DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on September 30, 2025 has been entered. The following has occurred: Claims 1-8 have been amended.
Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Claim Objection is added in light of the amendment.
Claim Interpretation is maintained.
Previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn, however, new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been added in light of the amendment.
35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained in light of the amendment.
35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been maintained in light of the amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed May 23, 2023 has been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Priority
The present application claims priority to Japanese Application JP2022-084337, filed on May 24, 2022.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “configured to-”should read “configured to”. Dash should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an identification-information acquiring unit configured to acquire…;” “a detachment-information acquiring unit configured to acquire…;” “a determining unit configured to…” and “a notifying unit configured to perform notification…” in claims 1 and 8; “a communication unit configured to communicate…” in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification in para. [0033], [0034], [0037], and Fig. 3 as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “acquiring first detachment information…. a first replaceable head…” and “acquiring second detachment information… a second replaceable head…” are used in the context of two distinct detachment information acquisitions which are found to be indefinite. It is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art whether “first replaceable head” and “second replaceable head” refer to two different heads in the same replacement event, or two entirely separate replacement events. The specification describes a single replacement event involving one old head and one new head, not two sequential detachment events as implied by the claim. The specification does not indicate the information processing apparatus would require to detach two replacement heads in a single replacement event. The skilled in the art would be able to recognize the same process of acquiring detachment information can be performed by the information processing apparatus in the same manner for two replacement events. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the claim limitations to be two separate replacement events over time.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? (MPEP 2106.03)
In the present application, claims 1-6 are directed to an apparatus (i.e., a machine), claim 7 is directed to a method (i.e., a process), and claim 8 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong one.
Step 2A. prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? (MPEP 2106.04)
While claims 1, 7, and 8, are directed to different categories, the language and scope are substantially the same and have been addressed together below.
The abstract idea recited in claims 1 is:
acquire head identification information for identifying each of a plurality of collected heads, and to register the head identification information in a collection history;
acquire detachment information from the image forming apparatus, in response to the replaceable head being detached from the image forming apparatus, register the detachment information in a detachment history;
determine, based on a comparison of the detachment history and the collection history, whether the detached replaceable head is uncollected; and
in response to the determination being a determination that the detached replaceable head is uncollected, perform a notification representing that the detached replaceable head has not been collected.
The abstract idea recited in claim 7 is:
acquiring first detachment information in response to a first replaceable head being detached from the image forming apparatus, and registering the first detachment information in a detachment history;
acquiring second detachment information in response to a second replaceable head being detached from the image forming apparatus, and registering the second detachment information in the detachment history;
in response to the first replaceable head being collected, acquiring first head identification information for identifying the first replaceable head and registering the first head identification information in a collection history;
determining, based on a comparison of the detachment history and the collection history, that the second replaceable head has not been collected as second head identification information for identifying the second replaceable head is not in the collection history; and
performing notification, based on the determination, that the second replaceable head has not been collected.
The abstract idea recited in claim 8 is:
acquire head identification information for identifying each of a plurality of collected heads, and to register the head identification information in a collection history;
acquire detachment information in response to the replaceable head being detached from the image forming apparatus, the detachment-information acquiring unit further configured to register the detachment information in a detachment history;
determine, based on a comparison of the detachment history and the collection history, whether the detached replaceable head is uncollected; and
in response to the determination being a determination that the detached replaceable head is uncollected, perform a notification representing that the detached replaceable head has not been collected.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of administrating and managing printer head replacement.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, without the recitation of additional elements, the limitations above suggest a process similar to collecting information (steps [A, B, E, F, G, J, K]), analyzing the collected information (steps [C, H, L]), and presenting the analyzed information (steps [D, I, M]). That is, a person without the need of a computer system, can determine (i.e., judgements, observations, and evaluations) from inspecting for the identification information of printer head from the printer (i.e., image forming apparatus) and determine by comparing the detachment history record with the collection history record to determine if a replacement printer head is an uncollected head, then notify an administrator or user for prompt action. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of collecting information and analyzing the collected information, and the steps involved human judgements, observations, and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental processes” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Additionally and alternatively, the same claim limitations above recite a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce in the form of advertising, marketing, or sales activity or behaviors for commercial industry of printer head management. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, other than the additional elements of computer components, the above-mentioned limitations recite a process of collecting information regarding replacement information for printer head replacement based on replacement history and collection history to instruct/notification for delivery of replacement printer head. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps standard in commercial interaction for a business practice of providing a service of client risk assessment, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Accordingly, the above-mentioned limitations are considered as a single abstract idea, therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong two.
Step 2A. prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? (MPEP 2106.04)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely add instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer.
The additional elements considered include:
Claim 1: “An information processing apparatus that is connected to an image forming apparatus that includes a replaceable head and that manages collection of the replaceable head, the information processing apparatus comprising:” “an identification-information acquiring unit configured to”, “a detachment-information acquiring unit configured to,” “from the image forming apparatus, the detachment information formed by the image forming apparatus in response to the replaceable head being detached from the image forming apparatus,” “a determining unit configured to”, “a notifying unit configured to”;
Claim 7: “A head management method for managing collection of a replaceable heads detached from an image forming apparatus, the head management method comprising:” “from the image forming apparatus,” “from the image forming apparatus, the first detachment information formed by the image forming apparatus”; “from the image forming apparatus, the second detachment information formed by the image forming apparatus”;
Claim 8: “A head management system comprising: an image forming apparatus that includes a replaceable head; and an information processing apparatus that is connected to the image forming apparatus and that manages collection of the replaceable head, the information processing apparatus including:” “an identification-information acquiring unit configured to,” “a detachment-information acquiring unit configured to… from the image forming apparatus, the detachment information formed by the image forming apparatus”; “a determining unit configured to” and “a notifying unit configured to”;
In particular, the claim only recites the above-mentioned additional elements to acquire, determine, and notify information. The computer in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing a generic computer function; See Applicant’s Specification at least at paragraphs [0033]-[0034], [0040]-[0042], and Figs. 3-4) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
That is, the function of limitations [A]-[M] are steps of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
While examiner contends that “connected to an image forming apparatus that includes a replacement head”, “a replaceable heads detached from an image forming apparatus”, “from the image forming apparatus, the detachment information formed by the image forming apparatus” are part of the abstract idea, they are still nothing more than an attempt to link the additional elements to a field of use. Claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional claim elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda memo). Therefore, per Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the bold portions of the limitations recited above, were all considered to be an abstract idea in Step2A-Prong Two. The additional elements and analysis of Step2A-Prong two is carried over. For the same reason, these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Applicant has merely recited elements that instruct the user to apply the abstract idea to a computer or other machinery. When considered individually and in combination the conclusion, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the above-mentioned limitations [A]-[D] amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the function of the limitations to the exception using generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition to ““connected to an image forming apparatus including a replacement head” and “a replaceable head detached from an image forming apparatus including the head” simply being attempts to link the additional elements to a field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept for administrating and managing printer head replacement. When the independent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above do not amount to any more than they amount to individually. The operations appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. Therefore, it is concluded that the elements of the independent claims are directed to one or more abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05)
Further, Step 2B of the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well, both individually and as a whole, as a combination:
dependent claim 2, the claim further recites additional abstract step of determining and notifying information of the replacement head is detached for a predetermined period of time, which does not change the abstract idea of the independent claim. The claim recites the additional element of computer components at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is ineligible.
dependent claims 3 and 4, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim. The claims further recite additional abstract steps of communicating and notifying with a first terminal device of administrator and a second terminal device of a user. The additional abstract steps do not change the abstract idea of the independent claim. The claims recite the additional element of computer components at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
dependent claims 5 and 6, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim. The claims further recite additional abstract information regarding the head and determining the uncollected head is not registered in the collection history. The additional descriptive information and abstract step of determining information do not change the abstract idea of the independent claim. The claims recite the additional element of computer components at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (US 20030009383 A1, hereinafter, “Mori”) in view of Matsuda (US 20160288515 A1, hereinafter, “Matsuda”).
Claims 1 and 8, Mori discloses (claim 1) an information processing apparatus that is connected to an image forming apparatus that includes a replaceable head and that manages collection of the replacement head (para. [0016], Mori discloses a “a management server for unitarily managing collection information of office products”; [0005], “Consumable products to be recovered include, in addition to cartridges, toner bottles and photosensitive drums for copying machines, ink containers, cartridges, and print heads for ink-jet printers”; Fig. 2 and para. [0067], [0089], [0259] disclosing the server apparatus 11 is connected to user terminals, supplier terminals and image forming apparatus 32 via a network with communication links 4), the information processing apparatus comprising:
(claim 8) a head management system comprising: an image forming apparatus that includes a replaceable head; and an information processing apparatus that is connected to the image forming apparatus and that manages collection of the replacement head (para. [0016], Mori discloses a “a management server for unitarily managing collection information of office products”; [0005], “Consumable products to be recovered include, in addition to cartridges, toner bottles and photosensitive drums for copying machines, ink containers, cartridges, and print heads for ink-jet printers”; Fig. 2 and para. [0067], [0089], [0259] disclosing the server apparatus 11 is connected to user terminals, supplier terminals and image forming apparatus 32 via a network with communication links 4), the information processing apparatus including:
an identification-information acquiring unit configured to acquire head identification information for identifying each of a plurality of collected heads, and to register the head identification information in a collection history (para. [0092]-[0094] disclosing the server at the recovery center reads a supplier code (i.e., head identification information) via an optical character reader or laser bar code reader from each of the collected products (i.e., collected heads) and update the database with collection record and quantity collected information, which represents collection history);
the detachment-information acquiring unit further configured to register the detachment information in a detachment history (Mori, para. [0088]-[0090] and [0094] discloses user terminal submits a request for collecting of used consumable product (i.e., head) and stores the collection request and recovery information in the DB 15 (i.e., detachment history database) of the server apparatus. In para. [0099] disclosing new consumable products is supplied to the user and para. [0104] discloses the deliver information is stored in DB);
a determining unit configured to determine, based on a comparison of the detachment history and the collection history, whether the detached replaceable head is uncollected (para. [0127]-[0130] disclosing the determining of quantity to be collected but not yet collected from quantity delivered (i.e., replacement) with quantity collected); and
a notifying unit configured to, in response to the determination being a determination that the detached replaceable head is uncollected, perform a notification representing that the detached replaceable head has not been collected (para. [0095], “based on the recovery information, the server apparatus 11 notifies the supplier terminal 21 of the collection status information of the collected consumable products and other relevant recovery information via the communication link (step S415).” Further detail provided in para. [0100]).
Mori discloses the above-mentioned system and method. However, Mori’s system is initiated by a user manually requesting collection, while not expressly claimed but based on the applicant’s specification [0058]-[0059] clarifies that the information comes from the printer itself. Mori does not explicitly teach this element being triggered automatically by the printer.
Specifically, Mori fails to expressly disclose, a detachment-information acquiring unit configured to acquire detachment information from the image forming apparatus, the detachment information formed by the image forming apparatus in response to the replaceable head being detached from the image forming apparatus, the detachment-information acquiring unit further configured to register the detachment information in a detachment history.
Nonetheless, Matsuda is in the similar field of printer cartridge detection and ordering, which specifically teaches, a detachment-information acquiring unit configured to acquire detachment information from the image forming apparatus, the detachment information formed by the image forming apparatus in response to the replaceable head being detached from the image forming apparatus, the detachment-information acquiring unit further configured to register the detachment information in a detachment history (Claim 1 and para. [0037]-[0039] teaching the image forming apparatus (printer) receives information of the cartridge connected to the connecting unit and read by the reading unit. The specific information of the connected cartridge, the change of printer ID and ink information are transmitted to and stored the information management server to identify if the connected cartridge has been changed, which is representative for the detachment information formed by the image forming apparatus in response to the replaceable head being detached from the image forming apparatus. Matsuda para. [0038] and Fig. 2 also teaches storing this information in a management table, which is representative of detachment history. Then in para. [0040] teaches automatic ordering to the delivery management server).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the collection management system and method of Mori for the disclosure of server performing purchase and ordering process of replacement consumable product such as cartridge or printer head, to include the specific feature of automated device for replacement consumable products (printer heads) trigger and identify consumable products that are uncollected for a logistical action such as automatic ordering and recovery as taught by Matsuda for the motivation and benefit of providing a more robust system and method that increases the efficiency and remove the “troublesome” of user involvement from Mori’s collection system (see Matsuda para. [0003]). For example, the system would no longer need to wait for a user to remember to request an order or pickup; it would be automatically aware that a head needs collection the moment it is replaced.
Claim 3, the combination of Mori and Matsuda make obvious of the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Mori further discloses
further comprising a communication unit configured to communicate with a first terminal device operated by an administrator who manages the collection of the replaceable head (para. [0082], supplier terminal), wherein
the notifying unit is configured to perform the notification to the first terminal device via the communication unit (para. [0068], communication notification over network. In para. [0097] send request to supplier terminal via e-mail, etc. to pick up).
Claim 4, the combination of Mori and Matsuda make obvious of the information processing apparatus according to claim 3. Mori further discloses
the communication unit is configured to communicate with a second terminal device operated by a user of the image forming apparatus (para. [0086], user terminal), and
the notifying unit is configured to perform the notification to the second terminal device via the communication unit (para. [0068], communication notification over network).
Claim 5, the combination of Mori and Matsuda make obvious of the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Mori further discloses
wherein the determination is based on whether head identification information for the detached replaceable head is present in the collection history (para. [0130] discloses determining the number of not yet collected products. In para. [0005] and [0061] discloses the products can be print heads.
Para. [0133] discloses the DC of the delivery/collection information which does not indicate the head identification information of the uncollected head is determined as being registered in the collection history).
Claim 6, the combination of Mori and Matsuda make obvious of the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Mori further discloses
wherein the replaceable head is an inkjet head that ejects liquid (para. [0005] and [0061] discloses the consumable products include ink containers, cartridges, and print-heads for ink-jet printers).
Claim 7, Mori discloses a head management method for managing collection of a replaceable head detached from an image forming apparatus, the head management method (para. [0002], method) comprising:
registering the first detachment information in a detachment history (Mori, para. [0088]-[0090] and [0094] discloses user terminal submits a request for collecting of used consumable product (i.e., head) and stores the collection request and recovery information in the DB 15 (i.e., detachment history database) of the server apparatus. In para. [0099] disclosing new consumable products is supplied to the user and para. [0104] discloses the deliver information is stored in DB. Note: the term “first” is understood to refer to a first instance of this event occurring);
registering the second detachment information in the detachment history (Mori, para. [0088]-[0090] and [0094] discloses user terminal submits a request for collecting of used consumable product (i.e., head) and stores the collection request and recovery information in the DB 15 (i.e., detachment history database) of the server apparatus. In para. [0099] disclosing new consumable products is supplied to the user and para. [0104] discloses the deliver information is stored in DB. Note: the method step is inherently repeatable; thus, “second” replacement or detachment event is performed in the same way for a second time with the same mechanism);
in response to the first replaceable head being collected, acquiring first head identification information for identifying the first replaceable head and registering the first head identification information in a collection history (para. [0092]-[0094] disclosing the server at the recovery center reads a supplier code (i.e., head identification information) via an optical character reader or laser bar code reader from each of the collected products (i.e., collected heads) and update the database with collection record and quantity collected information, which represents collection history);
determining, based on a comparison of the detachment history and the collection history, that the second replaceable head has not been collected as second head identification information for identifying the second replaceable head is not in the collection history (para. [0127]-[0130] disclosing the determining of quantity to be collected but not yet collected from quantity delivered (i.e., replacement) with quantity collected); and
performing notification, based on the determination, that the second replaceable head has not been collected (para. [0095], “based on the recovery information, the server apparatus 11 notifies the supplier terminal 21 of the collection status information of the collected consumable products and other relevant recovery information via the communication link (step S415).” Further detail provided in para. [0100]).
Mori discloses the above-mentioned system and method. However, Mori’s system is initiated by a user manually requesting collection, while not expressly claimed but based on the applicant’s specification [0058]-[0059] clarifies that the information comes from the printer itself. Mori does not explicitly teach this element being triggered automatically by the printer.
Specifically, Mori fails to expressly disclose, acquiring first detachment information from the image forming apparatus, the first detachment information formed by the image forming apparatus in response to a first replaceable head being detached from the image forming apparatus, and
acquiring second detachment information from the image forming apparatus, the second detachment information formed by the image forming apparatus in response to a second replaceable head being detached from the image forming apparatus.
Nonetheless, Matsuda is in the similar field of printer cartridge detection and ordering, which specifically teaches, acquiring first detachment information from the image forming apparatus, the first detachment information formed by the image forming apparatus in response to a first replaceable head being detached from the image forming apparatus, and registering the first detachment information in a detachment history; acquiring second detachment information from the image forming apparatus, the second detachment information formed by the image forming apparatus in response to a second replaceable head being detached from the image forming apparatus, and registering the second detachment information in the detachment history (Claim 1 and para. [0037]-[0039] teaching the image forming apparatus (printer) receives information of the cartridge connected to the connecting unit and read by the reading unit. The specific information of the connected cartridge, the change of printer ID and ink information are transmitted to and stored the information management server to identify if the connected cartridge has been changed, which is representative for the detachment information formed by the image forming apparatus in response to the replaceable head being detached from the image forming apparatus. Matsuda para. [0038] and Fig. 2 also teaches storing this information in a management table, which is representative of detachment history. Note: the “first” and “second” detachments are understood to be two events performing the same step or same mechanism twice for two detachment of replaceable heads).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the collection management system and method of Mori for the disclosure of server performing purchase and ordering process of replacement consumable product such as cartridge or printer head, to include the specific feature of automated device for replacement consumable products (printer heads) trigger and identify consumable products that are uncollected for a logistical action such as automatic ordering and recovery as taught by Matsuda for the motivation and benefit of providing a more robust system and method that increases the efficiency and remove the “troublesome” of user involvement from Mori’s collection system (see Matsuda para. [0003]). For example, the system would no longer need to wait for a user to remember to request an order or pickup; it would be automatically aware that a head needs collection the moment it is replaced.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (US 20030009383 A1, hereinafter, “Mori”) in view of Matsuda (US 20160288515 A1, hereinafter, “Matsuda”) and further in view of Otsuka (US 20200079097 A1, hereinafter, “Otsuka”).
Claim 2, the combination of Mori and Matsuda make obvious of the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Mori further discloses
when determining that the replaceable head is uncollected, the determining unit determines whether a since detachment of the replaceable head (para. [0126]-[0130], Fig. 13 and para. [0178] and Fig. 21 disclosing the presence and quantity of product (cartridge head) to be collected in a collection schedule and further display information based on specific dates to be collected), and
the notifying unit performs the notification since the detachment of the replaceable head (para. [0126]-[0130], Fig. 13 and para. [0178] and Fig. 21 disclosing the presence and quantity of product (cartridge head) to be collected in a collection schedule and display information based on specific dates (i.e., predetermined period) to be collected).
Mori discloses a collection management system and server for tracking of time and schedule of logistics for collection and delivery. However, Mori does not explicitly disclose a time delay for flagging an uncollected item.
The combination fails to expressly teach (italic emphasis), wherein when determining that the replaceable head is uncollected, the determining unit determines whether a predetermined period elapsed since detachment of the replaceable head, and the notifying unit performs the notification after the predetermined period elapsed since the detachment of the replaceable head.
Otsuka is in similar field of printer system cartridge logistics, which specifically teaches, which the predetermined period elapsed (In para. [0237], the system acquires the “print date and time” of the item, which is analogous to the initial event of “detachment” time. Para. [0238], the system acquires the “current data and time”; In para. [0239], the system “determines whether the difference between the current date and time and the print date and time is equal to or smaller than a threshold” which is determining “predetermined period elapsed”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the collection management system and method of Mori for automatically identifying uncollected head to include the feature of “predetermined period elapsed” time-based verification method, taught by Otsuka for the motivation of providing an improve and accurate utility of notification system in preventing premature and erroneous notifications for items (i.e., cartridge head) that are in transit for collection. One ordinary skilled in the art would recognize and apply Otsuka’s method for substituting the “print time” with the “detachment event” from the replacement history to create a grace (predetermined) period before sending a notification, since both the system and method of Mori and Otsuka are in the field of printer system logistics, to achieve a predictable and desirable result in the system of Mori/Matsuda.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejection:
The rejected claims in question as been amended and previous 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn accordingly. However, new 112(b) has been added in light of the amended claim limitations.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection:
The Applicant’s remarks are fully considered, however are found to be unpersuasive.
The Applicant asserts the amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea because the claim is directed to a specific machine-based process that: maintains a collection history of previously collected replaceable heads, and detects whether a detached head is returned by acquiring device-originated detached information, including a head identifier, from an image forming apparatus, when the head is detached; registers that detachment in a detachment history; later determines whether the detached head has been returned by comparing the detachment and collection histories.
The Applicant further states the system is performed “automatically/automated” operation in pages 7-8.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the process described by the applicant is directed to an abstract idea of organizing human activity and mental process. A person would be able to maintain a collection history of previously collected replaceable heads even for a global collection history. A person can detect whether a detached head is returned by visually inspecting and identifying the head identifier from an image forming apparatus when the head is detached; register the detachment history, and mentally determine whether the detached head has been returned by comparing the detachment and collection histories.
Further, “automatically/automated” does not mean without human interaction. Examiner asserts a process may be automatic even though a human initiates or may interrupt to the process. The term “automatically” or “automated” can be construed to mean “once initiated by a human, the function is performed by a machine, without the need for manually performing the function.” Collegenet, Inc. v. Applyyourself, Inc. (CAFC, 04-1202,-1222,-1251, 8/2/2005).
The claims recite a broad concept of acquiring information from the image forming apparatus and determining the collected information. The additional element of the system comprising the information processing apparatus is recited at a high-level of generality, that is merely used as generic computer component for the steps of the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) - The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). MPEP 21060.05(f)(2) - Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
On page 8-9 of the remarks, the Applicant provided decisions of DDR Holdings and McRO, they recite specific technological improvements, which are unlike the present claims.
Thus, the 101 rejection is maintained.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection:
The Applicant’s remarks are fully considered, however are found to be unpersuasive.
The Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine Mori and Matsuda because they are directed to different problems of collection and ordering, respectively. This argument is unpersuasive as it construes the problems addressed by the prior art too narrowly while the claims are drafted in a overly broad manner.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would view both Mori and Matsuda as addressing aspects of the same overarching filed of automated lifecycle management for printer consumables. Mori addresses the collection logistics portion of the lifecycle, while Matsuda addresses the ordering logistics portion based on the identification and record management. The motivation to combine the teachings of these references would have been to create a more comprehensive, efficient, and fully automated lifecycle management system.
Mori explicitly discloses a system for managing collections but relies on a manual user request to initiate the process (para. [0088]). Matsuda teaches a solution for automating a logistical action by using signal sent directly from the image forming apparatus itself, indicating a change in the installed consumable. The motivation to modify Mori’s system by replacing manual trigger with automated trigger of Matsuda is apparent which is to improve the reliability and efficiency of the collection process by removing the user from the loop. The result of this combination is predictable and expected improvement as discussed in the 103 rejection above. The applicant’s assertion that a person having ordinary skilled in the art would not look from a collection problem to an ordering solution is unavailing when both solutions exist in the same field of networked printer management and address two halves of the same business process. The Examiner respectuflly disagrees and maintains the 103 rejection in above.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
Iimoto (JP 2001150697 A) is directed to system and method for preventing print head from dying out when a user opens the printer cover to replace a cartridge. Iimoto detects user inactivity for a timer period during a maintenance and notify the user to complete the ink tank replacement.
A. G. Kravets, N. Y. Orudjev and N. A. Salnikova, "Software for Predictive Maintenance and Repair of the Enterprise Office Equipment," 2019 International Multi-Conference on Industrial Engineering and Modern Technologies (FarEastCon), Vladivostok, Russia, 2019, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1109/FarEastCon.2019.8934186. Describing collecting of data for office equipment to construct optimal schedule for prediction of maintenance.
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 WENREN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, Nathan C Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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.
/WENREN CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3626