33574Notice 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendments filed on 01/02/2026.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, and 11 have been amended.
Claims 3-4 and 9-10 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, and 11 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabata “US 2011/0066531 A1” (Kawabata) in view of Yardley et al. “US 2020/0013499 A1” (Yardley).
Regarding Claim 1: A method performed by a server in network communication with a client, the method comprising:
receiving a request including an image file to undergo predetermined image processing on the image file via the network (at least see Kawabata Abstract; Figs. 5A-5B; [0067]);
executing predetermined image processing on the image file in response to receiving the request from the client received via the network (at least see Kawabata Abstract; Fig. 2; [0033]-[0034]);
transmitting a first response to the client via the network, the first response including a result of the predetermined image processing on the image file indicating that the predetermined image processing on the image file completed (at least see Kawabata Abstract; Figs. 1-2 and 9; [0015]-[0016]);
determining whether a client reply has been received from the client via the network, the client reply indicating that receipt of the first response and display of information based on the result of the predetermined image processing on the image file has been completed by the client (at least see Kawabata [0061]);
in response to receiving the client reply via the network, executing predetermined billing processing to collect a fee for using the predetermined image processing on the image file and transmitting a second response to the client via the network, the second response including a result of the predetermined billing processing (at least see Kawabata Abstract; Fig. 15; [0035]- [0038], [0058] and [0088]); and
Kawabata discloses the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose in response to not receiving the client reply via the network, not executing the predetermined billing processing. However, Yardley discloses this (at least see Yardley Abstract; Fig. 1; [0001] and [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA FITF) to use Yardley’s teachings in Kawabata’s enabled, for the advantage of assists in understanding the billing statement in more accurate and correct ways.
Regarding Claim 2: The method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined billing processing includes collecting the fee by online settlement (at least see Kawabata [0007] and [0035]).
Regarding Claim 5: The method according to claim 1, further comprising: while the predetermined image processing is being executed, causing the client to start a display of a notification indicating that the predetermined image processing is being executed, and causing the client to end the display of the notification in response to at least one of : the predetermined image processing being completed; and a lapse of time that is greater than or equal to a predetermined time from a start of the display of the notification (at least see Kawabata [0047]).
Regarding Claims 6-8 and 11: all limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 1-2 and 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 5-8, and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATEH M OBAID whose telephone number is (571)270-7121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 A.M to 4:30 P.M.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/FATEH M OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights