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 1-15 are allowed. Reasons for allowance will be provided in the event the application becomes in condition for allowance.
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) 16 and 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2008/0204796) in view of Arner (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2017/0118360).
Regarding claim 16, Kitamura et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2008/0204796) discloses:
A method for identifying a replacement printer comprising:
receiving, by a processor, data associated with a printer (paragraph [0066], a job is specified by a user);
determining, by the processor, an issue associated with the printer based on the data (paragraphs [0066]-[0068], for example, it is determined that the printer doesn’t have a function to print on a particular type of paper); and
identifying, by the processor, the replacement printer from a plurality of replacement printers, the identifying based on one or more criteria (paragraphs [0072], [0073], the system finds a suitable replacement printer that can perform the required functions)
Kitamura does not explicitly disclose:
Wherein the printer is an industrial printer;
Arner (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2017/0118360) discloses:
wherein the printer is an industrial printer (claim 1, the system is part of an industrial printing environment where capabilities of the system are obtained)
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 Arner with the system of Kitamura such that the printer being substituted was an industrial printer like the one described in Arner. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system allowing for “numerous printers…configured to simultaneously print information” (paragraph [0003] of the Arner reference).
Regarding claim 18, Kitamura et al. discloses:
A server comprising:
one or more processors (see, for example, paragraph [0044], claim 10);
a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that when executed by the one or more processors (see, for example, claim 10), cause the one or more processors to carry out a method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, data associated with a printer (paragraph [0066], a job is specified by a user);
determining, by the processor, an issue associated with the printer based on the data (paragraphs [0066]-[0068], for example, it is determined that the printer doesn’t have a function to print on a particular type of paper); and
identifying, by the processor, the replacement printer from a plurality of replacement printers, the identifying based on one or more criteria (paragraphs [0072], [0073], the system finds a suitable replacement printer that can perform the required functions)
Kitamura does not explicitly disclose:
Wherein the printer is an industrial printer;
Arner (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2017/0118360) discloses:
wherein the printer is an industrial printer (claim 1, the system is part of an industrial printing environment where capabilities of the system are obtained)
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 Arner with the system of Kitamura such that the printer being substituted was an industrial printer like the one described in Arner. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system allowing for “numerous printers…configured to simultaneously print information” (paragraph [0003] of the Arner reference).
Regarding claim 19, Kitamura et al. discloses:
A system comprising:
one or more printers (Figure 1);
one or more replacement printers (paragraphs [0072]-[0073]);
a server comprising a processor (see, for example, paragraph [0044], claim 10), the server configured to:
receiving, by a processor, data associated with a printer (paragraph [0066], a job is specified by a user);
determining, by the processor, an issue associated with the printer based on the data (paragraphs [0066]-[0068], for example, it is determined that the printer doesn’t have a function to print on a particular type of paper); and
identifying, by the processor, the replacement printer from a plurality of replacement printers, the identifying based on one or more criteria (paragraphs [0072], [0073], the system finds a suitable replacement printer that can perform the required functions)
Kitamura does not explicitly disclose:
Wherein the printer is an industrial printer;
Arner (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2017/0118360) discloses:
wherein the printer is an industrial printer (claim 1, the system is part of an industrial printing environment where capabilities of the system are obtained)
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 Arner with the system of Kitamura such that the printer being substituted was an industrial printer like the one described in Arner. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system allowing for “numerous printers…configured to simultaneously print information” (paragraph [0003] of the Arner reference).
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to claim 16 are applicable. The computer readable medium is explicitly taught as evidenced by claim 10 of Kitamura.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura in view of Arner, further in view of Robinson (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2007/0263237).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kitamura in view of Arner discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 16).
As previously noted, Kitamura discloses:
a method for identifying a replacement printer (see paragraphs [0066]-[0068] and (paragraphs [0072], [0073])
As previously noted, Arner discloses:
wherein the printer is an industrial printer (claim 1, the system is part of an industrial printing environment where capabilities of the system are obtained)
The combination of Kitamura and Arner does not explicitly disclose:
determining, by the processor, a score associated with one or more of the plurality of printers;
identifying, by the processor, the printer based on the scores.
Robinson (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2007/0263237) discloses:
determining, by the processor, a score associated with one or more of the plurality of industrial printers (Abstract, paragraphs [0030]-[0032], [0043], the system assigns a rating to each of a plurality of proof printers);
identifying, by the processor, the printer based on the scores (Abstract, paragraphs [0030]-[0032], [0043], the rating is used to select an appropriate printer)
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 Robinson with the combination of Kitamura and Arner such that the system would have been configured to explicitly score printers, as is suggested by Robinson, as potential replacement printers that are suitable as described in Kitamura. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “selecting the optimal…printer for a given production printer” (paragraph [0014] of the Robinson 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