DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
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.
Claims1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1-20 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1-20 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)).
Regarding claims 1-18
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of stock identification based on failure component.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A management apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to:
detect an identified component quantity of stock of which is lower than or equal to a threshold from among components included in each of processing apparatuses that are connected by using a communication network;
transmit, to a processing apparatus of the processing apparatuses that uses the identified component, an anomaly diagnosis request for diagnosing whether the identified component has a failure;
receive a result of diagnosing the identified component from the processing apparatus to which the anomaly diagnosis request is transmitted; and
output an instruction to assign a stocked identified component to a processing apparatus of the processing apparatuses that is determined as including the identified component having the failure on a basis of the result of diagnosing the identified component.
The italicized limitations above represent a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “detect an identified component quantity of stock [..]; determining [..]; setting only the sensor data[..];determined as including the identified component having the failure [..] ” is mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claim 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The first additional element is “transmit, to a processing apparatus of the processing apparatuses that uses the identified component, an anomaly diagnosis request for diagnosing whether the identified component has a failure; receive a result of diagnosing the identified component from the processing apparatus to which the anomaly diagnosis request is transmitted; and output an instruction to assign a stocked identified component to a processing apparatus of the processing apparatuses” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of using a generic system with generic components and obtaining data, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The 2nd additional element is “A management apparatus comprising: a processor configured to:” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a computer running software. This element amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and/or mere use of a generic computer component as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, this element individually does not provide a practical application. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
.
In view of the above, two “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the three “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic devices associated with computer with software, where such generic data colleting device with computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., an environment of computer hardware/software in communication with one another (a network of computing devices), and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claims “ management device, processor, memory”, generic device, which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser, IDS and the Examiner cited prior arts) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 2-18
Dependent claims 2-18 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claims 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-18 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For examples, claims 2-4 are direct to obtaining data, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering).
For examples, claims 5-18 are direct to abstract idea of a combination of mental steps and mathematical concepts.
Claims 19-20
Claims 19-20 contain language similar to claim 1 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 19-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Furthermore, claim 20 includes additional limitation, i.e. “wherein each of the processing apparatuses includes a second processor configured to acquire operating sound data regarding the processing apparatus in an operating period of the identified component and generate a diagnosis result representing whether the identified component has a failure by using the operating sound data.”, which is nothing but dada gathering (in significant extra solution activity). Claim 20 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-9, 12-13 and 16-19is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamaguchi (US 20120054561).
Regarding Claims 1 and 19: Yamaguchi teaches a management apparatus comprising (abstract; fig. 1-2):
a processor configured to(105: fig. 1; 200:fig. 2):
detect an identified component (black Toner: fig. 10) quantity of stock (305: fig. 3; current: fig. 10) of which is lower than or equal to a threshold (notify: fig. 10) from among components (black Toner, cyan toner..: fig.10) included in each of processing apparatuses(100-103: fig.1) that are connected by using a communication network (106: fig. 1);
transmit(1202: fig. 12), to a processing apparatus (104: fig. 1) of the processing apparatuses(100-103: fig.1) that uses the identified component(toner: fig. 10), an anomaly diagnosis request for diagnosing whether the identified component has a failure(client PC 105 includes a non-regular inquiry processing unit 1202 inquires the monitoring apparatus 104 according to an input by a specific operation. The non-regular inquiry processing unit 1202 thus acquires the client information, the device information, the counter information, the failure information, the stock location information, and the stock information);
receive a result of diagnosing the identified component from the processing apparatus to which the anomaly diagnosis request is transmitted(An acquired information management unit 1203 stores in the HDD and manages the various types of information acquired from the monitoring apparatus 104: [0041]; s1308-s1309:fig.13 ); and
output an instruction to assign a stocked identified component to a processing apparatus of the processing apparatuses that is determined as including the identified component having the failure on a basis of the result of diagnosing the identified component (s1312-s1313: fig.13; [0062]).
Regarding Claim 4: Yamaguchi further teaches add operating period information indicating an operating period of the identified component to the anomaly diagnosis request and transmit the anomaly diagnosis request to the processing apparatus that uses the identified component (1201: fig. 12; [0041], [0056]).
Regarding Claim 5: Yamaguchi further teaches set precedence in assigning the stocked identified component to the processing apparatus determined as including the identified component having the failure from the result of diagnosing the identified component, the precedence being set in consideration for at least one of a scheduled maintenance date for the processing apparatus, a distance from a warehouse where the identified component is stored to an installation place where the processing apparatus is installed, or a use frequency of the processing apparatus(1202: fig. 12; [0041], [0056];failure list with location: fig. 5; device 2: fig. 6 and failure summery: fig. 8; failure history device 2: fig. 9[0038]-[0039],[0041], [0051]-[0054]).
Regarding Claim 8: Yamaguchi further teaches wherein t set precedence in assigning the stocked identified component to the processing apparatus determined as including the identified component having the failure from the result of diagnosing the identified component, the precedence being set in consideration for at least one of a scheduled maintenance date for the processing apparatus, a distance from a warehouse where the identified component is stored to an installation place where the processing apparatus is installed, or a use frequency of the processing apparatus(1202: fig. 12; [0041], [0056];failure list with location: fig. 5; device 2: fig. 6 and failure summery: fig. 8; failure history device 2: fig. 9[0038]-[0039],[0041], [0051]-[0054]).
Regarding Claim 9: Yamaguchi further teaches assign the stocked identified component in order from one of the processing apparatuses that is scheduled for a nearest preceding scheduled maintenance date([0038]).
Regarding Claim 12: Yamaguchi further teaches assign the stocked identified component in order from one of the processing apparatuses that is scheduled for a nearest preceding scheduled maintenance date ([0038]).
Regarding Claim 13: Yamaguchi further teaches wherein in response to a plurality of the processing apparatuses scheduled for identical scheduled maintenance dates, the stocked identified component is assigned in order from one of the processing apparatuses that operates for longest operating hours or has highest consumption of a consumable article in a unit period ([0033], [0038], [0050]-[0051]).
Regarding Claim 16: Yamaguchi further teaches wherein in response to a plurality of the processing apparatuses scheduled for identical scheduled maintenance dates, the stocked identified component is assigned in order from one of the processing apparatuses that operates for longest operating hours or has highest consumption of a consumable article in a unit period([0033], [0038], [0050]-[0051]).
Regarding Claim 17: Yamaguchi further teaches assign the stocked identified component in order from one of the processing apparatuses that is located at the distance that is shortest (fig. 10; the stock location which is associated with the selected image forming apparatus in which the toner run-out failure has occurred, based on the stock location information: [0038], [0051]).
Regarding Claim 18: Yamaguchi further teaches assign the stocked identified component in order from one of the processing apparatuses that has, in a unit period, longest average operating hours, a largest average number of executed jobs, or highest average consumption of a consumable article (counter: fig. 7; stock management: fig. 11; [0033], [0038]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s)2-3, 6-7, 10-11 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (US 20120054561) in view of Feldman (US 20210390137).
Regarding Claim 2. Yamaguchi does not explicitly teach the management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: add reference sound data to the anomaly diagnosis request and transmit the anomaly diagnosis request to the processing apparatus that uses the identified component, the reference sound data being data in which sound acquired in a state where each of the components included in the processing apparatus does not have the failure is recorded.
However, Feldman teaches The management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to( servers 110:fig. 1)
add reference sound data to the anomaly diagnosis request( 320: fig. 3; [0036]-[0037]) and transmit the anomaly diagnosis request to the processing apparatus(106: fig. 1; [0037]) that uses the identified component(208: fig. 1; 302: fig. 1), the reference sound data being data in which sound acquired in a state where each of the components included in the processing apparatus does not have the failure is recorded(320: fig. 3; unique digital signature and/or digital signature envelope for the identified machine: [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Yamaguchi, the management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: add reference sound data to the anomaly diagnosis request and transmit the anomaly diagnosis request to the processing apparatus that uses the identified component, the reference sound data being data in which sound acquired in a state where each of the components included in the processing apparatus does not have the failure is recorded, as taught by Feldman, so as to effectively determines the machine operation using the audio in a simple and effective manner.
Regarding Claim 3. Yamaguchi does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to: add reference sound data to the anomaly diagnosis request and transmit the anomaly diagnosis request to the processing apparatus that uses the identified component, the reference sound data being extracted from sound acquired in a state where each of the components included in the processing apparatus does not have the failure.
However, Feldman teaches The management apparatus according to claim 1,wherein the processor is configured to( servers 110:fig. 1) : add reference sound data to the anomaly diagnosis request ( 320: fig. 3; [0036]-[0037])and transmit the anomaly diagnosis request to the processing apparatus (106: fig. 1; [0037]) that uses the identified component(208: fig. 1; 302: fig. 1), the reference sound data being extracted from sound acquired in a state where each of the components included in the processing apparatus does not have the failure(320: fig. 3; unique digital signature and/or digital signature envelope for the identified machine: [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Yamaguchi, wherein the processor is configured to: add reference sound data to the anomaly diagnosis request and transmit the anomaly diagnosis request to the processing apparatus that uses the identified component, the reference sound data being extracted from sound acquired in a state where each of the components included in the processing apparatus does not have the failure, as taught by Feldman, so as to effectively determines the machine operation using the audio in a simple and effective manner.
Regarding Claim 6: Yamaguchi further teaches set precedence in assigning the stocked identified component to the processing apparatus determined as including the identified component having the failure from the result of diagnosing the identified component, the precedence being set in consideration for at least one of a scheduled maintenance date for the processing apparatus, a distance from a warehouse where the identified component is stored to an installation place where the processing apparatus is installed, or a use frequency of the processing apparatus(1202: fig. 12; [0041], [0056];failure list with location: fig. 5; device 2: fig. 6 and failure summery: fig. 8; failure history device 2: fig. 9[0038]-[0039],[0041], [0051]-[0054]).
Regarding Claim 7: Yamaguchi further teaches set precedence in assigning the stocked identified component to the processing apparatus determined as including the identified component having the failure from the result of diagnosing the identified component, the precedence being set in consideration for at least one of a scheduled maintenance date for the processing apparatus, a distance from a warehouse where the identified component is stored to an installation place where the processing apparatus is installed, or a use frequency of the processing apparatus(1202: fig. 12; [0041], [0056];failure list with location: fig. 5; device 2: fig. 6 and failure summery: fig. 8; failure history device 2: fig. 9[0038]-[0039],[0041], [0051]-[0054]).
Regarding Claim 10: Yamaguchi further teaches assign the stocked identified component in order from one of the processing apparatuses that is scheduled for a nearest preceding scheduled maintenance date([0038]).
Regarding Claim 11: Yamaguchi further teaches assign the stocked identified component in order from one of the processing apparatuses that is scheduled for a nearest preceding scheduled maintenance date([0038]).
Regarding Claim 14: Yamaguchi further teaches wherein in response to a plurality of the processing apparatuses scheduled for identical scheduled maintenance dates, the stocked identified component is assigned in order from one of the processing apparatuses that operates for longest operating hours or has highest consumption of a consumable article in a unit period([0033], [0038], [0050]-[0051]).
Regarding Claim 15: Yamaguchi further teaches wherein in response to a plurality of the processing apparatuses scheduled for identical scheduled maintenance dates, the stocked identified component is assigned in order from one of the processing apparatuses that operates for longest operating hours or has highest consumption of a consumable article in a unit period([0033], [0038], [0050]-[0051]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (US 20120054561) in view of Miyamori et al. (US 20170223195).
Regarding Claim 20. Yamaguchi teaches a management system comprising:
a plurality of processing apparatuses that each implement a function designated by a user (plurality of image forming apparatuses to be monitored, and a failure list which is regularly updated: abstract; fig. 1-2; monitoring apparatus 104 and the client PC 105. Referring to FIG. 2, a central processing unit (CPU) 200: [0035]); and
a management apparatus (200: fig. 1) that manages an operating state of each of the processing apparatuses(abstract; [0035]), wherein the management apparatus includes a first processor (105: fig. 1)configured to detect an identified component (black Toner: fig. 10) quantity of stock (305: fig. 3; current: fig. 10) of which is lower than or equal to a threshold (notify: fig. 10) from among components (black Toner, cyan toner..: fig.10) included in each of processing apparatuses(100-103: fig.1) that are connected by using a communication network (106: fig. 1), transmit(1202: fig. 12), to a processing apparatus (104: fig. 1) of the processing apparatuses(100-103: fig.1) that uses the identified component(toner: fig. 10), an anomaly diagnosis request for diagnosing whether the identified component has a failure(client PC 105 includes a non-regular inquiry processing unit 1202 inquires the monitoring apparatus 104 according to an input by a specific operation. The non-regular inquiry processing unit 1202 thus acquires the client information, the device information, the counter information, the failure information, the stock location information, and the stock information), receive a result of diagnosing the identified component from the processing apparatus to which the anomaly diagnosis request is transmitted(An acquired information management unit 1203 stores in the HDD and manages the various types of information acquired from the monitoring apparatus 104: [0041]; s1308-s1309:fig.13 ), and output an instruction to assign a stocked identified component to a processing apparatus of the processing apparatuses that is determined as including the identified component having the failure on a basis of the result of diagnosing the identified component (s1312-s1313: fig.13; [0062]), and
Yamaguchi further teaches a second processor configured (104: fig. 1)
Yamaguchi silent about wherein each of the processing apparatuses includes a second processor configured to acquire operating sound data regarding the processing apparatus in an operating period of the identified component and generate a diagnosis result representing whether the identified component has a failure by using the operating sound data.
However, Miyamori teaches each of the processing apparatuses includes a second processor configured (10: fig. 1; fig. 3) to acquire operating sound data regarding the processing apparatus in an operating period of the identified component and generate a diagnosis result representing whether the identified component has a failure by using the operating sound data( abstract; [0035]-[0038], [0040]; figs. 6 and 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Yamaguchi, each of the processing apparatuses includes a second processor configured to acquire operating sound data regarding the processing apparatus in an operating period of the identified component and generate a diagnosis result representing whether the identified component has a failure by using the operating sound data, as taught by Miyazaki, so as to reliably notify the other apparatus of the sound similar to the abnormal noise and component causing abnormal sound is easily specified.
Examine notes
Aizawa(US 2022/0107860) also teach Claims 1 and 19 as a management apparatus comprising(figs. 1-4; ): a processor configured to(102: fig.1): detect an identified component(Toner: fig. 10) quantity of stock (estimated quantity of items remaining: fig. 10) of which is lower than or equal to a threshold (Average number of days consumed) from among components(901: fig. 9; consumable item type: fig. 10) included in each of processing apparatuses (10: fig. 1) that are connected by using a communication network(LAN: [0025]); transmit, to a processing apparatus (101: fig. 1) of the processing apparatuses(10: fig. 1) that uses the identified component(toner(10: fig.1): [0033]), an anomaly diagnosis request for diagnosing whether the identified component has a failure(705: fig. 11; [0111]); receive a result of diagnosing the identified component from the processing apparatus to which the anomaly diagnosis request is transmitted(s706: fig. 7); and output an instruction to assign a stocked identified component to a processing apparatus of the processing apparatuses that is determined as including the identified component having the failure on a basis of the result of diagnosing the identified component (s710: fig. 7; 408, 901: fig. 9; abstract; [0020],[0033]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Sasaki (US 20230161334) disclose automatic inspection system according to each embodiment described below, data obtained by collecting sound (operating sound) generated in an on-site facility such as a plant is analyzed, and a degree of difference between sound data and normal sound, and sound state information of the collected sound are transmitted to a wireless master device as an analysis result.
b) Suzuki (US 20230300258) disclose a sound diagnosis system includes: a setting unit configured to set a threshold for each of a plurality of time sections, based on a sound wave level in each of the plurality of time sections of a plurality of first sound data classified in a first group; and a determination unit configured to determine whether or not an abnormal sound is generated by calculating a comparison value for each of the plurality of time sections based on a sound wave level in each of the plurality of time sections of one or more second sound data classified in the first group, and comparing the comparison value for each of the plurality of time sections with the threshold value of the corresponding time section of the first group, the threshold value being set by the setting unit.
c) Miyazaki (U2021/0195054) disclose the control unit 300 transmits, to another device, at least one of: first sound information corresponding to a first operation received by the control panel 120, and first sound identification information specifying the first sound information, from among a plurality of pieces of sound information indicating different sounds from each other. This means that the user can select sound information indicating a sound similar to the abnormal noise that may occur when the image processing apparatus 100 malfunctions, and the image processing apparatus 100 can notify another apparatus of the selected sound information. Therefore, the image processing apparatus 100 can notify a sound selected by the user as a sound similar to the abnormal noise. In particular, when each of the plurality of pieces of sound information is information indicating the abnormal noise that can be heard from the image processing apparatus 100, the image processing apparatus 100 can more reliably notify the other apparatus of the sound similar to the abnormal noise. Additionally, even if each of the plurality of pieces of sound information is a sound that is different from the abnormal noise that occurs in the image processing apparatus 100, the image processing apparatus 100 can notify another apparatus of a sound that the user thinks is similar to the abnormal noise. The first sound identification information may be any information as long as it is capable of identifying the first sound information, and is, for example, a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) indicating a storage location of the first sound information on the Internet. The first sound identification information may be, for example, a file name of the first sound information. Hereinafter, as an example, a case will be described in which the control unit 300 transmits, to another apparatus, the first sound information corresponding to the first operation received by the control panel 120, from among the plurality of pieces of sound information indicating the different sounds from each other.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857