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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
2. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Claim 1 recites the step of " an acceptor that accepts an operation of selecting an execution function from a first function installed in a first multifunction peripheral and a second function not installed in the first multifunction peripheral...” The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform both the ranking and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2A Prong Two: Claim 1 does not recite any additional elements beyond the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites a " an acceptor that accepts an operation of selecting an execution function from a first function installed in a first multifunction peripheral and a second function not installed in the first multifunction peripheral..", but this limitation does not limit the claim. Instead, it appears to indicate an intended use for the claimed method. As such, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: Since claim 1 does not recite any additional elements beyond the judicial exception as noted above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, then likewise the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception.
Dependent claims 2-12 do not cure the deficiencies noted above with respect to independent claim 1.
Claim 8, further defines the controlled plant. However, as noted above with respect to claim 1, this limitation does not limit the claim. As such, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 2 recites the additional element of a hardware platform for running said method. But these elements are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. Thus, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Further, mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept per Step 2B.
Claim 13 rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeda (US 20100007916).
Regarding claim 1, Ikeda teaches an information processing system comprising:
an acceptor that accepts an operation of selecting an execution function from a first function installed in a first multifunction peripheral (fig. 7 Copy) and a second function not installed in the first multifunction peripheral (fig. 7:Cooperative Fax); and a processing controller that executes the execution function in the first multifunction peripheral when the execution function is the first function (p0038: The MFP 102 is a digital multifunction peripheral that is equipped with only print and copy functions), and instructs a second multifunction peripheral in which the second function is installed to execute the execution function when the execution function is the second function (p0050: cooperative FAX application 404 is an application that provides users with the FAX transmission function in cooperation with the MFP 101. The MFP 102 itself does not have a FAX transmission function).
Regarding claim 2, Ikeda teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, further comprising a substitute register that registers a function installed in the second multifunction peripheral and the second multifunction peripheral in association with each other (p0050: by combining the document scanning by the scanner device 208 of the MFP 102 and the document transmission by the modem 211 of the MFP 101, the MFP 102 virtually behaves as an information processing apparatus having a FAX transmission function).
Regarding claim 3, Ikeda teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, further comprising: a displayer; and a display controller that causes the displayer to display the first function and the second function in a distinguishable manner (fig. 8: button label: “Cooperative Fax” is distinguishable from “Fax”).
Regarding claim 4, Ikeda teaches the information processing system according to claim 3, wherein the display controller causes the displayer to display, for the second function, a function that can be operated in the first multifunction peripheral and a function that cannot be operated in the first multifunction peripheral in a distinguishable manner (Fig. 8: word “Cooperative” is for the function that cannot be operated in the MPF, function “Copy” without “Cooperative” is for the function that can be operated in the MF)
Regarding claim 5, Ikeda teaches the information processing system according to claim 3, wherein the display controller causes the displayer to display, for the second function, a function that requires an operation in the second multifunction peripheral (fig. 8: function display with word “Cooperative”) and a function that does not require an operation in the second multifunction peripheral in a distinguishable manner (fig. 8: function display without word “Cooperative”).
Regarding claim 6, Ikeda teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, further comprising a determiner that determines whether the execution function is the first function (fig. 4: copy application and fig.7).
Regarding claim 7, Ikeda teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, further comprising a substitute determiner that determines whether there is the second multifunction peripheral when the execution function is the second function (p0061: A cooperative FAX tab 706 is specified to select the cooperative FAX application 404).
Regarding claim 9, Ikeda teaches the information processing system according to claim 3, wherein the display controller causes the displayer to display a function that can be executed in the first multifunction peripheral and a function that cannot be executed in the first multifunction peripheral in a distinguishable manner (fig. 8: function display with/without word “Cooperative”).
Regarding claim 10, Ikeda teaches the information processing system according to claim 7, wherein when the execution function is the second function or when the execution function is the first function and the first multifunction peripheral is not capable of executing the execution function(p0068), the substitute determiner determines whether there is a multifunction peripheral capable of executing the execution function, and wherein the processing controller instructs the multifunction peripheral capable of executing the execution function to execute the execution function (p0068: The CPU 201 of the MFP 102 transmits the scanned document and the FAX transmission settings (FAX number) to the MFP 101 and also serves as an instruction unit that instructs the MFP 101 to perform a cooperative job, that is, FAX transmission).
Regarding claim 13, The structural elements of apparatus claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 13. Thus, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 14 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Ikeda’s further teaching on: A computer-readable memory that contains instructions, which when executed by a processor perform steps in a method (p0039).
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.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawano (US 20240333855 ).
Regarding claim 8, Ikeda does not teach the information processing system according to claim 1, further comprising an error determiner that determines whether the first multifunction peripheral is capable of executing the execution function when the execution function is the first function.
Kawano teaches comprising an error determiner that determines whether the first multifunction peripheral is capable of executing the execution function when the execution function is the first function (0041:The failure detection unit 131 detects a failure in the multifunction peripheral 1).
Ikeda and Kawano are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Ikeda with the teaching of Kawano for purpose to perform appropriate repair at the time of on-site repair, and it takes time to restore the image recording apparatus (p0006).
Claims 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saito (US 20190364161).
Regarding claim 12, Ikeda does not teach the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein when the execution function can be executed and an operation is necessary in a plurality of second multifunction peripherals, the processing controller instructs a second multifunction peripheral installed closest to the first multifunction peripheral among the plurality of second multifunction peripherals to execute the execution function.
Saito teaches wherein when the execution function can be executed and an operation is necessary in a plurality of second multifunction peripherals, the processing controller instructs a second multifunction peripheral installed closest to the first multifunction peripheral among the plurality of second multifunction peripherals to execute the execution function (p0089: determines a printer which matches print specifications (for example, color and the like) in the print job of suspended printing and which is closest to the printer 1 as the other printer 101 to which the user is to be directed).
Ikeda and Saito are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Ikeda with the teaching of Saito for purpose to improving operability of a printer in the case where an error of the printer is to be removed (p0006).
Regarding claim 11, Ikeda in view of Saito teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processing controller notifies a location where the second multifunction peripheral is installed when the execution function requires an operation in the second multifunction peripheral (p0091:sends the user directing information used to direct the user to the other printer 101)
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 12 has been incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN Q ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1600. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
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, Merouan, Abderrahim can be reached on (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.
HELEN ZONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/HELEN ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights