DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s remarks received on 03/31/2026 with respect to the amended independent claims have been acknowledged but not found persuasive. Currently claims 1-3 and 5-15 are rejected and claim 4 is canceled.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
4. Claims 1-3, 6, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya (US Pub: 2018/0272733) and in further view of Yoshida et al (US Pub: 2022/0166889).
Regarding claim 1 (currently amended), Moriya teaches: An apparatus comprising: a display; and circuitry configured to receive operation from an operator [p0021], determine an attribute of the operator [fig. 8: S805], display on the display a notification content relating to a state of a consumable that is used in the apparatus in accordance with the attribute of the operator [fig. 8: S804, S806]; and wherein the circuitry is further configured to in a case where the attribute of the operator is a general user of the apparatus, display on the display the notification content relating to the state of the consumable a predetermined number of times for the consumable based on the notification management information [abstract, p0001, p0041 (Displaying one time is a predetermined number of times.)].
Moriya does not specifically monitor whether notification is performed. In the same field of endeavor, Yoshida et al teaches: record, in notification management information, information indicating whether the notification content relating to the state of the consumable has been displayed on the display for the operator [p0044, p0073], wherein the circuitry is further configured to in a case where the attribute of the operator is a general user of the apparatus, display on the display the notification content relating to the state of the consumable a predetermined number of times for the consumable based on the notification management information [p0175], and in a case where the consumable is replaced, reset the information in the notification management information [p0171]. Therefore, given Moriya’s disclosure on different notification based on different authorization and Yoshida et al’s disclosure on monitoring notification activities based on state of consumable, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the two to monitor notification/display process/frequency on consumable level based on assigned authority for improving notification efficiency.
Regarding claim 2 (currently amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Moriya further teaches: The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the attribute of the operator further includes an administrator responsible for maintaining the apparatus [fig. 8: S805], and wherein the circuitry is configured to display the notification content on the display in accordance with the attribute of the operator indicating whether the operator is the administrator or the general user [fig. 8: S804-S806].
Regarding claim 3 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein. Moriya further teaches: The apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the state of the consumable indicates that a remaining amount of the consumable is less than a threshold value [p0038], and wherein the circuitry is configured to display on the display a notification content prompting the administrator to order the consumable in a case where the operator is the administrator, and display on the display a notification content prompting the general user to request the administrator to order the consumable in a case where the operator is the general user [p0041].
Regarding claim 6 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein. Moriya teaches: The apparatus according to claim 2, wherein, in the case where the operator is the administrator, the circuitry is configured to display on the display the notification content relating to the state of the consumable each time the administrator logs in [p0003].
Regarding claim 10 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Moriya further teaches: The apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: an image forming device that forms an image [fig. 1: MFP].
Claim 11 (currently amended) has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1.
Claim 13 (currently amended) has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Moriya’s further teaching on: A non-transitory recording medium storing a plurality of instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform a display method [p0054].
5. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya (US Pub: 2018/0272733) and Yoshida et al (US Pub: 2022/0166889); and in further view of Shishido (US Pub: 2017/0064093).
Regarding claim 5 (currently amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Moriya and Yoshida further teach: wherein, in the case where the operator is the general user, the circuitry is configured to determine whether the notification content relating to the state of the consumable has been displayed on the display the predetermined number of times based on the notification management information [Moriya: abstract, p0001, p0041 (Displaying one time is a predetermined number of times.); Yoshida: p0175].
In the same field of endeavor, Shishido further teaches: The apparatus according to claim 4, wherein, in a case where the circuitry displays on the display the notification content relating to the state of the consumable for the general user and receives confirmation from the general user [fig. 5 (General user sends confirmation by pressing Order Request.)], the circuitry is configured to record, in notification management information, information indicating that the notification content relating to the state of the consumable has been transmitted in association with the consumable and the general user [fig. 6: 2210].
Therefore, given Shishido’s teaching on keeping track of how many notification sent by or transmitted from general user and Moriya in view of Yoshida et al’s implication on limiting number of notification/display times, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to determine and limit notification/display times for tracking and recording purpose.
6. Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya (US Pub: 2018/0272733) and Yoshida et al (US Pub: 2022/0166889); and in view of Peng et al (US Pub: 2022/0294928).
Regarding claim 7 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Moriya in view of Yoshida et al does not disclose biometric authentication. In the same field of endeavor, Peng et al teaches: The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to authenticate the operator based on biometric authentication information acquired from the operator [p0054]. Therefore, given Peng et al’s prescription, using biometric authentication as a way to login would have been obvious and within grasp of an ordinary skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 8 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Moriya does not disclose biometric authentication. In the same field of endeavor, Peng et al teaches: The apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: an imaging device, wherein the circuitry is configured to recognize the operator based on an image of a face of the operator captured by the imaging device [p0054]. Therefore, given Peng et al’s prescription, using biometric authentication such as facial recognition as a way to login would have been obvious and within grasp of an ordinary skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 9 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 7 has been incorporated herein. Moriya further teaches: The apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the circuitry is configured to determine the attribute of the operator who has been successful in the authentication based on attribute information in which the attribute of the operator is associated with the operator [fig. 3, fig. 8: S805].
7. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya (US Pub: 2018/0272733) and Yoshida et al (US Pub: 2022/0166889); and in further view of Ohnishi (US Pub: 2016/0236410).
Regarding claim 12 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 11 has been incorporated herein. Moriya in view of Yoshida et al does not teach printing on a 3D object. In the same field of endeavor, Ohnishi teaches: The system according to claim 11, wherein the apparatus further comprises: an image forming device to print an image on a surface of a three-dimensional object [p0009]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the two to print on a 3D object per design choice.
8. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya (US Pub: 2018/0272733) and Yoshida et al (US Pub: 2022/0166889); and in further view of Sato et al (US Pub: 2018/0276511).
Regarding claim 14 (new), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Moriya in view of Yoshida et al does not exemplify on displaying exceeding predetermined number of times. In the same field of endeavor, The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the operator is an administrator, the circuitry is configured to display on the display the notification content relating to the state of the consumable a number of times exceeding the predetermined number of times based on the notification management information [p0085, p0086]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to notify administrators more aggressively for emergency.
Regarding claim 15 (new), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Yoshida et al further teaches: The apparatus according to The apparatus according to wherein the circuitry is configured to record the information indicating whether the notification content has been displayed for each consumable and for each user, and wherein, in a case where one of a plurality of consumables is replaced, the circuitry is configured to reset the information corresponding to the replaced one of the plurality of consumables in the notification management information [p0171]. In the same field of endeavor, Sato et al further teaches the limitation in [p0092]. Therefore, the combined teaching would have made the limitation obvious to a skilled in the art to reset notification after replacement.
Conclusion
9. There is a new ground of rejection necessitated by the corresponding amendment 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 extension fee 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
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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 on 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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights