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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “an acquisition processing portion”, “a first display processing portion” and “a login processing portion”, “a determination processing portion” , “an execution processing portion”, have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “portion” coupled with functional language “configured to … ” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“an acquisition processing portion”, “a first display processing portion” and “a login processing portion”, “a determination processing portion”, “an execution processing portion” appear to be hardware including a processor and memory (par [0064] of the specification).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 6 are directed an idea for acquiring and display print jobs, which is an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements beyond the abstract idea of acquiring and display print jobs. Therefore, the claim does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5 when analyzed as a whole with claim 1 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish meaningful claims significantly more than the abstract idea itself in view of the Alice case.
Any amendment to the claim(s) should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure.
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.
Claims 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (US 20190369934) in view of Nakatsuka et al. (US 20150002895).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue teaches an image forming apparatus comprising:
an acquisition processing portion configured to start an acquisition process of sequentially acquiring job information of print jobs held in a print server from the print server when a predetermined acquisition timing arrives (abstract: that receives print data from a printing service using Internet Printing Protocol and executes printing of the print data); and a first display processing portion configured to cause, in response to a predetermined specific operation received after the acquisition timing, a display portion to display a list of the print jobs based on the job information acquired by the acquisition process before the specific operation is received (abstract: displaying, a list of print jobs held in the printing service).
Inoue does not teach acquiring job information from the print server when a predetermined acquisition timing arrives.
Nakatsuka teaches acquiring job information from the print server when a predetermined acquisition timing arrives (p0016: the print job download portion 103 may send the request data 64 to the intermediate server 4 to try to download the print data 61).
Inoue and Nakatsuka are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Inoue with the teaching of Nakatsuka for purpose of resolve an issue, and an object thereof is to, even if there is a problem with an upstream device of a printing device, enable the printing device to execute a print job (p0011).
Regarding claim 6, The structural elements of apparatus claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 6. Thus, claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Inoue in view of Nakatsuka teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a login processing portion configured to cause a registered user who is registered in advance to log in (fig. 13 A: login scree),wherein the acquisition timing includes a timing after the login of the registered user, and the acquisition process includes a process of sequentially acquiring the job information of the print jobs corresponding to the logged-in registered user (p0049:Only a print job having user-attribute values matching with the values of these attributes among print jobs saved in the printing service 101 is transmitted from the printing service 101 to the printing apparatus 100).
Regarding claim 3, Inoue teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising: a second display processing portion configured to cause the display portion to display a function selection screen used to select a function to be used when the registered user logs in (fig. 13A, A and B: copy scan, mail function),
wherein functions selectable on the function selection screen include a specific function for executing a print job held in the print server (fig. 13A: C: cloud print job list), and the acquisition timing includes a timing when the specific function is selected as the function to be used on the function selection screen (Fig. 13A, D: date).
Regarding claim 4, Inoue teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in response to a predetermined update operation received after the display of the list, the first display processing portion updates the list based on the job information acquired by the acquisition process before the update operation is received (fig. 13A: D,E F).
Regarding claim 5, Inoue teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a determination processing portion configured to, in response to a designation operation of designating any of the print jobs included in the list displayed by the first display processing portion (p0003:When a job list of the user is displayed on an operation panel of the printing apparatus, based on a response from the printing service, the user selects a job that the user wants to print, and then selects a “print” button), determine whether or not the print job designated by the designation operation is held in the print server; and an execution processing portion configured to execute the print job designated by the designation operation when the determination processing portion determines that the print job designated by the designation operation is held in the print server (p0003:The printing apparatus then acquires the corresponding job from the printing service, and performs printing for the job.) .
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN Q ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1600. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
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, Merouan, Abderrahim can be reached on (571) 270-5254. 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.
HELEN ZONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/HELEN ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights