Ex Parte Zeng et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 27, 201613051936 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/051,936 03/18/2011 22879 7590 06/01/2016 HP Inc, 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jun Zeng UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 82630598 5500 EXAMINER FEENEY, BRETT A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2822 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): ipa.mail@hp.com barbl@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JUN ZENG, ERIC HOARAU, GIORDANO B. BERETTA, and I-JONG LIN Appeal2014-002447 Application 13/051,936 Technology Center 3600 Before LINDA E. HORNER, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 6, 13, and 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method and system for generating a quantitative guideline for a print order. Claims 1 and 4, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: Appeal2014-002447 Application 13/051,936 1. A method comprising: receiving into an electronic device a print order from a customer to a print service provider; determining in the electronic device requisite tasks to fulfill the print order; determining in the electronic device which resources of the print service provider are capable of undertaking the requisite tasks; and determining in the electronic device respective costs and lead times associated with undertaking each requisite task using each capable resource based at least in part on a dynamic behavioral model of cost and a dynamic behavioral model of lead time associated with each resource. 4. A system comprising: a network interface or an input I output interface, or a combination thereof, at least collectively configured to receive a print order and a resource usage status associated with a resource of a print service provider at a site of the print service provider; and data processing circuitry configured to determine requisite tasks to fulfill the print order and determine a cost and a lead time associated with performing one of the requisite tasks using the resource based at least in part on a behavioral model of cost, a behavioral model of lead time, and the resource usage status. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Gonzalez Rai Manchala US 2002/0019786 Al US 2007/0019228 Al US 2007 /0247656 Al 2 Feb. 14,2002 Jan.25,2007 Oct. 25, 2007 Appeal2014-002447 Application 13/051,936 REJECTIONS Claims 1-3, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Manchala and Rai. Final Act. 3. Claims 4---6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Manchala and Gonzalez. Final Act. 12. OPINION Regarding claims 1 and 13, the Examiner found "determining ... requisite tasks to fulfill the print order" was disclosed by a teaching in Manchala of "generating a plurality of possible workflows to complete the print order." Final Act. 3, 8. The Examiner then found that Manchala disclosed "determining ... costs and lead times associated with undertaking each requisite task" based on "materials used, size of job, etc.[,] ... the cost of moving materials or resources from one site to another[,]. .. [the] transportation costs for moving materials[,]. .. [and] availability of the mail carrier." Final Act. 4--5, 8-9. Claims 1 and 13 require determining costs and lead times associated with "each requisite task" or with "that requisite task", respectively. A finding that a plurality of tasks may exist and that some of these tasks may be used to determine the costs and lead times is not sufficient to meet the claim language. The claims require that each of the tasks, not just a plurality of tasks, is used in the determination of the costs and lead times. Because each task has not been sufficiently elicited by the Examiner, it is unclear how the costs and lead times associated with each requisite task are determined. As Appellants have argued, it appears Manchala determines completion time and cost for each print order job workflow as a whole, not for each task required. App. Br. 7. To determine that each task, as opposed 3 Appeal2014-002447 Application 13/051,936 the print job as a whole, is considered in the cost and time determinations of Manchala requires speculation as to how the Examiner is interpreting the reference to meet the recited "requisite tasks." The Examiner has failed to clearly articulate how the teachings of Manchala are being applied to reject the currently pending claims. The rejections of independent claims 1 and 13, and also dependent claims 2, 3, and 14 are reversed. Regarding claim 4, the Examiner found Manchala and Gonzalez taught "determin[ing] a cost and a lead time associated with performing one of the requisite tasks using the resource based at least in part on a behavioral model of cost, a behavioral model of lead time," and the "resource usage status." Final Act. 12-13. The Examiner found an algorithm taking into account the availability of a mail carrier to be a "behavioral model of lead time." Final Act. 13. A "behavioral model of lead time" suggests a model that is situational or dependent on the behavior of the system, and amounts to more than just viewing a schedule of a mail carrier. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably considered the availability of a mail carrier to be a "behavioral model." Additionally, the Examiner found Gonzalez taught determining resource usage (Final Act. 13-14 ), however failed to clearly articulate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have additionally considered resource usage in the determination of cost and lead time. The combination proposed by the Examiner, therefore, does not clearly articulate a determination of a cost and lead time associated with performing one of the requisite tasks based on all three factors. The rejections of independent claim 4 and dependent claims 5 and 6 are reversed. 4 Appeal2014-002447 Application 13/051,936 DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6, 13, and 14 are reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation