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. DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Drawings The drawings received on 8/14/2023 are accepted for examination purposes. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/14/2023, 2/14/2024 and 8/1/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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) 1-9, 12-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Mori et al. (US-2018/0063366) . As to Claim 1, Mori teaches ‘ An information processing system comprising: a processor configured to: acquire a diagnosis result being a result of diagnosing an image formed on a recording medium by an image forming apparatus [Fig 2, par 0026, 0032, 0035, 0037 – printing system includes a server connected to multifunction device that acquires an error for attracting user’s attention when there is a possibility that the printing process to be performed may be unsatisfactory to the user, image quality needs adjustment ]; acquire treatment information being information regarding a treatment performed on the image forming apparatus [par 0032, 0035, 0037 – acquiring fault recovery treatment including resolution timing history ]; and generate a screen on which the diagnosis result and the treatment information are displayed [Fig 6, par 0039-0041 – displaying a history screen including a time indicator image indicating error occurrence time (i.e., diagnosing an error) and error resolved time (i.e., treatment information) ]’. Further, in regards to claim 20 the information processing systems performs the program embodied on the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 20. As to Claim 2, Mori teaches ‘ wherein the processor is configured to: generate the screen on which the diagnosis result and the treatment information are displayed to be arranged in chronological order, in generating the screen [Fig 6, par 0062-0067 – history display screen displays jobs, errors and resolution timelines with time indicators ]’. As to Claim 3, Mori teaches ‘ wherein the processor is configured to: generate the screen on which the diagnosis result is represented by a numerical value, in generating the screen [Figs 3, 8, 9, par 0053-0054, 0077, 0080 – pop-up screen includes error code numbers 0x55 and 0x01 ]’. As to Claim 4, Mori teaches ‘ wherein the processor is configured to: generate the screen on which the diagnosis result is represented by a graph in generating the screen [Fig 6, par 0062-0067 – history display screen displays jobs, errors and resolution timelines as horizontally-extending bar graphics with time indicators ]’. As to Claim 5, Mori teaches ‘ wherein the processor is configured to: generate the screen on which the diagnosis result and the treatment information are displayed on the graph and the diagnosis result and the treatment information displayed on the graph are arranged in chronological order, in generating the screen [Fig 6, par 0062-0067 – history display screen displays a plurality of jobs, errors and resolution timelines as horizontally-extending bar graphics with time indicators ]’. As to Claim 6, Mori teaches ‘ wherein the processor is configured to: generate the screen on which a symbol indicating a type of treatment specified by the treatment information is displayed at a display location of the treatment information, in generating the screen [Fig 6 (131, 141), par 0064-0071 – displaying icon corresponding to a fault (error) involving an interruption in printing process and recoverable by user treatment and an icon corresponding to a fault (error) involving an interruption in the printing process and unrecoverable by user treatment, such as a failure of an electronic circuit ]’. As to Claim 7, Mori teaches ‘ wherein the processor is configured to: generate the screen on which treatment information for a treatment specified by a user is displayed and treatment information for a treatment not specified by the user is not displayed, in generating the screen [Figs 8, 9, par 0075-0080 – a pop-up screen is displayed when a cursor is placed on a region of where an error has occurred, where the pop-up screen displays error occurrence time, type of recovery and error release time for that particular job ]’. As to Claim 8, Mori teaches ‘ wherein the processor is configured to: generate the screen including information regarding a date and time on which a diagnosis as a base of obtaining the diagnosis result is performed, and information regarding a date and time on which the treatment is performed, in generating the screen [par 0037, 0040 – displaying the history on display screen including error occurrence time and error resolved time ]’. As to Claim 9, Mori teaches ‘ wherein the processor is configured to: generate the screen including information indicating whether the treatment performed on the image forming apparatus is a treatment having a positive influence or a treatment having a negative influence on the image forming apparatus, in generating the screen [Fig 6 (131, 141), par 0064-0071 – displaying icon corresponding to a fault (error) involving an interruption in printing process and recoverable by user treatment (i.e., positive influence) and an icon corresponding to a fault (error) involving an interruption in the printing process and unrecoverable by user treatment (i.e., negative influence), such as a failure of an electronic circuit ]’. As to Claim 12, Mori teaches ‘ wherein the processor is configured to: generate the screen on which the treatment information for a specific type of treatment among a plurality of types of treatments allowed to be performed on the image forming apparatus, and the diagnosis result are displayed, in generating the screen [Fig 6 (131, 141), par 0063-0071 – displaying a plurality of jobs, timelines, faults (errors) with corresponding recovery treatments for a user to select a recovery treatment to perform based on a job timeline selected ] ’ . As to Claim 13, Mori teaches ‘ wherein the processor is configured to: generate the screen on which the treatment information for a treatment of a type designated by a user among the plurality of types of treatments, and the diagnosis result are displayed, in generating the screen [Fig 6 (131, 141), par 0063-0071 – displaying a plurality of jobs, timelines, faults (errors) with corresponding recovery treatments for a user to select a recovery treatment to perform based on a job timeline selected ]’. As to Claim 14, Mori teaches ‘ wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where a treatment specified by the treatment information is a treatment of repairing the image forming apparatus, generate the screen on which a content of the repair is displayed, in generating the screen [par 0035 – where a fault recoverable by user treatment includes, for example, a paper shortage, an ink (toner) shortage, or a paper jam and a fault unrecoverable by user treatment includes, for example, a failure of an electronic circuit or a rotational defect in a motor ] ’ . As to Claim 16 , Mori teaches ‘ wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where a specific type of treatment is selected by a user in a state where the screen on which the diagnosis result and the treatment information are displayed is displayed, generate a new screen not including the treatment information for a treatment of a type other than the specific type and including the treatment information and the diagnosis result for the specific type of treatment [ Figs 3, 8, 9, par 0053-0054, 0077, 0080 – pop-up screen includes a detailed screen of the designated job with corresponding fault/error compared to the other jobs events ] ’ . As to Claim 17, Mori teaches ‘ wherein the processor is configured to: specify a failure location of the image forming apparatus based on the diagnosis result; and generate the screen including information indicating the failure location of the image forming apparatus, in generating the screen [Fig 8, par 0054 – indicating the type of error as well as the location where the error has occurred (e.g., particular paper tray empty) ] ’ . As to Claim 18, Mori teaches ‘ wherein the diagnosis result is acquired by performing the diagnosis based on a read image obtained by reading the image formed on a recording medium by the image forming apparatus, and the processor is configured to: generate the screen on which the diagnosis result and the treatment information are displayed and the read image as a base of the diagnosis result is displayed, in generating the screen [par 0039-0041 – displaying the error (warning or fault), whether or not it is recoverable by user and how to recover, and an image (e.g., thumbnail image) based on image data expressing an image of a page corresponding to an error occurrence page is displayed in correspondence with that job ] ’ . As to Claim 19, Mori teaches ‘ wherein the processor is configured to: generate the screen on which the read image is displayed in association with each diagnosis result, in generating the screen [par 0039-0041 – displaying the error (warning or fault), whether or not it is recoverable by user and how to recover, and an image (e.g., thumbnail image) based on image data expressing an image of a page corresponding to an error occurrence page is displayed in correspondence with that job ] ’ . 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) 1 0, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Hayashi (US-2019/0281171) . As to Claim 10, Mori teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claim 1. Mori does not disclose expressly ‘ wherein the processor is configured to: generate the screen including the treatment information, the diagnosis result of the diagnosis performed before a specific treatment that is a treatment specified by the treatment information, and the diagnosis result of the diagnosis performed after the specific treatment, in generating the screen ’ . Mori teaches displaying jobs and timelines including fault (error) occurrence (i.e., before treatment) and resolution times (i.e., after treatment) [ Fig 6, par 0063-0069 ]. Hayashi teaches user has an option to check the effect after performing the cleaning countermeasure of a symptom diagnosis detected and the results of abnormality is displayed to user [ Figs 10B, 11B-D, par 0133-0134 ]. Hayashi in the proposed combination of Mori teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: generate the screen including the treatment information, the diagnosis result of the diagnosis performed before a specific treatment that is a treatment specified by the treatment information, and the diagnosis result of the diagnosis performed after the specific treatment, in generating the screen [ Mori: Fig 6, par 0063-0069; Hayashi : Figs 10B, 11B-D, par 0133-0134]’. Mori and Hayashi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include check effect, as taught by Hayashi. The motivation for doing so would have been to detect whether an abnormality occurs uniformly on the entire surface, in a group, or in an isolated portion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hayashi with Mori to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10. As to Claim 11 , Mori in view of Hayashi teaches ‘ wherein the processor is configured to: generate the screen including the diagnosis result of a diagnosis performed at a closest time to time when the specific treatment is performed among diagnoses performed before the specific treatment, and the diagnosis result of a diagnosis performed at a closest time to the time when the specific treatment is performed among diagnoses performed after the specific treatment, in generating the screen [Mori: Fig 6, par 0063-0069 – displaying jobs and timelines including fault (error) occurrence (i.e., before treatment) and resolution times (i.e., after treatment) ; Hayashi: Figs 10B, 11B-D , par 0133-0134 – user has an option to check the effect after performing the cleaning countermeasure of a symptom diagnosis detected and the results of abnormality is displayed to user ] ’ . Mori and Hayashi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include check effect, as taught by Hayashi. The motivation for doing so would have been to detect whether an abnormality occurs uniformly on the entire surface, in a group, or in an isolated portion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hayashi with Mori to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11. As to Claim 15 , Hayashi in the proposed combination of Mori teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: specify a threshold-exceeding treatment that is a treatment for which a value of the diagnosis result changes to exceed a predetermined threshold value before and after the treatment is performed, among treatments performed on the image forming apparatus; and generate the screen including information regarding the specified threshold-exceeding treatment and the diagnosis result for each of diagnoses performed before and after the specified threshold-exceeding treatment, in generating the screen [Figs 8, 9, par 0117-0123, 0139, 0143, 0146 – predetermined allowable variation range is set for diagnosis modes to determine if an abnormality is detected where diagnosis results are notified and displayed on screen ]’. Mori and Hayashi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include setting predetermined allowable variation ranges, as taught by Hayashi. The motivation for doing so would have been to detect whether an abnormality occurs uniformly on the entire surface, in a group, or in an isolated portion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hayashi with Mori to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15. Conclusion The prior art made of record a. US Publication No. 2018/0063366 b. US Publication No. 2019/0281171 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MIYA J CATO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3954 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 830-530 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /MIYA J CATO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681