DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 March 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response / amendments filed on 18 February 2026 and the request for continued examination filed on 12 March 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-18 have been amended.
Claim 6 is cancelled.
Claim 13 is original / previously presented.
Claims 1-5, and 7-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-18, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “The amended claims address a specific technical problem in distributed computing systems of preventing transmission of unfulfillable service requests to geographically distributed servers by performing automated local validation before network communication occurs. The Examiner characterizes the problem as merely ‘entrepreneurial’ or ‘business’ (Office Action, page 20). However, this mischaracterizes the nature of the claimed invention. The problem is not simply whether consumables can be delivered to a region. Rather, the problem is how a networked device can automatically coordinate its state with geographically distributed servers by performing validation to prevent erroneous network transmissions and failed registration attempts in a multi-region server architecture” (Remarks pg. 9-10). Examiner disagrees. Preventing an unfulfillable service request based on using an incorrect region is an entrepreneurial / business problem. The claims are more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to ensure printing device consumable delivery service is available for a particular region), that is tangentially associated with a technology elements (e.g. computers), rather than solving a technology based problem. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “claim 1 specifically recites that the printing device’s processor automatically performs a technical sequence that cannot be performed manually: Maintains a support table stored in device memory (Spec. ¶[0092]); In response to detecting a region setting change, automatically reads the support table and performs a comparison (Spec. ¶[0092]); Switches the delivery setting to deactivated to prevent transmission of device registration requests (Spec. ¶[0091], Fig 10 Steps S1003-S1004; Fig. 8 Step S810). This specific arrangement improves the functioning of the networked computer system by implementing a distributed data validation architecture that reduces unnecessary network traffic and prevents failed server transactions” (Remarks pg. 10). Examiner disagrees. These limitations do not provide sufficient technical detail to demonstrate a technical solution that is an improvement to a technical field or improvement to technology. First, the printing device processor performing the steps of detecting the region setting change, performing the comparison, and switching the delivery setting represent using a computer in its ordinary capacity for implementing an abstract idea; and the printing device memory storing a support table that is read by the processor represents using a computer in its ordinary capacity for other tasks (i.e. to receive, store data), neither of which a practical application or significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) citing Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) stating “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or significantly more”. Second, a networked computer system outside of the judicial exception is not improved by the claims. The solution which the Applicant argues ‘prevents failed server transactions’ is not a technical improvement because it is merely using computers as a tool to perform the data validation. Third, the specification does not highlight that this arrangement is particular to reducing unnecessary network traffic. Applicant specification ¶[0092] states that the support table that is read to determine whether or not the updated region is a target region supporting the consumable automatic delivery service can either be managed inside the MFP (as claimed) or can be acquired from an external server, which Examiner notes an acquisition of data from an external server would still involve network communication. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible because “First, preventing transmission of device registration requests to servers is a computer function. A human cannot intercept and prevent network packet transmission from a device’s network interface to a remote server. The claim specifically recites that the processor switches the delivery state to deactivated. This is a technical function of the computer system’s network stack that controls whether registration requests are transmitted, which is not a human-performable task” (Remarks pg. 10). Examiner disagrees. First, nothing in the claim explicitly prevents transmission of device registration requests to servers, nothing explicitly intercepts and prevents network packet transmission from a device’s network interface to a remote network server, and nothing explicitly discusses a computer network stack. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Second, the limitation of “at least one processor to:… set automatic delivery of consumables to an activated state or a deactivated state” is a certain method of organizing human activity representing the subcategories of sales activities, managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions, merely implemented by a generic or general purpose computer. At this claimed high level of detail the processor here is merely ‘applying’ an otherwise manual activity (i.e. the activity of a customer / sales person toggles whether or not a customer has automatic delivery service), which is not a practical application or significantly more. Third, the claimed activity of ‘transmitting’ is an additional element in the limitation of “the resource management server being configured to transmit an order for ordering the consumables“, and is high level extra-solution activity (transmitting data) to the judicial exception (ordering). There are no particular technical details regarding transmitting beyond using computers as a tool (i.e. subscription management server, resource management server) to perform an otherwise manual process (communicating information). Also, see MPEP 2106.05(f) citing Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) stating “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or significantly more”. Furthermore, this represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Hence, the claimed features of these arguments do not provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible because “Second, the automated triggering and comparison occur without human intervention. The claim recites ‘in response to detecting the change in the region setting, automatically read the support table.’ The specification confirms this automation: ‘In a step S1001, the UI controller 208 determines whether or not the region setting has been updated’ (¶[0089]), which then automatically triggers the validation sequence without requiring human analysis or decision-making” (Remarks pg. 10-11). Examiner disagrees. First, the activities of detecting and comparing (perform a comparison… to determine) in the limitation “in response to detecting the change in the region setting, automatically… perform a comparison between region information associated with a newly selected region and contents stored in the support table to determine whether the newly selected region is included in the target regions” are part of the judicial exception (certain methods of organizing human activities: managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions), and performing these steps ‘automatically’ does not provide a practical application or significantly more, since this automation is applying a judicial exception on a computer. Next, the additional element to automatically read the support table stored in the at least one memory is high level extra-solution data gathering, without any particular technical details regarding the reading beyond using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (obtaining information). See MPEP 2106.05(f) citing Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) stating “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or significantly more”. The automatic feature of these limitations does not provide a practical application or inventive concept. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible because “The Office Action asserts that the claims merely implement an abstract idea using ‘generic / general purpose computers.’ However, amended claim 1 recites a specific distributed computing architecture with particular data structures, processing sequences, and network control mechanisms that go well beyond conventional computer use. Specifically, the claims recite: A specific data structure (support table) stored locally on the device for regional validation, Automatic triggering and comparison based on region setting changes, Local validation before network transmission to prevent invalid server requests, Coordinated state changes that control network interface behavior. This is analogous to the claims in BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where the court held that ‘an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces’. Similarly here, the specific arrangement of (1) local support table storage, (2) automatic region-change detection and comparison, (3) local validation, and (4) prevention of network requests based on validation results represents a non-conventional arrangement that improves network system efficiency (Remarks pg. 11). Examiner disagrees. Note that the claims in BASCOM were eligible because they presented a non-generic arrangement of the additional elements that amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea in an ordered combination to solve a technical problem. This is in contrast to the Applicant's claimed invention which only uses a generic computers / general computer components (i.e. a resource management server, subscription management server, printing device / apparatus, processor, user interface, display, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program, computer) to implement the invention without a particular arrangement. See the Applicant Specification ¶[0003-4] background discussing “known automatic order systems for automatically ordering consumables” with the interaction and transmitting of data between client apparatuses (printers) and resource servers, illustrating that the architecture is well understood / routine / conventional. Also, see the Applicant specification ¶[0092] stating that the support table may be inside the printer or from an external server (“Note that although in the present embodiment, the support table 210 is managed inside the MFP 200, the support table can be acquired from an external server”) identifying that it is not particular where the support table is located to the solution, i.e. a generic arrangement. The Applicant’s ordered combination of additional elements are no more than using the words ‘apply it’ with the judicial exception on general purpose / generic computers and performing high level extra-solution activities of receiving / transmitting data, and storing / retrieving data, and the additional elements in combination do not solve a technical problem. Thus, the claims are not like the eligible claims in Bascom Global v. AT&T Mobility LLC. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “the Examiner has acknowledged that no prior art of record teaches the claimed combination. This admission, combined with the specific technical implementation recited in the claims, demonstrates that the claims represent a genuine technical innovation worthy of patent protection” (Remarks pg. 12). Examiner disagrees. Note that whether or not the claims are novel / obvious is evaluated with respect to satisfying the conditions of 35 USC 102 / 35 USC 103, not necessarily determining whether the claims are eligible under 35 USC 101. Merely adding novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstract idea into something concrete, per Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013). This argument is not persuasive. The identified novel feature of “on a display, perform, in a case where it is determined based on contents stored in the support information that a region set by changing the setting of the region by the user interface is not a target region supporting the consumable automatic delivery, a notification that the consumable automatic delivery has been canceled, to a user” is part of the judicial exception, merely applied by a generic / general purpose computer (e.g. display), which per MPE 2106.05(f) is not sufficient to demonstrate a practical application or significantly more. This argument is not persuasive.
Priority
This application 18/623,908 filed on 1 April 2024 claims priority from Japan application JP2023-060949 filed on 4 April 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 1 April 2024 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the printing apparatus" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this will be interpreted as referring to a printing device (line 5).
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 1-5, 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-5, 7-18:
Step 1:
Claims 1-13, 16 recite a system; claims 14, 17 recite a method; and claims 15, 18 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Since the claims recite either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claims 1-5, 7-18 recite an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 recites: manages a printing device requiring replacement of consumables, ordering the consumables; executes automatic delivery of the consumables to a user, upon receiving the order; change, a setting of a region; in response to detecting the change in the region setting, perform a comparison between region information associated with a newly selected region and contents stored in the support table to determine whether the newly selected region is included in the target regions; set automatic delivery of consumables to an activated state or a deactivated state; switch, in a case where the comparison determines that the setting of the region is changed to a state in which automatic delivery of consumables has been set to the activated state, the activated state to the deactivated state but the newly selected region is not included in the support table; and perform, in a case where it is determined based on contents stored in the support information that a region set by changing the setting of the region is not a target region supporting the consumable automatic delivery, a notification that the consumable automatic delivery has been canceled, to the user. Independent claim 14 recites: ordering the consumables by [an entity] that manages a printing device requiring replacement of consumables; executing automatic delivery of the consumables to a user, upon receiving the order; changing, a setting of a region; in response to detecting the change in the region setting; performing a comparison between region information associated with a newly selected region and contents stored in the support table to determine whether the newly selected region is included in the target regions; setting automatic delivery of consumables to an activated state or a deactivated state; switching, in a case where the comparison determines that the setting of the region is changed in a state in which automatic delivery of consumables has been set to the activated state by said setting, the activated state to the deactivated state but the newly selected region is not included in the target regions stored in the support table; and performing, in a case where it is determined based on contents stored in the support information that a region set by changing the setting of the region is not a target region supporting the consumable automatic delivery, a notification that the consumable automatic delivery has been canceled, to the user. Independent claim 15 recites: ordering the consumables by [an entity] that manages a printing device requiring replacement of consumables; executing automatic delivery of the consumables to a user, upon receiving the order; changing, a setting of a region; in response to detecting the change in the region setting; performing a comparison between region information associated with a newly selected region and contents stored in the support table to determine whether the newly selected region is included in the target regions; setting automatic delivery of consumables to an activated state or a deactivated state; switching, in a case where the comparison determines that the setting of the region is changed in a state in which automatic delivery of consumables has been set to the activated state by said setting, the activated state to the deactivated state but the newly selected region is not included in the target regions stored in the support table; and performing, in a case where it is determined based on contents stored in the support information that a region set by changing the setting of the region is not a target region supporting the consumable automatic delivery, a notification that the consumable automatic delivery has been canceled, to the user. The claim(s) as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities.
First, the limitations of manages a printing device requiring replacement of consumables, ordering the consumables; executes automatic delivery of the consumables to a user, upon receiving the order; change, a setting of a region; in response to detecting the change in the region setting, perform a comparison between region information associated with a newly selected region and contents stored in the support table to determine whether the newly selected region is included in the target regions; set automatic delivery of consumables to an activated state or a deactivated state; switch, in a case where the comparison determines that the setting of the region is changed to a state in which automatic delivery of consumables has been set to the activated state, the activated state to the deactivated state but the newly selected region is not included in the support table; and perform, in a case where it is determined based on contents stored in the support information that a region set by changing the setting of the region is not a target region supporting the consumable automatic delivery, a notification that the consumable automatic delivery has been canceled, to the user are certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions. For example, fundamental economic principles or practices includes ordering consumables…, executing automatic delivery of the consumables in response to receiving the order…, perform a notification that automatic delivery has been canceled…; marketing or sales activities or behaviors includes ordering consumables…, executing automatic delivery of the consumables in response to receiving the order…, changing a region setting…, setting automatic delivery of consumables, switching to a deactivated state…, determining that the setting of the region is not a target region supporting automatic delivery…, perform a notification that automatic delivery has been canceled…; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes managing a printing device…, ordering consumables…, executing automatic delivery of the consumables in response to receiving the order…, changing a region setting…, detecting the change in region setting…, comparing between region information of newly selected region and contents…, determining whether newly selected region is in target regions…, setting automatic delivery of consumables…, switching to a deactivated state…, determining that the setting of the region is not a target region supporting automatic delivery…, perform a notification that automatic delivery has been canceled…; and following rules or instructions includes ordering consumables…, executing automatic delivery of the consumables in response to receiving the order…, changing a region setting…, detecting the change in region setting…, comparing between region information of newly selected region and contents…, determining whether newly selected region is in target regions…, setting automatic delivery of consumables…, switching to a deactivated state…, determining that the setting of the region is not a target region supporting automatic delivery…, perform a notification that automatic delivery has been canceled to the user. The presence of generic computer components such as a resource management server, subscription management server, printing device / apparatus, processor, user interface, display, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program, computer, do not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, claims 1-5, 7-18 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. resource management server, subscription management server, printing device / apparatus, processor, user interface, display, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program, computer) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing manual process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of consumables (e.g. a resource management server that manages a printing device requiring replacement of consumables; the resource management server being configured to transmit an order for ordering the consumables; a subscription management server that executes automatic delivery of the consumables to a user) in the limitations does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use (i.e. printing device consumables), and as such does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h). The consumables are not performing any functions. The printing device consumables are merely the field of use of the ordering. Hence, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of transmitting / receiving and its steps of the resource management server being configured to transmit an order for ordering the consumables; a subscription management server… receiving the order transmitted by the resource management server are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving / transmitting data for subsequent order processing), and amounts to mere data gathering and transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the subscription management server, resource management server (generic computers) are being used as a tool in the transmitting and receiving, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding receiving more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (communicating information). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of storing and its steps of at least one memory storing programs and a support table that stores target regions where automatic delivery is supported is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data for subsequent comparing / determining), and amounts to mere storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the memory (generic computer component) is being used as a tool in the storing, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding storing more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (storing information). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of reading / accessing and its steps of automatically read the support table stored in the at least one memory; access support information from the support table that includes the target regions where automatic delivery is supported is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving data for subsequent determining / notifying), and amounts to mere data gathering / retrieving data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the device, computer, memory (generic computers) are being used as a tool in the reading / accessing, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding reading / accessing more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (retrieving information). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the activity of delivering (e.g. a subscription management server that executes automatic delivery of the consumables to a user) is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transporting / fulfilling received orders), and also amounts to physically relocating an item which is an extra/post-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Also note that delivering is not a transformation that would represent a particular transformation that is significantly more, since changing the location of an item does not satisfy a particular transformation that is a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(c). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding delivering more than performing a manual process (i.e. delivering an ordered product). Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (resource management server, subscription management server, printing device / apparatus, processor, user interface, display, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program, computer); and adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities and elements. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a resource management server, subscription management server, printing device / apparatus, processor, user interface, display, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program, computer to perform managing a printing device…, ordering consumables…, executing automatic delivery of the consumables in response to receiving the order…, changing a region setting…, detecting the change in region setting…, comparing between region information of newly selected region and contents…, determining whether newly selected region is in target regions…, setting automatic delivery of consumables…, switching to a deactivated state…, determining that the setting of the region is not a target region supporting automatic delivery…, perform a notification that automatic delivery has been canceled… amounts to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic computers. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element regarding the consumables does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. printing device consumables). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification background ¶[0002-6] describing the element of ordering consumables to be delivered to a predetermined order destination at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more. Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the transmitting / receiving are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent order processing), and amounts to mere transmitting data / data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computers (i.e. subscription management server, resource management server) in these steps merely represents using generic / general purpose computers as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these transmitting and receiving steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering, transmitting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the storing are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data for subsequent comparing / determining), and amounts to mere storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computers (i.e. memory) in these steps merely represents using generic / general purpose computers as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these storing steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data storage) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular performing electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the reading / accessing are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving data for subsequent determining / notifying), and amounts to mere data gathering / retrieving data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computers (i.e. printing device, computer, memory) in these steps merely represents using generic / general purpose computers as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these accessing steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity elements regarding the delivering (e.g. a subscription management server that executes automatic delivery of the consumables to a user) is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transporting / fulfilling an order), and also amounts to physically relocating an item which is an extra/post-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity / general linking use of the judicial exception to a field of use does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g), MPEP 2106.05(h). Also note that delivering is not a transformation that would represent a particular transformation that is significantly more, since changing the location of an item does not satisfy a particular transformation that is significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(c). Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification background ¶[0002], ¶[0006] describing the additional element of toner / consumable delivery at such a high level that indicates this element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead the claims represent a generic implementation of certain methods of organizing human activities ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers, generally ‘applied’ to a field of use (printing device consumables), and using general computer components in extra-solution capacities such as data gathering / retrieving data / storing data. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to ensure printing device consumable delivery service is available for a particular region), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers), rather than solving a technology based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims do not improve the functioning of a printing device itself. The claims are more directed towards improving a business / economic / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually, both with respect to the independent claims 1, 14, and 15, and further considering the addition of dependent claims 2-5, 7-13, 16-18. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016). Also, see Applicant Specification ¶[0003-4] background discussing “known automatic order systems for automatically ordering consumables” with the interaction and transmitting of data between client apparatuses (printers) and resource servers, illustrating that the architecture is well understood / routine / conventional. See the Applicant specification ¶[0092] stating that the support table may be inside the printer or from an external server (“Note that although in the present embodiment, the support table 210 is managed inside the MFP 200, the support table can be acquired from an external server”) identifying that it is not particular where the support table is to the solution, i.e. a generic arrangement. Hence, the ordered combination of elements does not provide significantly more. With respect to the dependent claims:
Dependent claim 2: First, the limitation wherein the resource management server includes a trigger providing section that provides, in a case where it is determined based on received consumables information that a remaining amount of a consumable becomes less than a predetermined threshold value, a trigger for ordering this consumable to the subscription management server is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions), as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the resource management server (includes a trigger providing section) and subscription management server are computer elements recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Second, the limitation wherein the printing device includes an event transmission section that transmits consumables information indicating a consumed state of a consumable to the resource management server is an additional element that is claimed at a high level of detail and represents the extra-solution activity of transmitting data, which is not a practical application or significantly more. The printing device and resource management server here represent using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit data) which is not a practical application or significantly more. The transmitting step here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3: The limitation wherein the printing device further includes a notification section that notifies, in a case where the consumable automatic delivery is switched to the deactivated state, the deactivated state status to the user is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions), as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the printing device (further includes a notification section) is a computer element recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer / general computer component. Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4: The limitation wherein the printing device further includes a reconfiguration notifying section that displays, in a case where the consumable automatic delivery is switched to the deactivated state, a notification that the automatic delivery is to be set to the activated or the deactivated state again is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions), as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the printing device (further includes a reconfiguration notification section) is a computer elements recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer / general computer component. Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5: First, the limitation of a connection management server that manages information on end points is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior), as described in the independent claim. The recitation of a connection management server is a computer element recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Second, the limitation wherein the printing device further transmits a request for acquiring the information on an end point to the connection management server to thereby acquire the end point is an additional element that is claimed at a high level of detail and represents the extra-solution activities of transmitting data and data gathering, which is not a practical application or significantly more. The printing device, and connection management server represent using a computers as a tool in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit data) which is not a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the transmitting and acquiring steps here are claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7: The limitation of wherein the display displays, in a case where registration of the printing device in the resource management server has failed, to a user a notification that a state of connection to the resource server is an unconnected state even in a state in which the consumable delivery is set to the activated state is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions), as described in the independent claim. The recitation of a display, resource management server are computer elements recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8: First, the limitation wherein the connection management server executes, upon receipt of a request for acquiring an end point…, processing according to validity of the end point is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions), as described in the independent claim. The recitation of a connection management server is a computer element recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Second, the limitation of receipt of a request for acquiring an end point from the printing device is an additional element that is claimed at a high level of detail and represents the extra-solution activities of transmitting data and/or data gathering, which is not a practical application or significantly more. The connection management server and printing device here represent using a computers as a tool in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data, to transmit data) which is not a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the receiving step here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9: First, the limitation changing the setting of the region is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions), as described in the independent claim. Second, the limitations of wherein the connection management server further includes an end point management table storing country names or region names and connection destination information, in a state associated with each other, and wherein in a case where a region set by changing the setting of the region… is included in the end point management table, the connection management server transmits connection destination information associated with the set region, to the printing device, as a response are additional elements that are claimed at a high level of detail and represent the extra-solution activities of storing data and transmitting data, which is not a practical application or significantly more. The connection management server, printing device represents using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit data) which is not a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the storing and transmitting steps here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10: First, the limitation changing the setting of the region is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions), as described in the independent claim. Second, the limitations of wherein the connection management server further includes an end point management table storing country names or region names and connection destination information in a state associated with each other, and wherein in a case where a region set by changing the setting of the region is not included in the end point management table, the connection management server transmits an error notification to the printing device are additional elements that are claimed at a high level of detail and represent the extra-solution activities of storing data and transmitting data, which is not a practical application or significantly more. The connection management server and printing device represent using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit data) which is not a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the storing and transmitting steps here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11: The limitation of wherein the connection management server or the resource management server periodically acquires a state of consumables of a printing device is an additional element claimed at a high level of detail and represent the extra-solution activities of storing data gathering and transmitting data, which is not a practical application or significantly more. The connection management server, and resource management server represent using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit data) which is not a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the acquiring step here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12: The limitation of wherein the printing device is a multifunction peripheral (MFP) is an additional element claimed at a high level of detail further limiting the judicial exception to a field of use (multifunction peripherals / printers), which is not a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification background ¶[0002], ¶[0006], ¶[0025] describing the additional element of image forming apparatuses and printers at such a high level that indicates this element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13: The limitation of wherein the consumables are consumables used for printing, including a toner cartridge and an ink cartridge is an additional element claimed at a high level of detail further limiting the judicial exception to a field of use (multifunction peripherals / printers), which is not a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification background ¶[0002], ¶[0006] describing the additional element of image forming apparatuses and printers requiring toner cartridges or ink as a consumable at such a high level that indicates this element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 16-18: First, the limitations of requesting the resource management server to register the printing device in a case where the access token is validated by the authentication server, wherein the subscription management server executes automatic delivery of the consumables for the registered printing device to the user in a case where the printing device is registered are further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions), as described in the independent claims. The resource management server, authentication server, and subscription management server represent implementing the judicial exception by generic / general purpose computers. Second, the limitation acquiring an access token from an authentication server using an HTTP protocol is an additional elements that is claimed at a high level of detail and represents the extra-solution activity of data gathering and transmitting data, and a general linkage to a technological environment (Internet), which are not a practical application or significantly more. The processor, authentication server represent using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data, to transmit data) which is not a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the acquiring steps here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification ¶[0045-46] describing the additional element of the authentication/authorization server performing HTTP communication for tokens at such a high level that indicates this element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 1, 14, 15, and the dependent claims 2-5, 7-13, 16-18 and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7-18 are ineligible.
Novelty / Non-Obviousness
Claims 1-5, 7-18 are not rejected under 35 USC 102 or 35 USC 103. The Examiner knows of no art which teaches or suggests: “on a display, perform, in a case where it is determined based on contents stored in the support information that a region set by changing the setting of the region by the user interface is not a target region supporting the consumable automatic delivery, a notification that the consumable automatic delivery has been canceled, to a user” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 14-15.
The prior art of Suzuki (US 2022/0100436 A1) details subscription services for printers, and liquid crystal display on a printer / MFP and touch panel interface, where a user sets the printer to either normal mode (no subscription services) or contract mode (enabled subscription services) (Suzuki ¶[0024], ¶[0054]).
The prior art of Kim (WO 2022/046166 A1) details subscription services for printer / MFP device consumables, with tables for subscription services storing services available (e.g. paper service, automatic toner supply) based on either country codes or global availability and model number (i.e. support information that includes target regions where automatic delivery is supported); and users registering for subscription service programs specifying registration information including the device identification and the country or region the user uses the image forming apparatus (Kim Fig 9, ¶[0028-30], ¶[0037], ¶[0092]).
The prior art of Morawietz (US 11,943,837 B2) details device subscription services, and changing regions of a device subject to a subscription service and deactivating a subscription upon a change in region (Morawietz Fig 2, col 5 ln 17-30).
The prior art of Kobayashi (US 2019/0253251 A1) details end point management for printer devices and authorization tokens, routing end points based on region and a geographic database based on the IP address of the authorization request source; and the authorization confirmation screen will return an error if the client ID and the redirect URI (end point) does not match an authorization server in another region on an end point redirect after a signature is verified (Kobayashi ¶[0049-51], ¶[0069], ¶[0087]).
The prior art of Pizot (US 2014/0240755 A1) details subscription services for printers, including the registration of printing devices, and that a change of regions is a critical event regarding subscription services that the printing device may be subscribed to (Pizot ¶[0022]).
The prior art of Rossman (“Review: HP wants you to pay monthly for ink, and maybe you should”, 17 January 2014, retrieved 9 March 2022) details a printer ink subscription model with registration through an Internet website (i.e. http protocol), ink cartridges are automatically delivered based on reported ink levels, and eligibility criteria is based on particular printer models.
The prior art of Miyachi (US 2022/0279080 A1) details registering a printer for automatic consumable shipping, and the service table stores records that include an access token used for authentication information establishing the XMPP session with the printer.
The prior art of Bergen (US 6,669,085 B1) details a multi-function device that includes a scanner and printer that includes a reference table used for telecommunication settings where each region has specific telecommunications characteristics and an appropriate match is made with an association table (Bergen Fig 2, col 5 ln 22-45).
Thus, the art on record fails to collectively teach these features.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
BRIAN TALLMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/BRIAN A TALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628