DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the arguments and amendments filed January 9, 2026 and Request for Continued Examination January 29, 2026.
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 9 and 29, 2026 has been entered.
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 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application.
In terms of Step 1, claims 1 and 3-9 are directed towards one of the four categories of statutory subject matter.
In terms of Step 2(a)(1), independent claims 1 and 9 are directed towards (as represented by claim 1), “receive a type of one or more cartridges being used in a printing apparatus, wherein the type indicates initial remaining amount or maximum capacity of the one or more cartridges; acquire a remaining amount of a recording material in the printing apparatus; decide, based on the received type, a conversion function that converts a first delivery threshold individually set to an individual cartridge being used in the printing apparatus into a second delivery threshold commonly set to a plurality of types of cartridges usable in the printing apparatus convert the remaining amount of the recording material in the printing apparatus into a virtual remaining amount; and transmit the virtual remaining amount to the delivery system as the remaining amount of the recording material in the printing apparatus, wherein the delivery system is configured to compare between the virtual remaining amount and the second delivery threshold to determine whether a delivery of new recording material is required”. The claims are describing a commercial interaction in terms of collecting information regarding a printer and the resulting remaining ink amount in terms of providing replacement ink (further described in dependent claims 2, 5, 6, and 7 which describes a delivery threshold based on remaining ink). The claims are describing a commercial interaction in terms of determining remaining ink to provide delivery services based on the remaining level. As such, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea under the certain method of organizing human activity.
The claims also describe another abstract idea. The claims are collecting and high level analyzing the information to “display” (in this instance transmit information). The information is aspects that a person can perform mentally with a pen and paper to determine remaining ink in a printer to send information for delivery of replacement. As such, the claims also recite an additional abstract idea under the mental process grouping.
Step 2(a)(II) considers the additional elements in terms of being transformative into a practical application. The additional elements of claims 1 and 9 are, “A device management system cooperating with a delivery system, the device management system comprising: one or more memories storing instructions, and one or more processors which, when executing the instructions, cause the device management system to: {claim 1} by using the conversion function”. The additional elements in terms of the computer elements are described in the originally filed specification [44-52 and 69-74]. The system and computer elements are merely described in terms of generic computer elements to implement and apply as a tool to the abstract idea(s). Though the conversion function is considered above in terms of the abstract idea, the aspect will further be considered an additional element for the specific conversion function. The conversion function is described in the originally filed specification [56-64]. The conversion function is not describing a specific algorithm or modeling technique. The conversion function is described in terms of the idea of a solution, but the specific details are not described. The additional elements are not directed towards technical improvements. As such, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are transformative into a practical application. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2(b) considers the additional elements in terms of being significantly more than the identified abstract idea. The additional elements of claims 1 and 9 are, “A device management system cooperating with a delivery system, the device management system comprising: one or more memories storing instructions, and one or more processors which, when executing the instructions, cause the device management system to: {claim 1} by using the conversion function”. The additional elements in terms of the computer elements are described in the originally filed specification [44-52 and 69-74]. The system and computer elements are merely described in terms of generic computer elements to implement and apply as a tool to the abstract idea(s). Though the conversion function is considered above in terms of the abstract idea, the aspect will further be considered an additional element for the specific conversion function. The conversion function is described in the originally filed specification [56-64]. The conversion function is not describing a specific algorithm or modeling technique. The conversion function is described in terms of the idea of a solution, but the specific details are not described. The additional elements are not directed towards technical improvements. As such, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 3-8 are further describing the abstract idea and are not directed towards further additional elements beyond those identified above. The dependent claims are further directed towards describing the thresholds are set for a plurality of ink cartridges, providing further high level analysis (mental process)/determination steps (commercial interaction) for the delivery threshold based on a curve passing through a control point, determining when a cartridge tis to be replaced and providing further aspects of the delivery threshold, sending remaining amount information (high level analysis and commercial interaction analysis for replacement/delivery threshold), and further describing the delivery threshold for the cartridges to be or not to be replaced. The claims are further describing the commercial interaction and mental process in terms of describing the delivery threshold based on the collected and high level analyzed information. The commercial interaction lies within the delivery threshold for the cartridge information elements being determined and transmitted. There are no additional elements beyond those identified above. While there is a determination unit and a decision unit, the units considered above describe the computer aspects to implement the individual units and thus are not a further additional element beyond what was considered above. The analysis is performed at a high level in terms of the mental process determination and consideration. The claims are further describing the identified abstract ideas and are not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application.
The claimed invention is describing abstract ideas without additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application. Therefore, claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed towards non-eligible subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beiriger et al [10,402,295], hereafter Beiriger, in view of Miyazawa [2019/0346801].
Regarding claim 1, Beiriger discloses a device management system cooperating with a delivery system, the device management system comprising: one or more memories storing instructions, and one or more processors which, when executing the instructions, cause the device management system to (Fig 1 and C3:23 to C5:19; Beiriger discloses the system elements to implement the printer ink delivery system.):
receive a type of one or more cartridges being used in a printing apparatus, wherein the type indicates initial remaining amount or maximum capacity of the one or more cartridges (Fig 9 and C9:6-43; Beiriger discloses receiving ink level, printer model, and other aspects for the printer. This includes the interpreted type based on the initial remaining amount for their level of use.);
acquire a remaining amount of a recording material in the printing apparatus; convert the remaining amount of the recording material in the printing apparatus into a virtual remaining amount by using the conversion function; (Fig 8, 9, and C8:1-46; Beiriger discloses providing a system that determines and receives printer information including printer ink levels. The conversion unit is based on the query aspect that accesses information from the print drivers to then transmit the information to the user application.); and
transmit the virtual remaining amount to the delivery system as the remaining amount of the recording material in the printing apparatus (Fig 9-11, C9:5-25, and C12:16-42; Beiriger discloses displaying printer ink levels based on the queries printer systems/drivers.),
Beiriger discloses a delivery threshold, however, Beiriger does not specifically teach a second threshold set;
Miyazawa teaches decide, based on the received type, a conversion function that converts a first delivery threshold individually set to an individual cartridge being used in the printing apparatus into a second delivery threshold commonly set to a plurality of types of cartridges usable in the printing apparatus (Fig 6, 11, and paragraphs [87-91 and 133-138]; Miyazawa teaches a similar ink cartridge replacement system that specifically provides a first/second threshold element for the ink cartridges and for a plurality of cartridges. Further, in terms of the conversion function, Miyazawa provides calculations and estimated values for the residual ink percentage and calculated target for the cartridges for the boundary residual ink percentage. Within the combination, Beiriger teaches threshold aspects and Miyazawa teaches a first and second threshold for both individual and plurality of cartridges.).
wherein the delivery system is configured to compare between the virtual remaining amount and the second delivery threshold to determine whether a delivery of new recording material is required (Paragraphs [90-95]; Miyazawa provides a small and large threshold analysis that is based on the cartridge refill levels. Further, within the combination, Beiriger discloses [C13:4-64] delivery thresholds based on individual cartridge levels.).
Beiriger discloses a printer ink delivery system based on threshold values for cartridges, however, Beiriger does not specifically teach a second threshold for a plurality of cartridges.
Miyazawa teaches a similar printer ink delivery system that specifically provides multiple thresholds for a plurality of ink cartridges.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the printer ink delivery system based on threshold values for cartridges of Beiriger the ability to include a similar printer ink delivery system that specifically provides multiple thresholds for a plurality of ink cartridges as taught by Miyazawa since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination as predictable.
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the device management system according to claim 1,
Miyazawa further teaches wherein first delivery thresholds individually set to the plurality of types of cartridges are different from each other (Fig 6 and paragraphs [87-91 and 157-158]; Miyazawa teaches different threshold levels for the individual ink cartridges from each other.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the printer ink delivery system based on threshold values for cartridges of Beiriger the ability to include a similar printer ink delivery system that specifically provides multiple thresholds for a plurality of ink cartridges as taught by Miyazawa since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination as predictable.
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the device management system according to claim 1,
Miyazawa further teaches wherein the decided conversion function is a function representing a curve passing through a first control point and a second control point, the first control point represented by a pair of the first delivery threshold and the second delivery threshold, the second control point commonly used to decide the conversion function for the plurality of types of cartridges (Fig 6 and paragraphs [87-91 and 134-137]; Miyazawa teaches approximation lines to decide the threshold elements for the first and second thresholds.).
The combination teaches a printer ink delivery system based on threshold values for cartridges, however, the combination does not specifically teach a control point for the threshold values for the decision function.
Miyazawa teaches a similar printer ink delivery system that specifically provides control point thresholds for the delivery decision.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the printer ink delivery system based on threshold values for cartridges of Beiriger the ability to include a similar printer ink delivery system that specifically provides control point thresholds for the delivery decision as taught by Miyazawa since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination as predictable.
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the device management system according to claim 1,
Miyazawa further teaches wherein the one or more processors further cause the device management system to determine whether a cartridge of the cartridges being used is to be replaced, wherein, when the cartridge being used is determined to be replaced, a value lower than the second delivery threshold is transmitted to the delivery system as the remaining amount of the recording material in the printing apparatus (Fig 6 and paragraphs [87-92 and 110-116]; Miyazawa teaches replacement value thresholds and provides lower values as the cartridge is being used.).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the device management system according to claim 5,
Miyazawa further teaches wherein, when the cartridge being used is determined to be replaced and the virtual remaining amount is determined to be less than the second delivery threshold, the virtual remaining amount is transmitted to the delivery system as the remaining amount of the recording material in the printing apparatus (Fig 6 and paragraphs [87-92 and 110-116]; Miyazawa teaches replacement value thresholds and provides lower values as the cartridge is being used. Within the combination, Beiriger discloses the transmission steps in terms of a printer query to provide the remaining levels to the determination delivery system.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the printer ink delivery system based on threshold values for cartridges of Beiriger the ability to include a similar printer ink delivery system that specifically provides multiple thresholds for a plurality of ink cartridges and value elements for the remaining amount in the cartridge as taught by Miyazawa since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination as predictable.
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the device management system according to claim 5,
Miyazawa further teaches wherein, when the cartridge being used is determined to be replaced and the virtual remaining amount is determined to be greater than the second delivery threshold, a value lower than the second delivery threshold is transmitted to the delivery system as the remaining amount of the recording material in the printing apparatus (Fig 6 and paragraphs [87-92 and 110-116]; Miyazawa teaches replacement value thresholds and provides lower values as the cartridge is being used. Within the combination, Beiriger discloses the transmission steps in terms of a printer query to provide the remaining levels to the determination delivery system and Miyazawa teaches the aspects of providing information regarding cartridge use that would be transmitted through the query system of Beiriger.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the printer ink delivery system based on threshold values for cartridges of Beiriger the ability to include a similar printer ink delivery system that specifically provides multiple thresholds for a plurality of ink cartridges and value elements for the remaining amount in the cartridge as taught by Miyazawa since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination as predictable.
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the device management system according to claim 5,
Miyazawa further teaches wherein, when the cartridge being used is determined not to be replaced, the virtual remaining amount is transmitted to the delivery system as the remaining amount of the recording material in the printing apparatus (Fig 6 and paragraphs [87-92 and 110-116]; Miyazawa teaches replacement value thresholds and provides lower values as the cartridge is being used. Within the combination, Beiriger discloses the transmission steps in terms of a printer query to provide the remaining levels to the determination delivery system.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the printer ink delivery system based on threshold values for cartridges of Beiriger the ability to include a similar printer ink delivery system that specifically provides multiple thresholds for a plurality of ink cartridges and value elements for the remaining amount in the cartridge as taught by Miyazawa since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination as predictable.
Regarding claim 9, Beiriger discloses a method for cooperating with a delivery system, the method comprising (Fig 1 and C3:23 to C5:19; Beiriger discloses the system elements to implement the printer ink delivery system.):
receiving a type of one or more cartridges being used in a printing apparatus, wherein the type indicates initial remaining amount or maximum capacity of the one or more cartridges (Fig 9 and C9:6-43; Beiriger discloses receiving ink level, printer model, and other aspects for the printer. This includes the interpreted type based on the initial remaining amount for their level of use.);
acquiring a remaining amount of a recording material in the printing apparatus; converting the remaining amount of the recording material in the printing apparatus into a virtual remaining amount by using the conversion function (Fig 8, 9, and C8:1-46; Beiriger discloses providing a system that determines and receives printer information including printer ink levels. The conversion unit is based on the query aspect that accesses information from the print drivers to then transmit the information to the user application.) ; and
transmitting the virtual remaining amount to the delivery system as the remaining amount of the recording material in the printing apparatus (Fig 9-11, C9:5-25, and C12:16-42; Beiriger discloses displaying printer ink levels based on the queries printer systems/drivers.),
Beiriger discloses a delivery threshold, however, Beiriger does not specifically teach a second threshold set;
Miyazawa teaches deciding, based on the received type, a conversion function that converts a first delivery threshold individually set to an individual cartridge being used in the printing apparatus into a second delivery threshold commonly set to a plurality of types of cartridges usable in the printing apparatus (Fig 6, 11, and paragraphs [87-91 and 133-138]; Miyazawa teaches a similar ink cartridge replacement system that specifically provides a first/second threshold element for the ink cartridges and for a plurality of cartridges. Further, in terms of the conversion function, Miyazawa provides calculations and estimated values for the residual ink percentage and calculated target for the cartridges for the boundary residual ink percentage. Within the combination, Beiriger teaches threshold aspects and Miyazawa teaches a first and second threshold for both individual and plurality of cartridges.)
wherein the delivery system is configured to compare between the virtual remaining amount and the second delivery threshold to determine whether a delivery of new recording material is required (Paragraphs [90-95]; Miyazawa provides a small and large threshold analysis that is based on the cartridge refill levels. Further, within the combination, Beiriger discloses [C13:4-64] delivery thresholds based on individual cartridge levels.).
Beiriger discloses a printer ink delivery system based on threshold values for cartridges, however, Beiriger does not specifically teach a second threshold for a plurality of cartridges.
Miyazawa teaches a similar printer ink delivery system that specifically provides multiple thresholds for a plurality of ink cartridges.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the printer ink delivery system based on threshold values for cartridges of Beiriger the ability to include a similar printer ink delivery system that specifically provides multiple thresholds for a plurality of ink cartridges as taught by Miyazawa since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination as predictable.
Response to Arguments
In response to the arguments filed January 9, 2026 on pages 6-7 regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, specifically that the amended claim limitations are directed towards eligible subject matter.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In terms of the arguments with respect to the abstract idea groupings, specifically mental process, the arguments allege that a person would not be capable of acquiring the information for a printer ink level within a printer. There is no discussion or description that a person would be unable to gather printer ink level information. Further, in terms of the mental process abstract idea grouping, the collection and high level analysis is within a technical environment. The printing apparatus is merely the generic computer to provide the information within the system, as considered in step 2(a)(II) and 2(b). The additional elements of the claims are generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The arguments further allege that the claimed invention improves efficiency and delivery based on the threshold analysis. The claims, based on the above consideration, merely provide a first and second threshold based on a conversion function. The specification and written description do not provide a specific algorithm or determination to provide the conversion from a first to a second threshold. As such, the first and second threshold are within the high level analysis of the mental process, merely providing a commercial activity determination for the certain method of organizing human activity grouping, and the conversion function is generic technology to implement the identified abstract idea. As such, the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Lacking any further arguments, claims 1 and 3-9 are maintaining the 35 USC 101 rejection, as considered above in light of the amended claim limitations.
In response to the arguments filed January 9, 2026 on pages 7-10 regarding the prior art rejection, specifically that the amended claim limitations are not taught by the cited prior art.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The arguments are with respect to prior art reference Beiriger in terms of the amended claim limitations regarding the type of cartridge and based on the type converting to a first and second threshold. Based on the amended claim elements and further consideration, the previously cited prior art Miyazawa teaches the elements of the conversion based on the type that includes a threshold analysis for the printer and type of ink level and Beiriger teaches the type of ink within the printer providing the received information for the analysis. As such, claims 1 and 9 are rejected based on the 35 USC 103 rejection above, in light of the amended claim limitations.
All rejections made towards the dependent claims are maintained due to the lack of a reply by the applicant in regards to distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action in the prior Office Action (37 CFR 1.111). The Examiner asserts that the applicant only argues that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over Beiriger in view of Miyazawa.
Lacking any further arguments, claims 1 and 3-9 are maintaining the prior art rejection, as considered above in light of the amended claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI whose telephone number is (571)272-5687. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am - 5pm (EST).
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629