CTNF 18/896,516 CTNF 80356 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150331639 to Piazza in view of to US 20220263977 to Kobashi further in view US 20250069145 to Pellerin . Regarding claim 1, Piazza discloses a method for an information processing apparatus, comprising (paragraph 44; server PC 1005 (information processing apparatus)): obtaining an execution result of color validation (paragraph 44, 118-119; calibration status monitoring unit 100 obtains status information including calibration (color validation) result such as calibration complete, failure; paragraph 68; color calibration); and wherein, in the displaying, the execution is displayed for a user to identify a color validation result and whether the color validation is executed based on the obtained execution result of the color validation (paragraph 44, 118-119; calibration status monitoring unit 100 obtains status information including calibration (color validation) result such as calibration complete, failure; in Fig. 18 the display showing in status 18002 calibration “complete”, “failure” (is executed); other result include “waiting for calibration media” ). Piazza discloses color validation. However Piazza does not disclose displaying an execution schedule of the image validation. Kobashi discloses displaying an execution schedule of the image validation (paragraph 60-62; Fig. 6f displays execution schedule in the “Time 1” column related to when the color verification (validation) is executed for each target device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Piazza as taught by Kobashi to provide display of execution schedule. The motivation to combine the references is to provide comprehensive display of the calibration result and execution scheduling of color verification tasks in one display including and further the calibration result has effective period after which the result is nulled so that user can always see the latest result (paragraph 61-62, Fig. 6f). Piazza discloses color validation (paragraph 44, 118-119; calibration status monitoring unit 100 obtains status information including calibration (color validation) result such as calibration complete, failure; paragraph 68; color calibration). However Piazza does not disclose the execution schedule is displayed for the user to identify a task in which the validation has not been executed even though the task has passed a scheduled date and time. Pellerin discloses the execution schedule is displayed for the user to identify a task in which the validation has not been executed even though the task has passed a scheduled date and time (paragraph 125, 131; Fig. 11a display execution schedule such as in 59b showing weekly test/calibration and next due and indication 59a showing user a calibration/test task that is overdue (“not been executed even though the task has passed a scheduled date and time”)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Piazza as taught by Pellerin to provide display of execution schedule including information about validation task not executed past scheduled date. The motivation to combine the references is to provide highlighted display to user notify overdue validation test that are scheduled but are passed the due schedule by displaying messages in red color and further including in display information about the next due date for validation test (paragraph 125). Regarding claim 4, Kobashi discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the execution schedule is displayed for the user to identify whether the color validation is a pass or a fail based on the obtained execution result of the color validation (paragraph 60-62, 78-80; Fig. 6f displays execution schedule under “Time 1” and user identifies pass /fail by viewing the verification result column “OK/NG” based on obtained execution result). Regarding claim 6, Kobashi discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the execution schedule is displayed for each image forming apparatus (paragraph 42, 60-62; Fig. 6f displays execution schedule in the “Time 1” column related to when the color verification (validation) is executed for each target image forming apparatus). Regarding claim 7, see rejection of claim 1. Further Piazza discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores one or more programs including instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of an information processing apparatus, cause the information processing apparatus to perform a control method (paragraph 40; memory 12 stores program to be executed by CPU 1 to perform method) Regarding claim 8, see rejection of claim 1. Further Piazza discloses an information processing apparatus (paragraph 44; server PC 1005 (information processing apparatus)) comprising: one or more memories that store instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions stored in the one or more memories to execute process (paragraph 40; memory 12 stores program to be executed by CPU 1 to perform method). Regarding claim 11, see rejection of claim 4. Regarding claim 13, see rejection of claim 6 . 07-21-aia AIA 1. Claim (s) 2, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150331639 to Piazza in view of to US 20220263977 to Kobashi further in view US 20250069145 to Pellerin further in view of US 20190377529 to Ohkawa . Regarding claim 2, Piazza discloses color validation (paragraph 44, 118-119; calibration status monitoring unit 100 obtains status information including calibration (color validation) result). However Piazza does not disclose wherein the execution schedule is displayed such that a plurality of scheduled validation tasks is displayed in order of scheduled date and time. Ohkawa discloses wherein the execution schedule is displayed such that a plurality of scheduled validation tasks is displayed in order of scheduled date and time (paragraph 78-81; Fig. 6 displays execution schedule for plural image quality adjustments in order date such as Mar 12 -Mar 16 and time 8am). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Piazza as taught by Ohkawa to provide ordered display of execution schedule. The motivation to combine the references is to provide calendar type display of execution schedule of the image validation tasks that makes it easier for the user to see the overall schedule for specific period of time and further include display of timing when high image quality can be achieved on schedule to let user know the optimum time to print (paragraph 78-81; fig. 6). Regarding claim 9, see rejection of claim 2 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5, 12, 3, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150331639 to Piazza in view of to US 20220263977 to Kobashi further in view US 20250069145 to Pellerin further in view JP 2009168730 to Tanaka . Regarding claim 5, Piazza discloses color validation (paragraph 44, 118-119; calibration status monitoring unit 100 obtains status information including calibration (color validation) result). However Piazza does not disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the execution schedule is displayed for the user to identify a task of the validation to be executed at a current time. Tanaka discloses wherein the execution schedule is displayed for the user to identify a task of the validation to be executed at a current time (paragraph 21; Fig. 1 shows display of calibration schedule including scheduled date/time of calibration and current time 1-1; in display user can identify that first calibration task scheduled at 2007/06/25 8:30 is task to be executed at current time 1-1 which is 2007/06/25 8:30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Piazza as taught by Tanaka to provide display of execution schedule that provides indication of validation tasks due at current time. The motivation to combine the references is to provide display of current time in the same display of execution schedule including schedule date/time so that user can compare current time with scheduled calibration task to apprehend tasks that are due now and those that are upcoming and wherein user can specify a time period range for viewing the scheduled calibration (paragraph 21). Regarding claim 3, Pellerin discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the execution schedule is displayed for the user to identify the task in which the color validation has not been executed even though the task has passed the scheduled date and time (paragraph 125, 131; Fig. 11a display execution schedule such as in 59b showing weekly test/calibration and next due and indication 59a showing user a calibration/test task that is overdue (“not been executed even though the task has passed a scheduled date and time”)), and a task that has not yet reached the scheduled date and time (paragraph 125; in Fig. 11a 59b displays “Next test due” date and if current alert is “none” it signifies that task that has not yet reached the scheduled date and time). Further Tanaka discloses wherein the execution schedule is displayed for the user to identify the task that has reached the scheduled date and time (paragraph 21; Fig. 1 shows display of calibration schedule including scheduled date/time of calibration and current time 1-1; in display user can identify that first calibration task scheduled at 2007/06/25 8:30 is task that has reached the scheduled date and time by comparing it to current time 1-1). Regarding claim 10, see rejection of claim 3. Regarding claim 12, see rejection of claim 5. Other Prior Art Cited 07-96 AIA 14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20060047455 to Catelani discloses calibration management system. US 20040230328 to Armstrong discloses asset management. US 20140098396 to Osuki discloses calibration job processing. US 9753678 to Yoshida discloses status display processing. JP 2006301851 to Yoshiji discloses document management . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENIYAM MENBERU whose telephone number is (571) 272-7465 . The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00am-6:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached on (571) 270-3438 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 . Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the customer service office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600. The group receptionist number for TC 2600 is (571) 272-2600. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see <http://pair-direct.uspto.gov/> . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Patent Examiner Beniyam Menberu /BENIYAM MENBERU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681 06/12/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/896,516 Page 2 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/896,516 Page 3 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/896,516 Page 4 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/896,516 Page 5 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/896,516 Page 6 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/896,516 Page 7 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/896,516 Page 8 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/896,516 Page 9 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/896,516 Page 10 Art Unit: 2681
Prosecution Insights