DETAILED ACTION
Claims 8 and 11 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10 and 12-15 are currently pending.
The objection to the title of the invention is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 8 of the response in essence that: While Okayama does describe a) receiving a cancel instruction from a user and then b) indicating a status of the print job, Okayama does not teach or suggest a configuration in which, in a case where a result of printing executed by the print service is interruption, a workflow execution unit i) provides notification of a reason for interruption and ii) a response method via the chat service, as described in amended Claim 11.
Okayama discloses that the CPU 101 determines whether a cancel instruction to the print job under execution is received (the step S807). In the embodiment, a user can give the cancel instruction from the operation unit 111 or from an external apparatus connected via the network 60, in the same manner as the print instruction (paragraph 61). After a print job under execution is cancelled, the CPU 101 transmits the print job status that shows the state of the print job processed in the MFP 10 to the chat server 20 (the step S809) (paragraph 62). The print job status showing the state of the print job is a reason for interruption. The chat message shown in FIG. 18B is a response method provided via the chat service.
The Applicant has not traversed the examiner’s assertion of official notice for the assertions provided in claim 12. Therefore, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: PRINT SYSTEM INCLUDING CHAT SERVICE, WORKFLOW PLATFORM, AND CONTROL METHOD OF PRINT SYSTEM
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
a chat service; and
a print service in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed functions above is the following:
a chat service (a computer in paragraph 34); and
a print service (a computer in paragraph 34).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okayama US Publication 2023/0251807 (hereafter “Okayama”).
Referring to claim 1, Okayama discloses a print system that performs printing from a workflow comprising:
a workflow platform that executes the workflow (paragraph 50, FIG. 5 is a block diagram schematically showing the software configuration of the MFP 10 in FIG. 1. The job control module 502 controls the print job and manages the status of the print job);
a chat service that provides notification to a user (paragraph 51, FIG. 6 is a block diagram schematically showing a configuration of the chatbot program 601 that runs on the chat server 20 in FIG. 1); and
a print service that performs printing by a printer (paragraph 50, The printer control module 503 controls the printer I/F 108 so as to execute a print process with the printer 113),
wherein the workflow platform has at least one processor or circuit configured to function as: a workflow construction unit configured to construct the workflow in cooperation with the chat service (paragraph 95, the chat server 20 receives a button event, such as the “print execution button”) and the print service, and a workflow execution unit configured to execute the workflow (paragraph 50, The job control module 502 controls the print job and manages the status of the print job),
wherein the workflow execution unit executes printing by the print service according to the workflow to be executed, and provides notification of a result of printing executed by the print service by the chat service (paragraph 89, In the next step S917, the CPU 121 transmits the chat message data generated in the step S915 to the transmission destination determined in the step S916), and
wherein in a case where a result of printing executed by the print service is interruption, the workflow execution unit provides notification of a reason for interruption and a response method via the chat service (paragraph 125, The mobile terminal 40 that receives this chat message data displays a message 1809, which shows that the hold print job input in the step S1710 is canceled, on the operation panel 401 (a step S1720)).
Referring to claim 2, Okayama discloses wherein the workflow execution unit provides notification by the chat service during creation of a hold print job (paragraph 82, when the message ID is determined to “1” in the step S905 to the print status of the variation time “2021/11/11 1:11:00” in FIG. 10, a message of “Hold print (Job ID: 0003, Document name: Bill A) is accepted).
Referring to claim 3, Okayama discloses wherein the workflow execution unit provides notification by the chat service during interruption of printing (paragraph 125, The mobile terminal 40 that receives this chat message data displays a message 1809, which shows that the hold print job input in the step S1710 is canceled, on the operation panel 401 (a step S1720)).
Referring to claim 4, Okayama discloses wherein the workflow execution unit provides notification by the chat service in response to success and failure of printing (paragraph 113, The chat server 20 that receives this print job status transmits chat message data including the message showing “print finish” to the mobile terminal 40 (a step S1520). The mobile terminal 40 that receives this chat message data displays a message 1607 showing “print finish” on the operation panel 401 (a step S1521)).
Referring to claim 7, Okayama discloses wherein the workflow execution unit transmits an approval notification request to the chat service (paragraph 119, The MFP 10 that receives the hold print job transmits the print job status of which the job state 1007 is “standby” to the chat server 20 (a step S1702)), and receives a result of the approval notification request via the chat service (paragraph 122, the chat application 701 of the mobile terminal 40 transmits a button event to the chat server 20 (a step S1714). Moreover, the chat server 20 gives a cancel instruction of the hold print job input in the step S1710 to the MFP 10 (a step S1716).).
Referring to claim 10, Okayama discloses wherein in a case where a result of printing executed by the print service is failure, the workflow execution unit provides notification to a print executor via the chat service (paragraph 125, The mobile terminal 40 that receives this chat message data displays a message 1809, which shows that the hold print job input in the step S1710 is canceled, on the operation panel 401 (a step S1720)).
Referring to claim 13, Okayama discloses wherein the workflow execution unit executes creation, execution, and approval of the workflow via the chat service (paragraph 50, FIG. 5 is a block diagram schematically showing the software configuration of the MFP 10 in FIG. 1. The job control module 502 controls the print job and manages the status of the print job).
Referring to claim 14, Okayama discloses a workflow platform that executes a workflow comprising:
at least one processor or circuit configured to function as:
a workflow construction unit configured to construct the workflow in cooperation with a chat service that provides notification to a user and a print service that performs printing by a printer (paragraph 50, FIG. 5 is a block diagram schematically showing the software configuration of the MFP 10 in FIG. 1. The job control module 502 controls the print job and manages the status of the print job), and
a workflow execution unit configured to execute the workflow (paragraph 50, The printer control module 503 controls the printer I/F 108 so as to execute a print process with the printer 113),
wherein the workflow execution unit executes printing by the print service according to the workflow to be executed and provides notification of a result of printing executed by the print service by the chat service (paragraph 89, In the next step S917, the CPU 121 transmits the chat message data generated in the step S915 to the transmission destination determined in the step S916), and
wherein in a case where a result of printing executed by the print service is interruption, the workflow execution unit provides notification of a reason for interruption and a response method via the chat service (paragraph 125, The mobile terminal 40 that receives this chat message data displays a message 1809, which shows that the hold print job input in the step S1710 is canceled, on the operation panel 401 (a step S1720)).
Referring to claim 15, Okayama discloses a control method of a print system that performs printing from a workflow,
wherein the print system has a workflow platform that executes the workflow (paragraph 50, FIG. 5 is a block diagram schematically showing the software configuration of the MFP 10 in FIG. 1. The job control module 502 controls the print job and manages the status of the print job), a chat service that provides notification to a user (paragraph 51, FIG. 6 is a block diagram schematically showing a configuration of the chatbot program 601 that runs on the chat server 20 in FIG. 1), and a print service that performs printing by a printer (paragraph 50, The printer control module 503 controls the printer I/F 108 so as to execute a print process with the printer 113),
wherein the workflow platform has a workflow construction process of constructing the workflow in cooperation with the chat service and the print service, and a workflow execution process of executing the workflow (paragraph 50, FIG. 5 is a block diagram schematically showing the software configuration of the MFP 10 in FIG. 1. The job control module 502 controls the print job and manages the status of the print job),
wherein in the workflow execution process, printing is executed by the print service according to the workflow to be executed, and a result of printing executed by the print service is notified by the chat service (paragraph 89, In the next step S917, the CPU 121 transmits the chat message data generated in the step S915 to the transmission destination determined in the step S916), and
wherein in a case where a result of printing executed by the print service is interruption, the workflow execution unit provides notification of a reason for interruption and a response method via the chat service (paragraph 125, The mobile terminal 40 that receives this chat message data displays a message 1809, which shows that the hold print job input in the step S1710 is canceled, on the operation panel 401 (a step S1720)).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okayama US Publication 2023/0251807 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. US Publication 2023/0059572 (hereafter “Yamamoto”).
Referring to claim 5, Okayama discloses wherein the workflow execution unit provides notification to a notification destination of a printer administrator or a print executor in a case of notification by the chat service (paragraph 89, In the next step S917, the CPU 121 transmits the chat message data generated in the step S915 to the transmission destination determined in the step S916), but does not disclose expressly providing notification executor in a case where there is no designation of a notification destination.
Yamamoto discloses wherein the workflow execution unit provides notification to a notification destination of a printer administrator or a print executor in a case where there is no designation of a notification destination in a case of notification by the chat service (paragraph 69, If there is no piece of contact information corresponding to the telephone number of the person who has transmitted the facsimile document in the contact information stored in the database of the storage unit 13 (NO in step S403), the management server 10 extracts a predetermined piece of contact information (step S406) and identifies one or more members M who are predetermined contacts as notification targets (step S407). For example, the management server 10 identifies, as notification targets, one or more members M belonging to a department that is to receive orders from clients).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide notification to a predetermined contract when there is no notification destination specified. The motivation for doing so would have been to inform the predetermined contact of job status to better inform the user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yamamoto with Okayama to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okayama US Publication 2023/0251807 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasuda US Publication 2021/0165616 (hereafter “Yasuda”).
Referring to claim 6, Okayama discloses the workflow execution unit, but does not disclose expressly the workflow execution unit transmitting a login request to the chat service and then communicating with the chat service.
Yasuda discloses wherein the workflow execution unit determines whether or not a login to the chat service is necessary, and if a login is necessary, the workflow execution unit transmits a login request to the chat service and then communicates with the chat service (paragraph 48, In step S1002, after the printer 200 receives an authentication request to the cloud print service 400 from the user, the printer 200 transmits the authentication request to the cloud print service 400 using the user ID and password input in step S1001).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art for the workflow execution unit to transmit a login request to the chat service. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the chat service to authenticate users in order to maintain authentication more efficiently at the network level. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yamamoto with Okayama to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okayama US Publication 2023/0251807 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kakio et al. US Publication 2022/0091794 (hereafter “Kakio”).
Referring to claim 9, Okayama discloses wherein in a case where a result of printing executed by the print service is interruption, the workflow execution unit provides notification via the chat service (paragraph 125, The mobile terminal 40 that receives this chat message data displays a message 1809, which shows that the hold print job input in the step S1710 is canceled, on the operation panel 401 (a step S1720)), but does not disclose expressly workflow execution unit provides notification to a printer administrator via the chat service.
Kakio discloses that the workflow execution unit provides notification to a printer administrator via the chat service (paragraph 40, the notifier 54 notifies, in a chat form, the print history acquired in “7. print history acquisition” via the chat system to the administrative user of the group chat to which the user U who has entered the print instruction belongs).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a notification to a printer administrator. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow an administrator to appropriately manage printers via a chat system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yamamoto with Okayama to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okayama US Publication 2023/0251807 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Applicant admitted prior art.
Referring to claim 12, Okayama discloses wherein in a case where a result of printing executed by the print service is interruption, a print restart notification is not received, and the printing is hold printing, the workflow execution unit removes a print job of the printing (paragraph 125, The mobile terminal 40 that receives this chat message data displays a message 1809, which shows that the hold print job input in the step S1710 is canceled, on the operation panel 401 (a step S1720)), but does not disclose expressly wherein the workflow execution unit deletes a print job of the printing.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known and obvious in the art to delete a print job that has been cancelled (See MPEP 2144.03). The motivation for doing so would have been to reclaim storage space for a printing queue. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine well known prior art with Okayama to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Conclusion
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 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 PETER K HUNTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Benny Q Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/PETER K HUNTSINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights