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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
This non-final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 06/25/2026. Currently, claims 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9-12 are pending. Claims 1, 7 and 9-12 have been amended. Claims 2, 4, 6 and 8 have been cancelled. No newly added claim(s).
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, 3, 5, 7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite method and systems for printing device expense management.
Exemplary claim 1 recites in part,
“…transmits a print instruction to print a print job, and
…transmits, at fixed time intervals, predetermined information regarding the printing of the print job to…, and
…settle the expense based on the information identifying the printing of the print job is the official printing.”
The above limitations recite the steps of:
1) transmitting print instructions for a print job,
2) transmitting predetermined information regarding the print job, and
3) settling print job expenses based on print job identifying information.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities (fundamental economic principles or practices)” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of one or more computing devices (terminal device, printing device, expense management device, and information processing device). The additional computer-related elements merely invoke these additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claim recites the additional elements of
“the predetermined information includes:
expense-related information that is information regarding an expense for the printing of the print job, wherein the expense-related information includes information identifying a destination to which the expense is paid, and
the destination is identified based on information identifying the printing device that performed the printing of the print job or information regarding a section to which the printing device belongs, and
connection-related information that is either one or both of information of a VPN connection and information of a login destination or is information based one at least one of the information of the VPN connection and the information of the login destination,
at least one of the information of the VPN connection and the information of the login destination are information identifying whether the printing of the print job is private printing or official printing”.
This simply describes the information included in the transmitted “predetermined information” which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., data gathering, to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
When considered individually or in combination, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to the practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. The additional computer-related elements merely invoke these additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional limitations, “the predetermined information includes…”, while amounting to insignificant extra-solution activities, are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions of transmitting or receiving data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 9-11 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are rejected based on the same rationale.
Dependent claims 3, 5, 7 and 12 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9-12 are allowed over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the cited and/or relevant prior art, single or in combination, teaches the combination:
“an information transmitter that transmits, at fixed time intervals, predetermined information regarding the printing of the print job to the information processing device,
the predetermined information includes:
expense-related information that is information regarding an expense for the printing of the print job, wherein
the expense-related information includes information identifying a destination to which the expense is paid, and
the destination is identified based on information identifying the printing device that performed the printing of the print job or information regarding a section to which the printing device belongs”,
as recited in claim 1.
Claims 9-11 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are patentable over prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights