DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
In amendments dated 10/14/2025, applicant(s) amended claims 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23 and 30. Claims 1 – 30 are still pending in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/14/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In the remarks on page 10 the applicant notes that the informalities on claim 30 have been amended to overcome the prior claim objection. In view of the amendments to the informalities the prior claim objections regarding the informalities is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant(s) argue(s) on pages 10 – 13 that Kamath does not teach or suggest all limitations of any claims, wherein the applicant(s) point(s) out that Kamath does not teach or suggest at least the limitation of selecting a printer, from among the one or more printers comprised by the selected printing system, based at least in part on the document type. Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the following reasons: Examiner read the limitations of “selecting a printing system”, “determining a document type associated with the transaction”, and “selecting a printer based at least in part on the document type” as selecting an entity, determining a format for a print job; and selecting a printer from provided printers. Therefore, Kamath teaches that in order to select a specific printer, an entity must be selected. The determination of the format, under interpretation, is made while selecting the printer via a print driver, where a document format is required for a printer to understand. The entity corresponds to the printing system; the format for a print job corresponds to the document type made via at least the print driver via a client computer; and the selecting printer to charge the submitted print job corresponds to the printer to be selected in order to print the document type. However, after reading the arguments, examiner updated search according to the instant limitations, and since the applicant(s) filed a RCE, examiner added a new reference in order to specifically determine the document type. Argument still not persuasive. Furthermore, Kamath continues to meet the broad limitations of the claims. Accordingly, this argument fails to be persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 - 30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22 and 25 - 30 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kamath in view of Dutta (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2002/0063885 A1, hereinafter ‘Dutta’).
With respect to claim 1, Kamath teaches a method for causing a selected printing system to print a document (e.g., a method for causing a selected or determined print-related service to print a document, ¶0010), the method being performed by a computer system participating in a data network comprising a plurality of handheld devices and a plurality of printing systems (e.g., said method being performed by a server participating in a data network 106 comprising a portable device, multiple client computers and a plurality of print-related services, ¶0016 - ¶0018), each printing system comprising one or more printers (e.g., each print-related service includes one or more printers 102, ¶0014), and the method comprising: receiving via the data network, from a handheld device of the plurality of handheld devices, transaction information that is related to a transaction and location information specifying a physical location of the handheld device (e.g., receiving via network, from the portable device, payment information and location information indicating location of the portable device, ¶0017, ¶0023, ¶0030, Fig. 3 and Fig. 5); identifying a plurality of candidate printing systems based at least in part on the location information (e.g., identifying several print-related services based on the location information, ¶0009 - ¶0010, ¶0023 - ¶0024); selecting a printing system from among the candidate printing systems (e.g., selecting a print-related service, ¶0026); a document type associated with the transaction (e.g., a type of document (e.g., format) associated with the payment, ¶0023, ¶0036 - ¶0038); selecting a printer, from among the one or more printers comprised by the selected printing system, based at least in part on the document type (e.g., several print-related services (e.g., entity) based on location information, where a user should select any of the print-related services from the several print-related services in order to print with a particular printer (e.g., printer 102), said particular printer is also selected, however the type of document (format) is set (determined) before submitting print job(s) from a print server, server computer or a client computer, ¶0026, ¶0035 - ¶0038, Claim 10); and transmitting to the selected printing system, via the data network, information sufficient to cause the selected printer to print a document related to the transaction (e.g., upon submitting, transmitting to the selected printer, via network, information to cause the selected printer to print a document related to payment, ¶0030 - ¶0036); but fails to teach that said document type associated with said transaction is determined upon selecting the printing system.
However, Dutta teaches: determining a document type associated with a transaction (e.g., determining document content type associated with payment upon selecting advertisement (in terms of service/system), ¶0023 - ¶0028, ¶0031 - ¶0032; in order to accept and transmit print job to a printer, ¶0030 - ¶0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the computer program product of Kamath as taught by Dutta since Dutta suggested within ¶0023 - ¶0028 and ¶0031 - ¶0032 that such modification of determining a document type would ensure if document type matches appropriate advertisements prior sending a job with the determined document type; thereby facilitating the user working environment.
With respect to claim 2, Kamath in view of Dutta teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the selected printing system is at a physical location remote from the computer system (e.g., refer to Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 5, Kamath in view of Dutta teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the location information comprises GPS coordinates generated by the handheld device (e.g., a GPS location information associated with the portable device, ¶0023).
With respect to claim 6, Kamath in view of Dutta teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the selected printing system is at a physical location remote from the computer system (e.g., refer to Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 9, Kamath in view of Dutta teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the handheld device is at a physical location remote from the computer system (e.g., refer to Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 10, Kamath in view of Dutta teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the selected printing system is at a physical location remote from the computer system (e.g., refer to Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 13, Kamath in view of Dutta teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the location information comprises GPS coordinates generated by the handheld device (e.g., a GPS location information associated with the portable device, ¶0023).
With respect to claim 14, Kamath in view of Dutta teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the selected printing system is at a physical location remote from the computer system (e.g., refer to Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 17, this is a system claim corresponding to the method claim 1. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the method claim 1.
With respect to claim 18, this is a system claim corresponding to the method claim 5. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the method claim 5.
With respect to claim 21, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. The use of a non-transitory computer-readable storage media executed by at least a processor (CPU) as described in claim 21 is explicitly taught by ¶0040 of Kamath.
With respect to claim 22, Kamath in view of Dutta teaches the computer program product of claim 21, wherein the location information comprises GPS coordinates generated by the handheld device (e.g., a GPS location information associated with the portable device, ¶0023).
With respect to claim 25, Kamath in view of Dutta teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the selected printing system comprises a plurality of printers and selecting the printer comprises selecting, without further input from the user, one of the plurality of printers based on the document type (e.g., well-known in the art to automatically select a printer based on certain criteria met, ¶0023, ¶0033; and the criteria can be previously specified in a request, ¶0016 with ¶0028).
With respect to claim 26, Kamath in view of Dutta teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising approving the transaction based on the transaction information prior to transmitting to the selected printing system information sufficient to cause the selected printer to print the document (e.g., a user has selected a printer (or print service provider) and a print job has been submitted by the client computer 110, the server print software 124 receives the submitted print job. Upon receiving the print job, the server print software 124 performs a communication exchange to collect payment information such that the user can be charged for the submitted print job. The communication exchange can include receiving credit card information, in one example. In other implementations, other charging techniques can be employed. In other implementations, task 310 can be omitted. More generally, whether or not the communication exchange to collect payment information is performed is based on print service provider configuration, ¶0030; therefore it’s accepting, approving or confirming the payment using credit card information, ¶0030, Fig. 3 - 312).
With respect to claim 27, this is a system claim corresponding to the method claim 25. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the method claim 25.
With respect to claim 28, this is a system claim corresponding to the method claim 26. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the method claim 26.
With respect to claim 29, arguments analogous to claim 25 are applicable. The use of a non-transitory computer-readable storage media executed by at least a processor (CPU) as described in claim 25 is explicitly taught by ¶0040 of Kamath.
With respect to claim 30 (in which depend on claim 21), arguments analogous to claims 26 or 28 are applicable. The use of a non-transitory computer-readable storage media executed by at least a processor (CPU) as described in claim 30 is explicitly taught by ¶0040 of Kamath.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23 and 24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kamath in view of Dutta and further in view of Gindlersperger (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2009/0125415 A1, hereinafter ‘Gindlersperger’).
With respect to claims 3, 7, 11 and 15, Kamath in view of Dutta teaches the method of claims 1, 5, 9 and 13, respectively, but neither of them teaches: transmitting to the handheld device, via the data network, candidate information comprising default information associated respectively with a default one or more of the plurality of printing systems, the default one or more of the printing systems being designated before the receiving of the transaction information and before the receiving of the location information.
However, Gindlersperger teaches transmitting to the handheld device, via the data network, candidate information comprising wherein the candidate information comprises default information associated respectively with a default one or more of the plurality of printing systems, the default one or more of the printing systems being designated before the receiving of the transaction information and before the receiving of the location information (According to applicant’s specification in ¶0010, one of the embodiment of the invention is a method that comprises receiving from a handheld device, through one or more of the interfaces, one or more queries comprising information related to a transaction; approving the transaction based on the information comprised by the queries; selecting a printing system based on the information comprised by the queries; and transmitting to the selected printing system, though one of the interfaces, information sufficient to cause the printing system to print a document that is related to the transaction; Gindlesperger teaches that in response to a request price quotations/quotes (RFQ), a system transmits to a buyer, via a network 614 (Fig. 2a), a pool of vendors including at least a default vendor associated with a default selection, the default selection being identified/selected as a lowest bidding vendor before a receipt of a transaction approval and before entering geographical location of the vendor(s), ¶0001, ¶0012, ¶0036, ¶0042 - ¶0043, ¶0047 and ¶0058 - ¶0062).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the method of Kamath in view of Dutta as taught by Gindlesperger since Gindlesperger suggested in ¶0036, ¶0042 - ¶0043, ¶0047 and ¶0058 - ¶0062 of transmitting a vendor selection pool along with default selection would absorb administrative costs associated with establishing, maintaining, and managing a large database of vendors in order to improve competitiveness of their bidding, the buyer is often reluctant to do so because quality control becomes more difficult as the vendor pool increases or in order to satisfy user demand.
With respect to claims 4, 8, 12 and 16, Kamath in view of Dutta and further in view of Gindlersperger teaches the method of claim 3, 7, 11 and 15, respectively, wherein the selected printing system is at a physical location remote from the computer system (e.g., refer to Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 19, this is a system claim corresponding to the method claim 3. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the method claim 3.
With respect to claim 20, Kamath in view of Dutta and further in view of Gindlersperger teaches the computer system of claim 19, wherein the location information comprises GPS coordinates generated by the handheld device (e.g., a GPS location information associated with the portable device, ¶0023).
With respect to claim 23, it's rejected for the similar reasons as those described in connection with claim 3.
With respect to claim 24, Kamath in view of Dutta and further in view of Gindlersperger teaches the computer program product of claim 23, wherein the location information comprises GPS coordinates generated by the handheld device (e.g., a GPS location information associated with the portable device, ¶0023).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Koehl et al. (U.S PG Publication No. 2020/0162634 A1)1
Garvey et al. (U.S PG Publication No. 2007/0055639 A1)2
1This reference belongs to the same inventor of the instant application, wherein involves a method receiving transaction information related to transaction and location information specifying a first physical location of a handheld device from one handheld device through a data network. Candidate information, associated with one or more printing systems, is transmitted to the handheld device through the data network based on the location information. Selection information specifying a second physical location is received from the handheld device through the data network based on the candidate information. A transaction is approved based on the transaction information and the selection information. A printing system is selected based on the selection information, consequent to approving the transaction. Information that causes the selected printing system to print a document related to the transaction is transmitted to the selected printing system through the data network.
2This reference teaches a SP 1030 may determine which printing sites can produce the type of document selected by the customer based on printing and finishing services offered at each printing site and the printing site's capacity to produce documents of the selected type. The SP 1030 may then estimate fees for printing the document at each available site, and estimate fees for sending each document from each site to the corresponding delivery address. The SP 1030 may combine the fees for printing and sending each document to provide the customer with a report detailing the shipping cost, printing, and production fees. Then the customer may approve the transaction and provide payment information, such as a credit card number, prepaid account, or other approved payment method (stage 2120). The SP 1030 may confirm the payment by validating the payment information (stage 2130), such as by billing the credit card for the specified fees.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN M GUILLERMETY whose telephone number is (571)270-3481. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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 Q TIEU can be reached at 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 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.
/JUAN M GUILLERMETY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682