DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f)
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a storage unit, a processing determination unit, a process management unit, in claims 1-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
4. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al (US Pub: 2003/0128384) and in further view of Dokai et al (US Pub: 2017/0243229).
Regarding claim 1, Nelson et al teaches: An industrial printing system that performs production printing having a plurality of print servers that performs distributed processing of a job, each of the plurality of print servers comprising [abstract]: a processing determination unit configured to determine other print server capable of processing the job based on the license information stored in the storage unit; and a processing management unit configured to send the job to the other print server determined to be capable of processing by the processing determination unit and requests processing [fig. 4: 43, 45, p0034].
Nelson et al does not disclose license information, in the same field of endeavor, Dokai teaches: a storage unit configured to store license information having date and time information of an available distribution destination for the distributed processing [p0035, p0036]; a processing determination unit configured to determine other print server capable of processing the job based on the license information stored in the storage unit [p0086-p0090].
Therefore, given Dokai’s prescription on controlling printing application based on validity/expiration of a license, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the two to decide whether to distribute jobs to a printer server based on status of its license for usage control purpose.
Regarding claim 2, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Dokai further teaches: The industrial printing system according to claim 1, wherein: the processing management unit of the other print server activates a connected component apparatus only at date and time set in the date and time information [p0032, p0036].
Regarding claim 4, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Dokai further teaches: The industrial printing system according to claim 1, wherein: the processing management unit transmits and receives the license information between the plurality of print servers and manages processing of the job [p0034].
Claims 6, 7, and 9 have been analyzed and rejected with regard to claims 1, 2, and 4 respectively.
Claims 11, 12, and 14 have been analyzed and rejected with regard to claims 1, 2, and 4 respectively.
5. Claims 3, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al (US Pub: 2003/0128384) and Dokai et al (US Pub: 2017/0243229); and in further view of Eda et al (US Pub: 2016/0132897).
Regarding claim 3, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Dokai further teaches: The industrial printing system according to claim 1, wherein: the processing management unit of the other print server determines whether or not the job is possible to be outputted based on settings of the license information, and when outputting is not possible, allows requesting print server to choose whether to cancel a processing request for the job or acquire another license [p0042, fig. 10].
Nelson et al in view of Dokai does not specify cancelling a request. In the same field of endeavor, Eda et al teaches cancelling a processing request for the job [p0038]. Therefore, given Eda et al’s exemplification on whether to cancel a job request depending on pre-assigned permission, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to choose to cancel a job request based on availability of license.
Claim 8 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 3.
Claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 3.
6. Claims 5, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al (US Pub: 2003/0128384) and Dokai et al (US Pub: 2017/0243229); and in further view of Yamada et al (US Pub: 2019/0079708).
Regarding claim 5, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Nelson et al in view of Dokai does not calculate processing time and cost of a job. In the same field of endeavor, Yamada et al further teaches: The industrial printing system according to claim 1, wherein: the processing management unit of the other print server calculates processing time and cost of the job based on the license information when requesting processing [abstract, p0017, p0018]. Therefore, given Yamada et al’s teaching on calculating cost of a print job and processing time by a print server, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to calculate cost and processing time of a print job to estimate profit associated with a license having specific features.
Claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 5.
Claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 5.
Contact
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682