Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/935,983

PRINTING SYSTEM INCLUDING PRINTER CONFIGURED TO PRINT IMAGE WHEN DETERMINING THAT AUTHORITY INFORMATION INDICATING AUTHORITY TO PRINT IMAGE IS VALID

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 28, 2022
Examiner
PACHOL, NICHOLAS C
Art Unit
2699
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Brother Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
4 (Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
332 granted / 559 resolved
-2.6% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
594
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.2%
-32.8% vs TC avg
§103
59.9%
+19.9% vs TC avg
§102
17.3%
-22.7% vs TC avg
§112
11.7%
-28.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 559 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to applicant’s argument that Kondo in view for Matsuzawa does not teach “the registering of paid information corresponding to the specific identification data when payment for a printing fee associated with the specific identification data is completed prior to the printer receiving a print job associated with the specific identification data by a contract processing server,” the examiner respectfully disagrees. The argument appears to be based on the teachings as it relates to the payment with respect to the job. Kondo teaches with respect to Fig. 4 in paragraph 68 that information is stored for each print job in association with a print job ID, the user ID, Billing ticket ID, and ticket amount. This information is registered for each job accordingly in the waiting job table which is stored, paragraph 65. This means that through the use of Kondo, Kondo calculates the cost of the printing required for the job. Each job is paid for separately and therefore payment is made based on each job, paragraphs 104 and 113. The billing ticket indicates the calculated amount for the print job and therefore is paid accordingly. Matsuzawa is used to teach that a determination of when the payment has been received is made, paragraph 76. This can be applied to the billing ticket ID of Kondo. Kondo’s billing ticket ID is updated based on the user account update with respect to the job, paragraph 123. The combination would then yield the billing ticket ID being used in conjunction with the print job through the life of the print job with the payment information. It is also noted that Matsuzawa teaches determining whether a payment token is valid, paragraph 61-76. The payment token is received prior to a print job. Kondo is teaching if the payment is sufficient and therefore Matsuzawa would teach the determination that the payment is received before the job is printed. The combination would therefore yield determination of the payment for the job before the job is printed. This would be registered accordingly. Therefore, Kondo in view of Matsuzawa does teach “the registering of paid information corresponding to the specific identification data when payment for a printing fee associated with the specific identification data is completed prior to the printer receiving a print job associated with the specific identification data by a contract processing server.” In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). 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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo (US 2011/0170131) in view of Matsuzawa (US 2021/0157531). Regarding Claim 1, Kondo teaches a printing system (paragraph 2) comprising: a printer comprising a controller (Paragraph 41, wherein there is an image forming apparatus including a control); and a contract processing server (Element 103 and 104, wherein they can be the same server, paragraph 165), the contract processing server being configured to perform: (1a) issuing a specific identification data (Paragraph 66, wherein the billing ticket ID is issued by the billing server), and the controller being configured to perform (2a) in response to receiving from a user terminal device a print job including print data representing an image and including specific identification data, determining, using the specific identification data, whether authority information indicating an authority to print the image has been issued (Paragraph 102 and 104, wherein it is analyzed if the print job has authorization information associated with it. The billing ticket ID is associated with the print job and therefore used, in conjunction with the job, to determine authority to print); and (2b) transmitting, in response to determining in the (2a) determining that the authority information has been issued, to the contract processing server an inquiry for determining whether the authority information is valid (Paragraph 104 and 106, wherein when it is determined if there is billing information associated with the job, it is confirmed), wherein the controller is configured to further perform (2c) determining, in response to receiving the first response transmitted in the (1c) transmitting, that the authority information is valid (Paragraph 119 and 123, wherein the job is processed in regards to confirmation of the data from the server), (2e) printing, in response to determining in the (2c) determining that the authority information is valid, the image on a print medium by controlling the printer (Paragraphs 107 and 119, wherein the job is printed accordingly). Kondo does not teach the contract processing server being configured to perform (1b) registering paid information corresponding to the specific identification data when payment for a printing fee associated with the specific identification data is completed prior to the printer receiving a print job associated with the specific identification data, (1c) in response to receiving the inquiry transmitted in the (2b) transmitting, transmitting a first response to the controller in a case where the paid information corresponding to the specific identification data is registered, and transmitting a second response to the controller in a case where the paid information corresponding to the specific identification data is not registered, and wherein the controller is configured to further perform (2c) determining, in response to receiving the first response transmitted in the (1c) transmitting, that the authority information is valid, (2d) determining, in response to receiving the second response transmitted in the (1c) transmitting, that the authority information is not valid, and (2e) printing, in response to determining in the (2c) determining that the authority information is valid, the image on a print medium by controlling the printer. Matsuzawa does teach the contract processing server being configured to perform (1c) in response to receiving the inquiry transmitted in the (2b) transmitting, transmitting a first response to the controller in a case where the paid information corresponding to the specific identification data is registered (Paragraph 76, wherein the print job can be completed after receiving confirmation of the payment. The specific identification data is registered according to Kondo in association with the job), and transmitting a second response to the controller in a case where the paid information corresponding to the specific identification data is not registered (Paragraphs 61-76, wherein a payment can be made based on determining if a payment token is valid. If the token is not valid, then a payment cannot be made and information is sent to verify that no payment has been made as the token is not valid. Furthermore, the print data is obtained after the token. In addition, the print data can be printed after payment has been made. The specific identification data is registered according to Kondo in association with the job), and wherein the controller is configured to further perform (2c) determining, in response to receiving the first response transmitted in the (1c) transmitting, that the authority information is valid (Paragraphs 61-76, wherein it is determined if the payment token is valid which corresponds also to authority information), (2d) determining, in response to receiving the second response transmitted in the (1c) transmitting, that the authority information is not valid (Paragraphs 61-76, wherein it is determined if the payment token is valid which corresponds also to authority information), and (2e) printing, in response to determining in the (2c) determining that the authority information is valid, the image on a print medium by controlling the printer (Paragraphs 61-76, wherein a payment can be made based on determining if a payment token is valid. If the token is not valid, then a payment cannot be made and information is sent to verify that no payment has been made as the token is not valid. Furthermore, the print data is obtained after the token. In addition, the print data can be printed after payment has been made). Kondo teaches producing a print job based on a request for payment from an authorized user. Matsuzawa teaches producing a print job based on a request for payment or after payment has been made from an authorized user. At the time of the invention, there has been a recognized problem or need in the art to ensure that payment has been made before producing a print job. There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem which are to either collect payment before the print job is produced or after the job is produced at a later date. One of ordinary skill ion the art could have pursed the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since both solutions are present in the teachings of Matsuzawa which allow for the job to be produced with the need for payment being met. This shows that the processing of payment timing could be interchanged and not affect the results. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application. Kondo in view of Matsuzawa teaches (1b) registering paid information corresponding to the specific identification data when payment for a printing fee associated with the specific identification data is completed prior to the printer receiving a print job associated with the specific identification data (Kondo: Paragraphs 123 and 87, wherein the billing ticket ID is associated with the payment information as the payment information is performed in the sense of determining if payment is made. Matsuzawa discloses in paragraphs 61-76 that the payment token is associated with the job and determines if payment has been made based accordingly). Regarding Claim 2, Kondo further teaches wherein the controller is configured to further perform: (2f) transmitting a request to the contract processing server, the request requesting the contract processing server to transmit restriction information, the restriction information indicating a restriction imposed on the (2e) printing (Paragraph 114, wherein the server can indicate that the job cannot be processed), wherein the contract processing server is configured to further perform: (1d) transmitting, in response to receiving the request transmitted in the (2f) transmitting, the restriction information (Paragraph 114, wherein the job is not processed based upon the restriction), and wherein the controller performs the (2e) printing within the restriction indicated by the restriction information (Paragraph 114, wherein the job is not printed). Regarding Claim 3, Kondo further teaches wherein the restriction indicated by the restriction information restricts the maximum number of pages allowed to be printed in the (2e) printing (Paragraph 61, wherein the amount is associated with the number of pages to printed according to the bill amount), and wherein the controller performs the (2e) printing within the maximum number of pages restricted by the restriction indicated by the restriction information (Paragraph 61 and 114, wherein the job is rejected based on the billed amount, which includes number of pages). Regarding Claim 4, Kondo further teaches wherein the specific identification data is used as the authority information (Paragraphs 102 and 104, wherein the job can be secured through the user ID associated with the job. This can also be associated with an authorization with respect to a billing ticket). Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NICHOLAS PACHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-3433. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4. 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, George Eng can be reached on 571-272-7495. 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. /NICHOLAS PACHOL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 28, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 28, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 01, 2023
Response Filed
Nov 17, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 22, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 22, 2024
Notice of Allowance
Jul 18, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 25, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 23, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 05, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 05, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 06, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 07, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 07, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 12, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 14, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 07, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 08, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 31, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 21, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596900
IMAGE COMPARISON CALIBRATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592730
SIGNAL PROCESSING DEVICE, SIGNAL PROCESSING METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM FOR A DISTORTION COMPENSATION CIRCUIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593002
CONTROL APPARATUS, CONTROL METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM THAT CONTROL PRINTING A FLUORESENT MATSDIAL PATCH ON A PRENTING MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12568177
DOCUMENT READING APPARATUS AND IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS INCLUDING HINGE MECHANISM THAT SUPPORTS A DOCUMENT CONVEYANCE UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12556642
IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS WHICH CONVERTS COLOR IMAGES TO MONOCHROME WITH PERCEPTIBLE GRADATIONS IN GRAY VALUE, AND IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD AND STORAGE MEDIUM FOR SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
59%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+22.5%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 559 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month