plurality of processes, that corresponds to the processing button included up to the processing button associated with the stop display element, in succession according to the arrangement order of the processing buttons taught by Kazuhiro to include the in a state in which a plurality of processes includes a single process that is not included in the series of processes, automatically execute a process among the plurality of processes, not including the single process of Ishiguro, in order to obtain wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: in a case where the instruction to execute the series of processes is accepted from the user in a state in which the plurality of processes include a single process that is not included in the series of processes, automatically execute a process among the plurality of processes, that corresponds to the processing button included up to the processing button associated with the stop display element, and is different from the single process, in succession according to the arrangement order of the processing buttons. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as the user is allowed to delete or make change in the settings of the processing performed as the series of the operations during execution of the job, as suggested by Ishiguro (Paragraph 0083 lines 27-30).
8. Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhiro (JP 5962318 (B2)), hereinafter referred to as Kazuhiro, and further in view of Kushwah et al. (US 2024/0177092 A1).
In regard to claim 6, while Kazuhiro teaches in a case where the instruction to execute the series of processes is accepted from the user, automatically execute a process among the plurality of processes, corresponding to the processing button included from a start to the processing button associated with the stop display element, in succession according to the arrangement order of the processing buttons (The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein in its entirety), they fail to show the display a start display element indicating a start location at which the series of processes is to be started, in association with the processing button, as recited in the claims. Kushwa teaches a series of processes similar to that of Kazuhiro. In addition, Kushwa further teaches
display a start display element indicating a start location at which the series of processes is to be started (Fig. 4A element 440 and Paragraph 0056: displayed start element).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kazuhiro and Kushwah before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaches in a case where the instruction to execute the series of processes is accepted from the user, automatically execute a process among the plurality of processes, corresponding to the processing button included from a start to the processing button associated with the stop display element, in succession according to the arrangement order of the processing buttons taught by Kazuhiro to include the display a start display element indicating a start location at which the series of processes is to be started of Kushwah, in order to obtain wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: display a start display element indicating a start location at which the series of processes is to be started, in association with the processing button; and in a case where the instruction to execute the series of processes is accepted from the user, automatically execute a process among the plurality of processes, corresponding to the processing button included from the processing button associated with the start display element to the processing button associated with the stop display element, in succession according to the arrangement order of the processing buttons. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as indicating the start of a workflow, would have been obtained, as suggested by Kushwah (Paragraph 0056 lines 1-9).
In regard to claim 7, while Kazuhiro teaches in a case where the instruction to execute the series of processes is accepted from the user, automatically execute a process among the plurality of processes, corresponding to the processing button included from a start to the processing button associated with the stop display element, in succession according to the arrangement order of the processing buttons (The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein in its entirety), they fail to show a plurality of start display elements, as recited in the claims. However, Kushwah further teaches a plurality of start display elements (Paragraph 0056 lines 9-11: multiple start elements). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kazuhiro and Kushwah before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the in a case where the instruction to execute the series of processes is accepted from the user, automatically execute a process among the plurality of processes, corresponding to the processing button included from a start to the processing button associated with the stop display element, in succession according to the arrangement order of the processing buttons taught by Kazuhiro to include the plurality of start display elements of Kushwah, in order to obtain in a case where the instruction to execute the series of processes is accepted from the user in a state in which a plurality of start display elements exist and one start display element is included after another start display element before the stop display element, automatically execute a process among the plurality of processes, corresponding to the processing button included from the processing button associated with the other start display element to the processing button associated with the stop display element, in succession according to the arrangement order of the processing buttons. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as providing complex workflow diagrams, as suggested by Kushwah (Paragraph 0056 lines 9-10).
In regard to claim 8, while Kazuhiro teaches in a case where the instruction to execute the series of processes is accepted from the user, automatically execute a process among the plurality of processes, corresponding to the processing button included from a start to the processing button associated with another processing button, in succession according to the arrangement order of the processing buttons (The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein in its entirety), they fail to show a plurality of start display elements, as recited in the claims. However, Kushwah further teaches a plurality of start display elements (Paragraph 0056 lines 9-11: multiple start elements). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kazuhiro and Kushwah before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaches in a case where the instruction to execute the series of processes is accepted from the user, automatically execute a process among the plurality of processes, corresponding to the processing button included from a start to the processing button associated with another processing button, in succession according to the arrangement order of the processing buttons taught by Kazuhiro to include the plurality of start display elements of Kushwah, in order to obtain in a case where the instruction to execute the series of processes is accepted from the user in a state in which a plurality of start display elements exist and one start display element is included after another start display element before the stop display element, automatically execute a process among the plurality of processes, corresponding to the processing button included from the processing button associated with the other start display element to the processing button associated with the one start display element, in succession according to the arrangement order of the processing buttons. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as providing complex workflow diagrams, as suggested by Kushwah (Paragraph 0056 lines 9-10).
9. Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhiro (JP 5962318 (B2)), hereinafter referred to as Kazuhiro, and further in view of Leonelli et al. (US 2012/0198457 A1).
In regard to claim 9, while Kazuhiro teaches in a case where an instruction to execute the series of processes is accepted from a user, automatically execute a process among the plurality of processes, corresponding to the processing button included up to the processing button associated with the stop display element, in succession according to an arrangement order of the processing buttons (The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein in its entirety) and further teaches other operation icons can be provided for moving into the processing path (Paragraph 0064), they fail to show the in a state in which a plurality of the stop display elements exist, as recited in the claims. Leonelli teaches a series of processes similar to that of Kazuhiro. In addition, Leonelli further teaches
providing a wait task element to be added to workflow that causes the execution to pause (Paragraph 0148 line 1: the wait task element can be considered a stop element as it causes the workflow to temporality pause (e.g. stop)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kazuhiro and Leonelli before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the in a case where an instruction to execute the series of processes is accepted from a user, automatically execute a process among the plurality of processes, corresponding to the processing button included up to the processing button associated with the stop display element, in succession according to an arrangement order of the processing buttons and other operation icons can be provided for moving into the processing path taught by Kazuhiro to include the providing a wait task element to be added to workflow that causes the execution to pause of Leonelli, in order to obtain wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: in a case where the instruction to execute the series of processes is accepted from the user in a state in which a plurality of the stop display elements exist and one stop display element is included before another stop display element, automatically execute a process among the plurality of processes, corresponding to the processing button included up to the processing button associated with the other stop display element, in succession according to an arrangement order of the processing buttons. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as specifying an amount of time to pause execution of a workflow, as suggested by Leonelli (Paragraph 0148 lines 1-4).
In regard to claim 10, the combination of Kazuhiro and Leonelli further teaches wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied, automatically execute a process corresponding to the processing button included up to the processing button associated with the one stop display element, in succession according to the arrangement order of the processing buttons, and not automatically execute a process corresponding to the processing button that is not included up to the processing button associated with the one stop display element, among the plurality of processes (The rejections of claims 1 and 9 are incorporated herein in their entirety. The receiving an instruction to execute the series of process from the user is considered a satisfied predetermined condition and therefore when the instruction is received, the processes will be automatically executed up to a first stop/wait display element).
In regard to claim 11, the combination of Kazuhiro and Leonelli further teaches wherein the one or plurality of processors are configured to: in a case where the predetermined condition is satisfied, temporarily stop and then, automatically execute a process among the plurality of processes, corresponding to the processing button from the processing button associated with the one stop display element to the processing button associated with the other stop display element, in succession according to the arrangement order of the processing buttons (The rejections of claims 1, 9, and 10 are incorporated herein in their entirety. Kazuhiro teaches that the stop display element causes the processing to temporarily stop and then resume and Leonelli teaches that the wait causes processing to pause and resume, therefore at a first stop/wait, the processing will be temporarily stopped and then resumed until another stop/wait is reached).
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oshima (US 2009/0323096 A1), see at least Figs. 9-10 and Paragraphs 0315-0328.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS S ULRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571)272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
12. 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 Ulrich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights