DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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 of this title, 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.
3. Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obara et al (US Pub: 2017/0185469) and in further view of Endo (JP Pub: 2009276919) (Applicant submitted reference).
Regarding claim 1, Obara et al teaches: An information processing system comprising: a storage unit configured to store information recognized as image information [p0027, p0068], outside an image forming apparatus configured to execute image forming processing of forming an image based on the image information [p0049, p0051].
Obara et al does not generate pseudo information. In the same field of endeavor, Endo teaches: a processor configured to generate pseudo information including recognition information causing recognition as the image information by the storage unit and information other than the image information, and transmit the pseudo information to the storage unit [page 4: p03, page 7: p03]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the two to generate a pseudo job to cover information for future backup and recovery.
Regarding claim 2, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Obara et al in view of Endo further teaches: The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to generate the pseudo information including retained information retained by the image forming apparatus as the other information [Obara: claim 1; Endo: page 4: p01-p03].
Regarding claim 3, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein. Obara et al in view of Endo further teaches: The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to generate, when the image forming apparatus changes a setting, the pseudo information including setting information before the change as the retained information [p0098]. Therefore, given Obara et al’s teaching on retaining setting data before a replacement and data is backed up before a storage is replace; and Endo’s teaching on generating and store pseudo data with additional information before print process, the combined teaching would have made adding setting information to pseudo data stored as retained information obvious to a skilled in the art for future data backup.
Regarding claim 5, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Endo further teaches: The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to generate the pseudo information including image information [page 1: p08; page 2: p01].
Regarding claim 6, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Endo further teaches: The information processing system according to claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to generate the pseudo information including image information having a notification content to be notified to a user [page 6: p01].
Claim 7 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Obara et al’s further teaching on: A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process for information processing [p0038, p0039].
Claim 8 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1.
4. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obara et al (US Pub: 2017/0185469) and Endo (JP Pub: 2009276919) (applicant submitted reference); and in further view of Michishita (US Pub: 2018/0267864).
Regarding claim 4, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 3 has been incorporated herein. Obara et al in view of Endo’s teaching would have made rolling back to previous setting obvious. In the same field of endeavor, Michishita teaches: The information processing system according to claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to cause, when the change of the setting in the image forming apparatus is inappropriate, the storage unit to transmit the setting information before the change to the image forming apparatus [abstract, fig. 5]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to roll back previous setting information upon detection of abnormality for data preservation.
Contact
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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 on 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 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. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights