DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-9 are pending in this application.
Priority
3. Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on application JP 2023-024364 filed on 02/20/2023 under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d).
Drawings
4. The drawing has been filed on 02/15/2024 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement filed on 02/15/2024 is in compliance with the provision of the 37 CFR 1.97 and therefore has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-9 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “a printer for communicating with a server that manages contract information of a contract for permitting printing up to a predetermined upper limit number of prints corresponding a specified amount during a contract period, the printer comprising at least one processor and at least one memory storing instructions to be executed by the processor to cause the printer to operate as: a first management unit that acquires and manages the contract information from the server; a control unit that controls to perform printing based on the contract information; a second control unit that manages cumulative number of prints within the contract period, a remaining number of prints up to the upper limit number of prints, the number of days since the printer has been in offline state with no connection to the server, and the number of prints in the offline state; an alert unit that issue an alert message when the remaining number of prints up to the upper limit number of prints is less than a predetermined number; a first display unit that, when the number of prints reaches the upper limit number of prints in the offline state, displays a screen for requesting to change the contract or to perform an additional charge for increasing the upper limit number of prints in the offline state; an updating unit that updates the contract information managed by the first management unit in response to a request input via the screen; a second display unit that displays a message indicating that the printer should be connected with the server within a certain business day or within the contract period in response to updating the contract information; and a restriction unit that restricts printing when the server is not connected within the certain business day or within the contract period after updating the contract information”.
The claim limitation of “a second control unit that manages cumulative number of prints within the contract period, a remaining number of prints up to the upper limit number of prints, the number of days since the printer has been in offline state with no connection to the server, and the number of prints in the offline state; an alert unit that issue an alert message when the remaining number of prints up to the upper limit number of prints is less than a predetermined number; a first display unit that, when the number of prints reaches the upper limit number of prints in the offline state, displays a screen for requesting to change the contract or to perform an additional charge for increasing the upper limit number of prints in the offline state; an updating unit that updates the contract information managed by the first management unit in response to a request input via the screen; a second display unit that displays a message indicating that the printer should be connected with the server within a certain business day or within the contract period in response to updating the contract information; and a restriction unit that restricts printing when the server is not connected within the certain business day or within the contract period after updating the contract information”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component. That is, other than reciting “by a processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “alert unit” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually issues an alert message when the remaining number of prints up to the upper limit number of prints is less than a predetermined number. Similarly, the limitations of first displaying, updating & restricting to when the number of prints reaches the upper limit number of prints in the offline state, displays a screen for requesting to change the contract or to perform an additional charge for increasing the upper limit number of prints in the offline state & restricts printing when the server is not connected within the certain business day or within the contract period after updating the contract information as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “first displaying, updating & restricting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking that the printer in connection with server should be displays a screen for requesting to change the contract or to perform an additional charge for increasing the upper limit number of prints in the offline state & restricts printing when the server is not connected within the certain business day or within the contract period after updating the contract information. If a claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim doesn’t recite any additional element – using a processor to perform alerting, first displaying, updating and restricting steps. The processor in last steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic control unit performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the claimed steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claimed steps of using a processor to perform alerting, first displaying, updating and restricting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the processor further causes the printer to operate as a transmitting unit that transmits the updated contract information to the server when the printer is connected to the server after updating the contract information”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component. For example, but for the “processor” language, “transmitting unit” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually transmits the updated contract information to the server after updating the contract information. If a claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites “wherein when the printer is connected to the server while the printing is restricted, the restriction unit cancels the restriction of the printing”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component. For example, but for the “processor” language, “restriction unit” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually cancels the restriction of the printing when the printer is connected to the server. If a claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the processor further causes the printer to operate as a switching unit that switches between a first mode operating the printer based on the contract information and a second mode that is a mode being canceled the first mode, and wherein the control unit controls the printer to be disabled when switching from the first mode to the second mode is performed without being connected to the server after updating the contract information”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component. For example, but for the “processor” language, “a switching unit” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually using a switching unit that switches between a first mode operating the printer based on the contract information and a second mode that is a mode being canceled the first mode. If a claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the processor further causes the printer to operate as an attaching unit that is enable to attach a first cartridge corresponding the contract or a second cartridge not corresponding the contract, the first cartridge and the s contain a recording agent, and wherein the switching unit switches the mode to the first mode in response to attaching the first cartridge to the attaching unit, and switches the mode to the second mode in response to replacing from the first cartridge to the second cartridge at the attaching unit”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component. For example, but for the “processor” language, “an attaching unit” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually using an attaching unit that is enable to attach a first cartridge corresponding the contract or a second cartridge not corresponding the contract, the first cartridge and the s contain a recording agent. If a claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites “wherein even if the printer has not connected to the server within the specified business day or within the contract period after updating the contract information, the restriction unit postpones starting of the restriction on printing when no connection with the server is due to a problem at the server side”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component. For example, but for the “processor” language, “the restriction unit” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually using the restriction unit that postpones starting of the restriction on printing when no connection with the server is due to a problem at the server side. If a claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites “wherein when the number of prints reaches the upper limit number of prints in the offline state, the first display unit displays information including a URL of the server and used for changing the contract or performing the additional charge”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component. For example, but for the “processor” language, “the first display unit” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually using the first display unit that displays information including a URL of the server and used for changing the contract or performing the additional charge. If a claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the processor further causes the printer to operate as a reading unit that reads response information of the server displayed on another device when the another device has changed the contract or performed the additional charge by connecting to the server, and wherein the updating unit updates the contract information managed by the first management unit based on response information from the server read by the reading unit”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component. For example, but for the “processor” language, “the updating unit” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually using the updating unit that updating the contract information managed by the first management unit based on response information from the server. If a claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The other independent claim 9 is obviously claimed the same subject matter as found in the claim 1 and therefore would be rejected based on same rationale applied on claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 (abstract idea), set forth in this Office action.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
9. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Katayama (US Pub 2022/0050648) teaches in Figs. 1-2, 4-5 & paras., 0021-0034 that a user instructs the printer to start the printing processing from a computer, a processor 111 receives a job transmitted from the computer. Thereafter, processor 111 determines the network connection state of the printer, the processor 111 determined as online determination, in this case execution of printing processing started. The processor 111 further determines whether the number of printed sheets that are printed offline reaches the upper limit. If the number of printed sheets does not reach the upper limit (N), then one is added to the number of sheets printed offline in memory 121.
The independent claim 1 is allowable over the prior arts of record since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “a first management unit that acquires and manages the contract information from the server; a control unit that controls to perform printing based on the contract information; a second control unit that manages cumulative number of prints within the contract period, a remaining number of prints up to the upper limit number of prints, the number of days since the printer has been in offline state with no connection to the server, and the number of prints in the offline state; an alert unit that issue an alert message when the remaining number of prints up to the upper limit number of prints is less than a predetermined number; a first display unit that, when the number of prints reaches the upper limit number of prints in the offline state, displays a screen for requesting to change the contract or to perform an additional charge for increasing the upper limit number of prints in the offline state; an updating unit that updates the contract information managed by the first management unit in response to a request input via the screen; a second display unit that displays a message indicating that the printer should be connected with the server within a certain business day or within the contract period in response to updating the contract information; and a restriction unit that restricts printing when the server is not connected within the certain business day or within the contract period after updating the contract information”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed in independent claim 1.
The independent claim 9 is allowable over the prior arts of record since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “acquiring the contract information from the server; calculating and saving cumulative number of prints within the contract period, a remaining number of prints up to the upper limit number of prints, the number of days since the printer has been in offline state with no connection to the server, and the number of prints in the offline state; issuing an alert message saying that the remaining number of prints up to the upper limit number of prints is less than a predetermined number; when the number of prints reaches the upper limit number of prints in the offline state, keeping the offline state and displaying a screen for requesting a change to the contract while the printer is in the offline state or requesting an additional charge for increasing the upper limit number of prints; updating the contract information managed by a first management unit in response to a request input via the screen; displaying a message indicating that the printer should be connected with the server within a certain business day or within the contract period in response to updating the contract information; and restricting printing when the server is not connected within the certain business day or within the contract period after updating the contract information”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed in independent claim 9.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARIS SABAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday/Friday from 9:00AM to 5:30PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Benny Tieu, can be reached on (571)272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The Examiner’s personal fax number is (571)270-4917.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/HARIS SABAH/Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights