DETAILED ACTION
A response to the notice of non-compliant amendment was received on 18 February 2026. By this response, Claims 1-10 have been canceled. New Claims 11-30 have been added. Claims 11-30 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that “the new claims are patentable over the cited prior art references at least for analogous reasons to those set forth above with respect to claim 1” (pages 38-39 of the present response). However, Applicant has not set forth any reasons with respect to (now canceled) Claim 1.
Specification
The objection to the title and disclosure are NOT withdrawn because the amendments have raised new issues and other issues have been noted, as detailed below.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The title is not grammatically clear. From the placement of the phrase “including a first substrate and a second substrate”, this would appear to modify the “program”, which does not appear to be what would actually include the substrate. The title must be corrected.
The specification includes minor grammatical and other errors. For example, in paragraph 0031, line 6, “ibn” should read “in”. It is also noted that the amendments to the specification may have resulted in inconsistencies in formatting. For example, in paragraphs 0032 and 0034-0037, the numbered items at the start of the paragraphs have been indented, but paragraph 0033 has not been similarly amended. It is also noted that the numbered list appears to skip number (5). See also paragraphs 0043, 0045-0046, 0068, 0075, 0091, and 0104, for example.
Appropriate correction is required. Applicant’s cooperation is again requested in correcting any other errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The new claims recite various elements that are not mentioned in the specification. Claim 15 recites “an integrated media block”. There is no mention of this term in the specification. Claim 21 recites “initial device calibration”. There is no mention of any calibration in the specification. Claim 22 recites “the update unit copies cumulative operating hours”. There is no mention of copying or cumulative operating hours in the specification. Claim 23 recites “the update unit copies lamp usage data, error logs, or firmware version history”. There is no mention of copying, usage data, error logs, or firmware version history in the specification. Claim 25 recites “the database is a remote server”. There is no mention of a remote server in the specification. Claim 29 recites “projector runtime, color wheel cycles, fan speed history, or thermal event counters”. There is no mention of any of these terms in the specification. Therefore, there is not clearly proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter in the specification. For further detail, see below with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Objections
The objection to Claim 9 for informalities is moot in view of the cancellation of the claim.
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. In particular, dependent Claims 19-30, which depend from Claim 11, are separated from Claim 11 by independent Claims 17 and 18, which do not depend from Claim 11. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is moot in view of the cancellation of the claims.
The following is a quotation 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 15, 21, 22, 23, 25, and 29 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 claims contain 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New Claim 15 recites “an integrated media block”. There is no mention of this term in the specification. Although the specification mentions an “image media block” (see paragraph 0013, for example), there is no description of an integrated media block. Further, Applicant has not pointed out where the new claim is supported in the specification. See MPEP § 2163.04. Therefore, there is not clearly sufficient written description of the claimed subject matter in the specification.
New Claim 21 recites “initial device calibration”. Although Applicant points to paragraphs 0022-0023 of the specification and the description of “at the time of shipment” for support for calibration (page 39 of the present response). However, shipment and calibration are not clearly interchangeable, and a device may not necessarily be calibrated at the time of shipment (for example, in some situations, it may make more sense to calibrate a device after shipment because settings may be affected by the shipping process). There is no mention of any calibration in the specification. Therefore, there is not clearly sufficient written description of the claimed subject matter in the specification.
New Claim 22 recites “the update unit copies cumulative operating hours”. There is no mention of copying or cumulative operating hours in the specification. Further, Applicant has not pointed out where the new claim is supported in the specification. See MPEP § 2163.04. Therefore, there is not clearly sufficient written description of the claimed subject matter in the specification.
New Claim 23 recites “the update unit copies lamp usage data, error logs, or firmware version history”. There is no mention of copying, usage data, error logs, or firmware version history in the specification. Further, Applicant has not pointed out where the new claim is supported in the specification. See MPEP § 2163.04. Therefore, there is not clearly sufficient written description of the claimed subject matter in the specification.
New Claim 25 recites “the database is a remote server”. There is no mention of a remote server in the specification. Further, Applicant has not pointed out where the new claim is supported in the specification. See MPEP § 2163.04. Therefore, there is not clearly sufficient written description of the claimed subject matter in the specification.
New Claim 29 recites “projector runtime, color wheel cycles, fan speed history, or thermal event counters”. There is no mention of any of these terms in the specification. Further, Applicant has not pointed out where the new claim is supported in the specification. See MPEP § 2163.04. Therefore, there is not clearly sufficient written description of the claimed subject matter in the specification.
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 11-30 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites “determines that the first substrate is a replaced substrate” in line 11, “determines that the first substrate is not a replaced substrate” in line 13, “determines that the second substrate is a replaced substrate” in line 15, and “determines that the second substrate is not a replaced substrate” in line 17. It is not clear if the positive determinations would indicate that the first (or second) substrate is the substrate that was replaced or if the positive determinations would indicate that the first (or second) substrate is the replacement for the substrate that was replaced. The language of the claim suggests the former interpretation, but it is not clear how the substrate that is (currently) in the electronic device would then be the substrate that has been replaced. The claim also recites steps to be performed if the first substrate is determined to have been replaced and steps to be performed if the second substrate is determined to have been replaced in lines 20-25. However, there is no step to be performed if neither substrate has been replaced, which amounts to a gap in the claim. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 12 recites “and the key information storage unit that stores a private key” in line 4. It is not grammatically clear what this phrase is intended to modify or be coordinated with. The claim further recites “the encrypted information has been encrypted with the public key” in lines 5-6. It is not grammatically clear how this phrase relates to the remainder of the claim. The claim similarly recites “the encrypted third identifier has been encrypted with the public key” in lines 8-9 and “the encrypted electronic device identifier has been acquired from the database” in line 11. It is also not grammatically clear how these phrases relate to the remainder of the claim, and the tense of the verbs is not clear in context. The claim additionally recites that the determination unit “decrypts the encrypted third identifier” in lines 13-14; however, it appears that it would be the decryption unit that should perform decryption. The claim also recites “identical with” in lines 15, 17-18, and 20, which is not in clear idiomatic English, although it appears that this may be intended to read “identical to…” See also Claims 13 and 14.
Claim 13 recites “an identifier of the video device” in line 2. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the same identifier as in Claim 11 or a distinct identifier of the video device.
Claim 17 recites “acquire a first identifier and a second identifier from comprising first and second substrates” in lines 4-5. This is grammatically unclear, especially with respect to “from comprising”. The claim further recites “the database” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The claim additionally recites “determine that the first substrate is a replaced substrate” in line 9, “determine that the first substrate is not the replaced substrate” in line 11, “determine that the second substrate is a replaced substrate” in line 13, and “determine that the second substrate is not the replaced substrate” in lines 14-15. It is not clear if the positive determinations would indicate that the first (or second) substrate is the substrate that was replaced or if the positive determinations would indicate that the first (or second) substrate is the replacement for the substrate that was replaced. The language of the claim suggests the former interpretation, but it is not clear how the substrate that is (currently) in the electronic device would then be the substrate that has been replaced. The claim also recites steps to be performed if the first substrate is determined to have been replaced and steps to be performed if the second substrate is determined to have been replaced in lines 17-22. However, there is no step to be performed if neither substrate has been replaced, which amounts to a gap in the claim. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 18 recites “acquire: a first identifier and a second identifier from comprising first and second substrates” in lines 5-7. This is grammatically unclear, especially with respect to “from comprising”. The claim further recites “determine that: the first substrate is a replaced substrate” in lines 10-11, “the first substrate is not the replaced substrate” in line 13, “determine that the second substrate is a replaced substrate” in line 14, and “the second substrate is not the replaced substrate” in line 16. It is not clear if the positive determinations would indicate that the first (or second) substrate is the substrate that was replaced or if the positive determinations would indicate that the first (or second) substrate is the replacement for the substrate that was replaced. The language of the claim suggests the former interpretation, but it is not clear how the substrate that is (currently) in the electronic device would then be the substrate that has been replaced. Further, it is noted that “and determine that” in line 14 is grammatically unclear what this phrase is intended to modify or be coordinated with, and it is also unclear if “the second substrate is not the replaced substrate” in line 16 is intended to be a further object of “determine that” in line 10. The claim additionally recites plural functions of the computers but does not recite a conjunction (e.g. “and” or “or”) before the last function (“update” in line 18). The claim also recites functions to be performed if the first substrate is determined to have been replaced and steps to be performed if the second substrate is determined to have been replaced in lines 19-24. However, there is no step to be performed if neither substrate has been replaced, which amounts to a gap in the claim. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 22 recites “the non-replaced substrate” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 23 recites “the non-replaced substrate” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 24 recites “the update unit updates the first maintenance information with the second maintenance information after replacement work performed by a maintenance company using device information downloaded from the database to a storage medium” in lines 1-4. Due to the long string of prepositional phrases, it is not grammatically clear what the phrase “using device information…” is intended to modify; that is, it is not clear whether the device information is used in the replacement work or in the updating, for example.
Claim 27 recites “the first maintenance information and the second maintenance information each include a usage time of the electronic device that is simultaneously written to non-volatile memories of the first substrate and the second substrate with elapse of the usage time” in lines 1-4. First, it is not grammatically clear what the phrase “that is simultaneously written” is intended to modify. Further, the phrase “with elapse of the usage time” is grammatically unclear as to how this relates to the remainder of the claim.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Examiner’s Note
Because the claims are rendered indefinite due to the numerous issues as detailed above in reference to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), it has not been possible to fully construe pending Claims 11-30 in order to analyze the claims for novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 and non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. As per MPEP § 2173.06 II, if there is uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See also In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962). A search has been performed to the extent possible, and references that appear to be relevant were cited in the previous Office action.
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 Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights