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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamner et al. (US 5796951) in view of Estill (US 20100169144).
Regarding claim 1, Hamner teaches a management device capable of communicating with a device to be managed that performs a task, the management device comprising:
a storage that stores a task list used to manage the task (fig. 10: 1003: associated valid tasks with particular device or group); and a controller, wherein the controller acquires the task to be performed in the device to be managed and information regarding the device to be managed (abstract: The devices are organized into a plurality of groups. In response to a user input selecting a device or group, the tasks performable by that device or group are identified on the display),
Hamner does not tach generates a task group in a case that no task group is present to which the acquired task belongs, and registers the acquired task in the task list in a case that a task group is present to which the acquired task belongs, and the task for the device to be managed is not present in the task group.
Estill teaches generates a task group in a case that no task group is present to which the acquired task belongs, and registers the acquired task in the task list in a case that a task group is present to which the acquired task belongs, and the task for the device to be managed is not present in the task group (fig. 3: 310: identify task, and 330: add task to group).
Hamner and Estill are combinable because they both deal with management task. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Hamner with the teaching of Estill for purpose of managing business goal incentives.
Regarding claim 4, Hamner in view of Estill teaches a task management system comprising: a terminal device that receives an indication to perform a task to a device to be managed (fig. 1: PC), the device to be managed that performs the task; and a management device that stores a task list used to manage the task (management server 12 in fig. 1), wherein the management device acquires the task to be performed in the device to be managed and information regarding the device to be managed (fig. 10: 1003), generates a task group in a case that no task group is present to which the acquired task belongs, and registers the acquired task in the task list in a case that a task group is present to which the acquired task belongs, and the task for the device to be managed is not present in the task group, and the device to be managed performs the task registered in the task list (Estill: fig. 3: 310: identify task, and 330: add task to group).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 5, Hamner in view of Estill teaches the task management system according to claim 4, wherein the terminal device displays a first display screen including a list of the task group, and in a case that the task group is selected, displays a second display screen including a task list of tasks belonging to the selected task group (Estill: fig. 1D: status).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 4 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 6, Hamner in view of Estill teaches the task management system according to claim 5, wherein the terminal device displays, in the list of the task group, statuses of the tasks belonging to the task group (Estill: fig. 1D: status).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 4 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 7, Hamner in view of Estill teaches the task management system according to claim 6, wherein the terminal device displays, as the statuses of the tasks, the number of tasks being performed in the device to be managed among the tasks belonging to the task group (Estill: p0050: the status table 134 may include participant or group information (such as name, title, group name, members of group, and other data).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 4 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 8, The structural elements of apparatus claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 8. Thus, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamner in view of Estill as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mehra et al. (US 20140279895).
Regarding claim 2, Hamner in view of Estill does not teach the management device according to claim 1, wherein in a case that a task group is present to which the acquired task belongs, and a task for the processing device is already present in the task group, the controller cancels the acquired task.
Mehra teaches wherein in a case that a task group is present to which the acquired task belongs, and a task for the processing device is already present in the task group, the controller cancels the acquired task (p0097: If a task is encountered that involves a storage device that is already included in a given group, the task is skipped).
Hamner in view of Estill and Mehra are combinable because they both deal with management task. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Hamner with the teaching of Estill for purpose of ensuring resiliency of stored data against hardware failures (p0002).
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamner in view of Estill as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohhashi et al. (US 20210099601).
Regarding claim 3, Hamner in view of Estill does not teach the management device according to claim 1, wherein the controller deletes the task group in a case that all of the tasks belonging to the task group are completed or in a case that all of the tasks belonging to the task group are completed and a next new task group is generated.
Ohhashi teaches wherein the controller deletes the task group in a case that all of the tasks belonging to the task group are completed or in a case that all of the tasks belonging to the task group are completed and a next new task group is generated (p0077:The controller 30 deletes, from the group list, the group of which printing process has been completed).
Hamner in view of Estill and Ohhashi are combinable because they both deal with management task. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Hamner with the teaching of Ohhashi for purpose of grouping multiple accumulated image recording jobs as image recording jobs subjected to be executed collectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN Q ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1600. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Merouan, Abderrahim can be reached on (571) 270-5254. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
HELEN ZONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/HELEN ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights