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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-11 and 18 in the reply filed on January 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaneko’129 (US 8,639,129).
With respect to claim 1, Tomii’017 teaches an information processing apparatus (Fig.1, item 102) comprising:
a processor [the printer (Fig.1, item 102) is inherent disclosed with a processor to perform its desired functions] configured to:
specify replacement parts that are installable in an apparatus in place of some of parts constituting the apparatus (Fig.13B); and
output one or more of information related to a form of the specified replacement part, information related to a weight of the specified replacement part, and information related to installation of the specified replacement part in the apparatus (Fig.13B).
With respect to claim 18, it is a claim regarding to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing thereon a computer program. It is analyzed and rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko’129 (US 8,639,129), and further in view of Hanson’104 (US 2017/0352104).
With respect to claim 2, which further limits claim 1, Kaneko’129 does not teach wherein the processor is configured to: output information related to a size of the replacement part as the information related to the form of the specified replacement part.
Hanson’104 teaches that the information of the individual component includes part number, dimensions, repair cost, replacement cost, and so forth (paragraph 87).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kaneko’129 according to the teaching of Hanson’104 to provide the information of the individual printer components which include part number, dimensions, pair cost, replacement cost, and so forth and to display the information of an individual printer component which include part number, dimensions, pair cost, replacement cost, and so forth on the screen (Fig.13B, in Kaneko’129) when the said individual printer component is needed to be replaced (wherein the processor is configured to: output information related to a size of the replacement part as the information related to the form of the specified replacement part) because this will allow the components of the printer to be replaced more effectively.
With respect to claim 3, which further limits claim 2, Kaneko’129 does not teach wherein the processor is configured to: output information related to dimensions of the replacement part as the information related to the size of the replacement part.
Hanson’104 teaches that the information of the individual component includes part number, dimensions, repair cost, replacement cost, and so forth (paragraph 87).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kaneko’129 according to the teaching of Hanson’104 to provide the information of the individual printer components which include part number, dimensions, pair cost, replacement cost, and so forth and to display the information of an individual printer component which include part number, dimensions, pair cost, replacement cost, and so forth on the screen (Fig.13B, in Kaneko’129) when the said individual printer component is needed to be replaced (wherein the processor is configured to: output information related to dimensions of the replacement part as the information related to the size of the replacement part) because this will allow the components of the printer to be replaced more effectively.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko’129 (US 8,639,129), and further in view of Yates’305 (US 2008/0133305).
With respect to claim 4, which further limits claim 1, Kaneko’129 does not teach wherein the processor is configured to: output information related to an exterior material that covers the replacement part as the information related to the form of the specified replacement part.
Yates’305 teaches a system can provides requisite materials (including boxes, packing materials, shipping labels, shipping instructions, etc.) to sellers to allow them to ship items to buyers (paragraph 83).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kaneko’129 according to the teaching of Yates’305 to include the packing material for the component replacement and to provide it to a user (wherein the processor is configured to: output information related to an exterior material that covers the replacement part as the information related to the form of the specified replacement part) because this will allow a user to acknowledge if the component replacement can be safely to be shipped.
With respect to claim 5, which further limits claim 4, Kaneko’129 does not each wherein the processor is configured to: output information indicating whether the exterior material has a bag shape or a box shape as the information related to the exterior material.
Yates’305 teaches a system can provides requisite materials (including boxes, packing materials, shipping labels, shipping instructions, etc.) to sellers to allow them to ship items to buyers (paragraph 83).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kaneko’129 according to the teaching of Yates’305 to include the packing material for the component replacement and to provide it to a user (wherein the processor is configured to: output information indicating whether the exterior material has a bag shape or a box shape as the information related to the exterior material) because this will allow a user to acknowledge if the component replacement can be safely to be shipped.
With respect to claim 6, which further limits claim 1, Kaneko’129 does not teach
wherein the processor is configured to: output information related to ease of transportation of the replacement part to the apparatus as the information related to the installation of the specified replacement part in the apparatus.
Yates’305 teaches the system may communicate with the shipper to ease transport and/or shipping of the sold item from the seller to the buyer (paragraph 74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kaneko’129 according to the teaching of Yates’305 to communicate with the shipper to ease transport and/or shipping of the component replacement to printer
(wherein the processor is configured to: output information related to ease of transportation of the replacement part to the apparatus as the information related to the installation of the specified replacement part in the apparatus) because this will allow the component replacement to shipped to the printer more effectively.
Claim 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko’129 (US 8,639,129), and further in view of Fujiwara’149 (US 2001/0032149).
With respect to claim 7, which further limits claim 1, Kaneko’129 does not teach wherein the processor is configured to: output information related to a work time required for installing the replacement part in the apparatus as the information related to the installation of the specified replacement part in the apparatus.
Fujiwara’149 teaches providing the time (duration) required for the selected dealer to install the parts on the vehicle (paragraph 53)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kaneko’129 according to the teaching of Fujiwara’149 to provide the time (duration) required for installing the component replacement on the printer (wherein the processor is configured to: output information related to a work time required for installing the replacement part in the apparatus as the information related to the installation of the specified replacement part in the apparatus) because this will allow the component replacement to be installed more effectively.
With respect to claim 10, which further limits claim 1, Kaneko’129 does not teach wherein the processor is configured to: further output an image of the specified replacement part.
Fujiwara’149 teaches wherein the processor is configured to: further output an image of the specified replacement part (Fig.8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kaneko’129 according to the teaching of Fujiwara’149 to provide the image associated with the component replacement because this will allow the component replacement to be installed more effectively.
Claim 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko’129 (US 8,639,129).
With respect to claim 8, which further limits claim1, Kaneko’129 teaches wherein the processor is configured to: output information that is related to the specified replacement part (Fig.13B).
Kaneko’129 does not teach the specified replacement part related to the replacement part covered with an exterior material in a case in which one or more of the information items are output.
Kaneko’129 teaches a graphical user interface (Fig.13A) for filtering the component replacements to be displayed such that only displaying the new component replacement information associated with new component replacements or only displaying the reuse component replacement information associated with reuse component replacements, therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention to include a graphical user interface (Fig.13A) for filtering the component replacements to be displayed such that only displaying the new component replacement information associated with new component replacements which are covered an exterior material or only displaying the reuse component replacement information associated with reuse component replacements which are not covered with an exterior material because this will allow the only desired component replacements are being displayed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kaneko’129 to include a graphical user interface (Fig.13A) for filtering the component replacements to be displayed such that only displaying the new component replacement information associated with new component replacements which are covered an exterior material or only displaying the reuse component replacement information associated with reuse component replacements which are not covered with an exterior material because this will allow the only desired component replacements are being displayed.
With respect to claim 9, which further limits claim 1, Kaneko’129 teaches wherein the processor is configured to: output information that is related to the specified replacement part (Fig.13B)
Kaneko’129 does not teach the specified replacement part related to the replacement part not covered with an exterior material in a case in which one or more of the information items are output.
Kaneko’129 teaches a graphical user interface (Fig.13A) for filtering the component replacements to be displayed such that only displaying the new component replacement information associated with new component replacements or only displaying the reuse component replacement information associated with reuse component replacements, therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention to include a graphical user interface (Fig.13A) for filtering the component replacements to be displayed such that only displaying the new component replacement information associated with new component replacements which are covered an exterior material or only displaying the reuse component replacement information associated with reuse component replacements which are not covered with an exterior material because this will allow the only desired component replacements are being displayed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kaneko’129 to include a graphical user interface (Fig.13A) for filtering the component replacements to be displayed such that only displaying the new component replacement information associated with new component replacements which are covered an exterior material or only displaying the reuse component replacement information associated with reuse component replacements which are not covered with an exterior material because this will allow the only desired component replacements are being displayed.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko’129 (US 8,639,129), Fujiwara’149 (US 2001/0032149) and further in view of Nakagawa’831 (US 2019/0369831)
With respect to claim 11, which further limits claim 10, Kaneko’129 does not wherein the processor is configured to: in a case in which there are a plurality of the specified replacement parts and an image of each of the plurality of replacement parts is included in one screen and output, unify scales of the replacement parts.
Nakagawa’831 teaches multiple thumbnail images are being display on a one screen (Fig.7)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kaneko’129 and Fujiwara’149 according to the teaching of Nakagawa’831 to include multiple thumbnail images associated with the plurality of the specified component replacements on a screen when the said the specified component replacements are needed to be replaced (in a case in which there are a plurality of the specified replacement parts and an image of each of the plurality of replacement parts is included in one screen and output, unify scales of the replacement parts.) because this will allow the user to understand more about the desired component replacements which are needed to be replaced.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUO LONG CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am - 5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tieu, Benny can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUO LONG CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights