Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/617,956

IMAGE FORMING DEVICE AND IMAGE FORMING SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 27, 2024
Examiner
DULANEY, BENJAMIN O
Art Unit
2683
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Brother Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
349 granted / 565 resolved
At TC average
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
591
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.9%
-35.1% vs TC avg
§103
52.1%
+12.1% vs TC avg
§102
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
§112
15.4%
-24.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 565 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Information Disclosure Statement IDS filed 3/27/24 is acknowledged, the references therein relating to the general background of applicant’s invention. 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. The following title is suggested: “Image forming device for transmitting a URL to a terminal for increasing a processing amount”. Claim Objections Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Line 6 recites “the processing amount being to decrease as the image forming process is performed” which confusing language. Examiner suggests amending to “the processing amount decreases as the image forming process is performed”, or equivalent. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 1) Claim(s) 1, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. patent application publication 2002/0105677 by Sato. 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); 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 being to decrease as the image forming process is performed (figure 11; limit and current count are tracked); and 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; NOTE: webpage served from server unit 103 is interpreted as more specific than just sending a URL as the webpage is inherently accessed from its URL, thus the client is sent the URL when a webpage from a new address is displayed), the addition URL corresponding to an addition web page 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), 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). 3) Regarding claim 7, Sato teaches the image forming device according to claim 1, further comprising a communication interface 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. 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. 5) Claim(s) 2, 3 and 6 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 2022/0417371 by Nagao et al. 6) 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 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. 7) Regarding claim 3, Nagao (as combined with Sato in the rejection of claim 2 above) teaches the image forming device according to claim 2, wherein the addition URL is a URL corresponding to an external site other than a site of the web server (paragraph 49; different functions of service apparatus 120 can be divided into separate servers). 8) 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). 9) Claim 4 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 2022/0417371 by Nagao et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2019/0361632 by Hosoda. Sato does not specifically teach 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. Hosoda 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). 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. 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 4. 10) 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 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. 11) 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 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, 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 (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 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 27, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597136
APPARATUS AND METHOD OF RECORDING A STORAGE LOCATION BY SIZE FOR HARVESTED TUBERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592998
NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM HAVING CONTROL INSTRUCTIONS, INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, AND CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590841
Thermal Imaging for Self-Driving Cars
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588874
OPTIMIZING CHECKPOINT LOCATIONS ALONG AN INSERTION TRAJECTORY OF A MEDICAL INSTRUMENT USING DATA ANALYSIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586185
BLOOD FLOW EXTRACTION IMAGE FORMING DEVICE, METHOD OF FORMING BLOOD FLOW EXTRACTION IMAGE, AND BLOOD FLOW EXTRACTION IMAGE FORMING PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
62%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+11.9%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 565 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