CTNF 18/605,568 CTNF 83716 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions 08-05 AIA Claim 3 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/09/2026 . 08-25 AIA Applicant's election with traverse of species I in the reply filed on 04/09/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “a search for the subject matter of any one species would necessarily encompass a search for the subject matter of the other species. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that a search and examination of all claims could be made without serious burden” . This is not found persuasive because both species are mutually exclusive, species I the unavailability is determined when the files are the same while species II the unavailability is determined when the format is different, therefore it encompasses a different scope of search for each claim . The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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: communication unit, notification unit, in claims 1-2, 4-6. 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. The published specification in paragraphs [0020], [0031], [0042] and [0064] describes units being a CPU. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sera et al. (US 2020/0344364 A1) in view of Miyahara (US 2023/0168851 A1) . With respect to Claim 1 , Sera’364 shows a server device (paragraph [0022] SNS server 2) comprising: a communication unit (figure 1 SNS communication unit 22) configured to be able to communicate with a terminal device (figure 1 smartphone 1) via an SNS server device providing a social networking service (paragraph [0027] SNS server apparatus 2 exchanges messages with the smartphone 1) ; and a controller (figure 1 SNS controller 21) configured to be able to control whether printing is available at a printing device or not (paragraph [0027] SNS server apparatus 2 accepts print instruction information JA from the smartphone 1 to the printer 5) , [ ]. Sera’364 does not specifically show wherein the controller receives a second print instruction at a second time point after receiving a first print instruction at a first time point by the communication unit, and makes printing based on the second print instruction unavailable at the printing device when it is determined that a time period from the first time point to the second time point is shorter than a predetermined time period. Miyahara’851 show wherein the controller receives a second print instruction at a second time point after receiving a first print instruction at a first time point by the communication unit (paragraphs [0081]-[0089] “second” print instruction of print job generated (time period) in figure 5 S507 after a “first” print instruction of a job cancellation in S501) , and makes printing based on the second print instruction unavailable at the printing device when it is determined that a time period from the first time point to the second time point is shorter than a predetermined time period (paragraph [0095] a case where a user wants to cancel a print job (first print instruction) and immediately input the canceled job again (second print instruction), such as a case where the user inputs the print job by making a mistake in a print setting then cancel print job in S508 making the printing unavailable for that job, the claim language the time shorter than a predetermined time period being the immediate inputting of the canceled job again) . At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify Sera’364 to include wherein the controller receives a second print instruction at a second time point after receiving a first print instruction at a first time point by the communication unit, and makes printing based on the second print instruction unavailable at the printing device when it is determined that a time period from the first time point to the second time point is shorter than a predetermined time period method taught by Miyahara’851. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the system’s ability to be able to avoid the mistake of resending a recently canceled job improving printing efficiency (paragraph [0095]). With respect to Claim 2 , the combination of Sera’364 and Miyahara’851 shows the server device according to claim 1, wherein the first print instruction includes a first file or first data (in Miyahara’851: Figure 5 job cancellation for a print job in S501) , and the second print instruction includes a second file or second data (in Miyahara’851: figure 5 print job S507 same job of the cancellation instruction as shown in paragraph [0095]) , and the controller makes the printing based on the second print instruction unavailable at the printing device when it is determined that the first file and the second file are the same or when it is determined that the first data and the second data are the same, when it is determined that the time period from the first time point to the second time point is shorter than the predetermined time period (in Miyahara’851: paragraph [0095] a case where a user wants to cancel a print job and immediately input the canceled job again, such as a case where the user inputs the print job by making a mistake in a print setting) . With respect to Claim 4 , the combination of Sera’364 and Miyahara’851 shows the server device according to claim 1, further comprising: a notification unit that generates a notification, based on whether printing is available at the printing device or not (in Sera’364: paragraph [0060] notification unit 413 indicating that the print instruction information has been accepted) , wherein the notification unit generates a first notification when printing based on the first print instruction is made available at the printing device (in Sera’364: paragraph [0060] notification unit 413 indicating that the print instruction information has been accepted) , and generates a second notification when the printing based on the second instruction is made unavailable at the printing device (in Sera’364: paragraph [0085] notification unit 413 indicating that the print is: cancelled S119, expired S123 and incomplete in S131) , and the controller sends the first notification or the second notification to the terminal device via the SNS server device by the communication unit (in Sera’364: paragraph [0060] notifying via SNS) . With respect to Claim 5 , rejection analogous to those presented for claim 1, are applicable. With respect to Claim 6 , Sera’364 shows a print control system (figure 1 data processing system 100 ) comprising: an SNS server device that provides a social networking service (figure 1 SNS server 2) ; a server device configured to be able to communicate with a terminal device via the SNS server device (figure 1 smartphone 1, printer 5 and SNS server 2 ) ; and a printing device (figure 1 printer 5) , wherein the server device is configured to be able to control whether printing is available at the printing device or not (paragraph [0027] SNS server apparatus 2 accepts print instruction information JA from the smartphone 1 to the printer 5) , [ ]. Sera’364 does not specifically show receives a second print instruction inputted to the terminal device, at a second time point, after receiving a first print instruction inputted to the terminal device, at a first time point, from the SNS server device, and makes printing based on the second print instruction unavailable at the printing device when it is determined that a time period from the first time point to the second time point is shorter than a predetermined time period. Miyahara’851 receives a second print instruction inputted to the terminal device, at a second time point, after receiving a first print instruction inputted to the terminal device, at a first time point, from the SNS server device (paragraphs [0081]-[0089] “second” print instruction of print job generated (time period) in figure 5 S507 after a “first” print instruction of a job cancellation in S501) , and makes printing based on the second print instruction unavailable at the printing device when it is determined that a time period from the first time point to the second time point is shorter than a predetermined time period (paragraph [0095] a case where a user wants to cancel a print job (first print instruction) and immediately input the canceled job again (second print instruction), such as a case where the user inputs the print job by making a mistake in a print setting then cancel print job in S508 making the printing unavailable for that job, the claim language the time shorter than a predetermined time period being the immediate inputting of the canceled job again) . At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify Sera’364 to include wherein the controller receives a second print instruction at a second time point after receiving a first print instruction at a first time point by the communication unit, and makes printing based on the second print instruction unavailable at the printing device when it is determined that a time period from the first time point to the second time point is shorter than a predetermined time period method taught by Miyahara’851. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the system’s ability to be able to avoid the mistake of resending a recently canceled job improving printing efficiency (paragraph [0095]) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ishifune et al. (US 2021/0286572 A1) in paragraph [0552] even when a first job for a first printing instruction completes and then a second job for a second printing instruction is executed after a lapse of a predetermined time, the CPU 601 outputs the message as described above on the operation panel 626. By outputting the message as described above, it is possible to reduce occurrence of a conveyance malfunction again. Shiratori (US 2014/0376039 A1) shows in paragraph [0040] The SNS server 20 always analyzes the received postings, and it determines whether the postings are sent from the SNS account of the user, which is the monitor object, as a source or a destination, and when the posting data is the monitor object, it is sent to the printing control server 30 of the request source as a posting of the print target. Ido (US 2010/0309496 A1) shows in paragraph [0178] with the above-described configuration, in executing two-pass printing of CMYK image data and transparent image data, the present exemplary embodiment can prevent printing of another image data during a time period between the first passage printing operation and the second passage printing operation. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRIANA CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3246. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6. 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, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270- 3438. 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. /IRIANA CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/605,568 Page 2 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/605,568 Page 3 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/605,568 Page 4 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/605,568 Page 5 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/605,568 Page 6 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/605,568 Page 7 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/605,568 Page 8 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/605,568 Page 9 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/605,568 Page 10 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/605,568 Page 11 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/605,568 Page 12 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/605,568 Page 13 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/605,568 Page 14 Art Unit: 2681
Prosecution Insights