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 .
Claims 1 – 9 are pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/23/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Applicant has provided an explanation of relevance of cited document(s) JP-2017-049986 on pages 1 - 2 of the specification, but it’s not cited in the IDS.
Applicants have not provided an explanation of relevance of cited document(s) discussed below.
Kinoshita et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2012/0224222 A1) teaches a capability obtaining part obtains information of a capability of an apparatus that is connected with the computer or a capability of an apparatus that is used in a printing process in which the computer is used; a determination part determines, when the capability obtaining part has obtained the information of the capability of the apparatus, functions that become invalid, from among functions that have been set in a received print job, based on the information of the capability of the apparatus and printing conditions that a print job editing program has; and a display part displays a list of the functions that become invalid, and is used to confirm a cancellation of the setting of the functions that become invalid.
Asai (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2020/0293238 A1) provides a non-transitory computer-readable medium stores program instructions executable by a processor of an information processing device that includes a storage, an operation interface, a display, and a communication interface configured to communicate with a plurality of devices. The program instructions are configured to, when executed by the processor, cause the information processing device to set a first device selected from among the plurality of devices as a target device to perform a particular process registered in the storage, when receiving an operation to change the target device from the first device to a second one of the plurality of devices via the operation interface, determine whether the second device is capable of performing the particular process, and control the display to display a result of the determination as to whether the second device is capable of performing the particular process.
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 5 contains a typo error, wherein in S101 – “PLANNED DESTINATION CHANG” should be “PLANNED DESTINATION CHANGED”. If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 - 3 and 6 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizutani et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2007/0133033 A1, hereinafter ‘Mizutani’).
With respect to claim 1, Mizutani teaches an information processing system (e.g., a network print system, Fig. 1) comprising: a processor (e.g., a computer, ¶0042; or a main control portion 21, ¶0045) configured to: when a planned destination of an execution instruction that execution contents to be performed by a first execution device are set in is changed from the first execution device to a second execution device before the execution instruction is provided to the first execution device (e.g., when print jobs of a spooler of a moving source are to be performed by a first MFP are received is changed from the first MFP to a different MFP before printing, ¶0040, ¶0063, ¶0085, ¶0115, Fig. 13), delete setting contents set as the execution contents from the execution instruction (e.g., move away contents (print jobs) from said spooler of said moving source; where the contents (print jobs) are ‘deleted’ from said spooler of said moving source, ¶0109, Fig. 8 & Fig. 9); and perform control on a presenter to cause the presenter to present the deleted setting contents to a user (e.g., concurrently displaying moved content (print job) to the different MFP; the content (print job) is ‘deleted’ from the spooler of said moving source, ¶0109 - ¶0110, Figs. 8, 9, 14A & 14B, Claim 20).
With respect to claim 2, Mizutani teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, where the processor is configured to: when the changing is performed, delete the setting contents from the execution instruction; and perform control on the presenter to cause the presenter to present, to the user, the deleted setting contents and information indicating that the setting contents have been deleted from the execution instruction (e.g., After changing to the different MFP, print job(s) from the moving source can be moved away to a moving destination, ¶0109 - ¶0110, Fig. 11, Figs 13, Figs. 14A/14B)
With respect to claim 3, Mizutani teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, where the processor is configured to: when the changing is performed, delete the setting contents from the execution instruction; and perform control on the presenter to cause the presenter to present, to the user, the deleted setting contents and a setting screen causing the user to set execution contents to be performed by the second execution device (e.g., After changing to the different MFP, print job(s) from the moving source can be moved away to a moving destination, ¶0109 - ¶0110, Figs 13, Figs. 14A/14B; and the print job(s) within the moving destination are going to be executed by the different MFP, Figs. 14A/14B)
With respect to claim 6, Mizutani teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, where the processor is configured to: when the planned destination of a print instruction serving as the execution instruction that the execution contents to be performed by a first printer serving as the first execution device are set in is changed from the first printer to a second printer serving as the second execution device before the print instruction is provided to the first printer, delete the setting contents set as the execution contents from the print instruction; and perform control on the presenter to cause the presenter to present the deleted setting contents to the user (e.g., this corresponds to a digital multifunction machine 1 and a different digital multifunction machine, ¶0074, ¶0108).
With respect to claim 7, Mizutani teaches an execution system comprising: a first execution device; a second execution device; and the information processing system according to claim 1 (e.g., refer to claim 6 for details).
With respect to claim 8, Mizutani notes that the invention may be realized through the execution by a CPU (e.g., a CPU, ¶0046) of instruction codes (e.g., a control program, ¶0046) stored in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (e.g., stored in a ROM, nonvolatile memory or HDD 27 or the like, ¶0046). The further limitations are met by the teachings as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
With respect to claim 9, this is a method claim corresponding to the system claim 1. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the system claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani in view of Kinoshita et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2012/0224222 A1, cited in an IDS filed on 09/23/2024, hereinafter ‘Kinoshita’).
With respect to claim 4, Mizutani teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, but fails to teach where the processor is configured to: when the changing is performed, store a subset of the setting contents on execution contents common in an execution form to the first execution device and the second execution device and delete the setting contents excluding the subset; and perform control on the presenter to cause the presenter to present the deleted setting contents to the user.
However, although Kinoshita teaches another type of deleting content, Kinoshita teaches where the processor is configured to: when the changing is performed, store a subset of the setting contents on execution contents common in an execution form to the first execution device and the second execution device and delete the setting contents excluding the subset; and perform control on the presenter to cause the presenter to present the deleted setting contents to the user (e.g., a DevCaps file in ¶0094; and the DevCaps file 221 is a file obtained from deleting and/or changing the definition content obtained from the devCaps definition file of a printer apparatus; wherein it’s cancelling the function so that a printer B can execute printing without invalid setting, ¶0071 - ¶0076 & ¶0135 along with Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the information processing system of Mizutani as taught by Kinoshita by adding a screen of Fig. 7 and ¶0135 would allow the user to cancel any function that is invalid in order to skip/ignore the provided function(s) and continue with the jobs in printer B; thereby improving operation efficiency by simplifying operations.
With respect to claim 5, Mizutani teaches the information processing system according to claim 4, but fails to teach where the processor is configured to: when the changing is performed, store a subset of the setting contents on execution contents common in an execution form to the first execution device and the second execution device and delete the setting contents excluding the subset; and perform control on the presenter to cause the presenter to present the deleted setting contents to the user but not to present the stored subset to the user.
However, although Kinoshita teaches another type of deleting content, Kinochitta teaches where the processor is configured to: when the changing is performed, store a subset of the setting contents on execution contents common in an execution form to the first execution device and the second execution device and delete the setting contents excluding the subset; and perform control on the presenter to cause the presenter to present the deleted setting contents to the user but not to present the stored subset to the user (e.g., a DevCaps file in ¶0094; and the DevCaps file 221 is a file obtained from deleting and/or changing the definition content obtained from the devCaps definition file of a printer apparatus; wherein it’s cancelling the function so that a printer B can carry out printing with other setting, ¶0071 - ¶0076 & ¶0135 along with Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the information processing system of Mizutani as taught by Kinoshita by adding a screen of Fig. 7 and ¶0135 would allow the user to cancel any function that is invalid in order to skip/ignore the provided function(s) and continue with the jobs in printer B; thereby improving operation efficiency by simplifying operations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Duran et al. (U.S PG Publication No. 2017/0123741 A1)1
Otsuka (U.S PG Publication No. 2020/0364006 A1)2
1This reference teaches when managed print jobs are received to be executed by a current image forming apparatus, the current image forming apparatus is changed to an alternate image forming apparatus before the print jobs are executed, abstract; transfer a job from the managed print jobs to the alternate image forming apparatus; and display that the transferred print job is sent to the alternate image forming apparatus; hence, the transferred print job is an inherent deleted job from the current image forming apparatus.
2This reference teaches a system receiving a list of print jobs ready to be printed; selecting an image forming apparatus, then delete setting from the lit of print jobs, and when the setting is deleted, display a message that the setting is deleted.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN M GUILLERMETY whose telephone number is (571)270-3481. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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 Q 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.
/JUAN M GUILLERMETY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights