Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-16 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 element “a determination unit” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. The specification discloses that the “a determination unit” can be any component that can determine presence of the failure state of a component (p. 51); thus it is unclear what is the corresponding structure, material, or acts that performs the claimed function.
Depended claim 2-16 are rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16, 8 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hayhashi et al. (US 20220070307).
Regarding claim 1, Hayhshi teaches a processing apparatus comprising: a processor configured to:
obtain operational noise data for a predetermined period, the operational noise data being obtained in operation of the apparatus which makes noise caused by the operation (p0008: a noise frequency and a noise level of electrostatic noise are detected and p0100: ΔT between the noise generation time Ts and the current time Ti is calculated,,)); in response to detection of an abnormality in the apparatus from the operational noise data, extract, as analysis target data from the operational noise data, data corresponding to an operating period of a designated component that is designated in advance and that is included in the apparatus (p0008:determine whether the received electrostatic noise is at a failure level at which a failure of various elements constituting the image forming apparatus is undoubtedly caused, at a prediction level at which a failure may be caused); and output the extracted analysis target data to a determination unit that determines presence of a failure state of the designated component (p0137-140: the controller 111 repeats the processing of detecting the date and time when electrostatic noise has occurred and the intensity… it is determined that the number exceeds a given threshold and maintenance is needed and fig. 12)
Regarding claim 2, Hayhshi teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: generate profile data representing sound pressure level for each frequency and sound pressure level at each time (p0106: intensity and frequency of the electrostatic noise), the sound pressure levels being included in the operational noise data (p0138:intensity by referring to the output signal of the electrostatic noise detection circuit 411); and in response to detection of an abnormality in the apparatus from the operational noise data, output the analysis target data and the profile data to the determination unit that determines presence of the failure state of the designated component (p0139:intensity of the electrostatic noise illustrated in FIG. 12 increases as the number of sheets subjected to image formation by the image forming apparatus 1 increases to 10,000 (10 kp) ….p0140:by monitoring the intensity of the electrostatic noise, it is possible to grasp a sign of a trouble more than the occurrence of the electrostatic noise in the electrostatic noise generation source..).
Regarding claim 3, Hayhshi teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the designated component is a component that stops the operation of the apparatus when a failure occurs in the component (p0140:take measures such as part replacement before the trouble occurs).
Regarding claim 4, Hayhshi teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 3, comprising: the determination unit, wherein the processor is configured to: by using the determination unit, determine presence of the failure state of the designated component from the analysis target data (p0139-140); and output, to a management apparatus, a determination result about presence of the failure state of the designated component (p0141:a warning level may be raised, and a warning message may be displayed on the operation panel or a warning may be transmitted to the data center).
Regarding claim 5, Hayhshi teaches The processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to: when a plurality of components included in the apparatus operate in the operating period of the designated component and when the analysis target data contains data indicating occurrence of a failure in a component (p0135:antennas are provided near the first-stage sheet feed roller 202a, the timing roller 206, and the pre-ejection roller 213), output, to the management apparatus, a determination result indicating that a failure occurs in any of the plurality of components which operate in the operating period of the designated component (p0140-:141: each time the electrostatic noise exceeds the threshold, a warning level may be raised).
Regarding claim 6, Hayhshi teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to: by using the determination unit, determine, from the profile data, presence of the failure state of a component which operates in a different period other than the operating period of the designated component; and output, to the management apparatus, a determination result about presence of the failure state of the component in the different period (p0150:a plurality of electrostatic noise generation sources and it is possible to estimate from which electrostatic noise generation source the electrostatic noise has been generated).
Regarding claim 8, Hayhshi teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein, when a management apparatus connected to a communication line includes the determination unit, the processor is configured to: output the profile data and the analysis target data to the management apparatus (p0141:a warning level may be raised, and a warning message may be displayed on the operation panel or a warning may be transmitted to the data center).
Claim 17, which is similar in scope to claim 1, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18, Hayhshi teaches a management system comprising: at least one processing apparatus that performs a function requested by a user (fig. 1: printer); and a management apparatus that manages an operating condition of each of the at least one processing apparatus (Data center), the limitation for the processing apparatus is same as claim 1, therefore it is rejection for the same reason as claim 1.
Hayhshi further teaches wherein a second processor included in the management apparatus manages, for each of the at least one processing apparatus, presence of the failure state of the designated component by using a determination result obtained by the determination unit (p0141:a warning level may be raised, and a warning message may be displayed on the operation panel or a warning may be transmitted to the data center).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayhshi as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kodama (US 20190306328).
Regarding claim 7, Hayhshi teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to: when a plurality of components included in the apparatus operate in the different period and when the profile data contains data indicating occurrence of a failure in a component, output, to the management apparatus, a determination result indicating that a failure occurs in any of the plurality of components which operate in the different period (p0141:a warning level may be raised, and a warning message may be displayed on the operation panel or a warning may be transmitted to the data center).
Hayhshi does not teach when a plurality of components included in the apparatus operate in the different period.
Kodama teaches when a plurality of components included in the apparatus operate in the different period (p0058: component parts of the image forming apparatus 100, component parts of the image reading device 1, the image forming device 2, and the sheet feeding device 3 described above with FIG. 2 and respective operations thereof will be particularly described with FIG. 3 and p0132: it is possible to identify the respective component parts corresponding to the plurality of different feature values by referring to the failure part table).
Hayhshi and Kodama are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Hayhshi with the teaching of Kodama for purpose of reducing a burden on a user of the image forming apparatus or a service technician in identifying the component part with an abnormality (0003).
Claims 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayhshi as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Sasaki et al. (US 11122171). Inomata (US 11641433).
Regarding claim 9, Hayhshi does not explicitly discose the processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: by using an operational history in which an operating condition of each component included in the apparatus is recorded, obtain an operating period of each component included in the apparatus.
Inomata teaches wherein the processor is configured to: by using an operational history in which an operating condition of each component included in the apparatus is recorded, obtain an operating period of each component included in the apparatus (col. 4,Lines: 5-15: the operational information may also include operation time information indicating the time and date on which the operation is performed).
Sasaki further teaches by using an operational history in which an operating condition of each component included in the apparatus is recorded, obtain an operating period of each component included in the apparatus (col. 3 Lines: 50-60: history information 313 includes operation history, failure history, component replacement history, a frequency in use).
Hayhashi and Inomata and Sasaki are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Hayhash with the teaching of Inomata and Sasaki for purpose of to reducing the work for a user and tracking user who uses the image forming apparatus 3, and the like.
Regarding claims 10-16, claims 10-16 recite the same limitations as claim 9, therefore they are rejected for the same reason as claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN Q ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1600. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
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, Merouan, Abderrahim can be reached on (571) 270-5254. 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.
HELEN ZONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/HELEN ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights