DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response and amendments filed on 25 June 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 1-2, 8, and 11 have been amended.
Claims 5-6, 14-15, and 17-18 are cancelled.
Claims 3-4, 7-10, 12-13, and 16 are original / previously presented.
Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 16 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 15, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 5, 14-15, 17-18, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-4, 7-13, and 16, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong One because “The Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea (Step 2A, Prong One). The Office Action asserts that the claims as reciting certain methods of organizing human activity. However, claim 1 is directed to a specific system including a printing device having a communicator and a processor that controls device-level network communication behavior. In particular, claim 1 explicitly recites: a communication that transmits an endpoint acquisition request… to a connection management server, and a processor configured to suppress… transmission… of an endpoint acquisition request to the connection management server. This suppression of a device-generated network request is not a human activity and cannot be performed mentally. Rather, it is a machine-level operation that controls communication between distributed system components. Accordingly, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea” (Remarks pg. 7-8). Examiner disagrees. First, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities, represented by the limitations of managing a printing device…, ordering consumables…, executing automatic delivery of the consumables in response to receiving the order…, ordering is in response to receiving consumable information…, 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 a function regarding automatic delivery of consumables…, switching to a deactivated state…, determining that the setting of the region is changed to a state of the function has been set to the activated state…, suppress in a case where the state of the function is switched from activated state to deactivated state transmission until automatic delivery is reactivated for a supported region…, 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. Second, the printing device, communicator (of the printing device), and processor (of the printing device) are generic computers or general computer components that do not preclude the claims 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. Here, each of the limitations listed above represents at least one of fundamental economic principles or practices, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions. Third, the claimed feature of “a communicator that transmits an endpoint acquisition request and region information to a connection management server and receives information of the endpoint based on the transmitted region information from the connection management server” is an additional element analyzed in Step 2A Prong Two. Reciting additional elements does not preclude the claims from reciting a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One. Fourth, the claimed feature to “suppress, in a case where the state of the function is switched from the activated state to the deactivated state, transmission of an endpoint acquisition request until automatic delivery is reactivated for a supported region” is part of the judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, and represents certain methods of organizing human activities: following rules or instructions, merely performed by a computer (processor). This represents the subcategory of following rules or instructions because it is analogous to an instruction for a person not to request an endpoint (where to send consumable information) when automatic delivery is switched to deactivated and analogous to a rule for the person not to request an endpoint (where to send consumable information) until automatic delivery for a region is reactivated, i.e. a person can follow rules or instructions to suppress a transmission of an endpoint acquisition request. Hence, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities and a judicial exception is present in Step 2A Prong One. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong Two because “claim 1 integrates any such exception into a practical application through concrete control of device operation. Claim 1 as amended recites that the printing device includes: a communicator that transmits an endpoint acquisition request … to a connection management server, and at least one processor … to… suppress… transmission… of an endpoint acquisition request. Thus, the claims do not merely involve receiving, storing, or transmitting data. Instead, they recite modifying operation of the communicator itself” (Remarks pg. 8). Examiner disagrees. First, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because claim 1 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities in a computer environment, reciting generic computers and general computer components at a high-level of generality that amounts to using a computer 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Second, the argued limitation of a “printing device includes: a communicator that transmits an endpoint acquisition request … to a connection management server” does not provide a practical application, because this is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the extra-solution activity of transmitting data; with the printing device, communicator, and connection management server representing computers being used as a tool in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit data), which is not a practical application per MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(g). Third, the argued limitation of ‘at least one processor … to… suppress… transmission… of an endpoint acquisition request’ does not provide a practical application, because it represents applying the judicial exception (certain methods of organizing human activities: following rules or instructions) by a generic / general computer component (processor), per MPEP 2106.05(f). This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong Two because “More specifically, the processor executes a defined sequence of operations: change… a setting of a region via a user interface, automatically read the support table stored in memory, perform a comparison between region information… and contents stored in the support table, set a function regarding automatic delivery… to an activated state or a deactivated state, switch … the activated state to the deactivated state, and critically, suppress… transmission… of an endpoint acquisition request… until automatic delivery is reactivated. This sequence results in a concrete technical effect that the communicator of the printing device is prevented from transmitting endpoint acquisition requests when the function state is deactivated. By suppressing the endpoint acquisition request, the claimed invention prevents the device from obtaining an endpoint and initiating subsequent communications in the system. This suppression mechanism provides a specific technological solution to a system-level problem, namely preventing acquisition of invalid endpoints and avoiding erroneous interactions…” (Remarks pg. 8). Examiner disagrees. First, this sequence of steps does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because it describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities in a computer environment, reciting generic computers and general computer components at a high-level of generality that amounts to using a computer 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Second, preventing transmitting endpoint acquisition requests when a function state is deactivated is not a technical solution to a technical problem that is a practical application. The step to ‘suppress, in a case where the state of the function is switched from the activated state to the deactivated state, transmission… of an endpoint acquisition request… until automatic delivery is reactivated for a supported region’ is part of the judicial exception (certain methods of organizing human activities: following rules or instructions), merely performed by a generic computer / general computer component (processor), which is not a practical application per MPEP 2106.05(f). No technical step is performed here other than performing the judicial exception by the processor, noting that transmission from the printing device of an endpoint acquisition request to the connection management server (which is high-level extra-solution transmitting data between generic / general purpose computers and also not a practical application) is not actually performed in this limitation. Third, the claims do not solve a technical problem in ‘preventing acquisition of invalid endpoints and avoiding erroneous interactions.’ Preventing a person / customer from requesting service-related data (i.e. where to send consumable information) for a non-enabled service is an entrepreneurial / business problem, rather than a technology-based problem. Hence, the claims do not provide a technical solution to a technical problem that is a practical application. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2B because “The claims do not merely recite generic use of a processor and memory. Instead, they define a specific arrangement in which: the communicator performs endpoint acquisition by transmitting requests to a connection management server, the processor performs local validation using a support table that stores target regions, and based on that validation, the processor suppresses… transmission… of an endpoint acquisition request. This ordered combination changes how the device communicates within the system by preventing execution of a defined network operation. The Office Action has not provided evidence that it was well-understood, routine, or conventional for a printing device to suppress endpoint acquisition requests based on locally determined region support using a support table” (Remarks pg. 9). Examiner disagrees. The additional elements in the argued features of the communicator performs endpoint acquisition by transmitting requests to a connection management server, the processor performs local validation using a support table that stores target regions, and based on that validation, the processor suppresses… transmission… of an endpoint acquisition request do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more. First, the communicator performs endpoint acquisition by transmitting requests to a connection management server amounts to mere transmitting data / data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity that is not an inventive concept; and the communicator and connection management server are generic / general purpose computers that amount to using a computer as a tool in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive information, to transmit information), which is also not an inventive concept. Furthermore, transmitting here is 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). 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 demonstrating that this element of transmitting data is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). This also illustrates that the architecture in combination was conventional. Second, the processor performs local validation using a support table that stores target regions amounts to using a computer (processor) as a tool to perform a judicial exception (e.g. perform a comparison) which is no more than ‘applying’ a judicial exception on a computer and not an inventive concept; and storing target regions in a support table amounts to mere data storage, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity that is not an inventive concept. 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). 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. Third, the processor suppresses… transmission… of an endpoint acquisition request amounts to using a computer (processor) as a tool to perform a judicial exception (e.g. certain methods of organizing human activities: following rules or instructions: suppress a request based on an automatic delivery state) which is no more than ‘applying’ a judicial exception on a computer and not an inventive concept. Fourth, note that the claim does not require a “printing device to suppress endpoint acquisition requests based on locally determined region support using a support table” as argued because (1) the claim suppresses based on the state of the function regarding automatic delivery of consumables (“suppress, in a case where a state of the function is switched from the activated state to the deactivated state, transmission, from the printing device, of an endpoint acquisition request to the connection management server until automatic delivery is reactivated for a supported region”, and (2) the claim states that the switch happens regardless of the regions in the support table (“switch, in a case where the comparison determines that the setting of the region is changed by the user interface to a state of the function has been set to the activated state, the activated state to the deactivated state, regardless of whether the newly selected region is included in the target regions stored in the support table”). Hence, this argued feature to require the printing device to suppress endpoint acquisition requests based on locally determined region support using a support table is not claimed. 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). Therefore, the additional elements of the claimed features, in combination with the limitations, add nothing further than simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2B because “Claim 1, as amended, no longer merely recites determining whether automatic delivery should be active. Instead, claim 1 explicitly recites controlling operation of the communicator to suppress transmission of endpoint acquisition requests based on locally performed validation. This represents a concrete technical improvement to operation of the printing device and its interaction with multiple servers in a distributed system” (Remarks pg. 9). Examiner disagrees. The implementation of the claimed judicial exception with high level extra-solution activities such as data gathering, transmitting data, and data storage using generic and general-purpose computers and computer components does not represent a technical solution that is significantly more.
The claimed limitation regarding suppressing transmission of endpoint acquisition requests based on locally performed validation amounts to using a computer (processor) as a tool to perform a judicial exception (e.g. certain methods of organizing human activities: following rules or instructions: suppress a request based on an automatic delivery state) which is no more than ‘applying’ a judicial exception on a computer and not an inventive concept. The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer (e.g. a printer, a server) itself. 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. Also, preventing a person / customer from requesting service-related data (i.e. where to send consumable information) for a non-enabled service is also an entrepreneurial / business problem, rather than a technology-based problem. Hence, the claims do not provide a technical solution that represents an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technical field. 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-13, 16:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “suppress, in a case where a state of the function is switched from the activated state to the deactivated state, transmission, from the printing device, of an endpoint acquisition request to the connection management server until automatic delivery is reactivated for a supported region”. However this limitation is not supported in the written specification. The closest support is provided in the Applicant’s originally filed specification ¶[0068]:
[0068] Next, a step S803 is started by the CPU 111 detecting that the user has set the toner delivery setting 501 to on, as a trigger, on the toner delivery-setting screen 500, shown in FIG. 5, which is displayed by the UI controller 208 of the MFP 200. The transmission/reception processor 203 transmits a connection destination information request to the connection management server 400. When transmitting the connection destination information request, the region information set on the region setting screen 600 shown in FIG. 6 is added to the request so as to perform communication.
Applicant specification ¶[0068] details the scenario of detecting that when an automatic delivery setting for a consumable is set to on, then a transmission connection request is sent from the printer to the server. The transmission is initiated based on a trigger of detecting an activated state of automatic delivery for a consumable selected by the user, which is also different from an automatic delivery setting for a supported region. There is no discussion regarding criteria to suppress or disable transmission of this request; or discussion to suppress or disable transmission until an activating (or reactivating) of automatic delivery for a supported region. Hence, the Specification does not provide support for “suppress, in a case where a state of the function is switched from the activated state to the deactivated state, transmission, from the printing device, of an endpoint acquisition request to the connection management server until automatic delivery is reactivated for a supported region”. Therefore, claim 1 (and the dependent claims 2-4, 7-13, 16) contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-4, 7-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 16:
Step 1:
Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 16 recite a system. 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 1-4, 7-13, and 16 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; and wherein the order for ordering the consumables is… in response to receiving the consumable information; 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 a function regarding 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 of the function has been set to the activated state, the activated state to the deactivated state, regardless of whether the newly selected region is included in the target regions stored in the support table; suppress, in a case where the state of the function is switched from the activated state to the deactivated state, transmission of an endpoint acquisition request until automatic delivery is reactivated for a supported region; 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. 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; and wherein the order for ordering the consumables is… in response to receiving the consumable information; 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 a function regarding 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 of the function has been set to the activated state, the activated state to the deactivated state, regardless of whether the newly selected region is included in the target regions stored in the support table; suppress, in a case where the state of the function is switched from the activated state to the deactivated state, transmission of an endpoint acquisition request until automatic delivery is reactivated for a supported region; 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…, ordering is in response to receiving consumable information…, 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…, ordering is in response to receiving consumable information…, changing a region setting…, setting a function regarding automatic delivery of consumables…, switching to a deactivated state…, determining that the setting of the region is changed to a state of the function has been set to the activated 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…, ordering is in response to receiving consumable information…, 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 a function regarding automatic delivery of consumables…, switching to a deactivated state…, determining that the setting of the region is changed to a state of the function has been set to the activated 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…, ordering is in response to receiving consumable information…, 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 a function regarding automatic delivery of consumables…, switching to a deactivated state…, determining that the setting of the region is changed to a state of the function has been set to the activated state…, suppress in a case where the state of the function is switched from activated state to deactivated state transmission of a request until automatic delivery is reactivated for a supported region…, 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, processor, user interface, display, 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 1-4, 7-13, and 16 as a whole merely describe 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, processor, user interface, display) 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; a communicator that transmits an endpoint acquisition request and region information to a connection management server and receives information of the endpoint based on the transmitted region information from the connection management server, wherein the communicator transmits consumable information to the resource management server corresponding to the information of the endpoint; wherein the order for ordering the consumables is transmitted by the resource management server in response to receiving the consumable information from the printing device; …transmission, from the printing device, of an endpoint acquisition request to the connection management server are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving / transmitting data for subsequent order processing; as a general means of receiving/ transmitting consumable information), 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, printing device with communicator, connection management server (generic computers, general computer components) 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 memory (generic computer component) is 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, processor, user interface, display); and adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities and elements (data gathering, transmitting data, storing data; communicator, connection management server, memory). 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, processor, user interface, display to perform managing a printing device…, ordering consumables…, executing automatic delivery of the consumables in response to receiving the order…, ordering is in response to receiving consumable information…, 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 a function regarding automatic delivery of consumables…, switching to a deactivated state…, determining that the setting of the region is changed to a state of the function has been set to the activated state…, suppress in a case where the state of the function is switched from activated state to deactivated state transmission of a request until automatic delivery is reactivated for a supported region…, 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 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 and transmitting data for subsequent order processing; as a general means of gathering / transmitting collectable information), 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, communicator (of printing device), connection 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). 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 demonstrating that this element of receiving and transmitting data 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.
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, 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 as 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 claim 1, and further considering the addition of dependent claims 2-4, 7-13, and 16. 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 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 represents 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 claim 16: 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 claim 1 and the dependent claims 2-4, 7-13, and 16 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 1-4, 7-13, and 16 are ineligible.
Novelty / Non-Obviousness
Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 16 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.
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; transmitting authorization requests to an authorization end point common to all regions, that will then respond with the appropriate authorization token for the region and authorized server from which the authorization token is acquired (Kobayashi ¶[0049-54], ¶[0069], ¶[0087]).
The prior art of Alvo (US 2023/0342714 A1) details automated replenishment of consumables via an adaptive distribution platform, and using sensors to transmit via a network endpoint data representing a state of inventory for a specific consumable or a request to replenish the consumable (Alvo ¶[0028]).
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
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 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, Jeff Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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
Prosecution Insights