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, see page 9, filed 5/19/26, with respect to the title have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 5/19/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. patent application publication 2019/0361632 by Hosoda.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument for claim 2, on pages 11 and 12, that Nagao is not combinable with Sato because there is no motivation to combine, examiner disagrees as a motivation was previously provided.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 14-18 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 14 is a sub-combination usable together with claim 1.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 14-18 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
1) Claim(s) 1, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2002/0105677 by Sato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2019/0361632 by Hosoda.
2) Regarding claim 1, Sato teaches an image forming device (figure 1, item 101; an MFP) comprising: an image forming engine (figure 1, item 106); a communication interface to communicate with a terminal device and a server (figure 1; control unit of printer communicates with web clients and the onboard web server); and a controller (figure 1, item 104); wherein the controller is configured to perform: controlling the image forming engine to perform an image forming process within a processing amount (paragraph 125; submitted jobs are judged to be within the allowed number of copies [i.e. “processing amount”]), the processing amount decreasing as the image forming process is performed (figure 11; limit and current count are tracked); the addition URL corresponding to an addition web page provided by the server, the addition web page being configured to receive an addition operation to add an additional processing amount to the processing amount (paragraph 123; figure 15; user can change copy/print limits from web client device on the web page provided by the web server onboard the printer), wherein the addition web page is a web page configured to receive the addition operation by being displayed on the terminal device, and wherein the controller is configured to control the image forming engine to form images within an increased processing amount, which is a total of the processing amount and the additional processing amount, when the addition operation is received through the addition web page displayed on the terminal device based on access to the addition URL (paragraph 123; figure 15; increase in number of faces that can be printed increases the processing amount).
Sato does not specifically teach transmitting an addition URL to a terminal device in response to a request from the terminal device (paragraph 123; web page of figure 15 [for updating print quota amounts] is sent to the web browser at the terminal in response to user selecting button 304 [figure 5] on the terminal browser, but transmission of the URL is not specifically disclosed).
Hosoda teaches transmitting an addition URL to a terminal device in response to a request from the terminal device (paragraphs 49 and 70; printer can send URL to client device for implementing remote UI features).
Sato and Hosoda are combinable because they are both from the web printing field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Sato with Hosoda to add redirect URLs sent to a client device. The motivation for doing so would have been so that a user does not have to click a link button (paragraph 70). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Sato with Hosoda to obtain the invention of claim 1.
3) Regarding claim 7, Sato teaches the image forming device according to claim 1, wherein the communication interface is configured to connect the image forming device with a network, wherein the terminal device is connectable with the network, and wherein the image forming device and the terminal device are connected via the network (figure 1, item 100; paragraph 39; printer and web clients are connected through a network).
4) Claim 9 is taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
5) Regarding claim 10, Sato teaches the image forming device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to receive from the server, after transmitting the addition URL, the additional processing amount added by the terminal device via the addition web page and add the additional processing amount to the processing amount (paragraph 98; figure 15; table updated through the served webpage is stored in the printer).
6) Claim(s) 2-4, 6 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2002/0105677 by Sato and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2019/0361632 by Hosoda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2022/0417371 by Nagao et al.
7) Regarding claim 2, Sato teaches the image forming device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to work as a web server and transmit web page data to the terminal device in response to the request from the terminal device (paragraph 42; printer operates as a web server to the web clients).
Sato does not specifically teach the terminal device is configured to register the image forming device for a service related to the image forming process in response to an operation on a registration web page to be displayed based on the web page data to be transmitted from the web server, and wherein the controller is configured to: transmit a registration URL corresponding to the registration web page to the terminal device when the image forming device is not registered for the service; and transmit the addition URL to the terminal device when the image forming device is registered for the service.
Nagao teaches the terminal device is configured to register the image forming device for a service related to the image forming process in response to an operation on a registration web page to be displayed based on the web page data to be transmitted from the web server, and wherein the controller is configured to: transmit a registration URL corresponding to the registration web page to the terminal device when the image forming device is not registered for the service; and transmit the addition URL to the terminal device when the image forming device is registered for the service (paragraphs 73-78 and 81; figure 5, item S508; printer is determined registered for the consumable service or not and depending on the determination sends a different web page for display at a terminal).
NOTE: server functionality of Nagao could be incorporated into the web server of Sato.
Sato and Nagao are combinable because they are both from the printer consumable tracking field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Sato with Nagao to add determination of printer registration. The motivation for doing so would have been so that a user could efficiently register an unregistered printer for a consumable service (paragraph 78). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Sato with Nagao to obtain the invention of claim 2.
8) Regarding claim 3, Sato (as combined with Hosoda) teaches the image forming device according to claim 2, wherein the addition URL is a URL corresponding to the server (URL provided for interaction shown in figure 15 is served by [thus “corresponds” to] web server unit 103).
9) Regarding claim 4, Hosoda (as combined with Sato in the rejection of claim 1 above) teaches the image forming device according to claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to transmit a redirect URL to the terminal device to cause the terminal device to redirect to the addition URL in response to the request from the terminal device, and wherein the terminal device is configured to specify the addition URL and obtain web page data of the addition web page in response to accessing the redirect URL when the image forming device is registered for the service (paragraph 70; URLs sent to remote clients from the printer can be redirect URLs).
10) Regarding claim 6, Nagao (as combined with Sato in the rejection of claim 2 above) teaches the image forming device according to claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to: determine whether the image forming device is registered for the service related to the image forming process; transmit the registration URL to the terminal device in response to determining that the image forming device is not registered for the service; and transmit the addition URL to the terminal device in response to determining that the image forming device is registered for the service (paragraphs 73-78 and 81; figure 5, item S508; printer is determined registered for the consumable service or not and depending on the determination sends a different web page for display at a terminal).
11) Regarding claim 11, Nagao (as combined with Sato in the rejection of claim 2 above) teaches the image forming device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to transmit web page data for displaying a registration web page to the terminal device in response to a request from the terminal device accessing a registration URL sent by the image forming device; receive a registration instruction from the terminal device via the registration web page, and in response to the registration instruction, transmit a device identification of the image forming device to the server (paragraph 85; device identification can be sent to a server as part of a registration process).
12) Regarding claim 12, Nagao (as combined with Sato in the rejection of claim 2 above) teaches the image forming device according to claim 11, wherein after transmitting the device identification, the controller is configured to transmit a redirect URL to the terminal device to cause the terminal device to redirect to the addition URL to complete a registration (figure 5, item S513; after registration a terminal is sent the consumable purchase page [analogous to the addition page of Sato], Hosoda discloses that URLs can be redirect URLs [paragraph 70]).
13) Regarding claim 13, Nagao (as combined with Sato in the rejection of claim 2 above) teaches the image forming device according to claim 1, wherein the request is for capability information and in response to the request, the controller sends one of the addition URL or a registration URL corresponding to a registration web page depending on the capability information stored in the image forming device (paragraph 73; “capability information” is interpreted as information determining whether the printer is capable of purchasing consumables [i.e. whether printer is registered with service] and sends a URL dependent upon the determination).
14) Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2002/0105677 by Sato and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2019/0361632 by Hosoda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2023/0007141 by Tanaka.
Sato does not specifically teach the image forming device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to transmit identification information of the image forming device with the addition URL to the terminal device.
Tanaka teaches the image forming device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to transmit identification information of the image forming device with the addition URL to the terminal device (paragraph 62; URL includes serial number of the printer).
Sato and Tanaka are combinable because they are both from the web printing field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Sato with Tanaka to add printer information to a URL. The motivation for doing so would have been to more easily register a printer for a web service (paragraph 62). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Sato with Tanaka to obtain the invention of claim 5.
15) Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2002/0105677 by Sato and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2019/0361632 by Hosoda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2021/0099588 by Okuno.
Sato does not specifically teach the image forming device according to claim 1, further comprising a communication interface configured to communicate with the terminal device, wherein the communication interface is a USB interface, and wherein the terminal device is connectable with a network.
Okuno teaches the image forming device according to claim 1, wherein the communication interface is a USB interface, and wherein the terminal device is connectable with a network (paragraph 13; connection between printer and client can be through USB interface).
Sato and Okuno are combinable because they are both from the printing field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Sato with Okuno to add a USB connection. The motivation for doing so would have been to minimize unauthorized access (paragraph 13). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Sato with Okuno to obtain the invention of claim 8.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571)270-5254. 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.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights