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 .
In amendments date 12/10/2025, applicant(s) amended claims 1, 12 and 13. Claims 1 – 13 are still pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
In the remarks on page 7 the applicant notes that the title have been amended to overcome the prior objections. In view of the amendments to the title the prior objections regarding the title is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 - 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the operations" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It' s suggested to amend to - operations - or define operations earlier in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the operations" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It' s suggested to amend to - operations - or define operations earlier in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the operations" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It' s suggested to amend to - operations - or define operations earlier in the claim.
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.
Claims 1 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabata et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2017/0116503 A1, previously cited in an Office Action filed on 09/19/2025, hereinafter ‘Kawabata’) in view of Takeya (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2010/0079803 A1, hereinafter ‘Takeya’) and further in view of Teraoaka et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2003/0115302 A1, hereinafter ‘Teraoaka’).
With respect to claim 1, Kawabata teaches an image forming apparatus (e.g., an image forming apparatus, ¶0016) comprising: a processor (i.e., a central processing unit (CPU) 201, ¶0045), wherein the processor is configured to: acquire operational log data about an operating procedure of a user who issues an instruction to perform image formation processing and display the operating procedure, in a case where a trouble occurs in the image formation processing and an instruction is issued to acquire the operational log data (e.g., acquire log information from all image forming process including printing data issued from a personal computer (PC) and display operation procedure image(s), in a case when a trouble/error/failure occurs in said image forming apparatus and an operation designating log collection executed to collect the log information, ¶0016, ¶0020, ¶0038, ¶0096, ¶00098 - ¶0099); cause the user to select whether or not the operating procedure is appropriate (e.g., cause a user to select whether or not the operating procedure is corresponding, ¶0060, ¶0067, ¶0075, ¶0080 - ¶0082, Fig. 4); and output data for trouble analysis according to a result of the selection of the user (e.g., display an operation procedure upon determining if the operation procedure is the corresponding, ¶0053, ¶0072, ¶0080, ¶0082, Figs. 8 - 9); but fails to teach
that said operational log data is acquired to be performed on said image forming apparatus by a user who issues an instruction to perform image formation processing; and
that said operating procedure is matched with the operations performed on the image forming apparatus.
However, with respect to above difference a), and in the same field of endeavor of troubleshooting or maintenance operation(s) to resolve trouble/failure(s), Takeya teaches acquiring operation log data about a operation procedure performed on the image forming apparatus by a user who issue an instruction (e.g. obtain history information, as log data, that represents history of all apparatus operations of basis of at least a generated image data; the generated image data is issued/executed by the user, abstract, ¶0003, ¶0008, ¶0056, ¶0064 - ¶0066, ¶0076).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the image forming apparatus of Kawabata as taught by Takeya since Takeya suggested within abstract, ¶0003, ¶0008, ¶0056, ¶0064 - ¶0066 and ¶0076 that such modification of obtaining/reading/acquiring history information of all maintenance operations made would collect useful information previously executed/issued in order to specify reason of all sorts of trouble occurring in the image forming apparatus.
Kawabata, modified by Takeya, fails to teach above difference b). However, also in the same field of endeavor of troubleshooting or maintenance operations to resolve trouble/failure(s), the remaining claimed limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Teraoaka. IN particular, Teraoaka teaches: an operating procedure is matched with the operations performed on the image forming apparatus (e.g., cause a user to select whether or not a check operation is linked (matched) or not, ¶0136, ¶0191 - ¶0195, Fig. 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the image forming apparatus of Kawabata in view of Takeya as taught by Teraoaka since Teraoaka suggested in ¶0136, ¶0191 - ¶0195, Fig. 21 that such modification of causing the user to select whether or not the operation is linked with the operations performed on the image forming apparatus would attain the more accurate operation of the image forming apparatus in order to provide the user with the latest procedure to troubleshoot the trouble; thus preventing pointless processing.
With respect to claim 2, Kawabata in view of Takeya and further in view of Teraoaka teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: receive the appropriate operating procedure selected by the user in a case where the selection of the user is that the operating procedure is inappropriate; and output the data for the trouble analysis including the received appropriate operating procedure (e.g., it’s well-known in the art that even an operation receiving unit 24 determines whether or not the operation corresponding to the displayed operation procedure image is received (step 104). When the determination result in step 104 is negative (No), the operation receiving unit 24 waits until the operation corresponding to the operation procedure image is received, ¶0071, Figs. 8 & 9).
With respect to claim 3, Kawabata in view of Takeya and further in view of Teraoaka teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: output the data for the trouble analysis including the operational log data in a case where the selection of the user is that the operating procedure is appropriate (e.g., when it’s determined that the selected operating procedure image is the corresponding, then display the operation procedure according to the operation procedure image selected, ¶0080 - ¶0082).
With respect to claims 4 - 6, Kawabata in view of Takeya and further in view of Teraoaka teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1 – 3, respectively, wherein the processor is configured to: acquire the operational log data including the operating procedure performed in a specified period including at least a period from the occurrence of the trouble to the instruction to acquire the operational log data (e.g., a “Period-designated log collection” is an operation procedure image for requiring an operator to collect log information for a designated period. “Time-designated log collection” is an operation procedure image for requiring an operator to collect log information for a designated time, ¶0091).
With respect to claim 7, Kawabata in view of Takeya and further in view of Teraoaka teaches the image forming apparatus according to any one of claims 1, wherein the processor is configured to: display a question for the trouble analysis; receive an answer to the question; and output the question and the received answer which are included in the data for the trouble analysis (e.g., design choice: it would any text with a question mark to the text shown (Fig. 6 – element 71) in any operation procedure image in order to request the user/operator responds (answer to the ‘confirmation’ of please; if arguable, then Kodimer, cited in an IDS filed on 02/15/2024, teaches displaying a question for diagnosis and resolution; and receiving an answer to the question; and displaying the question and the received answer which are included in a chat while diagnosing and finding a resolution.).
With respect to claim 8, Kawabata in view of Takeya and further in view of Teraoaka teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the question is a question about an operation performed by the user in a period before and after a time point at which the trouble occurs (e.g. the user/operator can confirm by responding in order to retrieve a period-designated log collection or a time-designated log collection, ¶0090, Fig. 9; if arguable, then Konica, cited in an the IDS filed on 02/15/2024, teaches collecting operation logs, trace logs, and history of jobs and/or components classified into groups while associated with trouble codes before and after the time of the occurrence of the trouble including the time are acquired).
With respect to claim 9, Kawabata in view of Takeya and further in view of Teraoaka teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the data for the trouble analysis includes image formation log data about the image formation processing and control log data about control of the image forming apparatus (e.g., collect all log information associated to process and/or history of various processes performed at the image forming apparatus, ¶0020, ¶0058, ¶0091, ¶0096).
With respect to claim 10, Kawabata in view of Takeya and further in view of Teraoaka teaches thee image forming apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to: acquire the image formation log data about the image formation processing performed in a specified period including at least a period from the occurrence of the trouble to the instruction to acquire the operational log data, and the control log data about the control of the processor performed in the specified period (e.g., a “Period-designated log collection” is an operation procedure image for requiring an operator to collect log information for a designated period. “Time-designated log collection” is an operation procedure image for requiring an operator to collect log information for a designated time, ¶0091).
With respect to claim 11, Kawabata in view of Takeya and further in view of Teraoaka teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to: acquire the image formation log data and the control log data after acquiring the operational log data (e.g., e.g., acquire log information from all image forming process including printing data issued from a personal computer (PC) and then display operation procedure image(s), in a case when a trouble/error/failure occurs in said image forming apparatus and an operation designating log collection executed to collect the log information, ¶0016, ¶0020, ¶0038, ¶0096, ¶00098 - ¶0099).
With respect to claim 12, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. The use of a non-transitory computer readable medium executed by at least a computer (CPU) as described in claim 12 is explicitly taught by claim 8 of Kawabata.
With respect to claim 13, this is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the apparatus claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hirama (U.S PG Publication No. 2016/0352935 A1)1
Uchino (U.S PG Publication No. 2019/0387107 A1)2
Torii (U.S Publication No. 2013/0114100 A1)3
1This reference teaches a printer detecting a failure; transmitting failure information in order to display at least a extended suitable guidance along with an operation for solving the failure.
2This reference teaches an image processing device obtaining log information about any process performed in said image processing device; and when a problem occur, identify the problem; and add trouble code into a display.
3This reference teaches a MFP capable of reading error log(s); display a guidance when a error occurs; select a solution from said guidance in order to output a procedure to resolve the error. And if the procedure is not found, then provide a recommended procedure to resolve the error.
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 JUAN M GUILLERMETY whose telephone number is (571)270-3481. 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, Benny Q TIEU can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/JUAN M GUILLERMETY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682