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
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 03/02/2026 for the application No. 18/773,789, Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-17 have been rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-17 are not compliant with 101, according with the last “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), published in the MPEP 2103 through 2106.07(c). Examiner’s analysis is presented below in the claims.
Claim 1: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a “delivery information provision server comprising a controller” (a system).
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim? Yes. The claim recites the limitations of
“ (c) determining, after receiving the one or more delivery …[information] , specific delivery …[information]… from among the one or more delivery….[ information] received …., the specific piece of delivery information corresponding to a winning bid among the one or more bids placed in the auction; (f) executing a waiting process to wait for progress information …., the progress information indicating progress of printing of the specific delivery …[information] ….; (g) determining whether or not results of the waiting process meet a predetermined condition, the predetermined condition corresponding to completion of the printing of the specific piece of delivery… [information]….”The “determining, executing” limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The delivery information provision server to hold an auction in which bids are solicited for use of an information delivery service. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. The claim recites additional limitations, such as,
“ (a) transmitting a bid solicitation request …the bid solicitation request requesting …. to hold an auction in which bids are solicited for use of an information delivery service; (b) receiving, …, one or more pieces of delivery information corresponding to one or more bids placed in the auction held in response to the bid solicitation request, each of the one or more pieces of delivery information being information designated as a target … in association with placement of the corresponding bid;” “(d) transmitting, in response to determining the specific delivery…[ information], a delivery decision notice …, the delivery decision notice being a notice of a decision to deliver the specific delivery…[ information] …. (e) transmitting the specific delivery ….[information]”; “(h) …transmitting, when determining that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition, winning bid rescission information …, the winning bid rescission information indicating that the winning bid has been rescinded.”
These are limitations toward sending or receiving data (gathering data). The Examiner analyses other supplementary elements in the claim in view of the instant disclosure: “A delivery information provision server comprising a controller, the controller being configured , a delivery information management server, to a printer as the information delivery service; to the printer; from the printer, delivery images, printing-related information for the specific delivery image, the printing-related information enabling the printer to print the specific delivery image; the executing including setting at least one timer, the determining including evaluating a time remaining on the at least one timer; the term “automatically”. All these elements are recited in a very generic way. They are generic computer elements and software.
The Examiner gives the broadest reasonable interpretation to the above elements. They are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements can also be considered no more than mere instructions “to apply” the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Thus, the claim is ineligible because is directed to the recited judicial exception (abstract idea).
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim,
“A delivery information provision server comprising a controller, the controller being configured , a delivery information management server, to a printer as the information delivery service; to the printer; from the printer, delivery images, printing-related information for the specific delivery image, the printing-related information enabling the printer to print the specific delivery image; the executing including setting at least one timer, the determining including evaluating a time remaining on the at least one timer; the term “automatically”, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic hardware and software cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B.
Here, the limitations:
“A delivery information provision server comprising a controller, the controller being configured , a delivery information management server, to a printer as the information delivery service; to the printer; from the printer, delivery images, printing-related information for the specific delivery image, the printing-related information enabling the printer to print the specific delivery image; the executing including setting at least one timer, the determining including evaluating a time remaining on the at least one timer; the term “automatically”, were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus the limitations are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Other limitations in the claim, such as:
“ (a) transmitting a bid solicitation request …the bid solicitation request requesting …. to hold an auction in which bids are solicited for use of an information delivery service; (b) receiving, …, one or more pieces of delivery information corresponding to one or more bids placed in the auction held in response to the bid solicitation request, each of the one or more pieces of delivery information being information designated as a target … in association with placement of the corresponding bid;” “(d) transmitting, in response to determining the specific delivery…[ information], a delivery decision notice …, the delivery decision notice being a notice of a decision to deliver the specific delivery…[ information] …. (e) transmitting the specific delivery ….[information]”; “(h) …transmitting, when determining that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition, winning bid rescission information …, the winning bid rescission information indicating that the winning bid has been rescinded.”
These are limitations toward accessing or receiving data (gathering data). Accessing or receiving data is very well understood, routine and conventional computer task activity; It represents insignificant extra solution activity. Mere data-gathering step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstaturory claim statutory In re Grams,888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794 (CCPA 1982)).
Further, the instant specification does not provide any indication that the elements
“A delivery information provision server comprising a controller, the controller being configured , a delivery information management server, to a printer as the information delivery service; to the printer; from the printer, delivery images, printing-related information for the specific delivery image, the printing-related information enabling the printer to print the specific delivery image; the executing including setting at least one timer, the determining including evaluating a time remaining on the at least one timer; the term “automatically”, were are anything other than generic software and hardware, and the OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); and v. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely computer receives and sends information over a network and presenting or displaying or printing information, is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “A delivery information provision server comprising a controller, the controller being configured , a delivery information management server, to a printer as the information delivery service; to the printer; from the printer, delivery images, printing-related information for the specific delivery image, the printing-related information enabling the printer to print the specific delivery image; the executing including setting at least one timer, the determining including evaluating a time remaining on the at least one timer; the term “automatically”, limitations (pointed above) are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 10: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a “delivery information provision server comprising a controller” (a system).
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim recited the additional limitations:
“a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor”, these limitations conform conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here. The Examiner gives the broadest reasonable interpretation. They are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 14: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a method.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above. .
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 15: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a method.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above. .
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-13 and 16-17, the claims recite elements such as
“wherein the controller is configured to further perform: (i) transmitting, when determining that the results of the waiting process meet the predetermined condition, a billing notice to the delivery information management server, the billing notice being a notice for charging a cost for delivering the specific delivery iimage”, etc. These elements do not integrate the system of organizing human activity into a practical application. The claims are ineligible.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 1-11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pg. Pub. No. 20010056396 (Goino) in view of US Pg. Pub. No. 20150261487 (FUJII) and in view of US Pg. Pub. No. 20050289040 (Lecker).
As to claims 1, 10, 14 and 15, Goino discloses a delivery information provision server comprising a controller, the controller being configured (see Fig. 1 and associated disclosure) to perform: (a) transmitting a bid solicitation request to a delivery information management server, the bid solicitation request requesting the delivery information management server to hold an auction in which bids are solicited for use of an information delivery service;
(“[0112] FIGS. 7A through 7D explain how a bid is conducted in each of the four types of time slide schemes provided for a seller and a buyer. The "due date advance scheme" in FIG. 7A is a scheme that preferentially determines a successful bidder as the person (bidder) who has offered the earliest possible trading date prior to the due date specified by a client (requester). Among bidders A, B, C who have offered trading dates prior to the specified due date, the bidder C, who has offered the earliest trading date, is determined to be the successful bidder”, paragraph 112 and Figs. 7A-7D.
“…The auction may have priority rules for determining a bidder for each period. Then, upon selection of an "OK" button 58 after required items have been entered on the screen T, bid condition data D4 including the data contents entered on the screen T is transmitted to the server 21. As appreciated, the items set on the screens R, S in FIG. 6, except for the bidding period, correspond to trade period conditions, while the items set on the screen T in FIG. 8, except for the bidding period, correspond to trade period conditions. Also, the article registration data D2 and the bid condition data D3, D4 constitute bid request information as bid information, and the screens R, S, T correspond to requesting screens”, paragraph 120 and Fig. 8.
See also “…some clients who request sale and purchase of articles in an auction may desire to reflect their requirements in articles due to a variety of circumstances. …”, paragraph 8);
(b) receiving, from the delivery information management server, one or more delivery images corresponding to one or more bids placed in the auction held in response to the bid solicitation request, each of the one or more delivery images being designated as a target of the information delivery service in association with placement of the corresponding bid;
(“… specific details (paying-in, delivery and so on) on the trading date for a payment or delivery of an article, requested to a partner, are specified. These bid condition data are transmitted to the server through a network, and the server collects participants in a bid on a home page…”, abstract.
“[0668] Video data is not limited to be transmitted to bidders for viewing video images on the bid screen. For example, a disaster situation may be determined by viewing a video image on the server side to make sure of appropriate rescuers and rescue capabilities …”, paragraphs 668-669.
See also, target of the information delivery “…these auction methods are such that an auction participant that offers the best price condition, i.e., a participant (buyer) that offers the highest price to a seller in a normal auction and a participant (seller) that offers the lowest price for a buyer in a counter-auction, is a successful bidder. Generally, a successful bidder should complete the transaction, i.e., by delivery of the article or the payment of the price, by a due date previously stipulated by rules”, paragraph 2.
“..The auction may have priority rules for determining a bidder for each period. Then, upon selection of an "OK" button 58 after required items have been entered on the screen T, bid condition data D4 including the data contents entered on the screen T is transmitted to the server 21. As appreciated, the items set on the screens R, S in FIG. 6, except for the bidding period, correspond to trade period conditions, while the items set on the screen T in FIG. 8, except for the bidding period, correspond to trade period conditions. Also, the article registration data D2 and the bid condition data D3, D4 constitute bid request information as bid information, and the screens R, S, T correspond to requesting screens”, paragraph 120).
(c) determining, after receiving the one or more delivery images, a specific delivery image from among the one or more delivery image received from the delivery information management server, the specific delivery information corresponding to a winning bid among the one or more bids placed in the auction;
(“[0573] As a result of an auction, information on a single successful bidder is basically transmitted to the client. However, if the client wishes, a plurality of narrowed down candidates may be presented, as illustrated in a list screen XD of FIG. 64. Specifically, the server 21 creates information offered by bidders, as it is, into a list, or creates a priority list by narrowing down successful bidder candidates of higher priority levels, for example, into a limited number specified by the client, based on information offered by bidders, and transmits the created list to the terminal 30 of the client. Then, the list XD illustrated in FIG. 64 is displayed on the terminal 30 of the client. The screen XD is provided with a list XD1, an entry field XD2 for selecting a successful bidder, and a decision button 192. The list XD1 indicates a priority number, a code number, and an element numerical value (values representative of time, position, space, weight, evaluation and so on), and conditions offered by a bidder (price, supplementary items (extra) and so on). The client reviews the offered conditions such as a trading date from the list XD1 on the screen XD to determine a bidder favorable for him as a successful bidder, enters, for example, the priority number of the winning bidder in the entry field XD2, and selects the decision button 192. In response, the server 21 notifies the client and the successful bidder of the successful bid. When the list XD1 can be viewed on the terminal 30 of the client in this way, the client can select a partner which offers favorable conditions in terms of another element such as the price, in addition to a specified element, if a plurality of bidders offer the same element numerical value, or can select a partner who may concede in the price, supplementary items and so on, even if the partner offers an element numerical value slightly worse than the first bidder…”, paragraph 573).
(d) transmitting, in response to determining the specific delivery image, a delivery decision notice to the delivery information management server, the delivery decision notice being a notice of a decision to deliver the specific delivery image[ to a printer] as the information delivery service;
(see Fig. 64 element 192);
the printing-related information enabling the printer to print ] the specific delivery image;
(“…The video is transmitted, for example, for a fixed period of time (for example, 10 seconds to 5 minutes) ….. The camera, in turn, may be for capturing a moving image or for capturing a still image”, paragraph 637.
“a request for a rescue can be made with an image of the accident or an image of the affair captured by the camera”, paragraph 659.
“[0668] Video data is not limited to be transmitted to bidders for viewing video images on the bid screen. For example, a disaster situation may be determined by viewing a video image on the server side to make sure of appropriate rescuers and rescue capabilities …”, paragraphs 668-669);
(e) transmitting printing-related information for the specific delivery image [to the printer], the printing-related information enabling [the printer to print ] the specific delivery image;
(“…in S400, the result of accepted bids is notified to the terminals 30B of the successful bidders, while the client is notified of the result of accepted bids [Examiner interprets as printing-related information for the specific delivery image ], and the totalized data and the result of the analysis on the data as required on the terminal 30A of the client. Subsequently, a trading contract is concluded between the client and the successful bidder”, paragraph 148 and Fig. 12
“…In response, the server 21 notifies the client and the successful bidder of the successful bid….”, paragraph 372.
“[0573] As a result of an auction, information on a single successful bidder is basically transmitted to the client….”, paragraph 573.
See also “[0668] Video data is not limited to be transmitted to bidders for viewing video images on the bid screen. For example, a disaster situation may be determined by viewing a video image on the server side to make sure of appropriate rescuers and rescue capabilities …”, paragraphs 668-669);
(f) executing a waiting process to wait for progress information [from the printer], the progress information indicating progress [of printing] of the specific delivery image [by the printer];
(Goino discuses progress of the specific piece of delivery information with an analogy, “…an auction is conducted with an element other than the price such as position, distance and time. In the second embodiment, the time is not the trading due date but a required period of time. The required period of time may be, for example, a waiting time for a taxi to arrive”, paragraph 162 and Figs 15-23. See also paragraphs 5-6);
the executing including setting at least one timer;
(see Figs. 6 and 7);
(g) determining whether or not results of the waiting process meet a predetermined condition, the predetermined condition corresponding [to completion of the printing] of the specific delivery image;
(Goino discuses the waiting process meet a predetermined condition, with an analogy, “…The respective taxi companies participate in the auction while offering position information on taxis of their companies. The server 21 in turn identifies the taxi which is positioned closest to the customer, as an acceptable bid condition based on the taxi position information, such that the customer determines this taxi as a successful bidder”, paragraph 167.See also paragraphs 5-6.
“[0669] For collecting bids of rescuers, it is possible to limit a bid collection area (region) since an area (region) in which rescuers can work is limited from position data [waiting process meet a predetermined condition] in the rescue request information received from a terminal of a requester. …”, paragraph 669);
the determining including evaluating a time remaining on the at least one timer;
(“[0026] FIG. 7A is an explanatory diagram for a time slide scheme that is a due date advance scheme;
[0027] FIG. 7B is an explanatory diagram for a time slide scheme that is a due date delay scheme;
[0028] FIG. 7C is an explanatory diagram for a time slide scheme that is a closest pre-due date scheme;
[0029] FIG. 7D is an explanatory diagram for a time slide scheme that is a closest post-due date scheme;”, FIGS. 7A through 7D and associated disclosure.
, “…0112] FIGS. 7A through 7D explain how a bid is conducted in each of the four types of time slide schemes [time limit ] provided for a seller and a buyer….”, paragraph 112);
[and (h) automatically transmitting, when determining that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition, winning bid rescission information to the delivery information management server, the winning bid rescission information indicating that the winning bid has been rescinded].
Goino does not disclose but FUJII discloses
the printer
(see abstract)
to completion of the printing
enabling the printer to print
(“…[0100] Back to FIG. 5, in Step S04, the print job and the job ticket are transferred to a specific MFP 2 that is a delivery address indicated by the print job transfer request received from the terminal apparatus 3. In Step S05, a print job history is obtained from the MFP 2; then it is judged in Step S06 whether or not the print job is already completed by the MFP 2. If it is not completed yet (NO in Step S06), the routine returns to Step S05 to repeat Steps S05 and S06….”, paragraph 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate FUJII’s teaching with the teaching of Goino. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to delivery information to a printer in order to allow “target users to receive prints without the need for any action” (see FUJII abstract and paragraph 7).
Goino does not disclose but Lecker discloses
and (h) automatically transmitting, when determining that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition, winning bid rescission information to the delivery information management server, the winning bid rescission information indicating that the winning bid has been rescinded
(“[0049] If no payment is received by the new expiration date [Examiner interprets as the predetermined condition], the current auction is nullified, the winning bidder is notified that the item will be re-listed and the item is re-listed as "Ready for Auction," (806), with a return to the process illustrated in FIG. 7”, paragraph 49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lecker’s teaching with the teaching of Goino. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to rescind or nullify a winning bid that does not meet established conditions (any condition) such as make payments before expiration day in order to support processing of a reliable auction system. (Lecker abstract).
As to claim 10, it comprises the same limitation than claim 1 above therefore the limitations are rejected in the same manner and further the claim comprises the following limitations
(e) setting a time limit, the time limit being a predetermined time limit within which a cost for delivering the specific delivery image is to be charged;
(Goino discloses, “…0112] FIGS. 7A through 7D explain how a bid is conducted in each of the four types of time slide schemes [time limit ] provided for a seller and a buyer….”, paragraph 112.
See also Goino discloses “Bid Condition Storage Unit” , paragraph 103 and FIG. 2. See also FIG. 14 and associated disclosure);
(f) transmitting printing-related information for the specific delivery image to the printer, the printing-related information enabling the printer to print the specific delivery image, where the timer is set after transmitting the printing related information;
(Goino teaches information on the item at action, “…nformation on the item at auction…”, paragraph 528.
Goino discusses auctioning a rescue request and sending information such an image about the rescue effort, “…The rescue requester can transmit required information including the position, video, and details on a rescue to the server only through manipulation on a button. The video is transmitted, for example, for a fixed period of time (for example, 10 seconds to 5 minutes) after a manipulation on the button. The camera, in turn, may be for capturing a moving image or for capturing a still image”, paragraph 637.”[0668] Video data is not limited to be transmitted to bidders for viewing video images on the bid screen. For example, a disaster situation may be determined by viewing a video image on the server side to make sure of appropriate rescuers and rescue capabilities such as rescue techniques and so on the service provider side and reflect the result of determination on the contents of the displayed bid screen”, paragraph 668).
Goino does not expressly disclose
the printing-related information enabling the printer to print the specific delivery image, where the timer is set after transmitting the printing-related information;
But, from Goino’s teaching of the executing including setting at least one timer (see Figs. 6 and 7 and associated disclosure ); and the Goino’s teaching of printed related information (see , “…information on the item at auction…”, paragraph 528) and information on the auction item, paragraphs 637 and 668); and Goino’s teaching of results of an auction after send information on the item at auction, “[0573] As a result of an auction, information on a single successful bidder is basically transmitted to the client. ….”, paragraph 573; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Goino’s teaching on the mentioned paragraphs 528, 573, 637 and 668, to arrive to the limitation “…to print the specific delivery image, where the timer is set after transmitting the printing-related information” and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Goino does not disclose
and (h) automatically transmitting, when receiving, within the time limit in the waiting process, the progress information indicating that the printing of the specific delivery image has been completed, a billing notice to the delivery information management server, the billing notice being a notice for charging the cost for delivering the specific delivery image.
Next, FUJII discloses
(h) automatically transmitting, when receiving, within the time limit in the waiting process, the progress information indicating that the printing of the specific delivery image has been completed,
(FUJII teaches, “…[0100] Back to FIG. 5, in Step S04, the print job and the job ticket are transferred to a specific MFP 2 that is a delivery address indicated by the print job transfer request received from the terminal apparatus 3. In Step S05, a print job history is obtained from the MFP 2; then it is judged in Step S06 whether or not the print job is already completed by the MFP 2. If it is not completed yet (NO in Step S06), the routine returns to Step S05 to repeat Steps S05 and S06….”, paragraph 100),
a billing notice to the delivery information management server, the billing notice being a notice for charging the cost for delivering the specific piece of delivery information.
(FUJII teaches, “[0101] If the print job is already completed by the MFP 2 (YES in Step S06), then in Step S07, a fee for the print job is billed to the user who gave the print job transfer request by operating the terminal apparatus 3”, paragraph 101).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate FUJII’s teaching with the teaching of Goino. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to delivery information to a printer in order to allow target users to receive prints without the need for any action (see FUJII abstract and paragraph 7 and claims 6 and 7).
As to claim 14, it comprises the same limitation than claim 1 above therefore the limitations are rejected in the same manner .
further the claim comprises
(g) determining whether or not results of the waiting process meet a predetermined
condition, the predetermined condition corresponding to completion of the printing of the
specific delivery image, the determining including evaluating a time remaining on the at least one timer;
(Goino discuses the waiting process meet a predetermined condition, with an analogy, “…The respective taxi companies participate in the auction while offering position information on taxis of their companies. The server 21 in turn identifies the taxi which is positioned closest to the customer, as an acceptable bid condition based on the taxi position information, such that the customer determines this taxi as a successful bidder”, paragraph 167.See also paragraphs 5-6.
“[0669] For collecting bids of rescuers, it is possible to limit a bid collection area (region) since an area (region) in which rescuers can work is limited from position data [waiting process meet a predetermined condition] in the rescue request information received from a terminal of a requester. …”, paragraph 669);
the determining including evaluating a time remaining on the at least one timer;
(“[0026] FIG. 7A is an explanatory diagram for a time slide scheme that is a due date advance scheme;
[0027] FIG. 7B is an explanatory diagram for a time slide scheme that is a due date delay scheme;
[0028] FIG. 7C is an explanatory diagram for a time slide scheme that is a closest pre-due date scheme;
[0029] FIG. 7D is an explanatory diagram for a time slide scheme that is a closest post-due date scheme;”, FIGS. 7A through 7D and associated disclosure.
, “…0112] FIGS. 7A through 7D explain how a bid is conducted in each of the four types of time slide schemes [time limit ] provided for a seller and a buyer….”, paragraph 112);
As to claim 15, it comprises the same limitation than claim 10 above therefore the limitations are rejected in the same manner .
As to claim 2, Goino does not disclose but FUJII discloses
wherein the controller is configured to further perform: (i) transmitting, when determining that the results of the waiting process meet the predetermined condition, a billing notice to the delivery information management server, the billing notice being a notice for charging a cost for delivering the specific image.
(“…[0100] Back to FIG. 5, in Step S04, the print job and the job ticket are transferred to a specific MFP 2 that is a delivery address indicated by the print job transfer request received from the terminal apparatus 3. In Step S05, a print job history is obtained from the MFP 2; then it is judged in Step S06 whether or not the print job is already completed by the MFP 2. If it is not completed yet (NO in Step S06), the routine returns to Step S05 to repeat Steps S05 and S06….”, paragraph 100.
“[0101] If the print job is already completed by the MFP 2 (YES in Step S06), then in Step S07, a fee for the print job is billed to the user who gave the print job transfer request by operating the terminal apparatus 3”, paragraph 101).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate FUJII’s teaching with the teaching of Goino. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to delivery information to a printer in order to allow target users to receive prints without the need for any action (see FUJII abstract and paragraph 7 and claims 6 and 7).
As to claim 3, Goino discloses
wherein, when in the waiting process the controller does not receive the progress information within a first time limit, the controller determines that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition, the first time limit being a predetermined time limit
(“Auction methods, auction systems and servers which can satisfy requirements other than the price for a client are provided. An auction client selects a desired one from time slide schemes from a terminal, and enters a due date in an associated entry field….”, abstract.
Goino discloses setting conditions in Fig. 2 element 23, “[0136] Next, a processing procedure involved in the due date slide type time auction will be explained with reference to FIGS. 2 and 11”, paragraph 136.
In Fig. 10 Goino discloses setting at least period and price conditions for an auction, Fig. 10, elements S70 and S80.
“…the server 21 receives an instruction to change the bid conditions…unless no bid acceptance indication is received from the terminal 30A of the client, the processing procedure from S210 to S260 is repeated to collect bidders until the expiration of the bidding period is determined in S260 [Examiner interprets as controller determines that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition]. Then, upon confirming the expiration of the bidding period in S260, the flow continues to S270”, paragraph 139 and Fig. 11.
See also change of bid conditions period and price, “… when the server 21 receives an instruction to change the bid conditions from the client in S350, the server 21 changes the bid condition data (period and price) stored in the bid condition storage unit 45. Then, unless the client sends the bid acceptance indication, the processing procedure from S310 to S360 is repeated to collect bidders until it is determined in S360 that the bidding period has expired [Examiner interprets as the first time limit being a predetermined time limit]”, paragraph 146 and Fig. 12);
within which the cost for delivering the specific piece of delivery information is to be charged,
(Goino teaches multiple times that bid conditions such as price [cost] or period can be changed, “bid condition changing instruction” in Fig. 11 element 240, or “… when the server 21 receives an instruction to change the bid conditions from the client in S350, the server 21 changes the bid condition data (period and price) stored in the bid condition storage unit 45. …”, paragraph 146);
Goino does not expressly disclose
wherein the controller is configured to further perform: (j) transmitting, when determining that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition, a print cancellation instruction to the printer in addition to transmitting the winning bid rescission information to the delivery information management server, the print cancellation instruction instructing the printer to cancel the printing of the specific piece of delivery image.
But Lecker discloses
and (j) transmitting, when determining that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition, a print cancellation instruction to the printer in addition to transmitting the winning bid rescission information to the delivery information management server, the print cancellation instruction instructing the printer to cancel the printing of the specific image.
(“[0049] If no payment is received by the new expiration date [Examiner interprets as the predetermined condition], the current auction is nullified, the winning bidder is notified that the item will be re-listed and the item is re-listed as "Ready for Auction," (806”), with a return to the process illustrated in FIG. 7”, paragraph 49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lecker’s teaching with the teaching of Goino. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to rescind or nullify a winning bid that does not meet established conditions such as make payments before expiration day in order to support processing of a reliable auction system. (Lecker abstract).
As to claim 4, Goino discloses
wherein, when the controller does not receive the progress information within a second time limit, the controller determines that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition, the second time limit being a predetermined time limit
(Goino’s system teaches an auction process that may have multiple time limits, first perio, second period, etc, “[0127] On the other hand, when the price slide setting type has been selected, slide periods are set in S70 on the slide price setting screen T of FIG. 8. For example, three periods including a first period to a third period may be set. However, the number of set slide periods is not limited to three and may be four or more. …”, paragraph 127 and Fig. 8
See also “Auction methods, auction systems and servers which can satisfy requirements other than the price for a client are provided. An auction client selects a desired one from time slide schemes from a terminal, and enters a due date in an associated entry field….”, abstract.
Goino discloses setting conditions in Fig. 2 element 23, “[0136] Next, a processing procedure involved in the due date slide type time auction will be explained with reference to FIGS. 2 and 11”, paragraph 136.
In Fig. 10 Goino discloses setting at least period and price conditions for an auction, Fig. 10, elements S70 and S80.
“…the server 21 receives an instruction to change the bid conditions…unless no bid acceptance indication is received from the terminal 30A of the client, the processing procedure from S210 to S260 is repeated to collect bidders until the expiration of the bidding period is determined in S260 [Examiner interprets as controller determines that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition]. Then, upon confirming the expiration of the bidding period in S260, the flow continues to S270”, paragraph 139 and Fig. 11.
See also change of bid conditions period and price, “… when the server 21 receives an instruction to change the bid conditions from the client in S350, the server 21 changes the bid condition data (period and price) stored in the bid condition storage unit 45. Then, unless the client sends the bid acceptance indication, the processing procedure from S310 to S360 is repeated to collect bidders until it is determined in S360 that the bidding period has expired [Examiner interprets as the second time limit being a predetermined time limit]”, paragraph 146 and Fig. 12);
Goino does not expressly disclose
within which the printing of the specific piece of delivery information is to be completed by the printer
and wherein the controller is configured to further perform: (k) transmitting, when determining that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition, a print cancellation instruction to the printer in addition to transmitting the winning bid rescission information to the delivery information management server, the print cancellation instruction instructing the printer to cancel the printing of the specific piece of delivery information.
But FUJII discloses
within which the printing of the specific piece of delivery information is to be completed by the printer
(“…[0100] Back to FIG. 5, in Step S04, the print job and the job ticket are transferred to a specific MFP 2 that is a delivery address indicated by the print job transfer request received from the terminal apparatus 3. In Step S05, a print job history is obtained from the MFP 2; then it is judged in Step S06 whether or not the print job is already completed by the MFP 2. If it is not completed yet (NO in Step S06), the routine returns to Step S05 to repeat Steps S05 and S06….”, paragraph 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate FUJII’s teaching with the teaching of Goino. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to delivery information to a printer in order to allow target users to receive prints without the need for any action (see FUJII abstract and paragraph 7).
Further, Lecker discloses
and wherein the controller is configured to further perform: (k) transmitting, when determining that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition, a print cancellation instruction to the printer in addition to transmitting the winning bid rescission information to the delivery information management server, the print cancellation instruction instructing the printer to cancel the printing of the specific delivery image
(“[0049] If no payment is received by the new expiration date [Examiner interprets as the predetermined condition], the current auction is nullified, the winning bidder is notified that the item will be re-listed and the item is re-listed as "Ready for Auction," (806), with a return to the process illustrated in FIG. 7”, paragraph 49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lecker’s teaching with the teaching of Goino. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to rescind or nullify a winning bid that does not meet established conditions such as make payments before expiration day in order to support processing of a reliable auction system. (Lecker abstract).
As to claim 5, Goino discloses
wherein, when the controller receives the progress information after a third time limit has passed, the controller determines that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition, the third time limit being a predetermined time limit within which the printing of the specific delivery image is to be completed by the printer.
(Goino’s system teaches an auction process that may have multiple time limits, first period, second period, third period, “[0127] On the other hand, when the price slide setting type has been selected, slide periods are set in S70 on the slide price setting screen T of FIG. 8. For example, three periods including a first period to a third period may be set. However, the number of set slide periods is not limited to three and may be four or more. …”, paragraph 127 and Fig. 8
See also “Auction methods, auction systems and servers which can satisfy requirements other than the price for a client are provided. An auction client selects a desired one from time slide schemes from a terminal, and enters a due date in an associated entry field….”, abstract.
Goino discloses setting conditions in Fig. 2 element 23, “[0136] Next, a processing procedure involved in the due date slide type time auction will be explained with reference to FIGS. 2 and 11”, paragraph 136.
In Fig. 10 Goino discloses setting at least period and price conditions for an auction, Fig. 10, elements S70 and S80.
“…the server 21 receives an instruction to change the bid conditions…unless no bid acceptance indication is received from the terminal 30A of the client, the processing procedure from S210 to S260 is repeated to collect bidders until the expiration of the bidding period is determined in S260 [Examiner interprets as controller determines that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition]. Then, upon confirming the expiration of the bidding period in S260, the flow continues to S270”, paragraph 139 and Fig. 11.
See also change of bid conditions period and price, “… when the server 21 receives an instruction to change the bid conditions from the client in S350, the server 21 changes the bid condition data (period and price) stored in the bid condition storage unit 45. Then, unless the client sends the bid acceptance indication, the processing procedure from S310 to S360 is repeated to collect bidders until it is determined in S360 that the bidding period has expired [Examiner interprets as the third time limit being a predetermined time limit]”, paragraph 146 and Fig. 12);
Goino does not expressly disclose
within which the printing of the specific piece of delivery information is to be completed by the printer
and wherein the controller is configured to further perform: (k) transmitting, when determining that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition, a print cancellation instruction to the printer in addition to transmitting the winning bid rescission information to the delivery information management server, the print cancellation instruction instructing the printer to cancel the printing of the specific piece of delivery information.
But FUJII discloses
the printing of the specific piece of delivery information is to be completed by the printer
(“…[0100] Back to FIG. 5, in Step S04, the print job and the job ticket are transferred to a specific MFP 2 that is a delivery address indicated by the print job transfer request received from the terminal apparatus 3. In Step S05, a print job history is obtained from the MFP 2; then it is judged in Step S06 whether or not the print job is already completed by the MFP 2. If it is not completed yet (NO in Step S06), the routine returns to Step S05 to repeat Steps S05 and S06….”, paragraph 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate FUJII’s teaching with the teaching of Goino. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to delivery information to a printer in order to allow target users to receive prints without the need for any action (see FUJII abstract and paragraph 7).
Further, Lecker discloses
and wherein the controller is configured to further perform: (k) transmitting, when determining that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition, a print cancellation instruction to the printer in addition to transmitting the winning bid rescission information to the delivery information management server, the print cancellation instruction instructing the printer to cancel the printing of the specific piece of delivery information
(“[0049] If no payment is received by the new expiration date [Examiner interprets as the predetermined condition], the current auction is nullified, the winning bidder is notified that the item will be re-listed and the item is re-listed as "Ready for Auction," (806), with a return to the process illustrated in FIG. 7”, paragraph 49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lecker’s teaching with the teaching of Goino. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to rescind or nullify a winning bid that does not meet established conditions such as make payments before expiration day in order to support processing of a reliable auction system. (Lecker abstract).
As to claim 6, Goino discloses
the controller determines that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition
(“…the server 21 receives an instruction to change the bid conditions…unless no bid acceptance indication is received from the terminal 30A of the client, the processing procedure from S210 to S260 is repeated to collect bidders until the expiration of the bidding period is determined in S260 [Examiner interprets as controller determines that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition]. Then, upon confirming the expiration of the bidding period in S260, the flow continues to S270”, paragraph 139 and Fig. 11),
Goino does not expressly disclose
wherein, when the controller receives the progress information indicating that the printing of the specific delivery image has not been completed, the controller determines that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition, and wherein the controller is configured to further perform:
(l) transmitting, when determining that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition, a print cancellation instruction to the printer in addition to transmitting the winning bid rescission information to the delivery information management server, the print cancellation instruction instructing the printer to cancel the printing of the specific delivery image.
But FUJII discloses
wherein, when the controller receives the progress information indicating that the printing of the specific piece of delivery information has not been completed,
(“…[0100] Back to FIG. 5, in Step S04, the print job and the job ticket are transferred to a specific MFP 2 that is a delivery address indicated by the print job transfer request received from the terminal apparatus 3. In Step S05, a print job history is obtained from the MFP 2; then it is judged in Step S06 whether or not the print job is already completed by the MFP 2. If it is not completed yet (NO in Step S06), the routine returns to Step S05 to repeat Steps S05 and S06….”, paragraph 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate FUJII’s teaching with the teaching of Goino. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to delivery information to a printer in order to allow target users to receive prints without the need for any action (see FUJII abstract and paragraph 7).
Further, Lecker discloses
and wherein the controller is configured to further perform: (l) transmitting, when determining that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition, a print cancellation instruction to the printer in addition to transmitting the winning bid rescission information to the delivery information management server, the print cancellation instruction instructing the printer to cancel the printing of the specific piece of delivery information.
(“[0049] If no payment is received by the new expiration date [Examiner interprets as the predetermined condition], the current auction is nullified, the winning bidder is notified that the item will be re-listed and the item is re-listed as "Ready for Auction," (806), with a return to the process illustrated in FIG. 7”, paragraph 49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lecker’s teaching with the teaching of Goino. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to rescind or nullify a winning bid that does not meet established conditions such as make payments before expiration day in order to support processing of a reliable auction system. (Lecker abstract).
As to claim 7, Goino discloses
transmitting the printing-related information
(“[0112] FIGS. 7A through 7D explain how a bid is conducted in each of the four types of time slide schemes provided for a seller and a buyer. The "due date advance scheme" in FIG. 7A is a scheme that preferentially determines a successful bidder as the person (bidder) who has offered the earliest possible trading date prior to the due date specified by a client (requester). Among bidders A, B, C who have offered trading dates prior to the specified due date, the bidder C, who has offered the earliest trading date, is determined to be the successful bidder”, paragraph 112 and Figs. 7A-7D.
“…The auction may have priority rules for determining a bidder for each period. Then, upon selection of an "OK" button 58 after required items have been entered on the screen T, bid condition data D4 including the data contents entered on the screen T is transmitted to the server 21. As appreciated, the items set on the screens R, S in FIG. 6, except for the bidding period, correspond to trade period conditions, while the items set on the screen T in FIG. 8, except for the bidding period, correspond to trade period conditions. Also, the article registration data D2 and the bid condition data D3, D4 constitute bid request information as bid information, and the screens R, S, T correspond to requesting screens”, paragraph 120 and Fig. 8.
See also “…some clients who request sale and purchase of articles in an auction may desire to reflect their requirements in articles due to a variety of circumstances. …”, paragraph 8);
Goino does not expressly disclose
wherein, in the transmitting the printer-related information, the controller also transmits an instruction to the printer, the instruction instructing the printer to perform the printing of the delivery image [even when the printer receives a print cancellation instruction from a user], the print cancellation instruction instructing the printer to cancel the printing of the specific delivery image.
But FUJII discloses
the controller also transmits an instruction to the printer, the instruction instructing the printer to perform the printing of the specific piece of delivery information [
(“…[0100] Back to FIG. 5, in Step S04, the print job and the job ticket are transferred to a specific MFP 2 that is a delivery address indicated by the print job transfer request received from the terminal apparatus 3. In Step S05, a print job history is obtained from the MFP 2; then it is judged in Step S06 whether or not the print job is already completed by the MFP 2. If it is not completed yet (NO in Step S06), the routine returns to Step S05 to repeat Steps S05 and S06….”, paragraph 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate FUJII’s teaching with the teaching of Goino. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to delivery information to a printer in order to allow target users to receive prints without the need for any action (see FUJII abstract and paragraph 7).
Further, Lecker discloses
and wherein the controller is configured to further perform:even when the printer receives a print cancellation instruction from a user, the print cancellation instruction instructing the printer to cancel the printing of the specific piece of delivery information.
(“[0049] If no payment is received by the new expiration date [Examiner interprets as the predetermined condition], the current auction is nullified, the winning bidder is notified that the item will be re-listed and the item is re-listed as "Ready for Auction," (806), with a return to the process illustrated in FIG. 7”, paragraph 49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lecker’s teaching with the teaching of Goino. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to rescind or nullify a winning bid that does not meet established conditions such as make payments before expiration day in order to support processing of a reliable auction system. (Lecker abstract).
As to claim 8, Goino discloses
[wherein, when the controller receives the progress information indicating that the printing of the specific piece of delivery information has been cancelled by a user], the controller determines that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition.
(“…the server 21 receives an instruction to change the bid conditions…unless no bid acceptance indication is received from the terminal 30A of the client, the processing procedure from S210 to S260 is repeated to collect bidders until the expiration of the bidding period is determined in S260 [Examiner interprets as controller determines that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition]. …”, paragraph 139 and Fig. 11),
Goino does not expressly disclose
…wherein, when the controller receives the progress information indicating that the printing of the specific delivery image has been cancelled by a use…
But Lecker discloses
…wherein, when the controller receives the progress information indicating that the printing of the specific piece of delivery information has been cancelled by a use…
(“[0049] If no payment is received by the new expiration date [Examiner interprets as the predetermined condition], the current auction is nullified, the winning bidder is notified that the item will be re-listed and the item is re-listed as "Ready for Auction," (806”), with a return to the process illustrated in FIG. 7”, paragraph 49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lecker’s teaching with the teaching of Goino. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to rescind or nullify a winning bid that does not meet established conditions such as cancellation by a user in order to support processing of a reliable auction system. (Lecker abstract).
As to claim 9, Goino discloses
wherein the controller is configured to further perform:(m) creating, when determining that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition, history information indicating that the controller determines that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition.
(“0139] In S230, when the server 21 receives a bid acceptance indication from the client, the flow continues to S270. In S240, if the server 21 receives an instruction to change the bid conditions from the terminal 30A of the client, the bid condition data stored in the bid condition storage unit 45 is changed. Then, unless no bid acceptance indication is received from the terminal 30A of the client, the processing procedure from S210 to S260 is repeated to collect bidders until the expiration of the bidding period is determined in S260 [Examiner interprets as , history information indicating that the controller determines that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition]….”, paragraph 139).
As to claim 11, Goino discloses
wherein, in the setting the time limit, the controller also sets another time limit, the another time limit being a predetermined time limit within which the printing of the delivery image is to be completed by the printer, and wherein, when receiving
(Goino discloses, “…0112] FIGS. 7A through 7D explain how a bid is conducted in each of the four types of time slide schemes [time limit ] provided for a seller and a buyer….”, paragraph 112.
See also Goino discloses “Bid Condition Storage Unit” , paragraph 103 and FIG. 2. See also FIG. 14 and associated disclosure);
Goino does not disclose
after the another time limit has passed in the waiting process, the progress information indicating that the printing of the specific piece of delivery information has been completed, the controller does not transmit the billing notice to the delivery information management server
but FUJII discloses
after the another time limit has passed in the waiting process, the progress information indicating that the printing of the specific piece of delivery information has been completed, [the controller does not transmit the billing notice] to the delivery information management server
(FUJII teaches, “…[0100] Back to FIG. 5, in Step S04, the print job and the job ticket are transferred to a specific MFP 2 that is a delivery address indicated by the print job transfer request received from the terminal apparatus 3. In Step S05, a print job history is obtained from the MFP 2; then it is judged in Step S06 whether or not the print job is already completed by the MFP 2. If it is not completed yet (NO in Step S06), the routine returns to Step S05 to repeat Steps S05 and S06….”, paragraph 100),
a billing notice to the delivery information management server, the billing notice being a notice for charging the cost for delivering the specific piece of delivery information.
(FUJII teaches, “[0101] If the print job is already completed by the MFP 2 (YES in Step S06), then in Step S07, a fee for the print job is billed to the user who gave the print job transfer request by operating the terminal apparatus 3”, paragraph 101).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate FUJII’s teaching with the teaching of Goino. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to delivery information to a printer in order to allow target users to receive prints without the need for any action (see FUJII abstract and paragraph 7 and claims 6 and 7).
Further FUJII does not disclose “information has been completed, the controller does not transmit the billing notice”.
But, from the teaching of FUJII of charging a fee for a printing job that has been completed (see FUJII paragraph paragraph 7 and claims 6 and 7), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to instruct the controller to transmit or not transmit or stop or suspend a billing notice and the results would have been predictable.
As to claims 16 and 17, Goino discloses
wherein the controller is configured to further perform: (n) transmitting, when determining that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition, [a print cancellation instruction to the printer, the print cancellation instruction instructing the printer to cancel the printing of the specific delivery image].
(Goino discuses progress of the specific piece of delivery information with an analogy, “…an auction is conducted with an element other than the price such as position, distance and time. In the second embodiment, the time is not the trading due date but a required period of time. The required period of time may be, for example, a waiting time for a taxi to arrive”, paragraph 162 and Figs 15-23. See also paragraphs 5-6); Goino also discloses a timer (time limit) (see Figs. 6 and 7);
Goino discuses the waiting process meet a predetermined condition, with an analogy, “…The respective taxi companies participate in the auction while offering position information on taxis of their companies. The server 21 in turn identifies the taxi which is positioned closest to the customer, as an acceptable bid condition based on the taxi position information, such that the customer determines this taxi as a successful bidder”, paragraph 167.See also paragraphs 5-6.
“[0669] For collecting bids of rescuers, it is possible to limit a bid collection area (region) since an area (region) in which rescuers can work is limited from position data [waiting process meet a predetermined condition] in the rescue request information received from a terminal of a requester. …”, paragraph 669);
Goino does not disclose but FUJII discloses
the printer
(see abstract)
to completion of the printing
enabling the printer to print
(“…[0100] Back to FIG. 5, in Step S04, the print job and the job ticket are transferred to a specific MFP 2 that is a delivery address indicated by the print job transfer request received from the terminal apparatus 3. In Step S05, a print job history is obtained from the MFP 2; then it is judged in Step S06 whether or not the print job is already completed by the MFP 2. If it is not completed yet (NO in Step S06), the routine returns to Step S05 to repeat Steps S05 and S06….”, paragraph 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate FUJII’s teaching with the teaching of Goino. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to delivery information to a printer in order to allow “target users to receive prints without the need for any action” (see FUJII abstract and paragraph 7).
Goino does not disclose but Lecker discloses
a print cancellation instruction to the printer, the print cancellation instruction instructing the printer to cancel the printing of the specific delivery image
(“[0049] If no payment is received by the new expiration date [Examiner interprets as the predetermined condition], the current auction is nullified, the winning bidder is notified …”, paragraph 49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lecker’s teaching with the teaching of Goino. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to cancell or nullify a winning bid that does not meet established conditions (any condition) such as make payments before expiration day in order to support processing of a reliable auction system. (Lecker abstract).
As to claim 13, Goino discloses
wherein the printing-related information includes one of:
image data of the specific delivery image; a page description language required for the printing of the specific delivery image; and a link to the specific deli very image.
(“… specific details (paying-in, delivery and so on) on the trading date for a payment or delivery of an article, requested to a partner, are specified. These bid condition data are transmitted to the server through a network, and the server collects participants in a bid on a home page…”, abstract.
“[0668] Video data is not limited to be transmitted to bidders for viewing video images on the bid screen. For example, a disaster situation may be determined by viewing a video image on the server side to make sure of appropriate rescuers and rescue capabilities …”, paragraphs 668-669.
See also, delivery images as a target of the information delivery “…these auction methods are such that an auction participant that offers the best price condition, i.e., a participant (buyer) that offers the highest price to a seller in a normal auction and a participant (seller) that offers the lowest price for a buyer in a counter-auction, is a successful bidder. Generally, a successful bidder should complete the transaction, i.e., by delivery of the article or the payment of the price, by a due date previously stipulated by rules”, paragraph 2. See also paragraphs 637 and 659 ).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pg. Pub. No. 20010056396 (Goino) in view of US Pg. Pub. No. 20150261487 (FUJII) in view of US Pg. Pub. No. 20050289040 (Lecker) and in view of US Pg. Pub. No. 20020186275 (Usui).
As to claim 12, Goino does not expressly disclose but Usui discloses
wherein the controller is configured to further perform: (i) estimating a print completion time on the basis of speed factor information, the print completion time being a time at which the printing of the specific delivery image is completed, the speed factor information being information related to a speed at which the printer performs processing of the specific piece of delivery information,
(“0048] (9) Prior to the printing of the printing data carried out on the plural printers, the request source can establish a length of time required for each of the plural printers for printing of the printing data, which has been estimated based on the progress of printing. This can improve the service to the request source”, paragraph 48.
“[0069] Management unit 10 manages a specification (an apparatus specification) of each printer 21 installed in station 20 based on a printing speed, printable sizes of paper, and a position of installation of each printer 21, which data are contained in apparatus specification tables 14, one created for each of the plural printers 21. Namely, management unit 10 manages the printing capability information of each printer 21”, paragraph 69),
and wherein the setting the time limit is performed on the basis of the print completion time estimated in the estimating.
(“0048] (9) Prior to the printing of the printing data carried out on the plural printers, the request source can establish a length of time required for each of the plural printers for printing of the printing data, which has been estimated based on the progress of printing. This can improve the service to the request source”, paragraph 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Usui’s teaching with the teaching of Goino. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to estimating a print completion time based on “printing capability information of each printer” in order to offer a good service.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments files on 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (remarks 10-11)
Applicant's representative also presented arguments distinguishing the claims (using
claim 1 and claim 10 as representative) from the applied references. For example, with respect to
claim 1, Applicant's representative argued that the cited hypothetical combination of references
fails to teach, suggest or render obvious at least the feature of "(h) automatically transmitting,
when determining that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined
condition, winning bid rescission information to the delivery information management server, the
winning bid rescission information indicated that the winning bid has been rescinded" as recited,
inter alia, in claim 1. As discussed, Leeker, which was cited in the OA as the alleged teaching,
merely teaches rescinding a winning bid when there is a failure to receive a payment which is
different from "when determining that the results of the waiting process do not meet the
predetermined condition (where the predetermined condition corresponds to completion of the
printing of the specific delivery image). A payment default by the winning bidder does not
suggest rescinding the bid for a printer-related issue, e.g., where the hardware, such that the printer, has failed to perform printing due to a printer error or delay in the printing.
With respect to claim 10, Applicant's representative argued that the cited hypothetical
combination of references fails to teach, suggest or render obvious at least the feature of "(h)
automatically transmitting, when receiving, within the time limit in the waiting process, the
progress information indicating that the printing of the specific delivery image has been
completed, a billing notice to the delivery information management server, the billing notice
being a notice for charging the cost for delivery the specific delivery image," as recited, inter
alia, in claim 10. As discussed, Fujii, which was cited in the OA as the alleged teaching, merely
teaches charging the cost for the printer after confirming the printing is completed. However, as
discussed Fujii does not teach the claimed dynamic control based on timing in combination with the completion, e.g., within the time limit in the waiting process".
In response the Examiner asserts that first of all, regarding to 35 U.S.C § 103 rejection, a prima facie of obviousness has been established. The combination Goino, FUJII and Lecker references discloses all the limitations in the claims. The Examiner respectfully notes that the applicant has not provided persuasive rebuttal evidence to overcome the prima facie case.
Secondly, again, a prima facie of obviousness has been established, based on Goino, FUJII and Lecker references. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Finally, applicants’ arguments seem to focus in the preferred embodiment and not in the fair teaching of the references. Goino’s system that is very strong in the business of auction methods, teaches almost all the limitations in the claims, see prima facie above. FUJII’s system teaches a print job transfer server, see at least abstract, paragraphs 7 and 100. Lecker’s system discloses functionality where the winning of a current auction is nullified because no meet predetermined condition(s) established and winning bidder is notified, “[0049] If no payment is received by the new expiration , the current auction is nullified, the winning bidder is notified …”, FIG. 7, paragraph 49. The combination of references shows that they are a strong bar against allowability of this case. There is not novelty at all in the instant claims.
Applicant argues (remarks 12-16)
…Claims 1-12 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as alleged directed to non-statutory
subject matter. Applicant respectfully disagrees with the rejection and traverses with at least the
reasons discussed in the Examiner Interview (summarized herein) and the following.
The OA relies on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (2019 PEG).
The OA asserts that features (c ), (f) and (g) are processes that "cover[] performance of the
limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity". OA at p. 3. Applicant respectfully
disagrees. Applicant notes that not "all methods of organizing human activity may be abstract".
Only methods including "fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging,
insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of
contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business
relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including
social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)" MPEP 2106.04(a).
It appears that the OA asserts that the above features are "advertising, marketing or sales
activities or behaviors"….
At least the above features in combination with "(h) automatically transmitting, when
determining that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition,
winning bid rescission information to the delivery information management server, the winning
bid rescission information indicating that the winning bid has been rescinded," integrate the
alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the waiting process and the
determination provide dynamic control and define interactions between the delivery information
provision server and the delivery information management server. For example, these features
solve a technical problem. Conventional delivery information systems do not take into account
how to handle situations where a printer fails to print a specific delivery image (associated with
the winning bid) such as where the progress information indicates a failure in the printing or
printing being incomplete or where the progress information is not received within a time (set on
a timer). The waiting process, determination and automatic transmission of the winning bid
rescission information (based on the determination) solves this technical problem.
This is a technical problem in the field of printing and delivery management systems. For
example, in particular, resource management, such as at the delivery information management
server (and winning bidder) are automatically controlled based on the waiting process (and
determination), e.g., automatic transmission. In other words, when there is a delay such as due to
a problem in the printer, the charging processing may be avoided. Thus, processing time (at the
delivery information management server) and at the winning bidders may not be wasted based on
features of the claims.
In response the Examiner agrees that the instant application is in compliance with the utility requirement. The claimed invention has a readily apparent well-established utility (see MPEP 2107). But, per MPEP 2106 an invention also must have to comply with the Subject Matter Eligibility test under Alice framework, see “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), published in the MPEP 2103 through 2106.07(c). The instant claims are directed to a Judicial exception. None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination, provides eligibility, because taken as a whole, the claim simply instruct the practitioner to implement an abstract idea with routine, conventional technology. Accordingly, the claims are ineligible. See complete and facially sufficient analysis of the rejection above.
Additionally, this case is not rejected under 101 only because the invention ability to run on a general purpose computer, but also because the detail facially sufficient analysis provided above, where the Examiner looked both the instant claims and the specification to elaborate Examiner's facially sufficient analysis. The additional elements in the instant claims do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea identified above, in this case the additional elements to the abstract idea are: “A delivery information provision server comprising a controller, the controller being configured , a delivery information management server, to a printer as the information delivery service; to the printer; from the printer, delivery images, printing-related information for the specific delivery image, the printing-related information enabling the printer to print the specific delivery image; the executing including setting at least one timer, the determining including evaluating a time remaining on the at least one timer; the term “automatically”. These elements do not: Improve another technology or technical field; Improve the functioning of a computer itself; Add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field; Add meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment; Improve computer related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer. (see MPEP 2106.05)
Claim 1 also recites a specific configuration and interaction between structural elements.
For example, the controller of the delivery information provision server transmits printingrelated
information for the specific delivery image to the printer, the printing-related information
enabling the printer to print the specific delivery image and automatically transmitting, when
determining that the results of the waiting process do not meet the predetermined condition,
winning bid rescission information to the delivery information management server, the winning
bid rescission information indicating that the winning bid has been rescinded. The transmitting in
(e) causes the printer to print the specific image and the transmitting in (h) causes the winning
bid to be rescinded. Causes the printing of a specific image is not abstract. The Official Action
improperly dismisses the transmitting features as "gathering data". OA at p. 4. These features are
part of a specific solution. Applicant respectfully directs the Examiner to USPTO Example 45
and hypothetical claim 2 and feature (d) "maintain temperature of the mold within two degrees
of the target temperature by sending a control signal to the apparatus to selectively heat or cool
the mold when the obtained temperature of the mold is more than two degrees different than the
target temperature." Guidance of October 2019 at p. 20. Using the Official Action's logic, this
would be interpreted to be merely a transmitting feature (sending a control signal) and "gathering
data".
In response the Examiner asserts that a prima facie of unpatentability has been established. Further, the Examiner looked both the instant claims and the specification to elaborate Examiner's facially sufficient analysis above. The Examiner considered each limitation or element in the claims individually and as a whole according with the guidelines published in the MPEP 2103 through 2106.07(c).
The 101 analysis presented above is facially sufficient, and presents why the elements in the claims are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and also are considered to be no more than mere instructions “to apply” the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Facially sufficient analysis to establish the prima facie of unpatentability very methodically points out the limitations that are part of the abstract idea and the classification of the abstract idea claimed herein “The delivery information provision server to hold an auction in which bids are solicited for use of an information delivery service. “ which is considered “Fundamental Economic Practice/Commercial Interaction”, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this falls under "certain methods of organizing human activity," which are categorized as abstract ideas.
Regarding to the allegation, “Applicant respectfully directs the Examiner to USPTO Example 45 and hypothetical claim 2 and feature (d) "maintain temperature …”, in response, the facially sufficient analysis also explains what limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the exception into a practical application or not amount to significantly more than the exception because the recitation of “A delivery information provision server comprising a controller, the controller being configured , a delivery information management server, to a printer as the information delivery service; to the printer; from the printer, delivery images, printing-related information for the specific delivery image, the printing-related information enabling the printer to print the specific delivery image; the executing including setting at least one timer, the determining including evaluating a time remaining on the at least one timer; the term “automatically”,
are mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements and software. These limitations are also well-understood, routine, conventional activity when expressed at this high level of generality.
Comparing the instant claims to Example 45, claim 2, the instant claims do not provide a technical improvement or specific, unconventional technology that amounts to "significantly more" than that abstract idea.
The action of transmitting "winning bid rescission information" based on a "waiting process" condition is a commercial or business interaction. Under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), again, this falls under "certain methods of organizing human activity". The recitation describes a generic data processing steps-transmitting information to a server-without specifying a technical, non-conventional mechanism for doing so. The "determining" that conditions are not met, unless defined by specific technical, non-conventional hardware, is considered a mental process or a human judgment. Contrary, the Example 45, claim 2 is eligible because example 45 independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2, involve a specific technical tool (a controller) that improves the functionality of a physical injection molding apparatus. The claims show how a computer/controller performs specific, non-conventional calculations to improve the physical molding process. In summary, again, the instant claims failure to provide “significantly more” (step 2B) to the abstract idea identified in the prima facie of unpatentability established in this case.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“A Cloud Reservation System for Big Data Applications”. IEEE. 2017.
“Emerging Big Data applications increasingly require resources beyond those available from a single server and may be expressed as a complex workflow of many components and dependency relationships-each component potentially requiring its own specific, and perhaps specialized, resources for its execution. Efficiently supporting this type of Big Data application is a challenging resource management problem for existing cloud environments. In response, we propose a two-stage protocol for solving this resource management problem. We exploit spatial locality in the first stage by dynamically forming rack-level coalitions of servers to execute a workflow component. These coalitions only exist for the duration of the execution of their assigned component and are subsequently disbanded, allowing their resources to take part in future coalitions. The second stage creates a package of these coalitions, designed to support all the components in the complete workflow. To minimize the communication and housekeeping overhead needed to form this package of coalitions, the technique of combinatorial auctions is adapted from market-based resource allocation. This technique has a considerably lower overhead for resource aggregation than the traditional hierarchically organized models. We analyze two strategies for coalition formation: the first, history-based uses information from past auctions to pre-form coalitions in anticipation of predicted demand; the second one is a just-in-time-that builds coalitions only when support for specific workflow components is requested.”
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MARIA VICTORIA VANDERHORST whose telephone number is (571)270-3604. The examiner can normally be reached on business hours from Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashraf Waseem can be reached on 571-270-3948. 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.
/MARIA V VANDERHORST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621 4/23/2026
Prosecution Insights