Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A — Prong 1 (Judicial Exception Identification)
Claims 23 and 24 recite, in essence, (a) accepting an instruction to start an action and (b) changing a warning period “in accordance with a situation under which the action is executed.” These steps describe a high-level rule or policy for adjusting a timing/notification interval based on contextual information. Such subject matter is an abstract idea because it amounts to evaluating information and applying a conditional rule (i.e., adjusting a timer) — an abstract mental process and/or a method of organizing human activity (cf. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); USPTO 2019 PEG §III.A).
Under the PTO PEG, claims that recite collecting information and making a decision or recommendation based on that information are susceptible to characterization as an abstract idea (see PEG examples and guidance).
Step 2A — Prong 2 (Integration Into a Practical Application)
The additional claim language does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea by reciting integration into a specific, practical technological implementation. The claims do not: identify specific sensors or particular data sources; recite particular physical components that perform the obtaining/adjusting; recite how the change is computed (no algorithm, formula, or specific rule is recited); or require specific physical outputs (for example, blinking a light, inhibiting mechanical actuation, synchronizing a display) in the claim body. The preamble reference to “a device provided with a warning period” is a field-of-use statement and does not supply the required integration details. As such, the claimed steps are not integrated into a practical application under the PEG: the claims merely instruct to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer/control device (see PEG §III.A.2).
Because the claims do not recite a specific improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology, nor a particular machine or transformation of physical subject matter, the claim is not directed to a practical application.
Step 2B — Additional Elements Do Not Provide “Significantly More”
The additional elements (accepting an instruction; changing a warning period) are generic and functional. There is no recitation of unconventional computer components, a particular arrangement of components, novel sensor/actuator hardware, or a specific algorithmic solution that improves the functioning of a device or the computer itself (see Enfish v. Microsoft, 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016); DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Nor does the claim include other limitations that transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter by providing a “meaningful limitation” beyond the abstract idea (see Mayo/Alice).
The presence of a “non-transitory computer readable medium” in claim 24 is insufficient by itself to provide “significantly more” (see PEG §III.C); merely storing program instructions to implement the abstract idea on generic hardware is not enough to render the claim patent eligible.
Preemption Concern
Allowing broad claims that merely implement the abstract idea of adjusting a timer based on context would effectively preempt the use of that fundamental practice in all fields, contrary to patent policy (Alice; PEG).
REJECTION
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without integration into a practical application and lacking additional claim elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
REFERENCES
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
USPTO, “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (Oct. 2019) (PEG).
Enfish v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (for fact-intensive showings of unconventionality).
EXAMINER NOTE / NEXT STEPS
If Applicant believes the claims are integrated into a practical application or otherwise patent eligible, Applicant should:
Amend claims 23 and 24 to recite specific, concrete technical implementation details (for example, specific sensor types and data sources, particular actuator/display/lockout actions, a defined algorithm or formula for computing the warning period, and particular hardware components), or
Provide arguments with citation to specification passages demonstrating how the claimed steps improve device operation, establish a specific machine implementation, or otherwise supply “significantly more” (including factual evidence of a technological improvement where available).
If amended claims recite concrete hardware elements, particular algorithms, or non-routine combinations that improve device safety/control, reconsideration of the § 101 rejection may be warranted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 10-11, and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masahiro et al. (JP H10152262A).
Regarding claim 1, Masahiro et al. teaches a controlling apparatus for controlling a device provided with a warning period before starting an action, the controlling apparatus comprising: an acceptance unit configured to accept an instruction to start the action (accepts print commands via interface 64 / CPU 60 / data analysis 151 and selects stored waiting time by media type (storage 150; timers 152/154; Fig.3; Fig.6 steps 311–319; ¶[0007], ¶[0030]–¶[0041]); and
a changing unit configured to change the warning period in accordance with a situation under which the action is executed (depends on a plurality of types of recording media having different paper paths or other printing conditions – Fig. 3, ¶[0062]).
Regarding claim 2, Masahiro et al. further teaches the controlling apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: an obtaining unit configured to obtain information about a situation of the device at a time that the acceptance unit accepts the instruction to start the action as the situation under which the action is executed reads media type from sensors or host data at/near acceptance (depends on a plurality of types of recording media having different paper paths or other printing conditions – Fig. 3, ¶[0062], and detectors 31/32/153; data analysis 151; Fig.6).
Regarding claim 4, Masahiro et al. further teaches the controlling apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the changing unit changes the warning period in accordance with a configuration of the device as the situation under which the action is executed (different paper paths / multiple print units suggested (Fig.1, ¶[0014], ¶[0041]) and per-type waits stored).
Regarding claim 6, Masahiro et al. further teaches the controlling apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the changing unit changes the warning period in accordance with information about an operator of the device as the situation under which the action is executed (regarding skill of the operator, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 10, Masahiro et al. further teaches the controlling apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a determination unit configured to determine time required for the warning period (CPU/timers read parameters and convert to time data to start timers (CPU 60; timers 152/154; param arithmetic described; Fig.3 & Fig.6)).
Regarding claim 11, Masahiro et al. further teaches the controlling apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the determination unit determines time required for the warning period based on change time set in advance for each situation causing the warning period to change (stores per-media insertion/set times in data storage 150 and uses them (flow 301–304)).
Regarding claim 18, Masahiro et al. further teaches the controlling apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising an operation control unit configured to perform control so as not to accept an operation to execute the action during the warning period (conveyance/printing not initiated until timer expires and detection confirmed (i.e., action not performed during wait)).
Regarding claim 19, Masahiro et al. further teaches the controlling apparatus according to claim 18, wherein during a permissive period provided after the warning period, the operation control unit performs control to accept an operation to execute the action (accepting the printing instruction).
Regarding claim 20, Masahiro et al. further teaches the controlling apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the action is a printing action (core actions are conveyance and printing (entire spec, and Figs.)).
Regarding claim 21, Masahiro et al. further teaches the controlling apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the action is a sheet conveyance action (explicitly controls sheet conveyance after waiting (Fig.5/6; ¶[0035]–¶[0041])).
Regarding claim 22, Masahiro et al. further teaches the controlling apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the changing unit extends the warning period (stored wait values can be set to longer values via host commands; default/infinite option described.).
Regarding claim 23, Masahiro et al. teaches a method of controlling a device provided with a warning period before starting an action, the method comprising: accepting an instruction to start the action; and changing the warning period in accordance with a situation under which the action is executed (the limitations are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1 above in which Masahiro et al. includes method of storing per-type waits and starting timers is taught (method claims & flows)).
Regarding claim 24, Masahiro et al. teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program which causes a computer to execute a method of controlling a device provided with a warning period before starting an action, the method comprising: accepting an instruction to start the action; and changing the warning period in accordance with a situation under which the action is executed (the limitations are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1 above in which Masahiro et al. teaches software/firmware implementation (CPU 60; ROM/RAM; control program; data analysis 151 realized in software)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 12-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masahiro et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ISO12643-1 (cited in the IDS filed 05/03/2024).
Regarding claim 3, Masahiro et al. fails to teach the controlling apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the changing unit changes the warning period based on at least one of the following pieces of information as the situation under which the action is executed: whether the action includes work around a main body of the device; time to execute the action; a number of preparation matters for executing the action; and a number of jobs related to the action (the machine length exceeds 7m, see page 64, lines 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify the apparatus as taught by Masahiro et al. to include further information disclosed by ISO12643 in order for the apparatus to improve the waiting period more efficiency.
Regarding claim 12, Masahiro et al. fails to teach the controlling apparatus according to claim 10, wherein in a case where the acceptance unit accepts the instruction from a remote terminal, the determination unit sets the warning period longer than that in a case where the acceptance unit accepts the instruction from an operation unit provided in a main body of the device. However, ISO12643 teaches this feature as disclosed in section 14.2.3 (“double push”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify the apparatus as taught by Masahiro et al. to adjust the waiting time as disclosed by ISO12643 in order for the apparatus to improve the waiting period more efficiency.
Regarding claim 13, Masahiro et al. fails to teach the controlling apparatus according to claim 10, wherein in a case where there are a plurality of factors that change the warning period, the determination unit adds change time for each of the factors to determine time required for the warning period. However, ISO12643 teaches this feature as disclosed in section 14.2.3 (adding from 6s to 12s). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify the apparatus as taught by Masahiro et al. to include option adding time as disclosed by ISO12643 in order for the apparatus to improve the waiting period more efficiency.
Regarding claim 14, Masahiro et al. fails to teach the controlling apparatus according to claim 13, wherein in a case where the addition makes the change time equal to or greater than a predetermined upper limit value, the upper limit value is set as the change time. However, ISO12643 teaches this feature as disclosed in section 14.2.3 (limit time not more than 12s). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify the apparatus as taught by Masahiro et al. to include the change time as disclosed by ISO12643 in order for the apparatus to improve the waiting period more efficiency.
Regarding claim 15, Masahiro et al. fails to teach the controlling apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a display control unit configured to display a check screen for checking a state of the device during the warning period, wherein the display control unit displays a factor that has changed the warning period on the check screen. However, ISO12643 teaches this feature as disclosed in section 14.2.4 (Table 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify the apparatus as taught by Masahiro et al. to include the display as disclosed by ISO12643 in order for the apparatus to better provide information to the user.
Regarding claim 17, Masahiro et al. fails to teach the controlling apparatus according to claim 15, further comprising a warning light control unit configured to blink a warning light during the warning period, wherein the display control unit synchronizes a blink of the warning light with a display on the check screen. However, ISO12643 teaches this feature as disclosed in section 14.3.. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify the apparatus as taught by Masahiro et al. to include a warning light as disclosed by ISO12643 in order for the apparatus to improve the notification to the users.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masahiro et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tarada (CN 114967381A).
Regarding claim 5, Masahiro et al. further teaches the controlling apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the device is a printing device, but fails to teach the changing unit changes the warning period based on at least one of the following factors: presence or absence of a printing unit performing special color printing; presence or absence of a back-end process machine; and a number of users making a remote UI connection. However, in the same field of image forming device, Tarada teaches the time is different depending on monochrome printing or color printing (see translation page 12, 5th paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify the apparatus as taught by Masahiro et al. to include color printer as disclosed by Tarada in order for the apparatus to improve the waiting period more efficiency depending on the condistion.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masahiro et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Terai (JP2009140272A).
Regarding claims 7-9, Masahiro et al. further teaches the controlling apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the changing unit changes the warning period based on skill of the operator, but fails to teach at least one of an operation skill level of the operator, information indicating whether the operator has a handicap, and a number of the operators, wherein the controlling apparatus comprises a first registration unit configured to register handicap information on the operator, and the changing unit obtains the registered handicap information on the operator and changes the warning period in accordance with the obtained handicap information, and wherein the controlling apparatus comprises a second registration unit configured to register an operation skill level of the operator, and the changing unit obtains the registered operation skill level of the operator and changes the warning period in accordance with the obtained operation skill level. However, Terai teaches the concept to increases a waiting time for a visually handicapped person to perform a transaction at an automatic teller machine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify the apparatus as taught by Masahiro et al. to include use the concept of giving more waiting time for the handicapped person as taught by Terai in order for the apparatus to improve the waiting period more efficiency.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masahiro et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sudou (US PGPUB 2013/0002580 A1)
Regarding claim 16, Masahiro et al. fails to teach the controlling apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the display control unit further displays time for the warning period on the check screen. However, Sudou teaches the display control unit to display the waiting period (Fig. 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify the apparatus as taught by Masahiro et al. to include the display of waiting time as taught by Sudow in order for the apparatus to make it more convenient for the user to see how much time they have.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishikura (JP2015080136A) teaches an image formation apparatus capable of avoiding giving a user an unpleasant feeling as execution of an instructed job is delayed owing to execution of adjustment processing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENNY QUOC TIEU whose telephone number is (571)272-7490. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
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.
/BENNY Q TIEU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682