DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Amendments and response received 02/11/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 2 , 4, 6-8, 10, 19, 22, 23, 26, 30, 31, 35, 36, 40 and 53 are currently pending in this application. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 19, 22, 23, 26, 30, 31, 35, 36, 40 and 43 have been amended and claims 3, 5, 9, 11-18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27-29, 32-34, 37-39, 41-52 and 54 have been canceled. Amendments and response are addressed hereinbelow.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 10 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daiki Kobayashi (US 20200257586 A1) in view of Minamino Katsumi (JP 2008227914 A) and Yasunori Otsuka et al (JP 6313658 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi discloses an image forming system (¶ [49]) comprising:
an image forming apparatus (¶ [49]; ¶ [27]); and
one or more server computers capable of communicating with the image forming apparatus and a display different from the image forming apparatus (¶ [57-58]; Fig. 3),
wherein the one or more server computers include a first processor (¶ [141]) configured to:
obtain data indicating a degree of wear of a predetermined component or a degree of a predetermined error of the image forming apparatus based on operation history of the image forming apparatus (¶ [79]).
Kobayashi fails to explicitly disclose notifying information about a countermeasure for wear of the predetermined component or information about a countermeasure for the predetermined error in case the data indicates a first value; and notify information about a countermeasure for wear of the predetermined component or information about a countermeasure for the predetermined error in case the data indicates a second value, wherein the second value indicates that the degree of the wear of the predetermined component is greater than the first value, or that the degree of the predetermined error is greater than the first value.
Katsumi, in the same field of endeavor of notifying maintenance information to the appropriate destination (¶ [12]), teaches notifying displays information about a countermeasure for wear of the predetermined component or information about a countermeasure for the predetermined error in case the data indicates a first value (¶ [66] and ¶ [68]); and notify information about a countermeasure for wear of the predetermined component or information about a countermeasure for the predetermined error in case the data indicates a second value (¶ [68], ¶ [72] difficulty level of countermeasure), wherein the second value indicates that the degree of the wear of the predetermined component is greater than the first value, or that the degree of the predetermined error is greater than the first value (¶ [54-55] wherein the first value/level of wear/consumption is lower than subsequent values/levels (e.g., level 2 and level 3)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the image forming system of Kobayashi comprising an image forming apparatus and one or more server computers capable of communicating with the image forming apparatus and a display different from the image forming apparatus to utilize the teaching of Katsumi which teaches notifying information about a countermeasure for wear of the predetermined component or information about a countermeasure for the predetermined error in case the data indicates a first value; and notify information about a countermeasure for wear of the predetermined component or information about a countermeasure for the predetermined error in case the data indicates a second value, wherein the second value indicates that the degree of the wear of the predetermined component is greater than the first value, or that the degree of the predetermined error is greater than the first value to perform maintenance work related to component wear more efficiently by the appropriate user who has the experience to handle the failure.
Kobayashi fails to explicitly disclose notifying the image forming apparatus so that the image forming apparatus displays countermeasure information in a first case and notifies a display different from the image forming apparatus so that the display displays information about a countermeasure for wear in a second case.
Otsuka, in the same field of endeavor of determining a notification destination for providing maintenance (¶ [6-7]), teaches notifying the image forming apparatus so that the image forming apparatus displays countermeasure information in a first case and notifies a display different from the image forming apparatus so that the display displays information about a countermeasure for wear in a second case (¶ [34] user can receive video communication at the MFP; ¶ [71] indicating the destinations for the support information are the user at the MFP or a remote service person at a “display different from the MFP”; ¶ [68] switching of notification destination in accordance with the image forming apparatus state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the image forming system of Kobayashi comprising an image forming apparatus and one or more server computers capable of communicating with the image forming apparatus and a display different from the image forming apparatus to utilize the teachings of Otsuka which teaches notifying the image forming apparatus so that the image forming apparatus displays countermeasure information in a first case and notifies a display different from the image forming apparatus so that the display displays information about a countermeasure for wear in a second case to make possible a more efficient response to a customer’s needs by notifying the appropriate individual for correcting the issue.
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi disclose the image forming system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1),
wherein the predetermined error is a transport error for a sheet in the image forming apparatus (¶ [160] error in printing medium transport system).
Regarding claim 10, Kobayashi discloses the image forming system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Kobayashi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the display is an information processing apparatus of a company that manages maintenance of the image forming apparatus or a company that sells the image forming apparatus.
Otsuka et al teaches the display is an information processing apparatus of a company that manages maintenance of the image forming apparatus or a company that sells the image forming apparatus (¶ [48]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the image forming system of Kobayashi comprising an image forming apparatus and one or more server computers capable of communicating with the image forming apparatus and a display different from the image forming apparatus to utilize the teachings of Otsuka which teaches the display is an information processing apparatus of a company that manages maintenance of the image forming apparatus or a company that sells the image forming apparatus to promptly and efficiently identify and correct complicated issues utilizing personnel with vast knowledge of the workings of the system.
Regarding claim 26, Kobayashi discloses a server computer (see rejection of claim 1) comprising:
a communication circuit configured to be capable of communicating with an image forming apparatus and a display different from the image forming apparatus (¶ [57-58]); and
a processor (see rejection of claim 1) configured to:
obtain data indicating a degree of wear of a predetermined component or a degree of a predetermined error of the image forming apparatus based on operation history of the image forming apparatus (see rejection of claim 1);
notify the image forming apparatus so that the image forming apparatus displays information about a countermeasure for wear of the predetermined component or information about a countermeasure for the predetermined error in case the data indicates a first value (see rejection of claim 1); and
notify the display so that the display displays information about a countermeasure for wear of the predetermined component or information about a countermeasure for the predetermined error in case the data indicates a second value (see rejection of claim 1),
wherein the second value indicates that the degree of the wear of the predetermined component is greater that the first value, or that the degree of the predetermined error is greater than the first value (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Katsumi and Otsuka et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jun Hamaguchi (US 20110026067 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kobayashi discloses the image forming system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1),
wherein the image forming apparatus includes a feed roller (¶ [33-36]).
Kobayashi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the operation history includes an operation history for a feed roller, and wherein the data indicates a degree of wear of the feed roller.
Hamaguchi, in the same field of endeavor of notifying a monitoring server of error information in a print environment (¶ [5]), teaches the operation history includes an operation history for a feed roller (¶ [59]), and wherein the data indicates a degree of wear of the feed roller (¶ [73-74]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the image forming system of Kobayashi comprising an image forming apparatus and one or more server computers capable of communicating with the image forming apparatus and a display different from the image forming apparatus to utilize the teachings of Hamaguchi which teaches the operation history includes an operation history for a feed roller, and wherein the data indicates a degree of wear of the feed roller to aid in determining a longest time period of printer operation without the necessity of part replacement, thereby improving convenience.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Katsumi, Otsuka et al and Hamaguchi as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Terada Tsuyoshi (JP 2016185831 A)
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi discloses the image forming system according to claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6).
Kobayashi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more server computers notify the image forming apparatus so that the image forming apparatus displays information about a retry of feed operation by the feed roller and applies the retry of feed operation in a case the data indicates the first value.
Tsuyoshi, in the same field of endeavor of determining wear of sheet feed roller (¶ [6]), teaches notifying the image forming apparatus so that the image forming apparatus displays information about a retry of feed operation by the feed roller (¶ [41]) and applies the retry of feed operation in a case the data indicates the first value (¶ [38-40]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the image forming system of Kobayashi comprising an image forming apparatus and one or more server computers capable of communicating with the image forming apparatus and a display different from the image forming apparatus to utilize the teachings of Tsuyoshi which teaches notifying the image forming apparatus so that the image forming apparatus displays information about a retry of feed operation by the feed roller and applies the retry of feed operation in a case the data indicates the first value to effectively determine when a component should be replaced as opposed to extending the life of the component to provide a more efficient system.
Regarding claim 8, Kobayashi discloses the image forming system according to claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7).
Kobayashi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more server computers notify the display so that the display displays information about replacing the feed roller in case the data indicates a second value.
Tsuyoshi teaches notifying the display so that the display displays information about replacing the feed roller in case the data indicates a second value (¶ [41]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the image forming system of Kobayashi comprising an image forming apparatus and one or more server computers capable of communicating with the image forming apparatus and a display different from the image forming apparatus to utilize the teachings of Tsuyoshi which teaches notifying the display so that the display displays information about replacing the feed roller in case the data indicates a second value to effectively determine when a component should be replaced as opposed to extending the life of the component to provide a more efficient system.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Katsumi, Otsuka et al and Hamaguchi as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kenji Miyamoto (US 20130195474 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Kobayashi discloses the image forming system according to claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6).
Kobayashi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the image forming apparatus includes a sheet sensor provided downstream from the feed roller in a transport direction of the sheet and configured to detect the sheet, wherein the operation history for a feed roller includes data based on the detection result of the sheet sensor.
Miyamoto, in the same field of endeavor of detecting errors or malfunctions of an image forming apparatus (Abstract), teaches the image forming apparatus includes a sheet sensor provided downstream from the feed roller in a transport direction of the sheet and configured to detect the sheet (¶ [30]), wherein the operation history for a feed roller includes data based on the detection result of the sheet sensor (¶ [57-58]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the image forming system of Kobayashi comprising an image forming apparatus and one or more server computers capable of communicating with the image forming apparatus and a display different from the image forming apparatus to utilize the teachings of Miyamoto which teaches the image forming apparatus includes a sheet sensor provided downstream from the feed roller in a transport direction of the sheet and configured to detect the sheet, wherein the operation history for a feed roller includes data based on the detection result of the sheet sensor to proactively detect malfunctions that may occur and limit possible downtime by addressing the issues prior to complete failure.
Regarding claim 23, Kobayashi discloses the image forming system according to claim 22 (see rejection of claim 22).
Kobayashi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the image forming apparatus further includes a jam sensor that detects an occurrence of a jam based on the detection result of the sheet sensor, and the operation history includes information indicating whether or not the jam has occurred.
Miyamoto teaches the image forming apparatus further includes a jam sensor that detects an occurrence of a jam based on the detection result of the sheet sensor (¶ [33] and ¶ [61]), and the operation history includes information indicating whether or not the jam has occurred (¶ [60]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the image forming system of Kobayashi comprising an image forming apparatus and one or more server computers capable of communicating with the image forming apparatus and a display different from the image forming apparatus to utilize the teachings of Miyamoto which teaches the image forming apparatus further includes a jam sensor that detects an occurrence of a jam based on the detection result of the sheet sensor, and the operation history includes information indicating whether or not the jam has occurred to proactively detect malfunctions that may occur and limit possible downtime by addressing the issues prior to complete failure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 30, 31, 35, 36, 40 and 53 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The examiner found neither prior art in its entirety, nor based on the prior art found motivation to combine subsequent art which teaches a server notifying an image forming apparatus and a separate display so that the one of the image forming apparatus and the display displays information about a countermeasure, wherein the image forming apparatus and the display includes a processor configured to notify the other of the image forming apparatus and the display so that the other of the image forming apparatus and the display displays information about a countermeasure in case a processing about the information about a countermeasure is not performed after the one of the image forming apparatus and the display displays the information about a countermeasure.
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 JAMARES Q WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/JAMARES Q WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
May 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights