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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 8-9 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. Reasons for allowance will be provided in the event the application is in condition for allowance.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed towards a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se"). As the courts' definitions of machines, manufactures and compositions of matter indicate, a product must have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of these statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03, citing Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348, 111 USPQ2d at 1719. While the claim recites that the “program…allow[s] a computer…to function as”, the “program” itself is claimed, not the computer. As such, the claimed “program” of claim 11 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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(s) 1-3, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arifuku (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0067414) in view of Sumi (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0070315).
Regarding claim 1, Arifuku (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0067414) discloses:
An image processing apparatus comprising:
a display device (paragraphs [0032]-[0034], displayer);
and an operation device that accepts an instruction in response to a user's operation (paragraphs [0032]-[0034], operation inputter); and
a control device including a processor, and configured to act, when the processor executes a control program, as a controller that allows the display device to display a job execution history in which respective sets of setting data on a plurality of jobs are chronologically arranged (Figures 9A, 9B, paragraphs [0074]-[0079], setting history with various executed jobs containing setting data are chronologically arranged newest to oldest),
wherein, when the operation device accepts a specification instruction for specifying a set of setting data on a job, the controller allows the display device to display a setting change window for use in instructing a change in the set of setting data specified by the specification instruction (Figures 10A-10B, paragraphs [0078]-[0084], the screen allows for the user to instruct setting changes for a job), and
when the operation device accepts through the setting change window a change instruction to change the specified set of setting data (Figure 10B, the screen allows for the user to instruct setting changes for a job), and, the controller generates a set of setting data on a different job in which the specified set of setting data on the job has been changed in accordance with contents indicated by the change instruction (Figure 10B, paragraphs [0080]-[0084], the user can input the changed setting information by hitting start), and allows the display device to display the set of setting data on the different job in the job execution history (Figures 9A, 9B, the newly executed job will be displayed with the settings used),
Arifuku does not explicitly disclose:
Wherein the specification instruction for specifying a set of setting data on a job in the job execution history
Sumi (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0070315) discloses:
Wherein the specification instruction for specifying a set of setting data on a job in the job execution history (Figures 6 and 8, paragraphs [0042]-[0047], [0053] the job history with associated settings is stored)
when the operation device accepts through the setting change window a change instruction to change the specified set of setting data (Figures 6 and 8, paragraphs [0042]-[0047], [0053], the system tracks the changes instructed by the user made such that changes to the recommendation can be made)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Sumi with the system of Arifuku such that the specification instruction was for specifying a set of setting data on a job in the job execution history as described in Sumi. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “allow[ing] a user…to use a display object with desired settings associated therewith without taking time and effort” (paragraph [0005] of the Sumi reference).
Regarding claim 2, Arifuku additionally discloses:
wherein when the operation device accepts the specification instruction by an operation on a displayed portion of a setting item of the set of setting data on the job, the controller allows the display device to display a setting change window for use in instructing a change in contents of the operated setting item (Figure 10B, paragraph [0084], the screen allows for the user to instruct setting changes for a job; when the user makes changes, those changes are reflected in the user interface), and
when the operation device accepts through the setting change window a change instruction for changing the contents of the setting item as the change instruction, the controller generates a set of setting data on a different job in which the contents of the setting item have been changed in accordance with contents indicated by the change instruction (Figure 10B, paragraph [0084], the data for the new job is specified and confirmed by hitting start)
Regarding claim 3, Arifuku additionally discloses:
wherein when the operation device accepts an instruction to execute the different job, the controller image processing apparatus executes the different job based on the set of setting data on the different job (Figure 10B, paragraph [0084], the data for the new job is specified and confirmed by hitting start; the job is executed with the specified settings)
Regarding claim 7, Arifuku additionally discloses:
wherein the controller allows the display device to display in the job execution history the set of setting data on the different job, together with a set of setting data on an original job before the set of setting data on the different job is changed, in a row and in chronological order (Figures 9A, 9B, the newly executed job will be displayed with the settings used next to the previously executed jobs in chronological order in rows)
Regarding claim 11, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. The claimed program is explicitly taught as evidenced by paragraphs [0154]-[0155] of Arifuku.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arifuku in view of Sumi, in further view of Yoshida (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2020/0159479).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Arifuku and Sumi discloses the apparatus of the parent claim (claim 1).
The combination of Arifuku and Sumi does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the controller allows the display device to display, in the job execution history, the set of setting data on the different job in a manner different from a set of setting data on another job until the different job is executed.
Yoshida (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2020/0159479) discloses:
wherein the controller allows the display device to display, in the job execution history, the set of setting data on the different job in a manner different from a set of setting data on another job until the different job is executed (Figure 7B, paragraphs [0117]-[0119], the different job is highlighted in the job execution history to stand out from the non-selected jobs until the user selects “execute”.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Yoshida with the combination of Arifuku and Sumi such that the display device to display, in the job execution history, the set of setting data on the different job in a manner different from a set of setting data on another job until the different job is executed as described in Yoshida. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of allowing a “user [to be] enabled to check a history of jobs with history records on a screen…and easily check, with an error record, whether an error has occurred” (paragraph [0123] of the Yoshida reference).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benny 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.
/JOHN R WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights