DETAILED ACTION
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite because the limitation "a processor configured to: recording an operation sound by a microphone provided inside of an image forming apparatus..." fails to clearly recite the function performed by the processor. As drafted, it is unclear whether the processor performs the recording, whether the microphone performs the recording, or whether the processor merely controls operation of the microphone. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are not reasonably certain.
Claim 1, 3, 5, 8, and 9 recites the limitation "the opening/closing portion". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 5, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi (US 20190302671) in view of Doo (US 20110025746).
Regarding claim 1, Eguchi discloses an information processing apparatus (Fig. 3 image forming apparatus 1) comprising:
a processor (Fig. 3 CPU 101) configured to:
recording an operation sound by a microphone provided inside of an image forming apparatus that generates the operation sound during an image forming process (¶85-86 the CPU 101 operates the fan A at the number of revolutions A and operates the fan B at the number of revolutions B different from the number of revolutions A (S7), and collects the sounds of operation of the fan A and the fan B with the microphone 32 (S9)), and performing an abnormality diagnosis processing on the recorded operation sound (¶86-87 Subsequently, the CPU 101 diagnoses the presence or absence of an abnormality for each of the fan A and the fan B, on the basis of the sounds of operation collected with the microphone 32 (S11). Next, the CPU 101 determines whether an abnormality has been detected for at least one of the fan A and the fan B (S13)), or transmitting the recorded operation sound to a server,
wherein the operation sound is a sound recorded during an execution of the image forming process (¶86 e.g. CPU 101 operates the fan A at the number of revolutions A and operates the fan B at the number of revolutions B different from the number of revolutions A (S7), and collects the sounds of operation of the fan A and the fan B with the microphone 32 (S9); ¶95 e.g. the CPU 101 drives simultaneously the motors 52a and 52b at mutually different numbers of revolutions. The CPU 101 acquires the sounds of operation of the motors 52a and 52b with the microphone 32 while driving the motors 52a and 52b).
Eguchi fails to teach the processor is configured to control such that only sound recorded when the opening/closing portion is in a closed state is used for the abnormality diagnosis processing or a transmission.
Doo teaches in ¶69-72 “the ink jet printer 1 is also equipped with a switch 61 that turns ON and OFF in synch with opening and closing of the front cover 15, and a circuit breaker 62 that disables the supply of electric power to the ultraviolet light irradiation devices 51 and 52” and “the ink jet printer 1 is equipped with a stop control device 85 that forcefully stops the irradiation of ultraviolet light by the ultraviolet light irradiation devices 51 and 52 when the front cover 15 is opened”.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Eguchi to control such that only sound recorded when the opening/closing portion is in a closed state is used for the abnormality diagnosis processing or a transmission. Doo teaches detecting when a cover is open and disabling operation of internal components in response to the cover being opened in order to ensure proper operation, safety, and reliable of the apparatus (Doo ¶69-72). Since Eguchi teaches controlling the recording of the sound by the microphone based on the mode of the apparatus (Eguchi ¶63, ¶68, ¶76, ¶86), it would have been obvious to use the cover open/closed state taught by Doo as one such state for controlling the microphone, including to control such that only sound recorded when the opening/closing portion is in a closed state. The modification would have been a predicable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, namely using a known apparatus state detecting mechanism (cover open detecting) to control operation of a known component (microphone recording), in order to prevent recording during conditions in which the apparatus is not in its normal operational configuration and recording may be unnecessary, unreliable, or undesirable. Such modification involves the application of a known technique (disabling operation of internal components when a cover is open) to a known device (microphone recording system of Eguchi) for improvement, yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Eguchi and Doo discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the opening/closing portion includes at least one of a tray that contains the recording medium or a cover that is opened and closed in a case of replacing a cartridge including a container that contains a coloring material (Doo Fig. 1 front cover 15, which covers print heads and ink cartridges (see ¶42-43). The motivation to combine the references is discussed above in the rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim(s) 8 (drawn to a CRM):
The rejection/proposed combination of Eguchi and Doo, explained in the rejection of apparatus claim(s) 1, anticipates/renders obvious the steps of the computer readable medium of claim(s) 8 because these steps occur in the operation of the proposed combination as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claim(s) 1 is/are equally applicable to claim(s) 8. See Eguchi ¶153.
Regarding claim(s) 9 (drawn to an apparatus):
The rejection/proposed combination of Eguchi and Doo, explained in the rejection of apparatus claim(s) 1, anticipates/renders obvious the steps of the apparatus of claim(s) 9 because these steps occur in the operation of the proposed combination as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claim(s) 1 is/are equally applicable to claim(s) 9.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Eguchi and Doo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sawada et al (US 20060245019).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Eguchi and Doo discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the processor is further configured to: delete, in a case where the opening/closing portion is opened after the recording of the operation sound is started, the operation sound that has been recorded. Specifically, Eguchi teaches controlling recording of an operation sound by a processor based on device mode (e.g. ¶76 diagnosis mode). Doo teaches detecting when an opening/closing portion (such as a cover) is opened and controlling device operations in response to that detection (¶69-72 “the ink jet printer 1 is also equipped with a switch 61 that turns ON and OFF in synch with opening and closing of the front cover 15, and a circuit breaker 62 that disables the supply of electric power to the ultraviolet light irradiation devices 51 and 52” and “the ink jet printer 1 is equipped with a stop control device 85 that forcefully stops the irradiation of ultraviolet light by the ultraviolet light irradiation devices 51 and 52 when the front cover 15 is opened).
Sawada teaches in ¶55 the audio data storing unit 205 deletes audio data stored therein, in accordance with the instructions from the operation panel unit 200 and control information stored in the control information storing unit 206.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Eguchi, in view of Doo’s detection of an open event, to delete previously recorded audio upon detection that the opening/closing portion has been opened after recording has begun, as taught by these references. It would have been a routine predictable design choice to invalidate or delete already captured data when a condition indicating an improper or disallowed state is detected. Such deletion ensure that recordings from disallowed states are not retained, consistent with known audio data management techniques.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, and similarly regarding claim 7, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach “permit, in a case where an opening/closing portion of a paper feeding device that is externally attached to the image forming apparatus is opened, the recording of the operation sound.”
At best, Doo (US 20110025746) teaches in ¶69-72 “the ink jet printer 1 is also equipped with a switch 61 that turns ON and OFF in synch with opening and closing of the front cover 15, and a circuit breaker 62 that disables the supply of electric power to the ultraviolet light irradiation devices 51 and 52” and “the ink jet printer 1 is equipped with a stop control device 85 that forcefully stops the irradiation of ultraviolet light by the ultraviolet light irradiation devices 51 and 52 when the front cover 15 is opened”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 8-9 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 of claims 1-9 and the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 KEVIN KY whose telephone number is (571)272-7648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5PM.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 571-272-8243. 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.
/KEVIN KY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights