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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 03/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashida, US 2014/0067456 in view of Tsujimoto, US 2012/0147412.
Regarding claim 1, Kashida discloses a server system (system over the network as shown in fig. 1) comprising:
one or more memories that store instructions (one or more programs installed in memory of the information processing terminal 40, paragraph 36);
and one or more processors that execute the instructions to (program or programs cause the CPU to perform the process, paragraph 36):
transmit, to client terminal (printing apparatus 50), information about a first user interface for prompting a user to select a name of an application of a file to be printed among registered names of plurality of applications (printing data transmitting part 43 may transmit the generated printing data to the printing apparatus 50, the information relating to selection made via check box or list box by the user via the user interface regarding printing data to be printed based on selection result including user name of the employee, the job ID out of plurality of jobs to be printed belonging to various users, paragraphs 49-51);
receive the name of the application selected on the first user interface and the file to be printed from the client terminal (use log data and content log data which is based on the print setting information included in the printing data such as selection made by the user regarding job to be printed as explained above is received from the printing apparatus 50 and stored, paragraphs 29, 41);
and perform charging processing to a charging destination (user name or job ID) registered in association with the received name of the application based on printing of the file to be printed (printing cost related to the print job in the target use log, based on the target use log is computed, such as exactly how much will it cost in yen to a particular who selected the job to be printed is computed, paragraphs 62-64, 46).
Kashida fails to explicitly disclose perform registration processing for registering names of a plurality of applications and charging destinations of the applications designated in a client terminal in association with each other.
However, Tsujimoto teaches perform registration processing for registering names of a plurality of applications and charging destinations of the applications designated in a client terminal in association with each other (whether a use condition of the application is charged or is free of charge is stored associated with a corresponding application name, and in a case where the application received from the multifunction peripheral is charged it is determined that the job can be continued, and in a case where the application is free of charge, it is determined that the job cannot be continued, paragraphs 175, 280).
Kashida and Tsujimoto are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with charging costs associated with printing.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kashida to incorporate the teachings of Tsujimoto to perform registration processing for registering names of a plurality of applications and charging destinations of the applications designated in a client terminal in association with each other for the benefit of efficiently reducing the number of inquiries made in a mechanism of inquiring whether or not a limited number of sheets is exceeded, to perform a process within the limited number of sheets in a system capable of centrally managing, in a server, accounting functions such as authorization and counting and a use amount limit of a user as taught by Tsujimoto at paragraph 19.
Regarding claim 2, Kashida further discloses transmit, to an image forming apparatus (printing apparatus 50), a file requested to be printed by the image forming apparatus among stored files to be printed (printing data transmitting part 43 may transmit the generated printing data to the printing apparatus 50, the information relating to selection made via check box or list box by the user via the user interface regarding printing data to be printed based on selection result including user name of the employee, the job ID out of plurality of jobs to be printed belonging to various users, paragraphs 49-51), and wherein the charging processing is performed to the charging destination registered in association with the received name of the application after the transmitted file has been printed by the image forming apparatus (printing cost related to the print job in the target use log, based on the target use log is computed, such as exactly how much will it cost in yen to a particular who selected the job to be printed by the printing apparatus 50 is computed, paragraphs 62-65, 46).
Kashida fails to explicitly disclose store the received file to be printed.
However, Tsujimoto teaches store the received file to be printed (among the printing job data received by the transmission-and-reception section 101, the image data is stored in the image data storage section, paragraph 87).
Kashida and Tsujimoto are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with charging costs associated with printing.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kashida to incorporate the teachings of Tsujimoto to perform registration processing for registering names of a plurality of applications and charging destinations of the applications designated in a client terminal in association with each other for the benefit of efficiently reducing the number of inquiries made in a mechanism of inquiring whether or not a limited number of sheets is exceeded, to perform a process within the limited number of sheets in a system capable of centrally managing, in a server, accounting functions such as authorization and counting and a use amount limit of a user as taught by Tsujimoto at paragraph 19.
Regarding claim 5, Combination of Kashida with Tsujimoto further teaches wherein, in the registration processing, the names of the plurality of applications, the charging destinations of the applications, and default print settings of the applications are registered in association with each other based on designation from the client terminal (Tsujimoto, default setting based on designation made by a user such as whether a use condition of the application is to be charged for or whether it is free of charge is stored associated with a corresponding application name, and in a case where the application received from the multifunction peripheral is charged it is determined that the job can be continued, and in a case where the application is free of charge, it is determined that the job cannot be continued, paragraphs 175, 280), wherein the first user interface includes a list for prompting the user to select the name of the application of the file to be printed among the registered names of the plurality of applications, and a print setting set to the file to be printed (Kashida, printing data transmitting part 43 may transmit the generated printing data to the printing apparatus 50, the information relating to selection made via check box or list box by the user via the user interface regarding printing data to be printed based on selection result including user name of the employee, the job ID out of plurality of jobs to be printed belonging to various users, paragraphs 49-51), and wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to, when the name of the application of the file to be printed is selected from the list on the first user interface displayed on the client terminal, reflect a default print setting registered in association with the selected name of the application (Kashida, a display part to accept the employee's selection may be a check button, a list box, or the like. In any case, in the case in which the printing apparatus 50 is leased from the company to the employee, the print job may be initially selected for the work purposes by a default setting, for example, paragraph 49).
Kashida and Tsujimoto are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with charging costs associated with printing.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kashida to incorporate the teachings of Tsujimoto to perform registration processing for registering names of a plurality of applications and charging destinations of the applications designated in a client terminal in association with each other for the benefit of efficiently reducing the number of inquiries made in a mechanism of inquiring whether or not a limited number of sheets is exceeded, to perform a process within the limited number of sheets in a system capable of centrally managing, in a server, accounting functions such as authorization and counting and a use amount limit of a user as taught by Tsujimoto at paragraph 19.
Regarding claim 7, Kashida further discloses settlement information on the user is further registered (user name may be a log-in user name with respect to the information processing terminal 40, and the user name may be input from the print setting screen, which is included as identification information in the use log as the employee/user who utilizes the printing apparatus 50, paragraphs 41, 50), and wherein, in the charging processing, in a case where the received name of the application is private use, the charging processing is performed based on the registered settlement information on the user (employee may select via the print setting screen whether the print job is for private purposes or for work purposes, paragraph 49, wherein, printing cost related to the print job for private purposes is borne by the employee, and the printing cost related to the print job for work purposes is borne by the company such that the printing cost for private purposes may be deducted from the salary of the employee or printing cost for work purposes may be added to the salary of the employee, paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 8, which recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium version of claim 1, see rationale as applied above. Note that non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is taught by Kashida in claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, which recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium version of claim 2, see rationale as applied above. Note that non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is taught by Kashida in claim 7.
Regarding claim 12, which recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium version of claim 5, see rationale as applied above. Note that non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is taught by Kashida in claim 7.
Regarding claim 14, which recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium version of claim 7, see rationale as applied above. Note that non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is taught by Kashida in claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, is a method version of claim 1 reciting similar features and thus is rejected on the same rationale.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashida, US 2014/0067456 in view of Tsujimoto, US 2012/0147412 as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Abe, US 11,698,765.
Regarding claim 3, Kashida further discloses wherein a charge charged to the charging destination in the charging processing includes a charge relating to printing by the image forming apparatus (basic cost per side is 10 Yen, the printing cost may be computed from the following formula such as (printing cost)=10.times.(number of copies).times.(number of sheets per copy).times.(coefficient of paper size).times.(coefficient of color mode).times.(coefficient of printing side) [Yen], paragraph 64).
Kashida with Tsujimoto fails to explicitly teach wherein a charge charged includes a usage fee of server system.
However, Abe teaches wherein a charge charged includes a usage fee of server system (server system is connected to an accounting system that calculates a fee for the client terminal to use a service provided by the server system, and the server system sends the usage fee calculated by the accounting system to the client terminal, claim 7).
Kashida and Tsujimoto are combinable with Abe because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with charging costs in image processing environment.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kashida and Tsujimoto to incorporate the teachings of Abe such that charge charged includes a usage fee of server system for the benefit of providing a technique capable of easily obtaining a printed product in a timely manner by using a client terminal connected to a server system as taught by Abe in summary.
Regarding claim 10, which recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium version of claim 3, see rationale as applied above. Note that non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is taught by Kashida in claim 7.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashida, US 2014/0067456 in view of Tsujimoto, US 2012/0147412 further in view of Abe, US 11,698,765 as applied in claim 3 above and further in view of Kino, US 2011/0019821.
Regarding claim 4, Kashida with Tsujimoto and Abe fails to explicitly disclose after charging processing to charging destination is finished, distribute charge paid in the charging processing to a provider of image forming apparatus and a provider of server system.
However, Kino teaches after charging processing to charging destination is finished, distribute charge paid in the charging processing to a provider of image forming apparatus and a provider of server system (“manufacturer of the image forming apparatus 10, who has collected the fees at once, distributes the collected fees to other service providers (the operator of the OCR server 50 and the operator of the translation server 60, etc.) depending on the charging degree recorded in the job tracking data. The manufacturer of the image forming apparatus 10 and the other service providers may enter into an agreement in advance, as to how the charged fees are handled”, paragraph 118).
Kashida, Tsujimoto and Abe are combinable with Kino because they all are in the same field of endeavor dealing with charging costs in image processing environment.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kashida, Tsujimoto and Abe to incorporate the teachings of Kino for the benefit of providing a simple mechanism, which is implemented for charging fees for a service that is provided by collaboration of an image forming apparatus and an external application as taught by Kino at paragraph 12.
Regarding claim 11, which recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium version of claim 4, see rationale as applied above. Note that non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is taught by Kashida in claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: closest cited prior arts and other related prior arts fail to teach all the limitations of claim 6 such as “wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to transmit, to the client terminal, information about a second user interface for prompting the user to designate the names of the plurality of applications and the charging destinations of the applications on the client terminal, and wherein, in the registration processing, the names of the plurality of applications and the charging destinations of the applications designated using the second user interface on the client terminal are registered in association with each other”.
Claim 13 is a CRM version of claim 6 and recites similar features as claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takaishi et al., US 2009/0180141
Rai, US 2007/0091355
Dumitrescu et al., US 2006/0044597
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAWANDEEP DHINGRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-1231. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571) 270-5254. 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.
/PAWAN DHINGRA/Examiner, Art Unit 2683
/ABDERRAHIM MEROUAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2683