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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/13/2026 has been entered.
Prosecution Status
Applicant’s amendments filed 1/30/2026 have been received and reviewed. The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10-17 are pending.
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.
1. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10-17 are directed to facilitating purchase of consumables, which is considered a commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 recite an apparatus, comprising one or more processors. Claim 10 recites a method with at least one step. Claims 11-12 recite a system comprising a printer, a terminal device, and a server. Claims 13-16 recite a system comprising a printer, a terminal device, and a server. Claim 17 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, apparatus, manufacture).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a process in which consumable purchases are facilitated, in the following limitations:
manage user information including information for identifying the printer capable of printing and first terminal information that allows for identification of the plurality of users who can use the printer and for identification of the plurality of terminal devices;
manage printing information including information for identifying the printer that has executed printing and remaining amount information on the consumable in the printer;
manage purchase authority information related to presence or absence of purchase authority of the consumable;
manage a plurality of pieces of notification information according to a combination of a plurality of notification conditions, wherein the plurality of the notification conditions includes thresholds of the remaining amount information set by a user; and
wherein the information related to purchase of the consumable is set for each of the plurality of pieces of notification information,
the information related to purchase of the consumable set for notification information according to the notification conditions satisfied by each of the plurality of terminal devices among the plurality of pieces of notification information,
the notification conditions satisfied by each of the plurality of terminal devices are determined based on the user information, the printing information, and the purchase authority information,
the purchase authority information includes second terminal information that allows for identification of a user having the purchase authority of the consumable and allows for identification of the terminal device usable to purchase the consumable,
the terminal device of the user having the purchase authority of the consumable is notified of first information as information related to the consumable and the terminal device of a user having no purchase authority is notified of the consumable of second information, which is different from the first information, as the information related to the consumable,
in a case where the remaining amount information is less than a first threshold set by a user, the terminal device not usable to purchase the consumable is notified of the information related to purchase of the consumable, and
in a case where the remaining amount information is less than a second threshold set by a user, which is greater than the first threshold, the terminal device usable to purchase the consumable is notified of the information related to purchase of the consumable.
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction with a consumer to facilitate the purchase of a consumable. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity or behavior; and business relations. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
a controller including a processor and a memory, the controller configured to:
notify each of the plurality of terminal devices of information related to purchase of the consumable,
each of the plurality of terminal devices is notified of
The technology recited in the specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs [0042] - [0046], [0091] set forth a series of generic, known, existing technological elements for performing the invention. Paragraph [0205] indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable -- “it is possible to apply the technique according to the information processing apparatus described in the above-described embodiments to various widely-known systems”. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, the additional elements (recited above) simply perform well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to implement the judicial exception. Communicating information in the form of notifying devices (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claims 10, 11, 13 and 17 are substantially similar in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 2-4, 6-9, 12, 14-16
Dependent claims 3, 6, 8, 12, and 14-16 merely set forth embellishments to the abstract idea of Claims 1, 11, 13, and 17. Therefore, they do nor confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for the same reasons as the claims from which they depend.
Regarding Claim 5
Claim 5 sets forth:
wherein the printing information includes third terminal information that allows for identification of a user who has requested printing by the printer and allows for identification of a terminal device that has given an instruction to execute printing by the printer, and the notification unit changes a timing of notification between a terminal device that has requested printing by the printer and a terminal device that has not requested printing by the printer.
Such a recitation merely embellishes the abstract idea of facilitating purchase of a consumable. While the claim does set forth the additional limitation of “the notification unit”, this recitation is similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejections have been fully considered, and are persuasive in light of the present amendments. Accordingly, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims have been fully considered, and are persuasive in light of the present amendments. Accordingly, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
It is respectfully submitted that while the claims could potentially be interpreted as being directed to an abstract idea of purchasing consumables, the claims rely on specific discreet implementation of features that allow for a user to purchase ink for a printer through one of a plurality of terminal devices respectively corresponding to a plurality of users. In this way, the users are able share a single printer, and the user having purchase authority can purchase the consumable. Further, information relating to the purchase of the consumable is related to the terminal devices - both the terminal device with purchasing power and the terminal device without purchasing power, depending on different conditions being met.
Following Bascom Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F. 3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), it is submitted the invention of Claim 1 gives multiple users the ability to purchase, for example, ink for a shared printer through respective terminal devices as well as being notified of information relating to the purchase of the ink. It is submitted, therefore, Applicant's Claim 1 integrates an abstract idea with a specific and practical application.
In response, the Examiner notes that applicant describes an ink purchasing scheme involving printers, but does not set forth any description of the technical procedures to implement any technological solution beyond generally notifying (i.e., communicating data) information regarding purchase authority to the printer devices based on certain conditions. Unlike Bascom, the present claims do not set forth any specific arrangement of technological elements that amounts to significantly more. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained, and the claims are held to be ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571272-6763. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights