Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/590,021

INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE DISPLAY CONTROL METHOD, MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-EXECUTABLE MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §101§102
Filed
Feb 28, 2024
Examiner
MANEJWALA, ISMAIL A
Art Unit
3628
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Ricoh Company Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
47%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 47% of resolved cases
47%
Career Allow Rate
72 granted / 154 resolved
-5.2% vs TC avg
Strong +48% interview lift
Without
With
+48.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
181
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
45.6%
+5.6% vs TC avg
§103
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
§102
9.2%
-30.8% vs TC avg
§112
10.0%
-30.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 154 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102
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 . Status of the Claims Claims 1-13 and 15 are elected without traverse in the election response filed on 11/04/2025. Claims 1-17 are pending and Claims 14 and 16-17 are withdrawn. 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 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Claims 1-13 and 15 are directed to a system with multiple components, and therefore are a machine. Independent Claims Step 2A Prong One The limitation of Claim 1 recites: … display information related to accelerated execution of a maintenance schedule for a first maintenance in response to determination of a maintenance schedule for a second maintenance, based on the maintenance schedule for the second maintenance, the second maintenance being different from the first maintenance and being to be executed additionally. The limitations of Claim 15 recites: … display information related to accelerated execution of a maintenance schedule for a first maintenance, in response to determination of a maintenance schedule for a second maintenance, based on the maintenance schedule for the second maintenance, the second maintenance being different from the first maintenance and being to be executed additionally. The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as displaying information regarding maintenance schedules. The generic computer implementations (see below) do not change the character of the limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements: Claim 1: An information processing system, comprising: circuitry configured to control a display Claim 15: A maintenance management system, comprising: circuitry configured to control display These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea. Step 2B As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible. Dependent Claims Dependent claims 2-13 further narrow the same abstract ideas recited in Claims 1. Therefore, claims 2-13 are directed to an abstract idea for the reasons given above. Step 2A Prong Two The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the dependent claims recite the following additional elements: Claim 6: Memory that stores execution or non-execution Claim 9 device These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea. Step 2B As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible. 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. Claims 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Johnson (US20190147413A1) Claim 1: Johnson teaches An information processing system, comprising: circuitry configured to control a display to display information related to accelerated execution of a maintenance schedule for a first maintenance in response to determination of a maintenance schedule for a second maintenance, based on the maintenance schedule for the second maintenance, the second maintenance being different from the first maintenance and being to be executed additionally. (Johnson, Par. 0051 and Fig. 3; Par. 0104 and Fig. 13) Johnson, in Par. 0051 teaches FIG. 3 is a chart illustrating an example of a modified maintenance schedule generated within the system of FIG. 1B that can be implemented within one or more embodiments. As shown in chart 300, the modified maintenance schedule 310 includes a maintenance task timeline 312 and a selected item task detail 314. As shown in the maintenance task timeline 312 including finished-base tasks, calendar-based tasks, UI extended tasks and predictive alerts, and tasks scheduled alerts, for example. The maintenance task timeline 312 illustrates the overall maintenance tasks necessary for a network including a plurality of equipment. The selected item task detail 314 illustrates maintenance for a specific piece of equipment of the plurality of equipment. Johnson, in Par. 0104 and Fig. 13, teaches On the FIG. 13 flowchart at step 1310, VM3 receives SSPA signals (from VM1) and UIFA signals (from VM2). VM3 then determines if SSPA detected TA operational degradation 1320. If an alert flag has been received from SSPA 1322, then VM3 calls for escalating the TA's maintenance cycle 1324 and performing the necessary maintenance event at an earlier time than previously scheduled. Claim 2: Johnson teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the maintenance schedule for the first maintenance specifies a target module to be subjected to the first maintenance, and (Johnson, Par. 0104: TA (Target apparatus)) the circuitry is configured to control the display to display the information related to accelerated execution of the maintenance schedule for the first maintenance in a case where the target module to be subjected to the first maintenance is identical to a target module to be subjected to the second maintenance. (Johnson, Par. 0104: TA (Target apparatus) i.e. identical) Claim 3: Johnson teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to control the display not to display the information related to accelerated execution of the maintenance schedule for the first maintenance in a case where a period of time until a scheduled date of execution of the first maintenance is less than or equal to a predetermined number of days, the scheduled date of execution of the first maintenance being specified based on the second maintenance. (Johnson, Fig. 5: Blocks 512 and 514: maintenance schedule) Claim 4: Johnson teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to: in response to hiding of the information related to accelerated execution of the maintenance schedule for the first maintenance without execution of the first maintenance, control the display to display a notification on a screen, the notification indicating that the information related to accelerated execution of the maintenance schedule for the first maintenance remains undeleted; and (Johnson, Fig. 5: Blocks 512 and 514; par. 0104: flag) cancel display of the notification on the screen in response to a period of time from a current time until a scheduled date of execution of the first maintenance being less than or equal to a predetermined number of days, the scheduled date of execution of the first maintenance being specified based on the second maintenance. (Johnson, Fig. 5: Blocks 512 and 514) Claim 5: Johnson teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to: control the display to repeatedly, at a predetermined time, display information related to accelerated execution of the first maintenance and specified based on the second maintenance; and (Johnson, Par. 0104: accelerated execution) stop display of the information related to accelerated execution of the first maintenance and specified based on the second maintenance, in response to a period of time until a scheduled date of execution of the first maintenance being less than or equal to a predetermined number of days, the scheduled date of execution of the first maintenance being specified based on the second maintenance. (Johnson, Par. 0107) Claim 6: Johnson teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, further comprising a memory that stores execution or non-execution for the accelerated execution of the maintenance schedule for the first maintenance in association with the second maintenance that is determined to be executed additionally, the execution or non-execution being specified based on the second maintenance, (Johnson, Par. 0051 and Fig. 3) wherein the circuitry is configured to change whether to display information related to accelerated execution of the first maintenance and specified based on the second maintenance, based on the execution or non-execution stored in the memory for the accelerated execution of the maintenance schedule for the first maintenance for which information related to accelerated execution has been previously displayed. (Johnson, Par. 0051 and Fig. 3) Claim 7: Johnson teaches The information processing system according to claim 6, wherein the circuitry is configured to control the display to display information related to accelerated execution of the first maintenance and specified based on the second maintenance, in a case where the execution or non-execution stored in the memory indicates that accelerated execution of the second maintenance to be performed on a target module identical to a target module to be subjected to the second maintenance that is determined to be executed additionally has been performed. (Johnson, Par. 0051 and Fig. 3) Claim 8: Johnson teaches The information processing system according to claim 6, wherein the circuitry is configured to change whether to display information related to accelerated execution of the first maintenance and specified based on the second maintenance, based on a percentage of executions of the first maintenance for which information related to accelerated execution has been previously displayed, the percentage being stored in the memory. (Johnson, Par. 0092) Claim 9: Johnson teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the first maintenance includes regular maintenance that is set based on a counter value of a device. (Johnson, Par. 0085: number of revolutions) Claim 10: Johnson teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the second maintenance includes additional maintenance for handling a failure in a device in response to detection of a sign of the failure, the detection of the sign being performed using a failure prediction model in response to device status information of the device being input to the failure prediction model. (Johnson, Par. 0033: model) Claim 11: Johnson teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the information related to accelerated execution of the maintenance schedule for the first maintenance includes information for recommending the accelerated execution of the maintenance schedule for the first maintenance. (Johnson, Par. 0051 and Fig. 3) Claim 12: Johnson teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the information related to accelerated execution of the maintenance schedule for the first maintenance includes information indicating that the maintenance schedule for the first maintenance is executable in an accelerated way. (Johnson, Par. 0051 and Fig. 3) Claim 13: Johnson teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the first maintenance includes maintenance to be executed periodically. (Johnson, Par. 0051 and Fig. 3) Claims 15: Claim 15 is directed to a system. Claim 15 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a system. Claim 15 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MANEJWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-8904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5. 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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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. /ISMAIL A MANEJWALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 28, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597046
Systems and Methods for Utilizing Geolocation Exchange Units
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591819
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING SERVICE BY USING MULTIPURPOSE VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12579486
Market Exchange For Transportation Capacity in Transportation Vehicles
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12567023
METHOD FOR CONTROLLING PACKAGE DELIVERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12547949
INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM AND CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
47%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+48.2%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 154 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month