DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 6, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawai (US 2024/0179250) in view of Matsui (US 2004/0156055).
Regarding Claim 6, Sawai teaches an information processing apparatus (Paragraph 2) comprising:
one or more memories storing instructions (Paragraph 41, wherein , and
one or more processors (Paragraph 43, wherein there is a CPU) which, when executing the instructions, causes the information processing apparatus to:
receive, from a system, data for displaying information about one or more parts that are objects of work to eliminate an error that has occurred in an image processing apparatus (Paragraph 64, wherein information about parts can be displayed);
display, based on the received data, the information about the one or more parts, the one or more parts being listed in order of priority for the work (Paragraphs 64 and 149, wherein the parts can be listed based on a priority); and
display a reliability of the displayed information in addition to the information (Paragraphs 93-95, wherein there can be a degree of recommendation, reliability).
Sawai does not teach wherein replacement, cleaning and adjustment are displayed as types of the work.
Matsui does teach wherein replacement, cleaning and adjustment are displayed as types of the work (Paragraph 220, wherein the information about what is needed, such as replacement or cleaning or adjustment, is displayed.).
Sawai and Matsui are combinable because they both deal with fixing errors for a printing apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of orindary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Sawai with the teachings of Matsui for the purpose of reducing downtime by effiecently perofrming necessary actions (Matsui: Paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 7, Sawai further teaches wherein the priority is calculated by the system as a failure cause probability of each of the one or more parts based on information, in field results managed by the system, that matches the occurred error and a model of the image processing apparatus (Paragraphs 148-155, wherein the priority is determined based on preference of need).
Regarding Claim 10, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawai (US 2024/0179250) in view of Matsui (US 2004/0156055) further in view of Yeung (US 2019/0272209).
Regarding Claim 8, Sawai in view of Matsui does not teach wherein the field results are accumulated records of works that were implemented for errors in image processing apparatuses in a past, wherein each of the field results includes information about an error, information about the model of the image processing apparatus, and information about a work for the error.
Yeung does teach wherein the field results are accumulated records of works that were implemented for errors in image processing apparatuses in a past, wherein each of the field results includes information about an error, information about the model of the image processing apparatus, and information about a work for the error (Paragraph 18, wherein error logs are stored with historical error information and resolution).
Sawai and Yeung are combinable because they both deal with fixing errors for 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 Sawai in view of Matsui with the teachings of Yeung for the purpose of identifying patterns to more accurately indicate resolutions to errors (Yeung: Paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Sawai in view of Matsui does not teach wherein the system manages field results that are accumulated records of works that were implemented for errors in image processing apparatuses in a past, and wherein the displayed reliability is determined, by the system, dynamically according to a number of records of the field results about the occurred error.
Yeung does teach wherein the system manages field results that are accumulated records of works that were implemented for errors in image processing apparatuses in a past, and wherein the displayed reliability is determined, by the system, dynamically according to a number of records of the field results about the occurred error (Paragraph 19, wherein the information pertaining to the error is updated based on the error occurring again to help increase the likehood that the resolution is correct. The more errors used, the more accurate the resolution. This would correspond to the reliability of Sawai).
Sawai and Yeung are combinable because they both deal with fixing errors for 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 Sawai in view of Matsui with the teachings of Yeung for the purpose of identifying patterns to more accurately indicate resolutions to errors (Yeung: Paragraph 2).
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 NICHOLAS PACHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-3433. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4.
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, George Eng can be reached at 571-272-7495. 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.
/NICHOLAS PACHOL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights