DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-5 and 7-15 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 .
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.
3. Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 8, 13, and 14 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).
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).
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, 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. Kushwah teaches a series of processes similar to that of Kazuhiro. In addition, Kushwah 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 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 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 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).
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.
4. 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, Kushwah et al. (US 2024/0177092 A1), 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, Kushwah, 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, Kushwah, 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).
5. 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, Kushwah et al. (US 2024/0177092 A1), 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 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, Kushwah, 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 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, Kushwah, 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, Kushwah, 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).
6. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhiro (JP 5962318 (B2)), hereinafter referred to as Kazuhiro, Kushwah et al. (US 2024/0177092 A1), and further in view of Ranjan et al. (US 2025/0005482 A1).
In regard to claim 15, Kazuhiro discloses wherein the stop location is set based on request information input by a user (Paragraph 0085: stop icon is positioned by drag operation).
While Kazuhiro teaches wherein the stop location is set based on request information input by a user, the combination of Kazuhiro and Kushwah teaches 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 Kazuhiro further discloses providing operation icons that a user can drag to move into the processing path (Paragraph 0064), they fail to show the start location set based on request information input by a user, as recited in the claims. Ranjan teaches a series of processes and a start display element similar to that of Kazuhiro and Kushwah. In addition, Ranjan further teaches
start location set based on request information input by a user (Paragraph 0047 lines 1-10: element 242 (e.g. start element) is arranged in sequence determined by the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kazuhiro, Kushwah, and Ranjan before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the wherein the stop location is set based on request information input by a user, 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 providing operation icons that a user can drag to move into the processing path taught by Kazuhiro and Kushwah to include the start location set based on request information input by a user of Ranjan, in order to obtain wherein the start location and the stop location are set based on request information input by a user. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as customizing a workflow would have been obtained, as suggested by Ranjan (Paragraph 0046). Further, Kazuhiro discloses that operation icons other than the stop icon may be included for a user to drag into the processing path (Paragraph 0064) and therefore one would recognize that other known operation icons, such as the start element taught by Kushwah, could be provided as an operation icon other than the stop icon.
Response to Arguments
7. The amendments to the specification overcome the objection to the Tittle. Accordingly, the objection is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
8. The amendments to claim 9 overcome the objection to claim 9. Accordingly, the objection to claim 9 is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
9. Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is argued (1) “In contrast, the claimed start display element is not merely a start point of a workflow diagram. Rather, the claimed start display element is a display element associated with one of the processing buttons and is used to specify from which processing button the series of processes is to start. Kushwah's element 440 is an independent start element of a flowchart-type workflow diagram and does not indicate that a series of processes is to be started from a particular processing button among a plurality of processing buttons arranged in one direction. Therefore, Kushwah does not disclose or suggest "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 expressly recited in Claim 1” and (2) “Accordingly, even if the start element 440 of Kushwah were added to the screen or workflow of Kazuhiro, the resulting combination would merely include a start node indicating the beginning of a workflow. Such a modification would not result in "display a start display element indicating a start location at which the series of processes is to be started”, nor would it result in "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 up to the processing button associated with the stop display element" as expressly recited in Claim 1”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In regard to (1), in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is the combination of Kazuhiro and Kushwah that teaches 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 provided in Kushwah, when the workflow is started, the workflow automatically progresses from the start element 242 to element 243, see at least Paragraph 0060. This is describing that the workflow (e.g. process) is started from a particular element in a series of elements. Combined with teachings of Kazuhiro that teaches “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” would result in “a start display element indicating a start location at which the series of processes is to be started, in association with the processing button". For example, incorporating the teachings of Kushwah in Kazuhiro would result in including a start element connected to and before element GA in Fig. 5 of Kazuhiro, similar to Fig. 2E of Kushwah where the start element is positioned before the first element to be executed. This would result in a display that shows that the process in Fig. 5 would start and automatically progress to GA. Accordingly, the combination of Kazuhiro and Kushwah teaches "display a start display element indicating a start location at which the series of processes is to be started”.
In regard to (2), as provided in Kushwah, when the workflow is started, the workflow automatically progresses from the start element 242 to element 243, see at least Paragraph 0060. This is describing that the workflow (e.g. process) is started from a particular element in a series of elements. Combined with teachings of Kazuhiro that teaches “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” would result in “a start display element indicating a start location at which the series of processes is to be started, in association with the processing button". For example, incorporating the teachings of Kushwah in Kazuhiro would result in including a start element connected to and before element GA in Fig. 5 of Kazuhiro, similar to Fig. 2E of Kushwah where the start element is positioned before the first element to be executed. This would result in a display that shows that the process in Fig. 5 would start and automatically progress to GA. Accordingly, the combination of Kazuhiro and Kushwah teaches "display a start display element indicating a start location at which the series of processes is to be started”. Further, combined with the teachings of Kazuhiro that teaches “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” would result in “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 up to the processing button associated with the stop display element". For example, incorporating the teachings of Kushwah in Kazuhiro would result in including a start element connected to and before element GA in Fig. 12 of Kazuhiro, similar to Fig. 2E of Kushwah where the start element is positioned before the first element to be executed. This would result in a display that shows that the process in Fig. 12 would start and automatically progress to GA and continue to progress until W1 (e.g. stop display element indicating stop location). Accordingly, the combination of Kazuhiro and Kushwah teaches "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 up to the processing button associated with the stop display element".
Conclusion
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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