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 .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 17/893,150, filed on August 22, 2022. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection dated December 09, 2025, Applicant on February 12, 2026, amended claims 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 and canceled claim 5. Claims 1 and 3-7 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Priority
The Examiner has noted the Applicant is claiming Foreign Priority from JP2022-048797 filed March 24, 2022.
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on March 10, 2026 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments are acknowledged.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicants arguments and amendments have been considered but are insufficient to overcome the rejection.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections are hereby amended pursuant to Applicants amendments to claim 1. Updated 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been applied to amended claims 1 and 3-7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed February 12, 2026 (hereinafter Applicant Remarks) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s Remarks regarding the pending rejections will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed February 12, 2026.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states claims 1, 6, and 7 have been amended to better define the structural configuration of the claimed consumable management system by reciting the features "a storage device configured to storage results processed by a processor of the computer, wherein the storage device stores information related to a user of the consumable management system" and "a memory device electrically connected to the processor of the computer and configured to perform calculation".
With further reciting the above structural features in the apparatus claims, claims 1 and 6, and further defining the claimed consumable management method in claim 7 performed by the consumable management system, the amended independent claims 1, 6, and 7 should no longer fall into the category of mental process grouping, and the claimed invention of the amended claims 1, 6, and 7 should thus amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Moreover, claims 1, 6, and 7 have been further amended by incorporating the claimed features from the original claim 2 to recite "when the replacement time period satisfies the predetermined threshold time period of replacement based on the collection time period, limit a replenishment amount of the consumable, for which the replenishment is required, in the instruction, according to a period during the replacement time period and the collection time period" and to better define how the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application.
Based on the above amendments, the current Section 101 rejections of the amened independent claims 1, 6, and 7 and the dependent claims 3-5 are solicited to be reconsidered and withdrawn.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds even in a computer environment, these limitations are still considered abstract by reciting limitations that mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluations, judgement and opinion, that can feasibly be performed with pen and paper, where the data interpretation is perceptible in the human mind. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). Examiner finds the pending claims recite similar limitations to claims the courts have indicated may not be sufficient in showing an improvement in computer-functionality, such as accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017), A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Therefore, Examiner maintains the claims recite additional elements used as tools to perform the instructions of the abstract idea without disclosing limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do these elements provide meaningful limitations that transforms the judicial exception into significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Furthermore, Examiner respectfully finds Applicants remarks are directed toward the data analysis regarding the management of replacing or replenishing consumables based on the data analysis of the threshold time period of replacement requirements. Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant, regardless of the complexity and/or granularity assessing replenishment amounts of a consumable based on threshold conditions without meaningful limitations within the claims that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself is a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea). Examiner maintains the claims are directed to an abstract idea. For at least these reasons, the pending claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8-10, filed February 12, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. Applicant’s arguments are considered moot because they are directed to newly amended subject matter and do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. Please refer to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection for further explanation and rationale.
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.
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are directed towards a system, claim 6 is directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium and claim 7 is directed towards a method, which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite managing the replacement or replenishment of consumables.
Claim 1 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on mental processes. Specifically, acquire usage information of a consumable from an apparatus to be managed for which a collection time period is set; determine a replacement time period of the consumable based on the usage information; and provide an instruction of replacement or replenishment of the consumable in a case where the replacement time period satisfies a predetermined threshold time period of replacement based on the collection time period and not to provide the instruction of the replacement or the replenishment of the consumable in a case where the replacement time period does not satisfy the predetermined threshold time period of replacement, and perform calculation, wherein when the replacement time period satisfies the predetermined threshold time period of replacement based on the collection time period, limit a replenishment amount of the consumable, for which the replenishment is required, in the instruction, according to a period during the replacement time period and the collection time period. constitutes methods of evaluations, observation and judgement that can be performed by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of a processor and storage and memory devices connected to the processor do not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 6 and 7 recite mental processes for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites a storage device configured to storage results processed by the processor, wherein the storage device stores information related to a user of the consumable management system, which are limitations considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, claim 1 recites a processor and storage and memory devices connected to the processor at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than a generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and therefore is directed to an abstract idea. The non-transitory computer readable medium recited in claim 6 and consumable management method performed by a consumable management system in claim 7 also amount to no more than a generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements recited in claims 6 and 7 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, including a processor, storage and memory devices connected to the processor ,and non-transitory computer-readable medium amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log) and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). (see at least Specification [0056]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
§ 101 Analysis of the dependent claims.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claims 3-5 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. No additional elements are disclosed in the dependent claims that were not considered in independent claim 1. Therefore claims 3-5 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doeberl et al., U.S. Publication 2004/0249655 [hereinafter Doeberl], and further in view of Hitaka, U.S. Publication No. 2016/0286059 [hereinafter Hitaka].
Referring to Claim 1, Doeberl teaches:
A consumable management system comprising:
a processor configured to (Doeberl, Fig. 1, [0049]):
acquire usage information of a consumable from an apparatus to be managed for which a collection time period is set (Doeberl, [0080]), “Meter read history is preserved in the monthly extract. This allows the application to calculate usage by subtracting the previous meter read from the current meter read and applying any adjustments”; (Doeberl, [0062]), “the process obtains current and historical meter readings or other usage data for the business machine or group of machines under consideration along with benchmark consumable data”; (Doeberl, [0040]);
determine a replacement time period of the consumable based on the usage information (Doeberl, [0065]), “The predicted consumable usage is then compared against consumable orders over a comparable period of time. A report is formed listing the predicted values against the actual orders and discrepancies beyond a threshold of twenty percent are flagged and highlighted. The threshold value may be changed according to factors such as types of page printing and other factors. For example, a company known to print mostly white-space documents will use less toner than predicted by an average model. Accordingly, a specific model can be developed as needed with feedback from usage data”; (Doeberl, [0062]), “the process obtains current and historical meter readings or other usage data for the business machine or group of machines under consideration along with benchmark consumable data. The user may select many asset groups including a group of all of one asset type, a group of all asset types using a particular consumable type, a group based upon location criteria such as a particular customer site or floor, a group based upon organizational based criteria such as a department or an individual asset. In step 84, the process obtains information relating to the consumable replenishments such as when the toner of a printer was last changed. The data may be obtained from an Asset Manager purchasing module, an incident help desk module, by manual inventory or other method. Alternatively, inventory data regarding remaining consumables can be input and compared to historical usage data. In step 86, the process determines whether the consumables usage is within tolerance. This compliance step may take into account other factors”; (Doeberl, [0057]; [0059]).
Doeberl teaches streamlining supplies procurement processes and automated usage data collection (see par. 0021), but Doeberl does not explicitly teach:
provide an instruction of replacement or replenishment of the consumable in a case where the replacement time period satisfies a predetermined threshold time period of replacement based on the collection time period and not to provide the instruction of the replacement or the replenishment of the consumable in a case where the replacement time period does not satisfy the predetermined threshold time period of replacement;
a storage device configured to storage results processed by the processor, wherein the storage device stores information related to a user of the consumable management system; and
a memory device electrically connected to the processor and configured to perform calculation,
wherein when the replacement time period satisfies the predetermined threshold time period of replacement based on the collection time period, limit a replenishment amount of the consumable, for which the replenishment is required, in the instruction, according to a period during the replacement time period and the collection time period.
However Hitaka teaches:
provide an instruction of replacement or replenishment of the consumable in a case where the replacement time period satisfies a predetermined threshold time period of replacement based on the collection time period and not to provide the instruction of the replacement or the replenishment of the consumable in a case where the replacement time period does not satisfy the predetermined threshold time period of replacement (Hitaka, [0053]-[0055]), “Each target device of the device group 110 sets the threshold value for toner consumption as follows. The target device initially estimates toner consumption for processing each job, and aggregates the estimated values for jobs at intervals of, for example, one working day, i.e., each day the device group 110 operates. From a history of aggregated values, the target device next estimates a consumption rate of toner, i.e., amount of toner consumption per working day, at intervals of, for example, one week or five working days, which are longer intervals than the intervals at which the target device aggregates estimated toner consumption values…Thus, the threshold value indicates a predicted value of total toner consumption at which, when reached, sufficient time remains to supply toner before the toner becomes exhausted. In this sense, the threshold value is considered to be a “predicted time for replenishment or replacement of consumables”. As long as the target device sends a replenishment request RQS when the total toner consumption reaches the threshold value, there is a sufficiently high probability that the device is replenished with toner before the toner is exhausted…Furthermore, the threshold value, i.e., the predicted time for replenishment or replacement of consumables, is updated at intervals of, for example, a week or five working days. Updating the predicted time at such appropriate intervals prevents the predicted time from being greatly influenced by sudden fluctuations in the toner consumption rate, such as an unusual increase in the number of jobs to be processed, and enables the predicted time to be accurately adjusted to conform to variations over long periods of use that have a large influence in the toner consumption rate, such as year-end and month-end concentrations of jobs”; (Hitaka, [0218]);
a storage device configured to storage results processed by the processor, wherein the storage device stores information related to a user of the consumable management system; and a memory device electrically connected to the processor and configured to perform calculation (Hitaka, [0053]), “From a history of aggregated values, the target device next estimates a consumption rate of toner, i.e., amount of toner consumption per working day, at intervals of, for example, one week or five working days, which are longer intervals than the intervals at which the target device aggregates estimated toner consumption values. The target device then calculates the product of the consumption rate and the number of working days required for the device to be actually replenished with toner after sending the replenishment request RQS. This number is hereinafter referred to as “toner delivery time.””; (Hitaka, [0091]), “The monitor unit 611 further aggregates values estimated for jobs at intervals of, for example, one working day, stores the aggregated estimated values in the ROM 63, and monitors cumulative toner consumption from the last time the toner was replenished. When this cumulative value reaches the corresponding threshold value, the monitor unit 611 notifies the request unit 613”; (Hitaka, [0218]),
wherein when the replacement time period satisfies the predetermined threshold time period of replacement based on the collection time period, limit a replenishment amount of the consumable, for which the replenishment is required, in the instruction, according to a period during the replacement time period and the collection time period (Hitaka, [0097]), “the controller unit 60 predicts the time for replenishment of toner based on the history of amounts of toner consumed. FIG. 8 shows toner amounts that the monitor unit 611 aggregates on each working day as percentages of the maximum toner capacity of the MFP 111; the amounts include a daily toner consumption and a total of toner consumption from the last time toner was replenished. For example, when the maximum toner capacity is equal to one 500 g toner bottle, consumption of 0.5% is equivalent to 2.5 g, i.e., 500 g multiplied by 0.5%. FIG. 8 further shows a threshold value for toner consumption, set by the prediction unit 612 each week, i.e., every five working days, based on these values”; (Hitaka, [0217]-[0218]), “the prediction unit 612 evenly distributes the average value FAV calculated in step S202 among the number of operable devices NPR, in order to estimate the allocation amount SHR for one device. The prediction unit 612 then adds the allocation amount SHR to the frequency in use MFR of its own device, calculates the ratio of the frequency after the addition to the frequency before the addition, multiplies the ratio by the toner lower limit RMA, and replaces the toner lower limit RMA with the product, i.e., RMA=RMA×(MFR+SHR)/MFR…”; (Hitaka, [0082]), “Using this magnetic permeability, the controller unit 60 detects the ratio of toner to carrier in the developer DVL from a value measured by the TCR sensor 245, and determines an amount of toner to be supplied to the developer unit 214 based on the value detected”; (Hitaka, [0091]), “The monitor unit 611 further aggregates values estimated for jobs at intervals of, for example, one working day, stores the aggregated estimated values in the ROM 63, and monitors cumulative toner consumption from the last time the toner was replenished. When this cumulative value reaches the corresponding threshold value, the monitor unit 611 notifies the request unit 613”; (Hitaka, [0092]);
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified supply procurement in Doeberl to include the replacement or replenishment limitations as taught by Hitaka. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of managing assets in Doeberl (see par. 0008) to efficiently include the results of more accurately predicting the time for replenishment or replacement of consumables (see Hitaka par. 0011).
Referring to Claim 3, the combination of Doeberl in view of Hitaka teaches the consumable management system according to claim 1. Doeberl further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to:
in a case where, after the apparatus is collected from an installation place of a provision destination, the apparatus is installed at another installation place of the provision destination, not to limit the replenishment amount even in a case where the period during the replacement time period and the collection time period satisfies a condition of limiting the replenishment amount of the consumable (Doeberl, [0064]-[0065]), “a group of machines are considered together. The group may include the same types of printers on a floor that are in a pool for supplies. If supplies are determined to be missing for a device or group of devices, it is possible that they were moved or utilized in another area. Accordingly, the system also reports potential excess supply inventories. For example, if a printer on a particular floor appears to have not consumed one of the toner cartridges allocated to it, the system may search for a printer on the same floor that appears to have used one less toner than allocated. The report may list the two incidents side by side to determine if they match. The system may also list charge back data for each of the two devices so that a determination can be made whether a charge back department-to-department adjustment should be made… an outsourcing company may wish to track consumables to determine if outside or unauthorized consumables are being utilized. Accordingly, reporting step 88 may be the only step used and it may be used to report predicted usage to a salesperson for follow-up. If a location-based algorithm is used, the system utilizes location information to aggregate predicted consumable usage by type for a particular enterprise or subset of an enterprise such as a site or campus. The predicted consumable usage is then compared against consumable orders over a comparable period of time. A report is formed listing the predicted values against the actual orders and discrepancies beyond a threshold of twenty percent are flagged and highlighted…”; (Doeberl, [0028]).
Referring to Claim 4, the combination of Doeberl in view of Hitaka teaches the consumable management system according to claim 1. Doeberl further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to:
in a case where the replacement time period does not satisfy the predetermined threshold time period of replacement based on the collection time period, and in a case where, after the apparatus is collected from an installation place of a provision destination, the apparatus is installed at another installation place of the provision destination, provide the instruction of the replacement or the replenishment of the consumable according to the installation of the apparatus at the other installation place (Doeberl, [0065]), “reporting step 88 may be the only step used and it may be used to report predicted usage to a salesperson for follow-up. If a location-based algorithm is used, the system utilizes location information to aggregate predicted consumable usage by type for a particular enterprise or subset of an enterprise such as a site or campus. The predicted consumable usage is then compared against consumable orders over a comparable period of time”; (Doeberl, [0126]), “The Assets Expiring within N# Days Compared to Preferred Replacement report provides a list of all parent assets and their respective volumes for a specified period of time”; (Doeberl, [0103]), “The system may use a Proration Variable. The term prorate is used to mean the "act of dividing or accessing proportionally". With PBMS Fleet/Asset Management, proration refers to the periodic charges (i.e. Base Charge/Rate, other periodic charges) of the asset divided by the days-in-period for which the asset was installed and servicing the customer. The most common scenario of proration encountered by fleet accounts is when an asset is installed on the last day of the month, and the provider does not wish to over-charge the customer for the full period's base rate, and only charge the customer for that single day in the period. The same scenario exists when a device is removed/replaced during the period”; (Doeberl, [0109]), “An adjustment is used to augment the volume calculation for miscellaneous click credits/debits. For example, an installation or service incident for an asset required 100 test pages to be generated. If a Service Contract is in place, the FAM Administrator may not wish to charge the customer for these 100 test pages. In this case, the FAM Administrator would log a negative adjustment (credit) that would reduce the volume/actual usage charges to the customer. A detailed example of Straight CPC with a credit (negative adjustment) is shown in Table 3”; (Doeberl, [0121]; [0125]).
Referring to Claim 5, the combination of Doeberl in view of Hitaka teaches the consumable management system according to claim 4. Doeberl further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to:
in a case where a predetermined condition for use of the consumable is satisfied, not to provide the instruction of the replacement or the replenishment of the consumable even in a case where, after the apparatus is collected from the installation place of the provision destination, the apparatus is installed at the other installation place of the provision destination (Doeberl, [0076]-[0077]), “the system provides for identification of under-performing vendors or key operators. The key operator reports may be run for a period of time and may even be run across customer sites… the process obtains incident data, the incident data including vendor or key operator data and SLA compliance parameters… the system can isolate a particular key operator across all the devices and ignore incident data from a device involving another key operator”; (Doeberl, [0062]), “The user may select many asset groups including a group of all of one asset type, a group of all asset types using a particular consumable type, a group based upon location criteria such as a particular customer site or floor, a group based upon organizational based criteria such as a department or an individual asset. In step 84, the process obtains information relating to the consumable replenishments such as when the toner of a printer was last changed… the process determines whether the consumables usage is within tolerance. This compliance step may take into account other factors as discussed below. If not, the process reports the discrepancy in step 88. The reporting step may withhold notification… until a confidence level such as 40% out of tolerance or more is reached”; (Doeberl, [0064]).
Referring to Claim 6,
Claim 6 disclose substantially the same subject matter as Claim 1, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Doeberl discloses a system for managing assets having components including a network that is connected to a local Asset Manager server (see par. 0049), but Doeberl does not explicitly teach:
A non-transitory computer readable medium of a consumable management system storing a program causing a computer of a consumable management system to execute.
However Hitaka teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium of a consumable management system storing a program causing a computer of a consumable management system to execute (Hitaka, [0014]), “A non-transitory recording medium according to one aspect of the invention is a non-transitory recording medium readable for a computer connected to image forming devices via a network. The recording medium includes program code recorded thereon. According to the program code, the computer executes: referring to registered data about the image forming devices to acquire the number of the image forming devices; monitoring a consumption ratio of consumables in at least one of the image forming devices”; (Hitaka, [0307]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Doeberl to include the computer readable medium limitation as taught by Hitaka. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of managing assets in Doeberl (see par. 0008) to efficiently include the results of functions as an element of the consumables management system (Hitaka, [0051]).
Referring to Claim 7, Doeberl teaches:
A consumable management method , performed by a consumable management system, comprising:
Claim 7 disclose substantially the same subject matter as Claim 1, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seki et al. (US 20190286038 A1) – According to an embodiment, a consumable management apparatus includes a detecting unit, a storage unit, an analyzing circuit, a predicting circuit, and a notifying circuit. The detecting unit detects a use condition of a consumable. The storage unit stores therein a use history of the consumable. The analyzing circuit is configured to analyze a consumption speed of the consumable based on a degree of use frequency of the consumable, the degree of use frequency being obtained from the use history of the consumable stored in the storage unit. The predicting circuit is configured to predict a replacement time of the consumable from the use condition of the consumable detected by the detecting unit and the consumption speed of the consumable analyzed by the analyzing circuit. The notifying circuit is configured to give a notice of the replacement time of the consumable predicted by the predicting circuit.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystol Stewart whose telephone number is (571)272-1691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Patty Munson can be reached on (571)270-5396. 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.
/CRYSTOL STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights