DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12, 15, 16, and 18-20 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/07/2026, with respect to Claim Objections of claims 1, 16 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Claim Objections of Claims 1, 16 and 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/03/2022, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-13, 15, 16, 18 and 19 under Odean (US PAT. No. 8,988,716 B1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hayashi (US PG. Pub. 2022/0179599 A1), wherein the new combination of Odean in view of Hayashi now teaches the amended limitations as required, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 14-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
6. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 14:
The prior art(s) searched, cited and/or of record fails to explicitly teach, disclose or suggest the teaching(s) of the system of claim 13, further including an information processing apparatus to print a print material,
wherein the permission/prohibition condition includes determining:
whether the print material is in a format specified by the entity,
whether printing of an Internet page is prohibited,
whether the print material includes a banned word, or
whether an amount of information of the print material is less than a first predetermined amount or greater than a second predetermined amount.
Regarding Claim 17:
The prior art(s) searched, cited and/or of record fails to explicitly teach, disclose or suggest the teaching(s) the action management method of claim 16, further including printing, by an information processing apparatus, a print material,
wherein the permission/prohibition condition includes determining:
whether the print material is in a format specified by the entity,
whether printing of an Internet page is prohibited,
whether the print material includes a banned word, or
whether an amount of information of the print material is less than a first predetermined amount or greater than a second predetermined amount.
Regarding Claim 20:
The prior art(s) searched, cited and/or of record fails to explicitly teach, disclose or suggest the teaching(s) the system of claim 19, wherein the permission/prohibition condition includes determining:
whether the print material is in a format specified by the entity,
whether printing of an Internet page is prohibited,
whether the print material includes a banned word, or
whether an amount of information of the print material is less than a first predetermined amount or greater than a second predetermined amount.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
8. The following is a quotation of 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.
9. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-13, 15, 16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odean (US PAT. No. 8,988,716 B1) in view of Hayashi (US PG. Pub. 2022/0179599 A1).
Referring to Claim 1, Odean teaches a system (See Odean, Fig. 1, Print System 100), comprising:
a storage (See Odean, Fig. 1, Cloud Print Service 102 and embedded storage units) that stores (See Odean, Col. 8 lines 34-43, the cloud print service 102 may include job storage 140 which may provide one or more types of data storage related to operations of the cloud print service 102 and may store print jobs and related information, where such print jobs/information may be stored prior to and/or after the format conversions provided by the format converter 136.):
a permission/prohibition condition that indicates whether an action is permitted/prohibited to be executed as an appropriative action (See Odean, Col 5 lines 54-58, the registration manager 126 may register a plurality of users and a plurality of printers, and may associate various subsets of users with various subsets of printers, depending on associated authorizations or permissions of the users/printers.), and
a usage amount (See Odean, Fig. 1, Usage Amount 137) related to the appropriative action for each user (See Odean, Col. 15 lines 13-16, the usage history 137 may track usage of printing privileges by the user 125 over time, so as to thereby provide an accounting thereof with respect to original printing privileges provided to the user 125.); and
a-circuitry (See Odean, Fig. 1, Embedded Units of System 100) configured to:
determine whether the action is permitted/prohibited to be executed as the appropriative action according to the permission/prohibition condition (See Odean, Col. 4 lines 60-65, the system 100 may be configured to determine to track a printing history of the user 125, add or subtract user print rights (e.g., with respect to available printers and/or quantity of printings permitted), and otherwise provide a printing experience that is convenient and enjoyable for the user 125, while beneficial for the provider 120.),
execute the action if the action is permitted to be executed as the appropriative action (See Odean, Col. 6 lines 47-52, the job submit API 132 may be configured to submit a corresponding print job, including application content to be printed and associated print characteristics, to a format converter 136, which may be configured to execute a conversion of the print job into a format which is consistent and compatible with the cloud-aware printer 118.),
store the usage amount related to the appropriative action in the storage (See Odean, Col. 10 lines 11-15, the accounts 127b may be used to store the usage history directly.).
Odean fails to explicitly teach
create a billing record for requesting compensation for a cost incurred by execution of the appropriative action.
However, Hayashi teaches
create a billing record for requesting compensation for a cost incurred by execution of the appropriative action (See Hayashi, Sect. [0043], On receipt of information on a reservation from the image forming apparatus 400, the reservation execution controller 213 obtains authentication destination information and billing destination information that are associated with the information on the reservation from the reserved document database 214, and returns the obtained items of information to the image forming apparatus 400. On receipt of a successful authentication report from an authentication server 300 via the image forming apparatus 400 and a document data request from the image forming apparatus 400, the reservation execution controller 213 obtains document data associated with the above-mentioned information on the reservation from the reserved document database 214, and transmits the obtained document data to the image forming apparatus 400, thereby allowing the user to form and output an image of the document data using the image forming apparatus 400.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Odean to incorporate the teachings of Hayashi to create a billing record for requesting compensation for a cost incurred by execution of the appropriative action. Doing so would providing a document management apparatus capable of outputting print data for which a print reservation has been made, after a user is authenticated using the user's authentication information at an authentication destination designated by the user upon making the print reservation, as recognized by Hayashi.
Referring to Claim 2, the combination of Odean in view of Hayashi teaches the system of claim 1 (See Odean, Fig. 1, Print System 100), wherein:
the storage further stores a completion status of a requested amount of the appropriative action based on the usage amount for each user (See Odean, Fig. 1, Col. lines 28-33, The job storage 140 stores status information whether a print job is completed or failed based on the job control API 143 responsible for authorizing the cloud-aware printer 118, and for receiving updated status information from the cloud-aware printer 118 in association with corresponding print job in question.), and
the circuitry (See Odean, Fig. 1, Embedded Units of System 100) is further configured to:
store the completion status of the requested amount of the appropriative action in the storage (See Odean, Col. 9 lines 28-33, The job control API 143 may be responsible for authorizing the cloud-aware printer 118 as needed, and for receiving updated status information from the cloud-aware printer 118, e.g., whether the print job has completed or failed. Such status information also may be stored using the job storage 140, in association with the corresponding print job in question.).
Odean fails to explicitly teach
provide a cost record relating to the requested amount of the appropriative action according to the usage amount stored in the storage.
However, Hayashi teaches
provide a cost record relating to the requested amount of the appropriative action according to the usage amount stored in the storage (See Hayashi, Sect. [0041] lines 1-8, The document data receiving unit 211 receives information on document data, authentication destination information, and billing destination information, which are sent from the terminal apparatus 100, and stores the document data, the authentication destination information, and the billing destination information in association with one another in the later-described reserved document database 214.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Odean to incorporate the teachings of Hayashi to provide a cost record relating to the requested amount of the appropriative action according to the usage amount stored in the storage. Doing so would providing a document management apparatus capable of outputting print data for which a print reservation has been made, after a user is authenticated using the user's authentication information at an authentication destination designated by the user upon making the print reservation, as recognized by Hayashi.
Referring to Claim 3, the combination of Odean in view of Hayashi teaches the system of claim 2 (See Odean, Fig. 1, Print System 100).
Odean fails to explicitly teach wherein
the circuitry is further configured to provide, for each user, the cost record relating to the requested amount of the appropriative action according to an input from each user.
However, Hayashi teaches
wherein
the circuitry is further configured to provide, for each user, the cost record relating to the requested amount of the appropriative action according to an input from each user (See Hayashi, Sect. [0080], The billing management server 500 performs a billing process by counting up the billing amount at the billing destination corresponding to the image-formed document data, and, in step S816, transmits a successful billing process report to the image forming apparatus 400. In step S817, the billing controller 424 and the display controller 421 of the image forming apparatus 400 display a screen reporting a successful billing process on the display device 405. Furthermore, the authentication start controller 422 of the image forming apparatus 400 deletes information such as the reservation code and the document data, and ends the process.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Odean to incorporate the teachings of Hayashi wherein the circuitry is further configured to provide, for each user, the cost record relating to the requested amount of the appropriative action according to an input from each user. Doing so would providing a document management apparatus capable of outputting print data for which a print reservation has been made, after a user is authenticated using the user's authentication information at an authentication destination designated by the user upon making the print reservation, as recognized by Hayashi.
Referring to Claim 4, the combination of Odean in view of Hayashi teaches the system of claim 2 (See Odean, Fig. 1, Print System 100), wherein
the circuitry is further configured to automatically generate an order of consumables used in the appropriative action in response to the usage amount exceeding a predetermined amount (See Odean, Col. 15 lines 46-61, if the user 125 has been provided with printing privileges associated with the printing of a certain number of pages, and the request print job exceeds the allowed number of pages, then the print request may be denied, after which a validity or extent of the provided printing privileges may be reduced or invalidated entirely. For example, a time limit may be associated with the customized personal identifier 124, e.g., an hour, a day, or a number of days, after which the user 125 may no longer be able to utilize the particular customized printer identifier 124. Generally, multiple time limits may be provided, at each of which a corresponding extent of printing privileges may be reduced.).
Referring to Claim 5, the combination of Odean in view of Hayashi teaches the system of claim 2 (See Odean, Fig. 1, Print System 100), wherein
based on a determination that the action is prohibited to be executed as the appropriative action (See Odean, Col. 9 lines 12-18, The print job router 138 may further be configured to monitor and mediate execution and success/failure of a given print job. The print job router 138 may thus be responsible for managing and monitoring ongoing print jobs from a plurality of users, including the user 125, which may be designated for a corresponding plurality of printers, including the cloud-aware printer 118.), the circuitry is further configured to display a message indicating that the action is prohibited to be executed as the appropriative action (See Odean, Col. 11 lines 41-44, the display 152 may be used to provide the customized printer identifier 124, and/or a current level of access rights (e.g., remaining number of sheets that may be printed) associated therewith.).
Referring to Claim 6, the combination of Odean in view of Hayashi teaches the system of claim 5 (See Odean, Fig. 1, Print System 100), wherein:
based on the determination that the action is prohibited to be executed as the appropriative action (See Odean, Col. 15 lines 44-46, if the requested print job is not allowed (316) in conjunction with the corresponding access rights (316), then the requested printing may be denied (318)), the circuitry is configured to display a message prompting a user to select whether to execute the action (See Odean, Col. 17 lines 11-14, an "open browser" button 416 may be selected by the user 125 to open a browser or other display window illustrating the desired document to be printed, so that the user may proceed with printing thereof.), and
when a selection received from the user indicates execution of the action, the circuitry is configured to execute the action (See Odean, Col. 16 lines 60-64, the user 125 may perceive to select a desired printer for use in printing the identified document. As shown, a portion 408 provides the user 125 with an instruction to scan a QR code associated with a nearby printer, e.g., the cloud aware printer 118).
Referring to Claim 7, the combination of Odean in view of Hayashi teaches the system of claim 1 (See Odean, Fig. 1, Print System 100), wherein:
the storage stores information as to an entity of each user (See Odean, Col. 8 lines 37-43, the job storage 140 may store print jobs and related information, where such print jobs/information may be stored prior to and/or after the format conversions provided by the format converter 136. For example, a print job may be stored in a printer-independent format in which the print job may have been received by the job submit API 132.), and
the permission/prohibition condition indicates at least one of (See Odean, Col. 5 lines 54-58, the registration manager 126 may register a plurality of users and a plurality of printers, and may associate various subsets of users with various subsets of printers, depending on associated authorizations or permissions of the users/printers.):
whether the action is provided with a format specified by the entity (See
Odean, Col. 6 lines 47-57, The job submit API 132 may be configured to submit a corresponding print job, including application content to be printed and associated print characteristics, to a format converter 136, which may be configured to execute a conversion of the print job into a format which is consistent and compatible with the cloud-aware printer 118. For example, the job submit API 132 may receive a print job, and, to give a specific and non-limiting set of examples, a hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) multi-part request which may include the printer capabilities expressed, e.g., in XPS, as well as a MIME type identifying the content type.); or
whether the usage amount related to the appropriative action exceeds a
threshold value that is set in advance (See Odean, Col. 15 lines 46-50, if the user 125 has been provided with printing privileges associated with the printing of a certain number of pages, and the request print job exceeds the allowed number of pages, then the print request may be denied.).
Referring to Claim 8, the combination of Odean in view of Hayashi teaches the system of claim 1 (See Odean, Fig. 1, Print System 100), wherein:
the circuitry is configured to transmit data used for the action to the storage (See Odean, Col. 7 lines 16-21, when sending the print job, the application 112 may formulate both the print data and print characteristics in the same manner, regardless of whether the print job is destined for a particular identified printer, or is merely identified or associated with a generic, as yet undetermined, printer.), and
the storage stores the data for each user (See Odean, Col. 8 lines 44-56, the job storage 140 may include a virtual print queue (not specifically illustrated) which is specifically configured to receive and store print jobs from the device 108 (or other device) and which are designated for roving printing at a time of submission of the print job, e.g., when the user 125 is not necessarily aware of a location or identify of the cloud-aware printer 118 when submitting the relevant print job. For example, the user 125 may utilize the print dialog 113 to select the such a virtual print queue, to thereby identify the associated print job within the job storage 140, so that the user 125 may retrieve the identified print job from the virtual print queue 140A upon arrival at the location of the provider 120.).
Referring to Claim 9, the combination of Odean in view of Hayashi teaches the system of claim 1 (See Odean, Fig. 1, Print System 100), wherein:
the storage stores information as to an entity of each user (See Odean, Col. 9 lines 57-67 and Col. 10 lines 1-2, e printers 127a may be stored as, e.g., identified using, a collection of Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) which are each uniquely identified with an individual printer registered with the cloud print service 102. Then, the cloud print service 102 may include a customized URL generator 134 which is configured to generate a modified or enhanced version of the URL associated with the cloud-aware printer 118, for use as the customized printer identifier 124 provided to the user 125. The resulting customized URL may have access rights embedded therein, or otherwise associated therewith. In this way, multiple users 125 may be provided with access to the same cloud-aware printer 118, in a manner that is nonetheless individualized for each user.), and
the permission/prohibition condition is set for each entity (See Odean, Col. 5 lines 54-58, the registration manager 126 may register a plurality of users and a plurality of printers, and may associate various subsets of users with various subsets of printers, depending on associated authorizations or permissions of the users/printers.).
Referring to Claim 10, the combination of Odean in view of Hayashi teaches the system of claim 1 (See Odean, Fig. 1, Print System 100), wherein
the storage (See Odean, Fig. 1, Cloud Print Service 102 with Embedded Job Storage 140) is a cloud storage server (See Odean, Fig. 1, Col. 8 lines 34-37, the cloud print service 102 includes job storage 140 which may provide one or more types of data storage related to operations of the cloud print service 102.).
Referring to Claim 11, the combination of Odean in view of Hayashi teaches the system of claim 1 (See Odean, Fig. 1, Print System 100), wherein:
the system is a print management system (See Odean, Fig. 1, Col. 2 lines 33-34, FIG. 1 is a block diagram of Print Management system 100 for implementing access rights management using a cloud print service 102.).
Referring to Claim 12, the combination of Odean in view of Hayashi teaches the system of claim 11 (See Odean, Fig. 1, Print System 100), further including an information processing apparatus, wherein:
the information processing apparatus is configured to upload a print material in the form of image data to the storage (See Odean, Col. 9 lines 31-38, The job control API 143 also may include status information including, e.g., whether a print job is currently queued by not yet downloaded to a corresponding printer, or spooled/downloaded and added to a native printer queue of the cloud-aware printer 118. Such status information may be stored using the job storage 140, in association with the corresponding print job in question), and
the storage is configured to store the image data to be checked, by the circuitry, whether the image data should be designated as the appropriative action (See Odean, Col. 7 lines 16-24, the application 112 may formulate both the print data and print characteristics in the same manner, regardless of whether the print job is destined for a particular identified printer, or is merely identified or associated with a generic, as yet undetermined, printer, the print job may be forwarded to the cloud print service 102 for storage).
Referring to Claim 13, the combination of Odean in view of Hayashi teaches the system of claim 1 (See Odean, Fig. 1, Print System 100), wherein
the storage stores the permission/prohibition condition and the usage amount for each user within an entity (See Odean, Col. 10 lines 3-11, an access rights manager 135 may be configured to provide printer access to the user 125, based on the usage of the customized printer identifier 124 by the user 125 and stores and tracks usage history 137 which records a number of print jobs submitted, a number of sheets of paper that have been printed, and an identity of the cloud-aware printer 118 or other printers which have been used in conjunction with the customized printer identifier 124.).
Referring to Claim 15, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable herein. The structural elements of “A printing system” in claim 1 perform all of the operations of “An action management method” in claim 15. Thus, “An action management method” in claim 15 is rejected for reasons explicitly taught in the rejection of claim 1.
Referring to Claim 16, arguments analogous to claim 13 are applicable herein. Thus, the action management method of claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 13.
Referring to Claim 18, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable herein. Thus, a non-transitory computer-executable medium of claim 18 is explicitly/inherently taught as evidenced by (See Odean, Fig. 1, Device 108 and ebedded units 110, 112, 113A and 113B, Col. 2 lines 1-14, a computer program product may be tangibly embodied on a computer-readable storage medium and may include executable code that, when executed, is configured to cause a data processing apparatus to receive an access request for printer access rights, generate a customized printer identifier, based on the access request, with the printer access rights associated therewith, and provide printing in response to receipt of the customized printer identifier and in accordance with the printer access rights.) and various memories stored therein.
Referring to Claim 19, arguments analogous to claim 13 are applicable herein. Thus, non-transitory computer-executable medium of claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 13.
Cited Art
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Sinn et al. (US PG. PUB. No. 2015/0286444 A1) discloses the present disclosure is directed toward printing of digital images with increased efficiency and ease. In particular, one or more embodiments provide an image printing system that allows a user to print images from a mobile or other device without having to upload a high-resolution version of the digital images to a print vendor. More specifically, one or more embodiments of the image printing system allow users to store images on a remote server or in a cloud storage space. When the users desire to print physical copies of the digital images, the image printing system can provide the digital images to a print vendor without requiring the users to upload the images to the print vendor from the users' own device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRYL V DOTTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached 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.
/DARRYL V DOTTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
/DARRYL V DOTTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
