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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/3/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending in this application [7/3/2026].
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10-13, and 15-20 have been amended [7/3/2026].
Claim 2 has been cancelled [7/3/2026].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-20 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 based on newly applied reference Akizuki (US-2018/0141358).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/9/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 3-9, 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) in view of Imai et al. (US-2024/0114096) and further in view of Akizuki (US-2018/0141358).
As to Claim 1, Mori teaches ‘An information processing system comprising: a processor configured to: acquire a first diagnosis result being a result of diagnosing 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 previously performed treatment information being information regarding a treatment performed on the image forming apparatus [par 0032, 0035, 0037, 0099 – acquiring fault recovery treatment including resolution timing history based on previous image diagnosis and countermeasures]; 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)]’.
Mori does not disclose expressly ‘analyze a chart image included in a read image data; acquire a first diagnosis result for each of a plurality of predetermined diagnostic items, wherein the first diagnostic result is a result of diagnosing the chart image formed on a recording medium by an image forming apparatus; acquire a second diagnosis result that is a past diagnosis result of the image forming apparatus; and generate a screen on which the first diagnosis result, the second diagnosis result, and the treatment information are displayed in chronological order’.
Imai in the proposed combination teaches ‘analyze a chart image included in a read image data; acquire a first diagnosis result for each of a plurality of predetermined diagnostic items, wherein the first diagnostic result is a result of diagnosing the chart image formed on a recording medium by an image forming apparatus [Figs 4, 7, par 0073, 0086-0088, 0093 – CPU instructs the imaging unit to read a test chart based on image diagnosis settings and compares the scanned image obtained by reading the test chart and the image data to determine whether or not an image defect is present]’.
Mori and Imai 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 having ordinary skill in the art to include reading a test chart, as taught by Imai. The motivation for doing so would have been to providing a technique for diagnosing a state of a printing apparatus by reading a printed matter and presenting to a user a countermeasure to be performed on the printing apparatus based on the result of the diagnosis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Imai with Mori to obtain the invention as specified.
Mori in view of Imai do not disclose expressly ‘acquire a second diagnosis result that is a past diagnosis result of the image forming apparatus; and generate a screen on which the first diagnosis result, the second diagnosis result, and the treatment information are displayed in chronological order’.
Akizuki teaches ‘acquire a second diagnosis result that is a past diagnosis result of the image forming apparatus; and generate a screen on which the first diagnosis result, the second diagnosis result, and the treatment information are displayed in chronological order [Fig 6, par 0091-0094, 0104, 0117 – receiving one or more logs (i.e., second diagnosis result) of a detected error, and displaying a name of the detected error in one region, one or more coping methods in another region below the name of the detected error, and information indicating one or more logs of the detected error in a third section below the coping methods]’.
Mori in view of Imai are analogous art with Akizuki 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 displaying current and past errors and coping method, as taught by Akizuki. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable information in relation to an occurred error to be output at an appropriate timing in a method based on the kind of the occurred error. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Akizuki with Mori in view of Imai to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
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 3, Mori teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: generate the screen on which the first 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 first 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 first diagnosis result and the treatment information are displayed on the graph and the first 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 first 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 first 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 first 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 first 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 first 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 first 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 first 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 first diagnosis result and the treatment information are displayed and the read image as a base of the first 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 in view of Akizuki teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: generate the screen on which the read image is displayed in association with each of the first diagnosis result and the second diagnosis result, in generating the screen [Mori: 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; Akizuki: Fig 6, par 0091-0094, 0104, 0117 – displaying a name of the current detected error and one or more logs of previous detected error of the same]’.
Mori in view of Imai are analogous art with Akizuki 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 displaying current and past errors and coping method, as taught by Akizuki. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable information in relation to an occurred error to be output at an appropriate timing in a method based on the kind of the occurred error. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Akizuki with Mori in view of Imai to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19.
Claim(s) 10, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Imai, Akizuki and further in view of Hayashi (US-2019/0281171).
As to Claim 10, Mori in view of Imai and Akizuki teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claim 1. Mori in view of Imai and Akizuki does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the processor is configured to: generate the screen including the treatment information, the second diagnosis result of the diagnosis performed before a specific treatment that is a treatment specified by the treatment information, and the first 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].
Akizuki teaches receiving one or more logs (i.e., second diagnosis result) of a detected error, and displaying a name of the detected error in one region, one or more coping methods of the detected error, and information indicating one or more logs (i.e., first diagnosis result) of the detected error [Fig 6, par 0091-0094, 0104, 0117].
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 and Akizuki teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: generate the screen including the treatment information, the second diagnosis result of the diagnosis performed before a specific treatment that is a treatment specified by the treatment information, and the first diagnosis result of the diagnosis performed after the specific treatment, in generating the screen [Mori: Fig 6, par 0063-0069; Akizuki: Fig 6, par 0091-0094, 0104, 0117; Hayashi: Figs 10B, 11B-D, par 0133-0134]’.
Mori in view of Imai and Akizuki are analogous art with Hayashi 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 in view of Imai and Akizuki to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
As to Claim 11, Mori in view of Akizuki and Hayashi teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: generate the screen including the second 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 first 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); Akizuki: Fig 6, par 0091-0094, 0104, 0117 – displaying a current, one or more past logs of a detected error and one or more coping methods of the detected error; 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 in view of Imai and Akizuki are analogous art with Hayashi 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 in view of Imai and Akizuki to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
As to Claim 15, Hayashi in the proposed combination of Mori in view of Imai and Akizuki teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: specify a threshold-exceeding treatment that is a treatment for which a value of the first 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 first 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 in view of Imai and Akizuki are analogous art with Hayashi 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 in view of Imai and Akizuki to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Publication No. 2018/0141358
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA J CATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3954. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Akwasi 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.
/MIYA J CATO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights