CTNF 18/921,595 CTNF 74567 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 § 101 Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Claim grouping Independent claims 1, 13, and 17 are representative. Dependent claims 2–12, 14–16, and 18–20 are not separately argued and fall with the independent claims. See MPEP § 2106.07(a). Step 2A, Prong One: The claims recite a judicial exception Pursuant to the USPTO’s subject matter eligibility guidance, the first inquiry is whether the claims recite any judicial exception, such as an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a); MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The claims are directed to the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, selecting, and organizing information related to paper specifications and print-job setup for a printing workflow. More specifically, the claims recite steps of: enabling a set of papers from a paper catalog stored in a cloud server system; monitoring use of paper during production; adjusting the set of papers based on such use; receiving requests for paper not within the set; adding requested paper and downloading attributes; capturing a barcode associated with a paper specified by a print job; identifying a paper catalog entry having a specified attribute; generating a set of papers from the paper catalog; and downloading the set of papers to a DFE. These steps amount to data gathering, data analysis, data selection, and data organization, which are recognized categories of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a) and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(1). See also Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the claims recite a judicial exception. Step 2A, Prong Two: The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application The next inquiry is whether the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d); MPEP § 2106.05. The additional claim elements, including a printing device, digital front end (DFE), cloud server system, paper catalog, barcode, print ticket setting, and print engine setting, are recited at a high level of generality and are merely used as environments in which the abstract idea is performed. The claims do not recite a specific improvement to: printer hardware, DFE functionality, cloud-server operation, network communication, memory usage, data structures, or any other technology-based process. Instead, the claims merely automate the selection and management of paper-related information for a print workflow using generic components performing their ordinary functions of storing, retrieving, transmitting, and processing data. Thus, the claims do not effect a transformation or otherwise meaningfully limit the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(a), (b), (f), and (g). Step 2B: The claims do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception Because the claims recite an abstract idea and do not integrate that idea into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05 and MPEP § 2106.07(a). The claims do not include additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. The recited printing device, DFE, cloud server system, and paper catalog are generic components used in their ordinary and conventional manner. The claimed steps of: monitoring paper use, adjusting a paper set, identifying catalog entries, capturing a barcode, receiving print-ticket attributes, and downloading paper sets are routine data-processing operations and do not add an inventive concept. The claims do not recite any element or combination of elements that is unconventional, non-routine, or non-generic. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and (e); see also Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012); Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, selecting, and organizing paper-related information for printing operations, and because the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself. 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakai et al. (US 2024/0126485) in view of Fujioka et al. (US2016/0371573) . Regarding claim 1, Wakai et al. teach a method for managing printing operations in a printing system (Fig. 1), the method comprising: enabling a set of papers from a paper catalog at a printing device (Fig. 6); monitoring a use of at least one paper of the set of papers during production at the printing device (paragraph [0078], what the coated paper A, B, C or X is used for different speed); adjusting the set of papers based on the use of the at least one paper by a digital front end (DFE) of the printing device (paragraph [0069], the job management program 504 can manage a job list such as setting change); and providing the adjusted set of papers for a print job at the printing device (paragraph [0079], executing a print job with a mixture of medium types). Wakai et al. fail to teach a paper catalog stored in a cloud server system. However, Fujioka et al teach a memory that stores paper profile information for each of a plurality of paper types, where the paper profile information includes multiple paper attributes, and circuitry that obtains preferentially displayed paper attribute information corresponding to paper to be printed and controls a display to display that information. See, for example: Abstract, paragraph [0039]-[0040]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify the DFE-based sheet-information and print-speed control of Wakai et al. with the paper profile/paper attribute selection teachings of Fujioka et al. in order to improve paper-based print configuration and selection of print processing parameters, including handling paper types and attributes in a user-friendly and organized manner. Regarding claims 2-4, Wakai et al. in view of Fujioka et al. don’t specifically teach the method of claim 1, wherein the adjusting the set of papers includes removing the at least one paper from the set of papers and receiving a request for a paper not within the set of papers for printing at the printing device. However, Wakai et al teach the job management program 504 can manage a job such as setting change. This implies that at least one paper from the set of papers might be removed. Further, the paper from a request might not be within the set of papers for printing at the printing device (see Wakai, paragraph [0069] and [0070] and Fujioka, Fig. 12). Regarding claim 5, Wakai et al. in view of Fujioka et al. further teach the method of claim 4, further comprising downloading at least one attribute for the requested paper from the paper catalog in the cloud server system (Fujioka et al., paragraph [0051]). Regarding claims 6-8, Wakai et al. in view of Fujioka et al. further teach the method of claim 1, further comprising defining a subset of papers from the set of papers based on a parameter of at least one subset paper of the subset of papers, wherein adjusting the set of papers includes adjusting the set of papers based on the use of the parameter of the subset of papers, wherein the parameter includes at least one of a size of the at least one subset paper of the subset of papers and a weight of the at least one subset paper of the subset of papers (Wakai, paragraph [0075], and Fig. 6). Regarding claim 9, Wakai et al. in view of Fujioka et al. further teach the method of claim 1, further comprising updating paper definitions for each paper of the set of papers from the paper catalog from the cloud server system at the printing device (Fujioka, paragraph [0095]). Regarding claim 10-11, Wakai et al. in view of Fujioka et al. further teach the method of claim 1, further comprising adding the printing device to the printing system, further comprising connecting the printing device to the cloud server system (Wakai, Fig. 1, paragraph [0038]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakai et al. in view of Fujioka et al as applied to claim s 1-11 above, and further in view of Morales (US 2023/0161521) . Regarding claim 12, Wakai et al. in view of Fujioka et al. fail to teach the method of claim 11, further comprising downloading the set of papers to the printing device based on a location of the printing device. However, Morales teaches this feature as shown in paragraph [0082]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the location with the printing device as taught by Morales into the method as disclosed by Wakai et al. in view of Fujioka et al in order to appropriately use the correct type of paper regarding the environmental location of the printing device . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morales (US 2023/0161521) in view of Morales (US Patent No. 11544018) . Regarding claim 13, Morales ‘521 teaches a method for managing printing operations for a printing system, the method comprising: capturing a barcode associated with a paper specified by a print job at a printing device within the printing system (paragraph [0082]); accessing a cloud server system of the printing system by a digital front end (DFE) of the printing device (Fig. 1); and downloading color printing resources including calibration TRC, measurement data, and TRC settings (Fig. 3) from the cloud server to DFE of the printing device. Marales ‘521 fails to teach the method comprising identifying a paper catalog entry for the paper in a paper catalog at the cloud server system; generating a set of papers from the paper catalog based on the paper catalog entry; and downloading the set of papers from the cloud server system to the DFE of the printing device. Morales ‘521 teaches a cloud-based printing system in which paper information is captured by scanning barcodes associated with paper and is stored at a reference printing device with timestamps, see, e.g., paragraphs [0022]–[0023] and FIG. 5. Morales ‘018 teaches a DFE-based printing system including a paper catalog having paper type entries, paper type identifiers, and associated print resources, see, e.g., the Abstract, Column 13, lines 34-53 and column 16, lines 30-46, and FIG. 5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to use the barcode-based paper identification of Morales ‘521 in combination with the paper catalog and DFE synchronization teachings of Morales ‘018 in order to identify paper catalog entries from scanned paper information and to organize, retrieve, and distribute paper resources in a printing system. Such a combination would merely combine known elements according to their established functions to yield predictable results. Regarding claim 14, Morales ‘018 further teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising receiving a print job within the printing system for the printing device, wherein the print job includes a setting related to the paper (see Abstract, Fig. 5). Regarding claim 15, Morales ‘521 further teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising scanning the barcode for the paper at the printing device (see paragraph [0022]). Regarding claim 16, Morales ‘018 further teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the set of papers includes additional versions of the paper that vary in weight or size (see column 13, lines 43-53; it should be noted that hundreds or thousands of paper type implies different in weight or size) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bermundo et al. (US 2023/0294258) in view of Morales (US Patent No. 11544018) . Regarding claim 17, Bermundo et al. teach a method for managing printing operations, the method comprising: receiving an attribute defined in a print ticket setting for a print job received for a printing device in a printing system (Fig. 7, 702); accessing a cloud server system of the printing system by a digital front end (DFE) of the printing device (see paragraph [0245]); identifying at least one paper catalog entry from a paper catalog having the attribute, wherein the paper catalog is hosted by the cloud server system (Fig. 7, 704 and paragraph [0110]); Bermundo et al. fail to teach the method comprising generating a set of papers from the paper catalog based on the at least one paper catalog entry; and downloading the set of papers from the cloud server system to the DFE of the printing device. However, in the same field of endeavor, Morales teaches a peer-to-peer printing device network in which DFE(s) store and synchronize printing device information, including paper catalogs and color printing resources. The paper catalog includes paper-type identifiers and associated print resources such as calibration data, ICC profiles, and halftones. See, for example: Abstract, and Fig. 5. This reference teaches DFE-based paper catalog management and synchronization of paper-related resources. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to combine Bermundo et al. with Morales because the references address complementary aspects of printing-system control. Bermundo et al provides a DFE-based print-job processing and device-communication framework, while Morales provides a DFE-accessible paper catalog with paper-type identifiers and associated print resources. Combining these teachings would have improved the ability of the DFE to identify paper catalog entries from job- or ticket-related information and to organize and retrieve corresponding paper resources for printing operations, yielding predictable results from the known functions of each reference. Regarding claim 18, Morales further teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the set of papers includes additional versions of the at least one paper that vary in weight or size. Morales teaches paper catalog entries associated with paper types and paper-related resources. Organizing paper resources by different sizes and weights is a routine and expected aspect of paper cataloging in printing systems (see column 13, lines 43-53). In view of the DFE and paper-resource framework of Bermundo et al. and Morales, it would have been obvious to include multiple paper versions differing in size or weight within the set associated with a paper catalog entry. Regarding claim 19, Bermundo et al. teaches DFE-controlled print processing, RIP firmware, and interaction with print engines (see Fig. 3). Morales teaches paper catalog entries associated with calibration data, ICC profiles, halftones, and print-related settings (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to generate or select a set of papers based on a print engine setting because print-engine-related parameters are standard operational inputs in DFE-based printing systems and would predictably affect paper/resource selection. Regarding claim 20, Bermundo et al. teaches DFE-managed print processing and communication with print engines through modular connectivity and RIP-based workflow. In view of the paper catalog and print-resource management teachings of Morales, it would have been obvious to use print engine speed as an operational setting when generating or selecting a set of papers, because print speed is a routine parameter in printing systems and would predictably be used in print-resource selection . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Meiyappan (US 2023/0016377) – System and Method for Automatic Recovery of Cloud Print Jobs After Printer Error. Nakashima (US 2022/0066716) – Server Apparatus Control Method, and Storage Medium. Lao (US 2022/0229619) – Printing System and Methods to Manage Printing Devices According to Information For Each Printing Device. Morales (US 2023/0221909) – Methods and Printing System for Peer-To-Peer Output Management. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENNY QUOC TIEU whose telephone number is (571)272-7490. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday. 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. 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. /BENNY Q TIEU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/921,595 Page 2 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/921,595 Page 3 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/921,595 Page 4 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/921,595 Page 5 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/921,595 Page 6 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/921,595 Page 7 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/921,595 Page 8 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/921,595 Page 9 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/921,595 Page 10 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/921,595 Page 11 Art Unit: 2682
Prosecution Insights