CTNF 18/752,269 CTNF 74567 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claims 1 and 12 (and dependent claims 2–11 and 13–21) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (an abstract idea) without an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea—i.e., the coordination and communication of print data and notifications between a server, external apparatus, and an image forming apparatus—and the claims do not recite additional features that amount to an inventive concept. The recited ‘server’, ‘image forming apparatus’, and ‘one or more controllers having one or more processors and one or more memories’ are generic computer components that perform conventional functions such as rendering web content, displaying images, transmitting and receiving requests and data, polling for completion, and checking file formats. There is no specification-supported limitation describing a non-conventional arrangement, specialized hardware, novel data structures, or a particular algorithm that improves computer or network functionality. See Mayo, 566 U.S. 66; Alice, 573 U.S. 208; Enfish v. Microsoft, 822 F.3d 1327; BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, 827 F.3d 1341; Electric Power Group v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350. Alice Step 1 — Abstract idea The claims are directed to the abstract idea of coordinating, managing, and transferring print data between a server, an external apparatus, and an image forming apparatus (i.e., displaying rendered web content, issuing requests to obtain print data, notifying completion of reception, polling/receiving completion notifications, and then requesting/transferring print data for printing). In substance, the claims recite an information-handling, communication, and administrative workflow for moving print content from a source to a printer and coordinating the transfer. This is an abstract information-processing and business/administrative practice (collecting/receiving data, checking file formats, notifying completion, and triggering further transfers/printing), similar to paradigms found abstract in Alice and Electric Power Group. Alice Step 2 — Lack of an inventive concept The claims recite generic computer components (a “server,” “image forming apparatus,” and “one or more controllers having one or more processors and one or more memories”) performing routine functions: rendering web content, displaying a rendered image, transmitting/receiving requests and data, polling for completion, checking file format, and notifying of unprintable formats. These are well-known, conventional activities for networked devices and servers. The specification (as claimed) does not recite any unconventional server architecture, novel data structures, specific non-generic algorithms, or specialized hardware that provides a technological improvement to the computer or network itself. The claims do not, for example, recite a particular, non-conventional method of rendering, transferring or storing data that reduces computational complexity, reduces memory usage in a specific technical way, or changes the operation of the image forming apparatus beyond routine printing. Accordingly, the additional limitations amount to nothing more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components and conventional communications, and therefore fail to supply an “inventive concept” that would render the claims patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18; Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77–79; Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1353–54. Claims 2–11 and 13–21 are rejected for the same reasons. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claims 1-5, 7, 12-15 and 17 are r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a )(1) as being a nticipated b y I to US2012/0092689). R egarding Claim 1, Ito teaches a communication system comprising: “a server configured to render a web content” Ito: web application server group / printing service and web application servers provide web content and job-forming Web data (¶¶ [0028], [0053]–[0056]); “an image forming apparatus configured to form an image on a sheet, the image forming apparatus communicating with the server and displaying the rendered web content” Ito: cloud image forming apparatus (cloud printer) that receives pull print commands and acquires print data from the printing service; the system context shows communication between printer and servers (¶¶ [0031]–[0032], [0041]–[0044]). Ito also describes client UIs for job formation (¶¶ [0033]–[0036]); “one or more controllers … configured to: display a rendered image corresponding to a web content received from the server; transmit a first request relating to print data to the server through the rendered image displayed; receive print data from an external apparatus based on the first request; and transmit … a completion notification … to the image forming apparatus.” Ito: cloud printer driver and cloud port monitor display print-setting UI and receive user print instructions; the cloud port monitor transmits electronic data or a document URL to the printing service (¶¶ [0033]–[0036], [0037]–[0038]); the printing service converts electronic data to print data, stores it at a print-data URL, and notifies the port monitor (¶¶ [0041]–[0044]); the port monitor then transmits a pull print command to the printer which then requests and acquires the print data (S905–S912; ¶¶ [0037]–[0038], [0041]–[0044]). Conclusion: Ito discloses the claimed server, the image forming apparatus, the controllers, the UI-initiated request, server acquisition/processing of print data, and the notification/pull flow. Claim 1 is therefore anticipated by Ito. Regarding Claim 2 (dependent on 1), Ito further teaches the one or more controllers configured to: “receive the completion notification; and transmit, in a case where the completion notification is received, a second request relating to print data to the server.” printing service notifies cloud port monitor with print data URL; cloud port monitor then transmits pull print command to image forming apparatus; the image forming apparatus requests/acquires print data from printing service after pull command: ¶¶ [0037]–[0038], [0041]–[0044]. Regarding Claim 3 (dependent on 2), Ito further teaches the one or more controllers configured to: “transmit the print data to the image forming apparatus based on the second request; and cause the image forming apparatus to print an image on a sheet based on the print data transmitted from the server.” after pull command, printing control unit requests and acquires print data (S908‐S909) and then generates raster image and prints (S912): ¶¶ [0031]–[0032], [0044]. Regarding Claim 4 (dependent on 2), Ito further teaches the communication system: “wherein the second request is a request causing the server to transfer the print data to the image forming apparatus.” the pull print command causes the image forming apparatus to request and acquire the print data URL from the printing service — server transfers print data in response to the printer’s request: ¶¶ [0038], [0044]. Regarding Claim 5 (dependent on 1), Ito further teaches the communication system: “the one or more controllers configured to transmit a third request to the external apparatus, the third request being transmitted from the server to the external apparatus based on the first request.” when a client supplies a document URL (or the printing service must retrieve the document from a web application server), the printing service issues a document acquisition request to the web application server (second embodiment): ¶¶ [0055]–[0060]. Claim 7 (dependent on 1) “wherein the first request is a request causing the server to download the print data from the external apparatus.” Canon mapping: cloud port monitor / printing service obtains electronic data from web app or storage when provided a URL, and the printing service converts acquired electronic data into print data: ¶¶ [0037]–[0044], [0055]–[0056]. Regarding claim 12, the limitations of the claim are similar to the limitations as set forth in claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1 above. Noted that Ito expressly discloses a cloud printer (image forming apparatus) that receives a pull print command (containing print-data URL and print setting URL), then requests and acquires the print data from the printing service, and performs rasterization/printing (¶¶ [0031]–[0032], [0041]–[0044]; S907–S912). Regarding claims 13-15, the limitations of the claims are similar to the limitations as set forth in claims 2-4, respectively. Therefore, claims 13-15 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 2-4 above. Regarding claim 17, the limitations of the claim are similar to the limitations as set forth in claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 7 above . 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) 6, 8-11, 16, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Fukuoh (US2003/0197892) . Ito teaches the cloud print architecture (driver → port monitor → printing service → port monitor notifies → port monitor issues pull command → printer pulls data) including the print-data URL notification (¶¶ [0037]–[0038], [0041]–[0044], S901–S912). Ito also mentions chunked transfers for large electronic data (¶¶ [0037]–[0038]). Fukuoh teaches automatic format identification, judging whether a data file is PDL or application form, and conditional processing/conversion (¶¶ [0053], [0055], [0066]–[0075], [0070]–[0073]). Fukuoh further teaches acquiring files by URI and server-side retrieval from data servers (¶¶ [0016], [0066]–[0067], [0086]–[0087]), and server monitoring and status display functions (¶¶ [0048]–[0051], [0065]–[0075]). It would have been within the routine capability and expectation of a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ito’s cloud-print flow with Fukuoh’s teachings on format identification and server-side conditional processing. Specifically: Header/signature checks or lightweight MIME/header inspection to determine whether a document is already in a device-printable format (so as to avoid unnecessary conversion) are routine in file-handling/web servers. Fukuoh explicitly teaches format identification and conversion decision logic (¶¶ [0070]–[0073], [0079]–[0081]); applying that teaching to Ito’s printing service is an obvious modification to improve efficiency. Specifying common printable formats (e.g., PDF) is a routine, predictable concretization of a general conversion teaching. Shimomura’s format identification techniques encompass identifying specific application formats; thus identifying PDF as a printable format would be an obvious choice. If the server determines a file is unsupported/unprintable (e.g., an archive such as ZIP), it would have been routine to return an error/failure notification or an “unprintable format” message to downstream components (port monitor or printer UI). Shimomura describes status/monitoring and error handling for format/conversion processing (¶¶ [0049], [0065]–[0075]); thus providing a format-unprintable notification in Ito’s flow is an obvious adaptation. Polling (printer-initiated status queries) is a well-known alternative to server push. Although Ito uses an explicit pull-command then a one-time request, implementing polling semantics (printer periodically querying or polling to learn completion status) is a conventional networked device management technique and would have been obvious to try where push is not required/preferred. C. Conclusion on §103 Claims 6, 8–11, 16, and 18–21 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Ito in view of Fukuoh and common general knowledge in the printing/networking arts (see KSR). The combination teaches or makes obvious the claimed format inspection/acceptance behavior, printable/unprintable notifications (including PDF/ZIP), and polling-style completion notification alternatives. It would have been an obvious design choice to apply Shimomura’s format identification techniques to the printing service in Ito so that the server performs a lightweight header/metadata inspection and accepts only documents already in a device-printable format (claim 8), to identify common printable formats such as PDF (claim 9), to notify downstream components of unsupported/unprintable formats (claims 10, 11, 20, 21), and to use standard polling/status-query techniques as an alternative to push notification (claim 16). See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).”. The motivation statement will not be repeated as details provided in the rejections of Claims 6, 8–11, 16, and 18–21 below. Regarding Claims 6 (dependent on 1) and 16 (dependent on claim 12), Ito fails to teach “wherein the completion notification is a response of polling transmitted from the image forming apparatus to the server.” Ito uses a pull model (printer issues a request to acquire print data when instructed by a pull command). Ito describes the printer requesting print data (S908) rather than the printer polling repeatedly for completion status. Polling per se (periodic status queries) is not explicitly described: ¶¶ [0031]–[0032], [0038], [0044]. However, Fukuoh teaches server status/monitoring but not explicit polling mechanism; ¶¶ [0049],[0065]–[0075]. Polling is a routine alternative to push; not explicitly taught in Ito but would be obvious in view of Fukuoh’s status functions. Regarding Claim 8 (dependent on 1), Ito teaches printing service converts electronic data into print data and stores print data / settings, and port monitor sends electronic data/URL to printing service: ¶¶ [0037]–[0038], [0041]–[0044]. Ito does not describe a server-side preliminary check that determines printability without conversion and then selectively “accepts” or rejects a request based on that header-only inspection. However, Fukuoh teaches format identifying section, checks whether PDL or needs conversion, and conditional conversion logic; ¶¶ [0053],[0055],[0066]–[0075],[0070]–[0073]. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the invention was made to combine the teaching of Ito in view of Fukuoh because Fukuoh teaches format ID; applying that lightweight check in Ito’s printing service is routine/obvious. Regarding Claim 9, Ito describes print data generation and storage, but does not name PDF in the provided paragraphs. However, Fukuoh teaches format identification methods (expander, identification marks), but PDF not explicitly named in supplied text; ¶¶ [0070]–[0073]. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the invention was made to combine the teaching of Ito in view of Fukuoh because PDF is a conventional printable format; adding explicit PDF example is routine. Regarding Claim 10, Ito shows printing service notifies cloud port monitor of print data URL and the port monitor sends pull command to printer (¶¶ [0041]–[0044]), and describes notification success/failure flows (¶¶ [0059]–[0060], [0062]). Ito does not expressly teach an explicit “unprintable-format” notification from server to the image forming apparatus. However, Fukuoh teaches format identification and status/monitoring; server could indicate unsupported formats in status (¶¶ [0048]–[0051],[0065]–[0075]). Error/unsupported notifications are conventional and Fukuoh supports format detection. Regarding Claim 11, Ito fails to teach the communication system wherein the unprintable file format is a ZIP format. Ito discusses format conversion and acquisition, but does not call out ZIP archives. However, Fukuoh discusses checking expanders and file type but doesn’t explicitly name ZIP (format detection generally taught); ¶¶ [0070]–[0073]. ZIP archives are conventional unsupported containers. Regarding claims 18-21, the limitations of the claims are similar to the limitations as set forth in claims 8-11, respectively. Therefore, claims 18-21 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 8-11 above . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hayashi (US11726727) Server and Computer Program For Server. Kubota (US20180210685) Image Forming System and Image Forming Method. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENNY QUOC TIEU whose telephone number is (571)272-7490. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday. 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. 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. /BENNY Q TIEU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/752,269 Page 2 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/752,269 Page 3 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/752,269 Page 4 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/752,269 Page 5 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/752,269 Page 6 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/752,269 Page 7 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/752,269 Page 8 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/752,269 Page 9 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/752,269 Page 10 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/752,269 Page 11 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/752,269 Page 12 Art Unit: 2682
Prosecution Insights