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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-21 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings received on 3/1/2024 are accepted for examination purposes.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 3/30/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP-2023-054799 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/1/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 (and claims 15-18 based on dependency) is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 recites ‘the bottom hierarchy of the cause analysis tree’ in line 2, but there is a lack of antecedent basis for the terms/phrase. Examiner is unclear if claim 13 should depend from claim 12 or depend from claim 1 with a change in term/phrase similar to its corresponding device dependent claim 3 which depends from independent claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-15 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi (US-2019/0281171).
As to Claim 1, Hayashi teaches ‘An information providing device comprising: an input device that accepts an input to the information providing device [Fig 3 (63), par 0049 – input reception unit]; a display device that displays a screen [Fig 1B (15), par 0043 – operation unit]; a control device that controls an operation of the information providing device [Fig 2 (54), par 0046 – controller]; and a storage device that stores each of a plurality of trouble candidates that may occur in the information providing device, wherein the plurality of trouble candidates are respectively associated with a plurality of phenomena in the information providing device, each of the plurality of phenomena is associated with one or more causes [par 0042, 0056-0057 – storage device stores abnormality information based on occurring troubles, troubleshooting information and symptoms], the control device displays the plurality of trouble candidates on the display device on a basis of the input [par 0127-0128 – when a trouble occurs displaying a screen for a user to select a type of trouble that occurred, “cannot print as desired” (i.e. troubled candidate)], the control device displays one or more phenomena associated with a selected trouble candidate on a basis of selection of any one of the plurality of trouble candidates [Fig 10A, par 0128 – a trouble shooting screen when a trouble occurs display for selection options of abnormality, “if clean image cannot be printed” (i.e., phenomenon)], and the control device displays one or more causes associated with the selected phenomenon on the display device on a basis of selection of any one of the one or more phenomena [Figs 10B, 11A, par 0129, 0132 – when an option of abnormality is selected, a screen is displayed for selection a symptom of the abnormality option, “stain” (i.e., cause)]’.
Further, in regards to claim 11, the information providing device of claim 1 performs the method of claim 11.
As to Claims 2 and 12, Hayashi teaches ‘wherein each of the plurality of phenomena is associated with a cause analysis tree having predetermined hierarchies and including a plurality of causes, displaying the one or more phenomena includes displaying one or more phenomena associated with the selected trouble candidate in a low hierarchy of the cause analysis tree, and the control device accepts the input until a cause in a bottom hierarchy is displayed on the display device [Figs 10A-B, par 0127-0129 – each screen provides different selections based on user input of a trouble, then the type of abnormality based on the selected trouble and then a symptom of the selected abnormality]’.
As to Claim 3, Hayashi teaches ‘wherein causes are respectively associated with possible countermeasures, and the control device accepts selection of a phenomenon until any one of the possible countermeasures is displayed on the display device [Figs 11A-B, par 0057, 0132-0133 – displaying a screen displaying diagnosis result where a user can select display countermeasure method, where a countermeasure is displayed]’.
As to Claims 4 and 14, Hayashi teaches ‘wherein the control device collects state information indicating a state of the information providing device, and the control device narrows down the plurality of causes to a cause corresponding to the selected trouble candidate on a basis of the state information [par 0047 – determining fluctuation of environmental conditions and mismatching of image forming conditions indicates that there may be abnormality in any component if an abnormal image is formed, in which it is necessary to identify an abnormal portion and determine a countermeasure method]’.
As to Claims 5 and 15, Hayashi teaches ‘wherein the control device changes a condition of image formation in the information providing device on a basis of a cause in the bottom hierarchy [Fig 10C, par 0130-0133 – prompting a user to select “start print” to perform printing of test chart corresponding to a selected symptom to determine a countermeasure diagnosis]’.
As to Claims 9 and 19, Hayashi teaches ‘wherein the control device operates the information providing device such that a part designated in advance as a part where a trouble becomes noticeable among a plurality of parts related to the trouble candidate operates according to a cause of the trouble candidate [Fig 11B, par 0047, 0057, 0133 – a countermeasure to a stain can include cleaning of a part and a cleaning method of the part is displayed on a screen for a user]’.
As to Claims 10 and 20, Hayashi teaches ‘wherein the control device notifies contact information registered in advance of a trouble requiring component replacement of the information providing device on a basis of determination that the trouble is not eliminated by changing an image formation condition of the information providing device in a case where a cause of the trouble candidate is identified [par 0059, 0069-0073, par 0130-0133 – notification unit can notify diagnosis result by reporting to a service center under an instruction from the user when an abnormality diagnosis result needs further assistance based off of test chart printed when requesting diagnosis]’.
As to Claim 13, Hayashi teaches ‘wherein causes in the bottom hierarchy of the cause analysis tree are respectively associated with possible countermeasures, and the method further comprises accepting selection of a phenomenon until any one of the possible countermeasures is displayed [Figs 11A-B, par 0057, 0132-0133 – displaying a screen displaying diagnosis result where a user can select display countermeasure method, where a countermeasure is displayed]’.
As to Claim 21, Hayashi teaches ‘A non-transitory recording medium storing a computer readable program causing a computer to execute the method according to claim 11 [par 0038-0039 – ROM stores boot program and firmware, RAM, HDD]’.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 16 (and claims 7-8 and 17-18 based on dependency) are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Hayashi in the proposed combination of the prior art searched and/or cited does not teach the combination of limitations based on dependency including “wherein the control device displays a plurality of sample images exemplifying change in the image quality on the display device on a basis of occurrence of change in an image quality in a case where the condition of image formation is changed, the input device accepts selection of any one of the plurality of sample images, and the control device changes setting of an image formation condition of the information providing device to a condition for forming a selected sample image” as recited in dependent claim 6 [similar method dependent claim 16].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Publication No. 2019/0281171
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
b. US Publication No. 2024/0114096
c. US Publication No. 2024/0004596
d. US Publication No. 2025/0390257
e. US Publication No. 2024/0402964
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