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 Interpretation is maintained.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been added in light of the amendment.
35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn and new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been added in light of the amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on August 27, 2025 has been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Priority
The present application claims priority to Japanese Application JP2022-084335, filed on May 24, 2022.
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: “a replacement-information acquiring unit configured to acquire…;” and “a head detecting unit configured to” in claims 1 and 7; “an identification-information acquiring unit configured to, … acquire…;” in claims 2 and 3; “a delivery-result acquiring unit configured to acquire…” 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. [0032], [0033], [0036], 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the examiner asserts that the Specification, as originally filled fails to disclose with enough specificity, the following limitations:
Claim elements “a head detecting unit configured to” in claims 1 and 7 are limitations that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function. Specifically, the Specification has not provided any structural equivalents for the means for language or tied the use of any structural equivalents to the claimed functions.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links or associates the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) State on the record where the corresponding structure, material, or acts are set forth in the written description of the specification and linked or associated to the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “a head detecting unit configured to” in claims 1 and 7 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to provide description for any structure that performs the above-mentioned limitations. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-5 and 8 depend from claim 1 above and therefore inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112 deficiencies of their parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 4-8 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”) and further in view of Rosenau et al (US 20200001636 A1, hereinafter, “Rosenau”).
Claims 1, 6, and 7, Mori discloses an information processing apparatus that is connected to an image forming apparatus and manages delivery of a second head replaceable with a first head attached to the image forming apparatus (para. [0016], Mori discloses a “a management server for unitarily managing collection information of office products”; para. [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. Para. [0087], [0099], and Fig. 4, step S407 disclosing the consumable products are supplied to the user 3, which is representative of manages delivery of second and third head replaceable to the user), the information processing apparatus comprising:
(Claim 6) a head management method for managing delivery of a second head replaceable with a first head attached to an image forming apparatus, the head management method (para. [0002], method) comprising:
(Claim 7) a head management system comprising: an image forming apparatus; and an information processing apparatus that is connected to the image forming apparatus and manages delivery of the second head replaceable with a first head attached to the image forming apparatus (para. [0016], Mori discloses a “a management server for unitarily managing collection information of office products”; para. [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. Para. [0087], [0099], and Fig. 4, step S407 disclosing the consumable products are supplied to the user 3, which is representative of manages delivery of second and third head replaceable to the user), the information processing apparatus including:
a replacement-information acquiring unit configured to acquire, from the image forming apparatus, replacement information indicating that the first head was replaced with the second head (para. [0239] discloses a controller of the printer compares the serial number of the cartridge stored in the non-volatile memory with a serial number read from the cartridge in place after the detection of the opening and closing of the cover. If the serial numbers do not match, it is determined that the cartridge has been replaced); and
a replacement processor configured to instruct the delivery of the third head when the replacement-information acquiring unit acquires the replacement information (Para. [0085] discloses user places purchase order for consumable products (cartridge heads). In para. [0216]-[0217], [0220], [0222], [0226]-[0228] disclosing the scheduling the delivery of product (i.e., third head) and collecting of replacement. Para. [0087], [0099], and Fig. 4, step S407 disclosing the consumable products are supplied to the user).
Mori discloses the above-mentioned system and method. However, Mori’s system is initiated by a user manually requesting order and delivery of new replacement cartridge. Mori does not explicitly teach this element being triggered automatically by the printer.
Specifically, Mori fails to expressly disclose limitation (italic emphasis), a replacement processor configured to instruct the delivery of a third head when the replacement-information acquiring unit acquires the replacement information.
wherein the image forming apparatus comprises: a head detecting unit configured to read head identification information from a memory of the second head, which replaces the first head and is attached to the image forming apparatus; and
a memory configured to store identification information of the image forming apparatus,
wherein the image forming apparatus transmits the head identification information and the identification information of the image forming apparatus to the information processing apparatus, after replacement of the first head with the second head, and
wherein the replacement information includes the head identification information of the second head and the identification information of the image forming apparatus.
Nonetheless, Matsuda is in the similar field of printer cartridge detection and ordering, which specifically teaches, a replacement processor configured to instruct the delivery of a third head when the replacement-information acquiring unit acquires the replacement information (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, printer ID and ink information are transmitted to and stored the information management server to identify if the connected cartridge has been exchanged (i.e., replaced). 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 cartridge replacement 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 for a logistical action (automatic ordering) 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.
The combination fails to expressly teach:
wherein the image forming apparatus comprises: a head detecting unit configured to read head identification information from a memory of the second head, which replaces the first head and is attached to the image forming apparatus; and
a memory configured to store identification information of the image forming apparatus,
wherein the image forming apparatus transmits the head identification information and the identification information of the image forming apparatus to the information processing apparatus, after replacement of the first head with the second head, and
wherein the replacement information includes the head identification information of the second head and the identification information of the image forming apparatus.
However, Rosenau is in the analogous field of printer cartridge (i.e., head) replenishment, which specifically teaches:
wherein the image forming apparatus comprises: a head detecting unit configured to read head identification information from a memory of the second head, which replaces the first head and is attached to the image forming apparatus (para. [0050], [0064], and claim 1 teaching a material processing device detects the insertion of the cartridge (i.e., printer head) into the printer and reads the unique cartridge identification of the cartridge from the non-volatile memory of the cartridge); and
a memory configured to store identification information of the image forming apparatus (Para. [0050], [0064] and claim 1, “cartridge including a first non-volatile memory that stores a unique cartridge identification of the cartridge;”),
wherein the image forming apparatus transmits the head identification information and the identification information of the image forming apparatus to the information processing apparatus, after replacement of the first head with the second head (para. [0063]-[0068] and Claim 6 teaching the franking machine can transmit the usage information linked to the cartridge identification and unique franking machine identification to the remote data center for determination whether the ink cartridge was inserted into the franking machine for the first time or the cartridge with associated identification have been previously used), and
wherein the replacement information includes the head identification information of the second head and the identification information of the image forming apparatus (para. [0063]-[0068] and Claim 6 teaching the usage information linked with the cartridge identification is stored on franking machine is transmitted and stored on remote data center).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the cartridge replacement management system and method of Mori to include the feature of detecting or reading head identification from a memory of the cartridge head and storing the identification as taught by Rosenau for the motivation of preventing unauthorized cartridge reused by the third parties producing and distributing low quality products and ensure the creditability and value of the authorized product of the manufactures (para. [0003] and [0007])
Claim 4, the combination of Mori, Matsuda, and Rosenau make obvious of the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Mori further discloses (italic emphasis), wherein the replacement processor instructs the delivery of the third head after a predetermined period elapses after the replacement information is acquired (Mori, Fig. 12 and Para. [0123] disclosing instructing delivery at a schedule period. And para. [0239] discloses a controller of the printer determines replacement of cartridge head is performed by acquiring the serial number of the cartridge don’t match).
However, Mori does not disclose the instructing of delivery at a schedule period is based on after the detection of replacement.
Specifically, Mori fails to disclose (italic emphasis), wherein the replacement processor instructs the delivery of the third head after a predetermined period elapses after the replacement information is acquired.
Nonetheless, Matsuda is in the similar field of printer cartridge detection and ordering, which specifically teaches, wherein the replacement processor instructs the delivery of the third head after a predetermined period elapses after the replacement information is acquired (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, printer ID and ink information are transmitted to and stored the information management server to identify if the connected cartridge has been exchanged (i.e., replaced). In para. [0040] teaches automatic ordering to the delivery management server).
The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Mori with/and the teachings of Matsuda are presented in the examining of independent claim 1 and incorporated herein.
Claim 5, the combination of Mori, Matsuda, and Rosenau make obvious of the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Mori further discloses (italic emphasis),
wherein the first head, the second head, and the third head are inkjet heads that eject liquid (para. [0005] and [0061] discloses the consumable products include ink containers, cartridges, and print-heads for ink-jet printers).
Claim 8, the combination of Mori, Matsuda, and Rosenau make obvious of the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Matsuda further teaches (italic emphasis),
wherein the second head is delivered to the image forming apparatus without waiting for a purchase request (According to the application’s specification para. [0049] states, “the printing head 66 for first replacement may be delivered after the self-repair contract conclusion without waiting for a purchase request from the user.” The purchase request is not from the user but some kind of instruction from contract or system is provided for replacement order to be delivered. Matsuda teaches the claim limitation in para. [0003], “such services, a new cartridge is ordered in response to the attachment of a spare cartridge to the image forming apparatus.” Para. [0035]-[0040] teaching a contract between the user and a predetermined company for ink management service with automatic ordering by the server for delivery of replacement cartridge, which is not an purchase order generated by the user).
The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Mori with/and the teachings of Matsuda are presented in the examining of independent claim 1 and incorporated herein.
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”), in view of Rosenau et al (US 20200001636 A1, hereinafter, “Rosenau”), and further in view of Otsuka (US 20200079097 A1, hereinafter, “Otsuka”).
Claim 2, the combination of Mori, Matsuda, and Rosenau make obvious of the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Mori further discloses, further comprising an identification-information acquiring unit configured to acquire, before the second head is delivered, head identification information for identifying the second head, wherein apparatus identification information for identifying an image forming apparatus to which the second head should be attached is associated with, before the second head is delivered, the head identification information acquired by the identification-information acquiring unit (Para. [0160]-[0161] and Fig. 15 disclosing acquiring supplier code label and attached to the consumable products and storing shipping record of consumable products, which is done before the delivery of the cartridge head).
However, the combination fails to explicitly teach,
the replacement processor performs notification when the apparatus identification information included in the replacement information and the head identification information included in the replacement information do not correspond.
Otsuka is in similar field of printer system cartridge logistics, which specifically teaches,
further comprising an identification-information acquiring unit configured to acquire, before the second head is delivered, head identification information for identifying the second head, wherein apparatus identification information for identifying an image forming apparatus to which the second head should be attached is associated with, before the second head is delivered, the head identification information acquired by the identification-information acquiring unit (Abstract, claim 1, Fig. 1A and para. [0119] teaches a server that stores apparatus identification information (device ID) and consumable container identification information (cartridge ID, which is analogous to head identification information) in association with each other. This registration occurs before the consumable is used, which is analogous to “before the second head is delivered”), and
the replacement processor performs notification when the apparatus identification information included in the replacement information and the head identification information included in the replacement information do not correspond (Abstract and claim 1 teaches the server’s circuitry is configured to determine whether the received apparatus identification information and the received consumables container identification information are stored in association with each other and to transmit information on determination to the image forming apparatus. This “information on determination” is a notification. If the information does not correspond (i.e., is not stored in association), the determination is negative, and this negative determination is transmitted, which constitutes the claimed notification, see Otsuka, Fig. 8, steps S25 and S27-2, where negative authentication result is transmitted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the cartridge replacement management system and method of Mori for the feature of pre-associating a specific cartridge ID with specific printer ID and performing a notification if a mismatch is detected upon installation, as taught by authentication and verification steps of Otsuka, for the motivation of ensuring system integrity and preventing errors from unauthorized product on their printer machine.
Claim 3 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”), in view of Rosenau et al (US 20200001636 A1, hereinafter, “Rosenau”), and further in view of Official Notice.
Claim 3, the combination of Mori and Matsuda make obvious of the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Mori further discloses, an identification-information acquiring unit configured to acquire, before the second head is delivered, head identification information for identifying the second head (Para. [0160]-[0161] and Fig. 15 disclosing acquiring supplier code label and attached to the consumable products and storing shipping record of consumable products, which is done before the delivery of the cartridge head).
However, Mori fails to explicitly teach,
a delivery-result acquiring unit configured to acquire information concerning a delivery destination to which the second head was actually delivered, wherein
information concerning a delivery destination to which the second head should be delivered is associated with, before the second head is delivered, the head identification information acquired by the identification-information acquiring unit, and
the replacement processor performs notification when the information concerning the delivery destination acquired by the delivery-result acquiring unit is different from the information concerning the delivery destination associated with the head identification information.
Nonetheless, Matsuda is in the similar field of printer cartridge detection and ordering, which teaches, a delivery-result acquiring unit configured to acquire information concerning a delivery destination to which the second head was actually delivered, wherein information concerning a delivery destination to which the second head should be delivered is associated with, before the second head is delivered, the head identification information acquired by the identification-information acquiring unit (Matsuda, Fig. 1 and para. [0033] and [0040] teaches a system that manages the logistics of delivering a physical good (cartridge) from a delivery management to a user of a printer.
The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Mori with/and the teachings of Matsuda are presented in the examining of independent claim 1 and incorporated herein.
However, the combination of Mori and Matsuda fails to teach the detail of wrong delivery notification feature, specifically, the limitation, the replacement processor performs notification when the information concerning the delivery destination acquired by the delivery-result acquiring unit is different from the information concerning the delivery destination associated with the head identification information.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well-known to one ordinary skilled in the art of cartridge replacement business and logistical practice in the art of e-commerce and product delivery to implement a delivery confirmation and error-checking process. For example, major e-commerce businesses such as Amazon and BestBuy provide FedEX or UPS tracking and delivery confirmation. This practice routinely involves associating specific item with an intended shipping address in database prior/before shipment/delivery; recording the actual delivery address at the point of delivery, often via a handheld electronic device used by the delivery agent, and compares the intended and actual addresses to flag discrepancies and trigger an administrative notification by the business or to the customer. This is a well-practiced process in the field of e-commerce and product delivery. This is a common knowledge of a person of ordinary skilled in the art of developing and implementing computerized logistic and product management systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to extend in the field of cartridge replacement system for ordering and delivering cartridge to consumers in Mori and Matsuda to include the feature of providing notification of wrong delivery for the motivation of preventing financial loss from mis0shipment, resolve delivery errors efficiently, and improve overall customer satisfaction.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection:
Per 101 remarks on page 6 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive.
The claims have been positively reciting specific function of reading identification information from a memory of the replacement head, which ties the subject matter to a particular apparatus and specific structural component (i.e., head detecting unit of the image forming apparatus). The 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection:
The Examiner asserts that the Applicant’s arguments are directed towards amended claim limitations and are, therefore, considered moot. The Examiner has introduced new reference Rosenau to teach the amended claim limitations.
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:
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.
Tani et al. (US 20240295998 A1) is directed to an information processing apparatus manages a remaining number of sheets on which image forming is permitted, in an image-forming apparatus that forms images on sheets by using a consumable material, obtains first determination information for determining whether a holding device holding the consumable material is a first holding device or a second holding device, and determines, in a case where refilling the image-forming apparatus with the consumable material from the holding device is performed, whether the holding device used for the refilling is the first holding device, based on the first determination information of the holding device, and determines a refill amount of the consumable material with which the image-forming apparatus has been refilled.
Suzuki (US 20210302872 A1) teaches a subscription printing service which suggests delivery without individual purchase requests.
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