DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or 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 .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
3. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a workflow construction unit”, “a workflow execution unit” and “a print data transmission unit” in claim 1; “a list acquisition unit” in claim 3; and “a print setting acquisition unit” in claim 5.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitations: CPU or ASIC (see Specification, paragraph 0249). It is noted that that the functions performed or controlled by CPU are disclosed in a manner that transforms the general CPU or the like to a special purpose CPU or the like programmed to perform the disclosed functions. That is, the various "unit" functions claimed are described in the specification in the form of prose and flow charts in a manner that provides sufficient structure.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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 § 102
7. 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.
8. 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 –
(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.
9. Claims 1-6, 11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KONG US Publication 2009/0009795 (hereinafter KONG).
Regarding claim 1, KONG discloses a system (an image forming system for the distributed printing and generating workflow, Figure 1) comprising:
a workflow construction unit (In host controller 380 /CPU, Figure 4) configured to construct a workflow that executes actions as individual processes in a predetermined order, the workflow including a print action that is a process related to printing, by using a system coordinating with a workflow platform (Workflow is provided to execute various jobs using diverse functions of the image forming apparatus 200. The workflow includes all information required for the job execution including information of a designated apparatus, an order of job processing, and a job condition. Using the stored workflows, the user merely selects one of the predefined workflows to automatically execute the selected workflow; paragraph 43);
a workflow execution unit (In host controller 380 /CPU, Figure 4) configured to execute the workflow (When receiving the workflow selected by the user from the host device 300, the image forming apparatuses 200 execute the job based on the received workflow; paragraph 45); and
a print data transmission unit (In host controller 380 /CPU, Figure 4) configured to transmit print data indicating a printed material to be printed by the print action to an image forming apparatus in a case where the print action is executed by the workflow execution unit (A distributed printing setup, comprising: a user interface (UI) generator to generate, when the generation of a workflow for a distributed printing using a plurality of image forming apparatuses is requested, a UI screen to generate the workflow; and a workflow generator to generate, when the image forming apparatuses are selected in the generated UI screen, the workflow by combining distributed printing setup of the selected image forming apparatuses to distribute a printing job of a file to be printed; paragraphs 121-125, Figures 5A-5B).
Regarding claim 2, KONG discloses the system according to Claim 1, wherein the workflow execution unit executes the workflow by executing the plurality of actions in a predetermined order (Device List is the menu to request displaying a list of the image forming apparatus. The Workflow Manager (W) is the menu to request generating the workflows. The Input (IN) displays the sources to provide the data to be used for the workflows; paragraphs 85-88, Figures 5A-5B).
Regarding claim 3, KONG discloses the system according to Claim 1, further comprising a list acquisition unit configured to acquire a list of the image forming apparatuses that can be used in coordination with the print data transmission unit in a case where the workflow including the print action is constructed by the workflow construction unit (a host controller to control, when user authentication is requested from one of the image forming apparatuses and the user authentication is completed, the communication unit to send a workflow list mapped and stored to the user to the one image forming apparatus; paragraphs 19, 59).
Regarding claim 4, KONG discloses the system according to Claim 3, wherein the list acquisition unit acquires a list of the image forming apparatuses from the print data transmission unit after confirming that the workflow platform and the print data transmission unit have already been coordinated (User can confirm the execution result using the workflow with the distributed printing plug-in set by logging in to the host device 300. When `Job History List` menu is selected in the UI screen; paragraphs 113-114, Figure 7).
Regarding claim 5, KONG discloses the system according to Claim 3, further comprising a print setting acquisition unit configured to acquire data related to a print setting related to the print action from the list acquisition unit according to the image forming apparatus selected from a list acquired by the list acquisition unit (a distributed printing setup includes a user interface (UI) generator to generate, when the generation of a workflow for a distributed printing using a plurality of image forming apparatuses is requested, a UI screen to generate the workflow, and a workflow generator to generate, when the image forming apparatuses are selected in the generated UI screen, the workflow by combining distributed printing setup of the selected image forming apparatuses to distribute a printing job of a file to be printed; paragraphs 21, 25, 27-28, 43, 47, Figures 5A-5B).
Regarding claim 6, KONG discloses the system according to Claim 5, wherein the print setting acquisition unit acquires data related to a print setting related to the print action by transmitting a print setting acquisition request to the print data transmission unit (workflow UI screens to generate the workflows related to transmit data the image forming apparatuses 200; paragraphs 81, 85, 88, Figures 5-6).
Regarding claim 11, KONG discloses the system according to Claim 1, wherein the workflow execution unit provides a notification by using the print execution unit in a case where the printing is successful or in a case where the printing has failed (UI generator may generate a UI screen illustrating success or failure of the distributed printing executed by the selected image forming apparatuses; paragraphs 20, 24, 71, Figure 8).
Claims 13 and 14 are directed to a method and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and recite identical features as claim 1. Thus, claims 13 and 14 are rejected for the same reasons discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 7-10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KONG in view of OKAYAMA U.S. Publication No. 2023/0251807 (hereinafter OKAYAMA).
Regarding claim 7, KONG discloses the system according to Claim 1.
KONG does not explicitly disclose wherein the workflow execution unit executes the workflow in a case where a workflow execution button provided to a client terminal by a chat service and displayed by the client terminal is pressed down.
However, OKAYAMA working in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the workflow execution unit executes the workflow in a case where a workflow execution button provided to a client terminal by a chat service and displayed by the client terminal is pressed down (a button event control process executed by the chat server and a type of a button event received from the chat application 701 is set in the received button 1108. Therefore, the chat server 20 receives a button event, such as a “print execution button”; paragraph 77, Figures 6-7). Such an arrangement provides user convenience.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have combined the system of KONG as taught by OKAYAMA, since doing so would have predictably and advantageously provided user convenience.
Regarding claim 8, KONG discloses the system according to Claim 1.
KONG does not explicitly disclose wherein the workflow construction unit constructs the workflow including the print action based on data provided to a client terminal by a chat service and input to a workflow editing screen displayed by the client terminal.
However, OKAYAMA working in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the workflow construction unit constructs the workflow including the print action based on data provided to a client terminal by a chat service and input to a workflow editing screen displayed by the client terminal (the chat application 701 running on the mobile terminal 40 or the mobile terminal 41 is notified of a message on the basis of the print job status received from the MFP 10 or the MFP 11. The notification control process is executed at a timing at which the chat server 20 receives the print job status from the MFP 10 or the MFP 11; paragraphs 32-33, 63, Figure 16 illustrating a chat screen displayed on an operation panel in mobile terminal). Such an arrangement provides user convenience.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have combined the system of KONG as taught by OKAYAMA, since doing so would have predictably and advantageously provided user convenience.
Regarding claim 9, KONG discloses the system according to Claim 1.
KONG does not explicitly disclose wherein the workflow construction unit determines a content of the print action based on data provided to a client terminal by a chat service and input to a print action setting screen displayed by the client terminal.
However, OKAYAMA working in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the workflow construction unit determines a content of the print action based on data provided to a client terminal by a chat service and input to a print action setting screen displayed by the client terminal (CPU 402 updates the screen displayed on the operation panel 401 to a display content corresponding to the type of the pressed button; paragraphs 82, 104). Such an arrangement provides user convenience.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have combined the system of KONG as taught by OKAYAMA, since doing so would have predictably and advantageously provided user convenience.
Regarding claim 10, KONG discloses the system according to Claim 1.
KONG does not explicitly disclose wherein the workflow execution unit provides a notification by using a chat service in a case where the printing is successful or in a case where the printing has failed.
However, OKAYAMA working in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the workflow execution unit provides a notification by using a chat service in a case where the printing is successful or in a case where the printing has failed (at least paragraphs 119-121, Figure 17). Such an arrangement provides user convenience.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have combined the system of KONG as taught by OKAYAMA, since doing so would have predictably and advantageously provided user convenience.
Regarding claim 12, KONG discloses the system according to Claim 1.
KONG does not explicitly disclose wherein the workflow execution unit provides a notification by using a chat service in a case when approval processing is executed.
However, OKAYAMA working in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the workflow execution unit provides a notification by using a chat service in a case when approval processing is executed (Message notification determination process is achieved by executing the chatbot program 601; paragraphs 128-130, Figure 9). Such an arrangement provides user convenience.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have combined the system of KONG as taught by OKAYAMA, since doing so would have predictably and advantageously provided user convenience.
Information Disclosure Statement
12. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 July 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner as indicated below.
13. Applicant has provided an explanation of relevance of cited document(s) JP2020-42436 in para. 2 (or on pg. 1) of the original specification and also provided a copy of English abstract.
14. Applicant has not provided an explanation of relevance of cited document(s) discussed below.
a. Reference US 11,163,512 (Kobashi) is a general background reference(s) covering a user interface for use in generating a workflow, which allows a user to easily set a process and to easily set a parameter of the process. In the middle of creating a workflow by adding or deleting processes, a user is allowed to set process parameters at the timing of issuing an instruction to add a process. Thus, the user is allowed to easily set the workflow. The process specifying area and the process parameter setting area are located on the same screen, and thus the user is allowed to easily perform setting operations, wherein the operations further comprise: performing a setting process to set a plurality of print parts for generating the print product; and displaying, on an edit screen, an icon corresponding to a print part set in the setting process, wherein the information processing apparatus displays a setting screen for a selected print part in response to a selection of the icon corresponding to the displayed part, wherein the operations further comprise generating a job for generating a product based on the generated workflow.
b. Reference US 11,726,733 (Kobashi) is a general background reference(s) covering controlling an information processing apparatus, the method comprising: displaying a first setting screen for generating a first print part among a plurality of print parts constituting a print product and for accepting, at least, an instruction to add processes including a processing process regarding post-print processing, accepting the instruction to add processes including a combining process of combining the plurality of print parts via the first setting screen, displaying a second setting screen for generating a second print part different from the first print part among the plurality of print parts and for accepting, at least, an instruction to add processes including a processing process regarding post-print processing, accepting the instruction to add processes other than the combining process and not accepting an additional instruction to add the combining process via the second setting screen, and based on the instruction to add processes accepted via the first setting screen and the instruction to add processes accepted via the second setting screen, generating a workflow for the print product constituted of the plurality of print parts, the workflow including the combining process for combining the plurality of print parts, wherein, when the second setting screen is displayed, a display indicating that an additional instruction to add the combining process is not acceptable is displayed in an identifiable manner.
Cited Art
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huster et al. (US 11,593,050) discloses a printing system for printing from a client computer at each of a first physical location and a second physical location, the system comprising: the client computer; a print server provided within an internal network of the first location; a cloud service configured to be accessed via the internet at each of the first and second locations; a first printer provided on the internal network of the first location; a second printer provided on an internal network of the second location; wherein the client computer comprises: identification means configured to identify whether the client computer is connected to the internal network at the first location or connected to the internal network at the second location; connection means configured to request configuration information that determines a workflow of the client computer from the cloud service, the request including location information identified by the identification means; and reception means configured to receive the configuration information from the cloud service, wherein the configuration information configures the client computer to perform: in a case where the identification means identifies that the client computer is connected to the internal network at the first location, a workflow to send print data to the print server for printing; and in a case where the identification means identifies that the client computer is on the internal network at the second location, a workflow from one of: storing the print data locally on the client computer for subsequent retrieval by the first or second printer for printing, sending the print data from the client computer to the second printer for storage at the second printer and subsequent printing, and sending the print data from the client computer to the cloud service for subsequent retrieval by the first or second printer for printing.
YAMAGUCHI (US 2013/0003119 A1) discloses a printing system, comprising: a post-processing apparatus configured to apply post processing to a sheet material output from a printing apparatus related to execution of a print job; and an information processing apparatus configured to manage a print workflow that associates an operation executed by the post-processing apparatus with a first operation performed by a worker managing the first operation or a serviceman maintaining the printing apparatus, wherein the information processing apparatus includes: a generation unit configured to generate a print workflow using the printing apparatus and the post-processing apparatus in accordance with a print setting condition set to the print job, an acquisition unit configured to acquire operation information related to a component to be replaced in the print job executed by the printing apparatus, a determination unit configured to determine whether the component needs to be replaced during the execution of the print job, based on the operation information acquired by the acquisition unit and print setting set to the print job, a distinguishing unit configured to distinguish, in response to the determination unit determining that the component needs to be replaced, whether the component is a component whose characteristic affects image quality or bookkeeping quality, a decision unit configured to decide an operation position where a component replacement operation is incorporated into a plurality of operations of the print workflow generated by the generation unit according to the characteristic of the component distinguished by the distinguishing unit, and an update unit configured to update the print workflow generated by the generation unit by incorporating the component replacement operation into the operation position decided by the decision unit.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am-4 pm.
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, ABDERRAHIM MEROUAN can be reached at (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.
/ALLEN H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights