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 regarding art rejection, see applicant’s remarks, filed
7/8/26, with respect to claims 1-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 3-9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 filed 7/8/26 have been fully
considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the claimed invention, as recited in the currently amended claim 1, is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it constitutes a specific technical improvement to printer fault diagnosis systems and network communication efficiency, and comprises an inventive concept that is not well- understood, routine, or conventional and that that the claimed invention is directed to a specific technical improvement to printer fault diagnosis and network communication efficiency, rather than merely an abstract idea/mental process performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. This improvement goes beyond merely applying generic data processing functions to an abstract idea and further argues that the claimed combination of elements amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea because it is neither well-understood, routine, nor conventional (WURC) in the relevant field (see Applicant’s remarks pages 8-12).
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because amended claims still recite collecting sound information with normal sound information to determine whether the collected sound information contains abnormal sounds, storing only sound information determined to contain abnormal sounds together with characteristic information, storing characteristic information pertaining to abnormal sound information transmitted to an external apparatus, and selecting and transmitting another piece of abnormal sound information while excluding sound information having the same characteristic information as sound information transmitted within a preset period in the past. These limitations continue to recite the collection, comparison, evaluation, categorization, storage, and selection of information according to specified criteria. Although the claims now expressly limit the sound information to sounds occurring in a printer and state that the abnormal sound information is transmitted to an external apparatus to determine a cause of trouble occurring in the printer, the claim does not recite a particular improvement to the operation of the printer, acoustic sensing or signal-processing, abnormal sound detection, computer functionality, or communication technology. Rather, the printer provides the technological environment from which the information is obtained, while the processor applies the recited information analysis and selection rules to that information. Further, the statement that the sound information is transmitted to the external apparatus “to determine a cause of trouble occurring in the printer” recites the purpose for which the selected information is transmitted without reciting a particular technological technique by which the cause is determined. Likewise, storing only information determined to contain abnormal sounds and excluding information having the same characteristic information as recently transmitted information refine the rules governing which information is stored and transmitted, rather than reciting a technological improvement in the manner in which the printer, processor, storage, acoustic detection system, or communication system operates. Accordingly, considered as a whole, the additional limitations do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(a).
Further, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recited processor performs the functions of collecting, comparing, determining, storing, selecting, and transmitting, while the printer serves as a source of the sound information and the external apparatus serves as the destination for the selected information. The claim does not require any particularized processor architecture, acoustic-sensing arrangement, storage architecture, communication mechanism, or other technological implementation that transforms the abstract information processing rules into an inventive application. Nor does the claim require the processor to control or modify operation of the printer in response to the detected abnormal sound or require the external apparatus to perform a specifically claimed technological diagnostic operation. Instead, the additional elements are used to obtain, process, store, and communicate the information to which the recited information analysis and selection rules are applied. Considered both individually and as ordered combination, these additional elements merely implement the judicial exception in the recited technological environment and do not add an inventive concept sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claims remain directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant cancelled claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a machine (claim 1, a system) or a process (claim 8, a method) or a manufacture (claim 9, a non-transitory machine-readable medium), which are statutory categories.
However, evaluating claim 1, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is
directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea using the grouping of mental process. The limitations include:
collect sound information about sounds occurring in a printer; determine whether the collected sound information contains abnormal sounds by comparing the collected sound information with normal sound information; store only sound information determined to contain abnormal sounds as stored sound information, together with characteristic information about the stored sound information; store, when collected sound information determined to contain abnormal sounds is transmitted to a set external apparatus to determine a cause of trouble occurring in the printer, characteristic information pertaining to the sound information transmitted to the external apparatus; and select and transmit to the external apparatus, when a piece of sound information determined to contain abnormal sounds is selected from among stored sound information and is to be transmitted to the external apparatus, another piece of sound information determined to contain abnormal sounds occurring in the printer, without selecting sound information having the same characteristic information as the characteristic information of the sound information that was transmitted to the external apparatus within a preset period in the past.
Collecting sound information, storing the sound information together with characteristic information corresponding to previously transmitted sound information, and selecting sound information for transmission based on whether sound information having the same characteristic information was transmitted within a preset period, These limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe collecting, analyzing, comparing, and selecting information based on rules, which is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (e.g., observing sounds, categorizing them, tracking previously reported categories, and deciding not to report the same category again within a time period). Such activities fall within the category of abstract idea identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Next, Step 2A, Prong Two evaluates whether additional elements of the claim “integrate the abstract idea into a practical application” in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements “information processing system” including “a processor”, “a monitored apparatus” and “transmission to an external apparatus” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely performs generic data processing functions (collecting, storing, comparing, and selecting data). The monitored apparatus is only a source of data and does not impose any meaningful limitation on how the abstract idea is performed. The transmission to an external apparatus likewise represents generic communication of selected information.
The claim does not recite any specific technique for processing sound signals (e.g., signal transformation), any improvement to acoustic sensing or sound analysis technology, or any improvement to computer or network functionality. Instead, the claim merely applies the abstract idea in a particular technological environment (sound monitoring) and uses generic computing components to perform routine data handling operations. Such use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea constitutes mere instructions to apply the exception, which does not amount to integration into a particular application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), nor does it effect a particular machine in a meaningful way beyond generic data processing.
The additional element “a printer” merely limits the use of the recited information analysis to a particular technological environment of field of use. The claim does not recite a particular improvement to the structure or operation of the printer, a particular acoustic sensing arrangement, or a particular manner of controlling or modifying operation of the printer based on the detected abnormal sound. Rather, the printer serves as the source of the information upon which the processor performs the recited comparison, determination, storage, and selection operations. Merely limiting the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the recitation of the printer does not, either alone or in combination with the other additional elements, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a particular application.
At Step 2B, consideration is given to additional elements that may make the abstract idea significantly more. Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements that make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional elements of the claim, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The recited processor, data storage, and data transmission represent well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer systems and data processing (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
The distinguishing aspect of the claim, namely, selecting sound information for transmission such that sound information having the same characteristic information as previously transmitted sound information within a preset period is not selected, amounts to rule-based filtering or deduplication technique. Such filtering of redundant information based on prior transmission history and time constraints is conventional data management practice and does not constitute “significantly more”.
Moreover, the claim does not recite any unconventional arrangement of components or any specific technological implementation that improves system performance in a technical sense. The ordered combination of elements merely performs the abstract idea using generic computer functions and therefore does not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3-7 do not add limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Instead, the claims merely further limit the abstract idea by specifying additional data analysis, classification, and selection rules applied to sound information, which remain within the realm of mental processes and conventional data management techniques.
Accordingly, claims 3-7 do not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected 35 USC § 101 for the same rationale as in
claim 1.
The additional element (claim 9), the element of “non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a program causing the computer to execute a process” is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)).
Examiner’s Notes
Claims 1 and 3-9 distinguish over the prior art of record because none of the prior
art of record teaches or fairly suggests an information processing system, method, or a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a processor included in an information processing system comprising a printer to execute a process comprising: a processor configured to: select and transmit to the external apparatus, when a piece of sound information determined to contain abnormal sounds is selected from among stored sound information and is to be transmitted to the external apparatus, another piece of sound information determined to contain abnormal sounds occurring in the printer, without selecting sound information having the same characteristic information as the characteristic information of the sound information that was transmitted to the external apparatus within a preset period in the past, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
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.
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MOHAMED CHARIOUI whose telephone number is (571)272-2213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Mohamed Charioui
/MOHAMED CHARIOUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
