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 registration reception unit, an information acquisition unit, a registration setting unit in claims 1-5, 9 and 11.
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, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Udo (US Pub: 2021/0042074) and in further view of Brockway et al (US Pub: 20030115256).
Regarding claim 1, Udo teaches: A relay server [fig. 2: 104] coupled to a first printing service system and a second printing service system coupled to an image forming device [fig. 5: CPS 104 (MFPs, the second printing service system and CPS 105-107 the first.)], the relay server comprising: a registration reception unit configured to acquire a registration instruction for the image forming device [p0006]; an information acquisition unit configured to acquire information on the image forming device from the second printing service system when the registration instruction is acquired [fig. 5: S500a]; and a registration setting unit configured to register the image forming device in the first printing service system using the information on the image forming device acquired from the second printing service system [fig. 5: S500b].
Udo does not create client automatic setting. In the same field of endeavor, Brockway et al teaches: and to instruct the first printing service system to create client automatic setting information for registering the image forming device in a terminal device of a user [p0042-p0048]. Creating/updating client setting automatically upon registration/reconnection has been well practiced in the art as prescribed by Brockway et al. Therefore, given Udo’s teaching on acquiring info from physical MFP and registering a logical printer corresponding to the MFP, and Brockway et al’s automatically creating and synchronizing printer installation and configuration between server and client, 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 incorporate automatic client configuration technique into a cross cloud printer registration system to reduce administrative burden and improve productivity.
Claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Udo and Brockway’s further teaching on: A printing system comprising: a first printing service system; an image forming device; a second printing service system coupled to the image forming device; a terminal device coupled to the first printing service system; and a relay server coupled to the first printing service system and the second printing service system [Udo: figs. 1 and 7], the first printing service system transmits the client automatic setting information to the terminal device in response to a request from the terminal device, and the terminal device registers the image forming device in the terminal device using the client automatic setting information [Brockway: fig. 3].
Regarding claim 13, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 11 has been incorporated herein. Udo further teaches: The printing system according to claim 11, wherein the first printing service system acquires printing data from the terminal device, the relay server further includes a printing controller configured to relay, between the first printing service system and the second printing service system, information on a printing job for printing the printing data, and the image forming device executes printing of the printing data based on the information on the printing job relayed by the relay server [fig. 7: S703-S710].
Claim 14 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1.
Claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Udo’s further teaching on: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program, the program causing a computer of a relay server coupled to a first printing service system and a second printing service system coupled to an image forming device to execute operations [p0085].
5. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Udo (US Pub: 2021/0042074) and Brockway et al (US Pub: 20030115256); and in further view of Kawasaki (EP Pub: 3945409).
Regarding claim 2, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Udo in view of Brockway et al does not specify registration authority. In the same field of endeavor, Kawasaki teaches: The relay server according to claim 1, further comprising: a storage configured to store qualification information about a first user having first authority, wherein the registration reception unit acquires a registration instruction for the image forming device from a second user having second authority, which is authority more limited than the first authority, and the registration setting unit uses the qualification information on the first user stored in the storage when registering the image forming device in the first printing service system [abstract, p0046, p0049, p0050 (Registration from different authority can be permitted/prohibited.)]. Therefore, given Kawasaki’s disclosure on different user having different registration authority and Udo’s teaching on manager setting user 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 set different qualification information for different user for registration setting.
6. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Udo (US Pub: 2021/0042074) and Brockway et al (US Pub: 20030115256); and in further view of Kashiwazaki (US Patent: 6459497).
Regarding claim 3, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Udo further deletes print job in [fig. 7: S706]. In the same field of endeavor, Kashiwazaki teaches: The relay server according to claim 1, wherein the registration setting unit is configured to transmit, to the first printing service system, an instruction to delete the client automatic setting information stored in the first printing service system [abstract, col 3: lines 35-40]. Therefore, 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 transmit a deleting instruction for eliminating unnecessary information for freeing up memory space.
Regarding claim 4, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Udo in view of Brockway et al does not schedule for deleting. In the same field of endeavor, Kashiwazaki teaches: The relay server according to claim 3, wherein the registration setting unit sets a schedule such that the client automatic setting information stored in the first printing service system is deleted after a certain period of time elapses, and transmits, to the first printing service system, an instruction to delete the client automatic setting information based on the schedule [col 13: lines 1-6]. Therefore, 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 send a deleting instruction for registered info upon time expiration for data management.
Regarding claim 5, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 3 has been incorporated herein. Kashiwazaki teaches: The relay server according to claim 3, wherein the registration setting unit is configured to be capable of acquiring, from the first printing service system, identification information for specifying the client automatic setting information created by the first printing service system, and the registration setting unit transmits the identification information when transmitting an instruction to delete the client automatic setting information to the first printing service system [col 1: line 52-60, col 3: lines 23-30]. Therefore, 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 inform client of ID number for managing deletion of registered info per design choice.
7. Claims 6, 7, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Udo (US Pub: 2021/0042074) and Brockway et al (US Pub: 20030115256); and in further view of Styles (US Patent: 6,871,221) and Kawasaki (EP Pub: 3945409).
Regarding claim 6, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Brockway et al automatically starts setting registration when connect is made [fig. 3 210-216]. In the same field of endeavor, Styles teaches: The relay server according to claim 1, wherein the client automatic setting information is information used for registering the image forming device in the terminal device when the user logs in the terminal device [col 1: lines 45-67, col 2: lines 1-5].
For a redundant teaching in the same field of endeavor, Kawasaki discloses user login to obtain a token including authority info [p0046]. Therefore, given Styles and Kawasaki’s teaching on login triggered automatic printer registration, 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 automatically register when user logins for improving processing efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 6 has been incorporated herein. Kawasaki further teaches: The relay server according to claim 6, wherein the client automatic setting information includes access right information that defines a user who has access to the image forming device, and the image forming device is registered in the terminal device when the access right information in the client automatic setting information includes a user who logs in the terminal device [p0035].
Regarding claim 8, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 6 has been incorporated herein. Kawasaki further teaches: The relay server according to claim 6, wherein the client automatic setting information further includes identification information for specifying the image forming device [p0075].
Regarding claim 9, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Udo further teaches: The relay server according to claim 1, wherein the registration setting unit registers the image forming device in the first printing service system as a virtual device [p0023].
Regarding claim 10, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Udo further teaches: The relay server according to claim 1, wherein the relay server is provided in the second printing service system [figs. 1 and 7: CPS 104 (part of system with MFPs)]
Regarding claim 12, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 11 has been incorporated herein. Claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claims 2 and 6.
Contact
8. 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