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
Claims 1-12 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated December 4, 2025. In Response, submitted March 3, 2026, claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10 were amended. Therefore, claims 1-12 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Page 5 of the Response regarding the previous objection of the claims, have been fully addressed and these objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s remarks on Page 6 of the Response regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(d), have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive in view of the amended claims, and are therefore withdrawn.
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 6-8 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but are not found persuasive in part, in light of amended claims.
Examiner notes, the arguments regarding previous rejection of Independent claim 1 are moot in light of the amended claims.
On Page 8 of the Response, Applicant argues “Thakar discloses that passenger preference data may be provided via a barcode 115 printed on a piece of paper. However, this does not teach or suggest that the exit authorization code disclosed by Fujisawa would be printed on the image-formed product. Fujisawa teaches that the exit authorization code is generated on a user's terminal after the user picks up an ordered product and performs a pickup confirmation processing on the user's terminal. Since the exit authorization code is generated after the user confirms receipt of the product, the exit authorization code would not be printed on the product after the pickup confirmation processing. Accordingly, claim 12 is allowable for at least these additional reasons.”
Examiner notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, that the piece of paper recited in Thakar is interpreted as the “image-formed product” of Phillips, and the barcode recited in Thakar is interpreted as a the second key information provided as an image as taught by Fujisawa. Further, Fujisawa does not teach “teaches that the exit authorization code is generated on a user's terminal after the user picks up an ordered product and performs a pickup confirmation processing on the user's terminal” (emphasis added) only that “the code is optically read at the gate 102” (Fujisawa, Para. 105, emphasis added). Fujisawa goes on to disclose that “components described in this specification (including Claims, Abstract and the drawings) and/or the steps of the method or process disclosed in this specification can be used in any combination, as far as the features are not incompatible with each other” (Para. 123) indicating that even had the reference been explicit about the timing of the generation of this code, that generating the code at another point in the process is also considered. Therefore, it is held Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen and even further in view of Thakar disclose the limitations of claim 12.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips (US 20190333016) (hereafter Phillips) in view of Fujisawa (US 20200258041) (hereafter Fujisawa) and further in view of Chen (US 20210109686) (hereafter Chen).
In regards to claim 1, Phillips discloses an image-formed product ordering system comprising: a first hardware processor that acquires image forming job information from an orderer terminal of an orderer of an image-formed product; (Para. 14, 18,19) (“a facilitation platform that is capable of receiving and processing product orders and enabling delivery of the product in a time-efficient and secure manner (i.e. an image-formed product ordering system).” “, the product may include a physical product, such as … a gift card (i.e. an image formed product), a cashier's check (i.e. an image formed product), … the requestor may be a consumer that orders such a product, like an individual … the requestor user device (i.e. an orderer terminal of an orderer of an image-formed product), through a graphical user interface (GUI), may present multiple options to the requestor to order the product, such as an option to select the product, an option to enter account and/or authorization information, an option to select the product delivery device or a pick-up location, and/or the like.” “the facilitation platform may include a cloud computing platform, a group of server devices, and/or the like (i.e. a first hardware processor).”)
Phillips discloses an image former that generates the image-formed product by forming an image on a recording medium, based on the received image forming job information; (Para. 19, 26) (“The product delivery device (i.e. an image former) may have the capability to create the product on demand (e.g., create a cashier's check for a specific amount to a specific payee (i.e. generates the image-formed product by forming an image on a recording medium, based on the received image forming job information) ).” “the facilitation platform may assess the capabilities or characteristics of a plurality of product delivery devices. For example, the facilitation platform may evaluate each product delivery device's capability to: create the product … resources (e.g., whether the product delivery device has the right type of physical materials to create the product, like plastic for a transaction card or check paper for a cashier's check (i.e. a recording medium)”)
Phillips discloses a second hardware processor that causes the image former to start image formation (Para. 14, 97-98, 130) (“provide a facilitation platform that is capable of receiving and processing product orders and enabling delivery of the product (i.e. causes the image former to start image formation) in a time-efficient and secure manner.” “FIG. 3 is a diagram of example components of a device 300. Device 300 may correspond to … product delivery device 240 … Bus 310 includes a component that permits communication among the components of device 300. Processor (i.e. a second hardware processor) 320 is implemented in hardware” “based on receiving the product information and interacting with the service agent user device 230 to initiate acquisition of the product (i.e. causes the image former to start image formation)”)
Phillips discloses an ejector that ejects the image-formed product; and (Para. 63-65) (“As shown by reference number 126, the product delivery device may verify the service agent user device based on the product release information. … As further shown by reference number 126, the product delivery device may release the product to the service agent. In some implementations, the product delivery device may unlock a door, drawer, box, and/or the like and allow the service agent to obtain the product. In some implementations, the product delivery device may be an ATM that includes a slot that dispenses the product (i.e. an ejector that ejects the image-formed product. … the product delivery device may be a vending machine that deposits the product in a trough that allows the service agent to obtain the product (i.e. an ejector that ejects the image-formed product).”)
Phillips discloses a lock that restricts access to the image-formed product ejected from the ejector, (Para. 65) (“the product delivery device may release the product to the service agent. In some implementations, the product delivery device may unlock a door, drawer, box, and/or the like (i.e. a lock that restricts access to the image-formed product ejected from the ejector) and allow the service agent to obtain the product.” That is, in order for the agent to be able unlock a door, drawer, box, or the like, a lock must exist at the location that the agent must unlock.)
Phillips discloses wherein the first hardware processor provides first key information only to a deliverer associated with the image-formed product, the lock that restricts access to the image-formed product is unlocked by the first key information, and (Para. 58, 62-63) (“the facilitation platform may send transaction information and first verification information (e.g., information indicating approval of a service agent to pick up the product) to a service agent user device. … the first verification information may include … an authentication credential for release of the product (i.e. the first hardware processor provides first key information only to a deliverer associated with the image-formed product)” “to facilitate pairing, the requestor user device and the product delivery device may share one or more transaction tokens (e.g., a quick response (QR) code or bar code), and/or the like. … the product delivery device may verify the service agent user device based on the product release information (i.e. the first hardware processor provides a second key information associated with the image-formed product that allows the image-formed product to be removed by the deliverer). In some implementations, the verification process may be done locally at the product delivery device. In some implementations, the verification process may include communicating information between the product delivery device and the service agent user device. For example, the product delivery device may verify the requestor user device by evaluating the item of authentication information concerning the service agent (that is part of the product release information) (i.e. the first hardware processor provides first key information only to a deliverer associated with the image-formed product, the lock that restricts access to the image-formed product is unlocked by the first key information, and the first hardware processor provides a second key information associated with the image-formed product that allows the image-formed product to be removed by the deliverer) in view of the authentication credential for release of the product” “As further shown by reference number 126, the product delivery device may release the product to the service agent. In some implementations, the product delivery device may unlock a door, drawer, box, and/or the like and allow the service agent to obtain the product.” That is, the product release information acts as both the first key information, provided only to the agent associated with the product (i.e. a delivery associated with the image-formed product) and facilitates the unlocking of the lock device to access the product (i.e. the image-formed product), and as the second key information that is associated with the product, verifies the agent, and allows them to remove the product (i.e. allows the image-formed product to be removed by the deliverer).)
Phillips does not explicitly disclose, however Fujisawa, in the same field of endeavor, discloses the first hardware processor of Phillips provides a second key information associated with the image-formed product of Phillips that allows the image-formed product of Phillips to be removed by the deliverer of Phillips. (Para. 103-105) (“the customer (i.e. the deliverer of Phillips) picks up the purchased product (i.e. the image-formed product of Phillips) … the customer performs a pickup completion confirmation processing on their terminal … the customer shows an exit authentication code (i.e. a second key information) (a form of exit code that allows the customer to exit the pickup area (i.e. the first hardware processor of Phillips provides a second key information associated with the image-formed product of Phillips that allows the image-formed product of Phillips to be removed by the deliverer of Phillips)) over the gate 102 at the door thereof. … the code is optically read at the gate 102 and transmitted to the management server 21 or the terminal in the store, and a deallocation processing”)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the product delivery of Phillips with pickup system of Fujisawa in order to improve the efficiency and security of product delivery. (Fujisawa – Para. 6)
Phillips in view of Fujisawa does not explicitly disclose, however Chen, in the same field of endeavor, discloses the second hardware processor that causes the image former to start image formation of Phillips is based on the probability of occurrence of waste of the recording medium; (Para. 8, 12, 17, 18) (“Skew or misalignment may occur for example if a printing media is misaligned with a printing engine, so that an image is not printed in the expected manner on the media, leading to potential quality issues … Such quality issues or even system fault may in some cases result very costly and time consuming … a printing system could print numerous documents of unacceptable quality which may have to be discarded if quality is not at the appropriate level due to skew or misalignment, leading to waste of consumables such as ink or printing media (i.e. occurrence of waste of the recording medium)” “Skew may be introduced if a printing media is placed in a crooked manner at a printing station level of the printing system, such that an original digital image is displaced compared to its ideal positioning on printing media” “a document is printed from an original image. In block 202, the document is scanned to produce a digital representation such as digital representation 210 of FIG. 2b using an in line scanner of the printing system, whereby the scanning scans an area larger than the document, whereby the digital representation 210 comprises a digital representation of the document 211 … Having the scanner scan an area larger than the document may contribute to permitting the detection of skew by comparing the position of a border 218 of digital representation of the document with a border 119 of the area scanned.” “Using a comparison with a predetermined threshold may introduce some degree of flexibility (i.e. the probability of occurrence of waste of the recording medium), thereby avoiding false positive detection of skew.” “excessive skew is indicated to a control entity (i.e. the second hardware processor of Phillips) … A control entity may be a proactive control entity which would pause the operation of the printing system” That is, the control entity (i.e. the second hardware processor of Phillips) will only allow printing to occur if skew is not detected (i.e. the second hardware processor that causes the image former to start image formation of Phillips is based on the probability of occurrence of waste of the recording medium).)
Phillips in view of Fujisawa does not explicitly disclose, however Chen, in the same field of endeavor, discloses wherein the second hardware processor performs an inspection by comparing a read image and a correct image and calculates the probability of occurrence of waste; (Para. 11, 14) (“Skew may be introduced if a printing media is placed in a crooked manner at a printing station level of the printing system, such that an original digital image is displaced compared to its ideal positioning on printing media (i.e. a correct image). … Detecting skew independently from the original digital image may be done by comparing a characteristic of the digital representation (i.e. read image) with a border of the digital representation (i.e. a correct image).” “rotating the digital representation 211 of the document to include a rotated digital representation 228 of the document in a modified digital representation 220 as illustrated in FIG. 2c, whereby two adjacent corners of the document in the modified digital representation 220, such as for example, 224 and 227 or 225 and 226, define a line 228 (if the corners are 224 and 227) aligned with a border 219 of the modified digital representation (i.e. correct image).” “establishing a difference between the characteristic distances and comparing the difference with a predetermined threshold (i.e. calculates the probability of occurrence of waste). … Using a comparison with a predetermined threshold may introduce some degree of flexibility (i.e. the probability of occurrence of waste), thereby avoiding false positive detection of skew.”)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the product delivery of Phillips in view of Fujisawa with print quality determination of Chen in order to improve quality and reduce waste. (Chen – Para. 8)
In regards to claim 9, Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1. Phillips discloses wherein the first hardware processor selects the deliverer that picks up and delivers the image-formed product, based on a pickup time of the image-formed product. (Para. 14, 38, 58) (“The facilitation platform may process the order, enlist a service agent,” “A service agent … picks up the product at a product delivery device … and delivers the product to the requestor. A facilitation platform processes the requestor's request, ensures that the service agent is able to pick up the product at the product delivery device, and provides for the service agent to deliver the product to the requestor.” “the facilitation platform may send transaction information and first verification information (e.g., information indicating approval of a service agent to pick up the product) to a service agent user device. … the transaction information may include … time for pick-up of the product” That is, a service agent can only be ensured to be able to pick up the product if they can meet the pick-up time of the product.)
In regards to claim 10, Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1. Phillips discloses the lock is provided at a door of a room in which the image former is arranged and restricts entrance and exit. (Para. 65) (“the product delivery device may release the product to the service agent. In some implementations, the product delivery device may unlock a door (i.e. a lock that is provided at a door of a room in which the image former is arranged and that restricts entrance and exit), drawer, box, and/or the like and allow the service agent to obtain the product.”)
In regards to claim 11, Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen discloses the limitations of claim 10. Phillips does not explicitly disclose, however Fujisawa, in the same field of endeavor, discloses wherein the lock of Phillips is unlocked to allow exit of the deliverer of Phillips with the image-formed product of Phillips by the second key information. (Para. 103-105) (“the customer (i.e. the deliverer of Phillips) picks up the purchased product (i.e. the image-formed product of Phillips) … the customer performs a pickup completion confirmation processing on their terminal … the customer shows an exit authentication code (i.e. a second key information) (a form of exit code that allows the customer to exit the pickup area (i.e. the first hardware processor of Phillips provides a second key information associated with the image-formed product of Phillips that allows the image-formed product of Phillips to be removed by the deliverer of Phillips)) over the gate (i.e. the lock of Phillips) 102 at the door thereof. … the code is optically read at the gate 102 and transmitted to the management server 21 or the terminal in the store, and a deallocation processing”)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the product delivery of Phillips with pickup system of Fujisawa in order to improve the efficiency and security of product delivery. (Fujisawa – Para. 6)
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen and even further in view of Xu (US 20200169646) (hereafter Xu).
In regards to claim 2, Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1. Phillips discloses the first hardware processor controls delivery of the image-formed product, based on delivery permission information for permitting the delivery of the image-formed product from the orderer terminal. (Para. 42) (“the facilitation platform may process the request by selecting the product delivery device that will create and release the product to the service agent … In some implementations, the facilitation platform may access information on the requestor user device, (i.e. delivery permission information for permitting the delivery of the image-formed product from the orderer terminal) … [to] select a nearby product delivery device (i.e. controls delivery of the image-formed product) … select the product delivery device based on calculating the shortest and/or quickest route from the current location of the service agent to the delivery location specified in the request (i.e. controls delivery of the image-formed product).”)
Phillips in view of Fujisawa does not explicitly disclose, however Chen, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a reader that reads the image-formed product of Phillips to generate the read image; and (Para. 12) (“a document is printed from an original image (i.e. the image-formed product of Phillips). In block 202, the document is scanned to produce a digital representation (i.e. discloses a reader that reads the image-formed product of Phillips to generate the read image) such as digital representation 210 of FIG. 2b using an in line scanner (i.e. a reader) of the printing system”)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the product delivery of Phillips in view of Fujisawa with print quality determination of Chen in order to improve quality and reduce waste. (Chen – Para. 8)
Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen does not explicitly disclose, however Xu, in the same field of endeavor, discloses wherein the second hardware processor that transmits the read image to the orderer terminal, (Para. 35) (“color selection, shape and intensity, and the addition of text with various fonts and artistic effects may be used to provide a final composite image suitable for imaging the blank product. Quality/resolution based … on blank product selection… followed by a 2 or 3 dimensional preview (i.e. read image of Chen). A work-in-progress file may be temporarily saved or added on the HADIMC/cloud, and sent to the customer or RCD for approval or further editing through a virtual realistic look prior to final composite image storage on the HADIMC.”)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the product delivery of Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen with the product imaging of Xu in order to improve customer experience by providing expected finished goods as quickly as possible (Xu – Para. 3)
In regards to claim 3, Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen and even further in view of Xu disclose the limitations of claim 2. Phillips in view of Fujisawa does not explicitly disclose, however Chen, in the same field of endeavor, discloses wherein the second hardware processor inspects presence or absence of abnormality of the image-formed product of Phillips from the read image and transmits information on a result of inspection. (Para. 18) (“Excessive skew may be determined for example through a predetermined threshold. Excessive skew may for example be linked to a probability of blocking a media path. A control entity may … indicating skewing to a user of the printing system, for example by way of a visual indicator or by way of a digital message (i.e. the second hardware processor inspects presence or absence of abnormality of the image-formed product of Phillips from the read image and transmits information on a result of inspection).”)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the product delivery of Phillips in view of Fujisawa with print quality determination of Chen in order to improve quality and reduce waste. (Chen – Para. 8)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen and even further in view of Morgan (US 20230061441) (hereafter Morgan).
In regards to claim 4, Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1. Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen does not explicitly disclose, however Morgan, in the same field of endeavor, discloses an image capturer that photographs the image former of Phillips; and (Para. 18) (“One or more cameras 140 are located proximate or adjacent to a retailer's item pickup area within retailer's store (i.e. the ejector of the image former). Each camera 140 has access to a network connection (wired, wireless, or a combination of wired and wireless) for purposes of streaming or storing time and date stamped image frames (images or video) in a network location or directly to order monitor 115. Monitor 115 has access to the network location or receives the video feed directly from camera 140.”
Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen does not explicitly disclose, however Morgan, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a third hardware processor that transmits, to the orderer terminal, photographed data obtained by photographing from start of execution of the image forming job information of Phillips to pickup. (Para. 27) (“This allows order monitor 115 to locate the video feed and tracked objects (e.g., tickets) for the pickup area of the corresponding store. A thumbnail image of each ticket/written information in legible and readable images that are rendered in a list view within status app/interface 163 by real-time status interface 114 for the customers to view and locate their specific ordered items” “Order monitor 115 can then generate thumbnail images for the order details (identifying information) of each in progress and not started order. These self-generated images along with their corresponding identifying information are provided to real-time status interface 114 for viewing by customers within status app/interface 163.”)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the product delivery of Phillips and further in view of Chen with the pickup system of Morgan in order to improve customer experience through real-time information feedback. (Morgan – Para. 6)
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen and even further in view of Morales (US 20080144081) (hereafter Morales).
In regards to claim 5, Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1. Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen does not explicitly disclose, however Morales, in the same field of endeavor, discloses further comprising a second hardware processor that causes the image former of Phillips to start image formation of Phillips based on the image forming job information of Phillips, based on a pickup time by the deliverer. (Para. 47-48) (“Each delivery method or level of service would be scheduled separately. Ordering the address sequence based upon the date promised to the customer and the expected delivery transit time, e.g., start printing orders with the least slack time where slack time is defined as the unallocated time after accounting for delivery time (i.e. causes the image former of Phillips to start image formation of Phillips based on the image forming job information of Phillips, based on a pickup time by the deliverer) and production time”)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the product delivery of Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen with the job printing of Morales in order to improve print job scheduling. (Morales – Para. 1)
In regards to claim 6, Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen and even further in view of Morales discloses the limitations of claim 5. Phillips in view of Fujisawa does not explicitly disclose, however Chen, in the same field of endeavor, discloses wherein the second hardware processor causes the image former to start the image formation based on the image forming job information of Phillips, also based on a probability of occurrence of waste of the recording medium. Phillips in view of Fujisawa does not explicitly disclose, however Chen, in the same field of endeavor, discloses the second hardware processor that causes the image former to start image formation of Phillips is based on the probability of occurrence of waste of the recording medium; (Para. 8, 12, 17, 18) (“Skew or misalignment may occur for example if a printing media is misaligned with a printing engine, so that an image is not printed in the expected manner on the media, leading to potential quality issues … Such quality issues or even system fault may in some cases result very costly and time consuming … a printing system could print numerous documents of unacceptable quality which may have to be discarded if quality is not at the appropriate level due to skew or misalignment, leading to waste of consumables such as ink or printing media (i.e. occurrence of waste of the recording medium)” “Skew may be introduced if a printing media is placed in a crooked manner at a printing station level of the printing system, such that an original digital image is displaced compared to its ideal positioning on printing media” “a document is printed from an original image. In block 202, the document is scanned to produce a digital representation such as digital representation 210 of FIG. 2b using an in line scanner of the printing system, whereby the scanning scans an area larger than the document, whereby the digital representation 210 comprises a digital representation of the document 211 … Having the scanner scan an area larger than the document may contribute to permitting the detection of skew by comparing the position of a border 218 of digital representation of the document with a border 119 of the area scanned.” “Using a comparison with a predetermined threshold may introduce some degree of flexibility (i.e. the probability of occurrence of waste of the recording medium), thereby avoiding false positive detection of skew.” “excessive skew is indicated to a control entity (i.e. the second hardware processor of Phillips) … A control entity may be a proactive control entity which would pause the operation of the printing system” That is, the control entity (i.e. the second hardware processor of Phillips) will only allow printing to occur if skew is not detected (i.e. the second hardware processor that causes the image former to start image formation of Phillips is based on the probability of occurrence of waste of the recording medium).)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the product delivery of Phillips in view of Fujisawa with print quality determination of Chen in order to improve quality and reduce waste. (Chen – Para. 8)
In regards to claim 7, Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1. Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen does not explicitly disclose, however Morales, in the same field of endeavor, discloses wherein the second hardware processor that acquires the image forming job information of Phillips, based on a pickup time by the deliverer. (Para. 26-28, 48) (“The production management system (or simply "production manager") 66 is shown as including a scheduler 70 … orders are provided to the production manager locally, or by way of a suitable network connection. In operation, the production manager causes scheduled jobs (which can be stored in and thereafter obtained from any suitable form of volatile or non-volatile memory (not shown)) to be delivered to (i.e. a second hardware processor that acquires the image forming job information of Phillips) the production cells (i.e. second processors)/departments 68 for execution. … the production manager 66 (FIG. 4) schedules and manages their production so that finished documents are delivered to shipping and fulfillment” “Ordering the address sequence based upon the date promised to the customer and the expected delivery transit time, e.g., start printing orders with the least slack time where slack time is defined as the unallocated time (i.e. probability of occurrence of waste) after accounting for delivery time (i.e. scheduled jobs based on pickup time by the deliverer) and production time”)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the product delivery of Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen with the job printing of Morales in order to improve print job scheduling. (Morales – Para. 1)
In regards to claim 8, Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen and even further in view of Morales discloses the limitations of claim 7. Phillips in view of Fujisawa does not explicitly disclose, however Chen, in the same field of endeavor, discloses wherein the second hardware processor acquires the image forming job information, also based on a probability of occurrence of waste of the recording medium. (Para. 8, 12, 17, 18) (“Skew or misalignment may occur for example if a printing media is misaligned with a printing engine, so that an image is not printed in the expected manner on the media, leading to potential quality issues … Such quality issues or even system fault may in some cases result very costly and time consuming … a printing system could print numerous documents of unacceptable quality which may have to be discarded if quality is not at the appropriate level due to skew or misalignment, leading to waste of consumables such as ink or printing media (i.e. occurrence of waste of the recording medium)” “Skew may be introduced if a printing media is placed in a crooked manner at a printing station level of the printing system, such that an original digital image is displaced compared to its ideal positioning on printing media” “a document is printed from an original image. In block 202, the document is scanned to produce a digital representation such as digital representation 210 of FIG. 2b using an in line scanner of the printing system, whereby the scanning scans an area larger than the document, whereby the digital representation 210 comprises a digital representation of the document 211 … Having the scanner scan an area larger than the document may contribute to permitting the detection of skew by comparing the position of a border 218 of digital representation of the document with a border 119 of the area scanned.” “Using a comparison with a predetermined threshold may introduce some degree of flexibility (i.e. the probability of occurrence of waste of the recording medium), thereby avoiding false positive detection of skew.” “excessive skew is indicated to a control entity (i.e. the second hardware processor of Phillips) … A control entity may be a proactive control entity which would pause the operation of the printing system” That is, the control entity (i.e. the second hardware processor of Phillips) will only allow printing to occur if skew is not detected (i.e. the second hardware processor that causes the image former to start image formation of Phillips is based on the probability of occurrence of waste of the recording medium).)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the product delivery of Phillips in view of Fujisawa with print quality determination of Chen in order to improve quality and reduce waste. (Chen – Para. 8)
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen and even further in view of Thakar (US 20120298737) (hereafter Thakar).
In regards to claim 12, Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1. Phillips does not explicitly disclose, however Fujisawa, in the same field of endeavor, discloses wherein the second key information is provided (Para. 105) (“the customer shows an exit authentication code (i.e. a second key information) (a form of exit code that allows the customer to exit the pickup area (i.e. the second key information is provided)) over the gate 102 at the door thereof.”)
Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen does not explicitly disclose, however Thakar, in the same field of endeavor, discloses wherein the second key information is provided of Phillips in view of Fujisawa as an image formed on the image-formed product of Phillips. (Para. 34) (“the barcode (i.e. wherein the second key information is provided of Phillips in view of Fujisawa) 115 may be printed on a piece of paper (i.e. wherein the second key information is provided of Phillips in view of Fujisawa as an image formed on the image-formed product of Phillips) 121… or displayed on an electronic device 122 (i.e. wherein the second key information is provided of Phillips in view of Fujisawa)” That is, the barcode (i.e. the second key information is provided as an image) is printed onto a sheet of paper (i.e. the image-formed product of Phillips).)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the product delivery of Phillips in view of Fujisawa and further in view of Chen with the code provision of Thakar in order to improve data conveyance and device independence. (Thakar – Para. 7)
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 DAVID G GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Shannon S Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DAVID G. GODBOLD/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights