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 .
Filed IDS of 10/17/2023 has been entered and considered.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
Please refer to the action below.
Examiner Notes
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. However, the claimed subject matter, not the specification, is the measure of the invention.
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 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) 1, and 10-11 recite(s) recite subject matter that falls within the following groups of abstract ideas: mental processes and mere mental steps that can be performed (Emphasis Added) solely by software per se.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine), claim 10 is directed to a readable medium and 11 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1, and 10-11 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG), the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or b) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
An information processing system comprising:
one or a plurality of processors configured to:
upon a determination that an event which has occurred in an image processing apparatus with an operation screen in a hidden state due to remote control is to be notified to a second user to whom the operation screen is visible,
display, on the operation screen, notification information including a message indicating that the event has occurred, the remote control being in operation via a terminal by a first user.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute “mental steps” or a “mental process”. Specifically, the “upon a determination that an event which has occurred” steps encompass the mental steps found if the event occurs while the device being used by the first user is in the hidden state due to remote control while a second user is present or possibly looking at the local operation screen and to in that case then, furthermore, arriving at the “display” step, encompassing a person or the second user, while observing the screen to note of a display faulted message event indicating that the event has occurred to possibly as implied assist in fixing the display faulted events for the first user currently using the device in the hidden state or the remote control mode. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An information processing system comprising:
one or a plurality of processors configured to:
upon a determination that an event which has occurred in an image processing apparatus with an operation screen in a hidden state due to remote control is to be notified to a second user to whom the operation screen is visible,
display, on the operation screen, notification information including a message indicating that the event has occurred, the remote control being in operation via a terminal by a first user.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “one or a plurality of processors configured to …” and “display, on the operation screen, notification information including a message indicating that the event has occurred, the remote control being in operation via a terminal by a first user …” the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “one or a plurality of processors configured to …” and “display…” limitations are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determination, the notification and the display steps, respectively, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea.
The processor and the display are claimed generically and do not use the judicial exception 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. These additional limitation(s) is/are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer (the display and processor). Furthermore, regarding the additional limitation of “display, on the operation screen, notification information including a message indicating that the event has occurred, the remote control being in operation via a terminal by a first user …”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. Specifically, they are insignificant extra-solution activities, which are mere data gathering and outputting which can be performed (Emphasis Added) solely by software per se.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an order combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the “notified” limitations and the “display” limitation amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “display, on the operation screen, notification information including a message indicating that the event has occurred, the remote control being in operation via a terminal by a first user …” are well-understood activities to resolve occurred printer errors by a second passing user or the like while the printer executes a job by a remote user. Concepts performed in the human mind have been identified in the 2019 PEG as an exemplar in the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. For the reasons above, the claims do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept and therefore, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Furthermore, these additional generic hardware elements perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer‐implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding generic hardware elements are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea. Hence, claim 1 is not subject matter eligible.
Claims 10-11 recites similar limitations to those discussed above with regards to claim 1 and therefore discussion is omitted for brevity. Hence, independent claims 1, and 10-11 are not subject matter eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9 recites further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be subject matter eligible. They include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Consequently, the identified additional generic hardware elements taken into consideration individually and in combination fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea above. Therefore, claims 1, and 10-11 are not subject matter eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, and 10-11 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (being the representative claim) recites similar limitations to the respective independent claims 10-11, therefore discussion is omitted for brevity.
The claim requires “upon a determination that an event which has occurred in an image processing apparatus with an operation screen in a hidden state due to remote control is to be notified to a second user to whom the operation screen is visible”.
In relying on the claim languages, and that of the disclosure, the limitations of “event which has occurred in an image processing apparatus with an operation screen in a hidden state due to remote control is to be notified to a second user” as cited above are ambiguous and unclear in the terms of whether the notification or the to be notified user is in relation to the hidden state notification or to the message indicating an event has occurred or to the remote control being in operation via a terminal by a first user. Therefore, said claimed elements are unclear, indefinite and ambiguous.
The claims as currently understood are rejected as being indefinite and unclear for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Applicant needs to positively recite the necessary elements, and novel subject matter to more effectively claim the subject matter which applicant regards as his invention.
Dependent claims 2-9 are further rejected since they depend from the rejected base claims and as they fail to solve the above problems.
Examiner respectfully advises applicant to review all pending claims and to positively and particularly point out the claimed subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention, in order to expedite the precaution of the application and shorten the time of examining process.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter of this application as currently claimed is unpatentable under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Therefore, the above claim is rejected under USC 112 second, as best understood by examiner as indicated in this office action above.
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (WO 2018139116, CN104883471, US 20150326751, US20210306488, US20110309964, each respectively teaches remote controlling of a device desktop panel, and release of a restricted operation screen when an event occurred.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCELLUS AUGUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3384. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 5 PM.
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, BENNY TIEU can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/MARCELLUS J AUGUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682 05/27/2026
Prosecution Insights