DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yao (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2020/0004480).
Regarding claim 1, Yao (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2020/0004480) discloses:
An information processing system comprising:
a processor configured to: accept a print request including print information to be printed and execute one or more predetermined specific processes on the print information included in the accepted print request (Figure 5, paragraphs [0105]-[0111], transaction server sends printing information to logistics platform (essentially a server, see paragraph [0045]) which provides a template identifier and encryption of content.); and
transmit the print request including the print information after execution of the one or more specific processes to a preregistered information processing terminal that is to transmit the print request to a printer (Figure 5, paragraphs [0118]-[0119], the printing data is sent to printing terminal which then uses a connected printing device to print the data)
Regarding claim 2, Yao additionally discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to convert the print request to information in a predetermined common format, and transmit the converted information to the information processing terminal (Figure 5, paragraphs [0061], [0097]-[0098], [0108]-[0111], the logistics platform applies a template and encryption according to a protocol – both of which constitute “common formats”.)
Regarding claim 3, Yao additionally discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to execute at least one from among a history management process, an authorization process, and a confidentiality process as the one or more specific processes (Figure 5, paragraphs [0061], [0097]-[0098], [0108]-[0111], the logistics platform applies encryption according to a protocol – this constitutes a “confidentiality process”)
Regarding claim 8, Yao additionally discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to accept a selection result of the information processing terminal to which to transmit the print request after execution of the one or more specific processes, and transmit the print request to the selected information processing terminal (paragraphs [0045]-[0047], the particular terminal is registered under a particular ID; the specification of the ID used to forward the printing information to the target printing terminal constitutes “accepting a selection result”)
Regarding claim 11, the structural elements of apparatus claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 11. Thus, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. The computer readable medium is explicitly taught as evidenced by paragraph [0172] of Yao.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Sato (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2020/0364018).
Regarding claim 4, Yao discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 1).
As previously noted, Yao discloses:
execution of the one or more specific processes to the information processing terminal.
Yao does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to display, on the information processing terminal, a progress of transmitting the print request
Sato (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2020/0364018) discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to display, on the information processing terminal, a progress of transmitting the print request after execution of the one or more specific processes to the information processing terminal (Figure 19, paragraph [0090], the display confirms that the job has been successfully transmitted)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Sato with the system of Yao such that the system displayed, on the information processing terminal, a progress of transmitting the print request as described in Sato. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “flexibly divid[ing] usage between the pull method and the push method depending on an operation environment” (paragraph [0009] of the Sato reference) by ensuring the user has adequate information regarding the reception/storage of the file to be printed.
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Aikens (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2010/0007909).
Regarding claim 5, Yao discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 1).
Yao does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to set a period of validity for the print request and transmit the print request to the information processing terminal.
Aikens (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2010/0007909) discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to set a period of validity for the print request and transmit the print request to the information processing terminal (paragraphs [0013]-[0017], [0033]-[0035], the user sets a period of expiration for the job that is transmitted to the secure print manager)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Aikens with the system of Yao such that the processor was configured to set a period of validity for the print request and transmit the print request to the information processing terminal as described in Aikens. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “improved security and improved operability” (paragraph [0016] of the Aikens reference).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yao and Aikens discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 5).
Yao does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to confirm the period of validity at a predetermined timing, and remove the print request that has expired.
Aikens discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to confirm the period of validity at a predetermined timing, and remove the print request that has expired (paragraph [0038], the job is deleted upon the expiration of the secure print job expiration time)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Aikens with the system of Yao such that the processor was configured to confirm the period of validity at a predetermined timing, and remove the print request that has expired as described in Aikens. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “improved security and improved operability” (paragraph [0016] of the Aikens reference).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yao and Aikens discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 6).
Yao does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the predetermined timing is at least one from among when an application is launched on the information processing terminal, when the application moves from background to foreground, and when a fixed time elapses
Aikens discloses:
wherein the predetermined timing is at least one from among when an application is launched on the information processing terminal, when the application moves from background to foreground, and when a fixed time elapses (paragraph [0038], the job is deleted upon the expiration of the secure print job expiration time; this constitutes the predetermined timing being when a fixed time elapses)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Aikens with the system of Yao such that the processor was configured to confirm the period of validity at a predetermined timing, the predetermined timing being when a fixed time elapses as described in Aikens. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “improved security and improved operability” (paragraph [0016] of the Aikens reference).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Park et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2016/0065751).
Regarding claim 9, Yao discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 8).
As previously noted, Yao discloses:
transmitting the print request including the print information after execution of the one or more specific processes to a preregistered information processing terminal that is to transmit the print request to a printer (Figure 5, paragraphs [0118]-[0119], the printing data is sent to printing terminal which then uses a connected printing device to print the data)
Yao does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to accept the information processing terminal designated by a user or all information processing terminals carried by the user as the selection result
Park et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2016/0065751) discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to accept the information processing terminal designated by a user or all information processing terminals carried by the user as the selection result (Figure 1, paragraph [0074]-[0075], [0083], [0104], the user is presented a list of terminals to transmit the print data to such that the chosen terminal can forward the data to the printer for printing)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Park et al. with the system of Yao such that the processor was configured to accept the information processing terminal designated by a user or all information processing terminals carried by the user as the selection result as described in Park et al.. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “improving convenience of a print job” (paragraph [0006] of the Park reference).
Regarding claim 10, Yao discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 1).
Yao additionally discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to transmit the print request that has been transmitted to the information processing terminal to the printer by wireless communication (paragraphs [0044], [0162]-[0187], the devices can be configured to communicate wirelessly)
Even assuming arguendo that Yao does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to transmit the print request that has been transmitted to the information processing terminal to the printer by wireless communication
Park discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to transmit the print request that has been transmitted to the information processing terminal to the printer by wireless communication (paragraphs [0074]-[0075], [0083], [0104], [0125], the print request is transmitted to the mobile terminal wirelessly)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Park et al. with the system of Yao such that the processor was configured to transmit the print request that has been transmitted to the information processing terminal to the printer by wireless communication as described in Park et al.. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “improving convenience of a print job” (paragraph [0006] of the Park reference).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30-5 PM.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/JOHN R WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights