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
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 3-11 are pending in this application [6/30/2026].
Title and Claims 1, 4-5, and 7-11 have been amended [6/30/2026].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-11 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 based on newly applied references Hill (US-2003/0041765) and Kitagawa (US-2006/0200389) with previously and currently used references Schwarz, Jr. that teaches job ticket includes a number of copies and Brahma that teaches usage data including the size of print job [See Rejections Below].
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 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(s) 1 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz, Jr. (US-6,476,927) [hereinafter Schwarz] in view of Hill (US-2003/0041765) and further in view of Brahma et al. (US-10,025,544).
As to Claim 1, Schwarz teaches ‘A server comprising one or more controllers that determine a transmission destination of a job to be processed by an image forming apparatus, the determination being based on summary information indicating a summary of the job and operation state information indicating an operation state of the image forming apparatus, wherein: the summary information includes a number of copies as information necessary for the server to determine the transmission destination of the job, the number of copies is a number of copies to be printed when the job is a print job that is executed, and the number of copies is determined based on a first operation input by a user [Fig 7, col 5, lines 10-16, col 5, line 62-col 6, line 7 – print server determines desired destination based on received print job ticket including a selected desired number of copies from a client and availability and current work load from printer devices]’.
Schwarz does not disclose expressly ‘the summary information includes a time limit, and a data size as information necessary for the server to determine the transmission destination of the job, the time limit is a completion time limit of the job determined based on a second operation input by the user, and the data size is a data size of the job’.
Hill teaches ‘the summary information includes a time limit as information necessary for the server to determine the transmission destination of the job, the time limit is a completion time limit of the job determined based on a second operation input by the user [Figs 3 (48), 4, par 0012, 0013-0016 – print job includes a printable file and any attributes that are set by a user including a number of copies and requesting that the print job be completed within 24 hours as a time limit, a number of copies and are included or a summary of the print job is in a print job bid assembled by print agent residing on a network server or other device]’.
Schwarz and Hill are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a time limit for completing a job, as taught by Hill. The motivation for doing so would have been to allowing a user to provide a time limit for completing a print job, such that a selection of the best print shop for printing is automatically selected. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hill with Schwarz to obtain the invention as specified.
Schwarz in view of Hill does not disclose expressly ‘the summary information includes a data size as information necessary for the server to determine the transmission destination of the job, and the data size is a data size of the job’.
Brahma teaches ‘the summary information includes a data size as information necessary for the server to determine the transmission destination of the job, and the data size is a data size of the job [col 2, lines 23-28, col 2, line 45-col 3, line 3, col 4, lines 20-56 – cloud services can prioritize new and current print jobs in print queues (i.e., standby jobs) of one or MFPs based on usage data including size of the print job, a number of pages and time the print job was requested]’
Schwarz in view of Hill are analogous art with Brahma because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include size of a print job and number of pages as usage data, as taught by Brahma. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimizing scheduling of print jobs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Brahma with Schwarz in view of Hill to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Further, in regards to claim 11, the server of claim 1 performs the information processing method of claim 11.
As to Claim 8, Schwarz teaches ‘An image forming apparatus included in an information processing system including an information processing apparatus, a server, and the image forming apparatus, connected to communicate with each other, wherein the image forming apparatus: transmits operation state information indicating an operation state of the image forming apparatus to the server [Figs 1, 7, col 5, line 62-col 6, line 7 – client computer, server and printer, where printer transmits availability and current work load to server], receives job to be processed by the image forming apparatus transmitted from the information processing apparatus based on transmission destination information indicating a transmission destination of the job determined by the server based on the operation state information and summary information indicating a summary of the job transmitted from the information processing apparatus to the server [col 4, lines 48-58, col 5, lines 1-16, col 5, line 62-col 6, line 7, col 6, lines 29-32 – selected printer receives print job from client computer based on server determination of the current work load of printer and job ticket received from client computer], and executes processing based on the received job [col 6, lines 29-33 – success or status of print job, inherently printer receives print job and prints it], the summary information includes a number of copies, the number of copies is a number of copies to be printed when the job is a print job that is executed, and the number of copies is determined based on a first operation input by a user [Fig 7, col 5, lines 10-16, col 5, line 62-col 6, line 7 – print server determines desired destination based on received print job ticket including a selected desired number of copies from a client and availability and current work load from printer devices]’.
Schwarz does not disclose expressly ‘the summary information includes a time limit, and a data size as information necessary for the server to determine the transmission destination of the job, the time limit is a completion time limit of the job determined based on a second operation input by the user, and the data size is a data size of the job’.
Hill teaches ‘the summary information includes a time limit as information necessary for the server to determine the transmission destination of the job, the time limit is a completion time limit of the job determined based on a second operation input by the user [Figs 3 (48), 4, par 0012, 0013-0016 – print job includes a printable file and any attributes that are set by a user including a number of copies and requesting that the print job be completed within 24 hours as a time limit, a number of copies and are included or a summary of the print job is in a print job bid assembled by print agent residing on a network server or other device]’.
Schwarz and Hill are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a time limit for completing a job, as taught by Hill. The motivation for doing so would have been to allowing a user to provide a time limit for completing a print job, such that a selection of the best print shop for printing is automatically selected. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hill with Schwarz to obtain the invention as specified.
Schwarz in view of Hill does not disclose expressly ‘the summary information includes a data size as information necessary for the server to determine the transmission destination of the job, and the data size is a data size of the job’.
Brahma teaches ‘the summary information includes a data size as information necessary for the server to determine the transmission destination of the job, and the data size is a data size of the job [col 2, lines 23-28, col 2, line 45-col 3, line 3, col 4, lines 20-56 – cloud services can prioritize new and current print jobs in print queues (i.e., standby jobs) of one or MFPs based on usage data including size of the print job, a number of pages and time the print job was requested]’
Schwarz in view of Hill are analogous art with Brahma because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include size of a print job and number of pages as usage data, as taught by Brahma. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimizing scheduling of print jobs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Brahma with Schwarz in view of Hill to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
As to Claim 9, Schwarz teaches ‘A non-transitory computer-readable medium having recorded thereon one or more instructions for causing an information processing apparatus to execute processing, the one or more instructions, when executed by one or more processors of the information processing apparatus, causing the one or more processors to perform processing comprising: when accepting an execution operation input for executing a job, generating summary information indicating a summary of the job based on the execution operation input; and transmitting the generated summary information to a server, wherein: the summary information includes a number of copies as information necessary for the server to determine a transmission destination of the job, the number of copies is a number of copies to be printed when the job is a print job that is executed, and the number of copies is determined based on a first operation input by a user [Fig 7, col 5, lines 10-16, col 5, line 62-col 6, line 7 – print server determines desired destination based on received print job ticket including a selected desired number of copies from a client and availability and current work load from printer devices]’.
Schwarz does not disclose expressly ‘the summary information includes a time limit, and a data size as information necessary for the server to determine the transmission destination of the job, the time limit is a completion time limit of the job determined based on a second operation input by the user, and the data size is a data size of the job’.
Hill teaches ‘the summary information includes a time limit as information necessary for the server to determine the transmission destination of the job, the time limit is a completion time limit of the job determined based on a second operation input by the user [Figs 3 (48), 4, par 0011-0016 – RAM, ROM and/or CD ROM that stores an application program where print job includes a printable file and any attributes that are set by a user including a number of copies and requesting that the print job be completed within 24 hours as a time limit, a number of copies and are included or a summary of the print job is in a print job bid assembled by print agent residing on a network server or other device]’.
Schwarz and Hill are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a time limit for completing a job, as taught by Hill. The motivation for doing so would have been to allowing a user to provide a time limit for completing a print job, such that a selection of the best print shop for printing is automatically selected. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hill with Schwarz to obtain the invention as specified.
Schwarz in view of Hill does not disclose expressly ‘the summary information includes a data size as information necessary for the server to determine the transmission destination of the job, and the data size is a data size of the job’.
Brahma in the proposed combination teaches ‘the summary information includes a data size as information necessary for the server to determine the transmission destination of the job, and the data size is a data size of the job [col 2, lines 23-28, col 2, line 45-col 3, line 3, col 4, lines 20-56 – cloud services can prioritize new and current print jobs in print queues (i.e., standby jobs) of one or MFPs based on usage data including size of the print job, a number of pages and time the print job was requested]’
Schwarz in view of Hill are analogous art with Brahma because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include size of a print job and number of pages as usage data, as taught by Brahma. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimizing scheduling of print jobs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Brahma with Schwarz in view of Hill to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
As to Claim 10, Schwarz teaches ‘wherein the processing further comprises, after receiving transmission destination information indicating the transmission destination of the job from the server, transmitting data of the job based on the transmission destination information [col 4, lines 54-62 – the printer driver within the client computer then sends the print job to the selected printer]’.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz, Jr., Hill, Brahma et al. and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US-2018/0293033).
As to Claim 3, Schwarz in view of Hill and Brahma teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claim 1. Schwarz in view of Hill and Brahma does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the operation state information includes at least an available capacity of a memory, a usage rate of a central processing unit (CPU), and information of a job being processed in the image forming apparatus’, although Schwarz teaches server receives current work load from printer device [col 5, line 62-col 6, line 7].
Yamaguchi in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the operation state information includes at least an available capacity of a memory, a usage rate of a central processing unit (CPU), and information of a job being processed in the image forming apparatus [Schwarz, Jr: col 5, line 62-col 6, line 7; Yamaguchi: Fig 6, par 0108-0113 – server periodically collects information pertaining to the usage status from a printer including storage capacity and usage rate]’.
Schwarz in view of Hill and Brahma are analogous art with Yamaguchi because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include collecting printer information, as taught by Yamaguchi. The motivation for doing so would have been to determining a target output device for a job. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yamaguchi with Schwarz in view of Hill and Brahma to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz, Jr., in view of Hill, Brahma et al. and further in view of Lo et al. (US-2023/0059211).
As to Claim 4, Schwarz teaches ‘further comprising a storage that stores data of the job [col 6, lines 47-51 – print server stores relevant specifications of print jobs]’.
While, Brahma teaches ‘the one or more controllers determine, based on any of a presence or absence of a standby job in a state of being stored in the storage, the time limit, and the number of copies of the job, an arrangement of the job with respect to the standby job [col 2, line 45-col 3, line 3, col 4, lines 20-30 – cloud services can prioritize new and current print jobs in print queue (i.e., standby jobs) and availability based on size and workload by print job scheduler]’.
Schwarz in view of Hill are analogous art with Brahma because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include “prioritizing jobs”, as taught by Brahma. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimizing scheduling of print jobs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Brahma with Schwarz in view of Hill to obtain the invention as specified.
Schwarz in view of Hill and Brahma does not disclose expressly ‘wherein in a case that the transmission destination is determined to be the server’.
Lo in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein in a case that the transmission destination is determined to be the server [par 0087 – control device of management apparatus acts as a confirmer that temporarily holds the print job, based on a predetermined threshold, and scheduled to be executed by the image forming apparatus]’.
Schwarz in view of Hill and Brahma are analogous art with Lo because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to include a management apparatus acting as a confirmer, as taught by Lo. The motivation for doing so would have been to improving image formation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lo with Schwarz in view of Hill and Brahma to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
As to Claim 5, Brahma in proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the one or more controllers determine the arrangement of the job with respect to the standby job in accordance with an order of respective time limits of the standby job and the job [Hill: Figs 3 (48), 4, par 0012, 0013-0016; Brahma: col 2, line 45-col 3, line 3, col 4, lines 20-56 – cloud services can prioritize new and current print jobs in print queue (i.e., standby jobs) based on size and workload by print job scheduler]’.
Schwarz in view of Hill are analogous art with Brahma because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include “prioritizing jobs”, as taught by Brahma. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimizing scheduling of print jobs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Brahma with Schwarz in view of Hill to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
As to Claim 6, Brahma in proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the one or more controllers transmit data of the standby job stored in the storage to the image forming apparatus based on the operation state information [Schwarz, Jr: col 5, lines 46-56; col 5, line 62-col 6, line 7; Brahma: col 2, line 45-col 3, line 3, col 4, lines 20-56 – cloud services can add print jobs to the schedule of the MFP and are processed]’.
Schwarz in view of Hill are analogous art with Brahma because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include “prioritizing jobs”, as taught by Brahma. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimizing scheduling of print jobs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Brahma with Schwarz in view of Hill to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz, Jr., in view of Hill, Brahma et al., Lo and further in view of Kitagawa (US-2006/0200389).
As to Claim 7, Schwarz in view of Hill, Braham and Lo teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in dependent claim 4 and independent claim 1. Schwarz in view of Hill, Braham and Lo does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the one or more controllers calculate a scheduled time at which processing of the job is completed based on the arrangement of the job with respect to the standby job’, although Hill teaches print job includes a printable file and any attributes that are set by a user including requesting that the print job be completed within 24 hours as a time limit [Hill: par 0011-0016], while Braham teaches cloud services can prioritize new and current print jobs in print queue (i.e., standby jobs) [Brahma: col 2, line 45-col 3, line 3, col 4, lines 20-56].
Kitagawa in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the one or more controllers calculate a scheduled time at which processing of the job is completed based on the arrangement of the job with respect to the standby job [Fig 12, par 0023, 0037-0038, 0105-0108, 0138-0139 – control apparatus calculates reference completion times of priority order and standard order jobs when an order can be completed at the time the order is received, based on the schedules of existing orders (i.e., standby orders) and displaying the reference completion time calculated]’.
Schwarz in view of Hill, Brahma and Lo are analogous art with Kitagawa because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to include calculating a completion time, as taught by Kitagawa. The motivation for doing so would have been to aid the user’s judgment of the system’s processing status. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kitagawa with Schwarz in view of Hill, Brahma and Lo to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Publication No. 2003/0041765
b. US Publication No. 2006/0200389
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
c. US Publication No. 2023/0221910
d. US Publication No. 2022/0360676
e. US Publication No. 2004/0021903
f. US Publication No. 2004/0145772
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA J CATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 830-530.
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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/MIYA J CATO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights