DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This is an initial office action in response to communication(s) filed on May 14, 2024.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 14, 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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:
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;
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-AlA 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a receiving part”, “a memory part” and “an output control part” of claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. These limitations of “a receiving part”, “a memory part” and “an output control part” of claim 1 are covered by the structure(s) from the original disclosure as following:
“a receiving part” (see specification, i.e. in fig. 5, receiving part 452), “a memory part” (see specification, i.e. in fig. 5, memory part 458) and “an output control part” (see specification, i.e. in fig. 5, output control part 460) of claim 1;
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-9 re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0222403 A1), and further in view of Shrestha (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0283761 A1).
With regard to claim 1, the claim is drawn to an information processing device (Kato, i.e. in fig. 1, 2, para. 36, 39, and etc., disclose the analytical server 104, and “[0036] An analytical server 104 performs analysis of an operation state of the printer 101 and the multifunction peripheral 102. The analysis processing includes calculation processing of substantial job processing time using a job processing time and a job suspension time due to, for example, an error which are described below…”) comprising:
a receiving part (i.e. in fig. 2, NIC 208) configured to receive:
paper jam occurrence information about a paper jam that has occurred in an image forming device (Kato, i.e. in fig. 9, step S1502, in para. 75, and etc., disclose that “[0075] In step S1502, the error log collecting unit 504 of the analytical server 104 communicates with the printer 101 and the multifunction peripheral 102 via the interface unit 501, and collects the error log managed by the error log management unit 611. The acquired job log is stored in the job log collecting unit 503 in a form of a table similar to or in an expanded form of the job log information table illustrated in FIG. 7. Similarly, the acquired error log is stored in the error log collecting unit 504 in a form of a table similar to or in an expanded form of the error log information table illustrated in FIG. 8. If the log information is collected from a plurality of image forming apparatuses, an identifier of the image forming apparatuses can be added to a column of the table…”; in addition, in fig. 8, 10, para. 82, disclose the error log 811, comprises the discharge paper jam error); and
sensor output log data associated with one or a plurality of sensors provided in the image forming device to detect paper jam removal tasks performed in response to occurrence of the paper jam (see Kato, i.e in fig. 9, para. 74-75 and etc., disclose that “[0074] When the analysis of the job processing time is started, in step S1501, the job log collecting unit 503 of the analytical server 104 communicates with the printer 101 and the multifunction peripheral 102 via the interface unit 501, and collects the job log managed by the job log management unit 608. [0075] In step S1502, the error log collecting unit 504 of the analytical server 104 communicates with the printer 101 and the multifunction peripheral 102 via the interface unit 501, and collects the error log managed by the error log management unit 611. The acquired job log is stored in the job log collecting unit 503 in a form of a table similar to or in an expanded form of the job log information table illustrated in FIG. 7. Similarly, the acquired error log is stored in the error log collecting unit 504 in a form of a table similar to or in an expanded form of the error log information table illustrated in FIG. 8. If the log information is collected from a plurality of image forming apparatuses, an identifier of the image forming apparatuses can be added to a column of the table…”);
a memory part configured to store procedural task data, in which one or a plurality of procedural tasks for removing the paper jam are described (see Kato, i.e. in fig. 2, para. 40-42 an etc., disclose that “[0040] FIG. 2 illustrates an entire personal computer (PC) 200. The PC 200 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 201 configured to execute software stored in a read-only memory (ROM) 202 or other memories, for example, a hard disk (HD) 211 as a mass storage device. The CPU 201 controls each device connected to a system bus 204 in an overall manner. [0041] A random access memory (RAM) 203 functions as a main memory and a work area of the CPU 201. A keyboard controller (KBDC) 205 controls an instruction which is input from a keyboard (KBD) 209 of the PC. A display controller (DISPC) 206 controls display of a display module (DISPLAY) 210, which is, for example, a liquid crystal display. [0042] A disk controller (DKC) 207 controls the HD 211 as a mass storage device. A network interface card (NIC) 208 exchanges data bidirectionally with another node via the network 105.”; also see the teachings of Shrestha supplemented below); and
an output control part configured to output a task analysis result obtained based on: the procedural task data associated with the paper jam occurrence information; and the sensor output log data (see Kato, i.e. in fig. 9, para. 77, and etc., disclose that “[0077] In step S1505, the job processing time calculated by the analytical processing unit 502 is output to an analysis result table…”; also see the teachings of Shrestha supplemented below).
The teachings of Kato do not explicitly disclose the teaching relating to aspect(s) of “procedural task data”.
However, Shrestha discloses an analogous invention relates to a system for error reporting in a printing device. More specifically, in Shrestha, i.e. in in fig. 7, para. 62-64, disclose that “[0062] To this end, printing device 104A may include one or more sensors 262 that collect data and information to provide to computing platform 201 or CPU 202. Each sensor 262 may be used to monitor certain operating conditions of printing device 104A. Sensors 262 may be used to indicate a location of a paper jam, failure of hardware or software components, broken parts, operating system problems, document miss-feed, toner level, as well as other operating conditions. Sensors 262 also may detect the number of pages printed or processed by printing device 104A, or the print volume of the printing device over a period of time or other criteria. When a sensor 262 detects an operational issue or failure event, it may send a signal to CPU 202. CPU 202 may generate an error alert associated with the problem. The error alert may include an error code. Computing platform 201 may transmit the error alert along with the error code and a saved printer settings interface in the form of an error report. The error report may be transmitted to network support resource computing device 150 directly or via server 130, which may store an indicator of the report in association with a user account. … [0064] Some errors have hardware-related causes. For example, if a failure occurred in finisher 211, such as a paper jam, display unit 216 may display information about the error and the location of the failure event, or the finisher. In the instance when the paper jam occurs in paper cassettes 212, display unit 216 displays the information about the jam error as located in one of the paper cassettes.”; in addition, in Shrestha, i.e. 93 and etc., further disclose that “[0093] Error codes 702 may be sent to network support resource computing device 150 for a single printing device 1028 using data 1228. Referring to dates of occurrence 704, it may be seen that two errors occurred on Dec. 15, 2020, while other errors occurred on December 20, 27, and 28. It appears as though errors occur at a rate of 5 every two weeks. Network support resource computing device 150 may collect error information for any period of time. Alternatively, network support resource computing device 150 may retrieve the error logs within each printing device that includes such information to determine what errors occur in a printing device and how often…”. Finally, Shrestha, i.e. in para. 63-65 and etc., disclose that “[0063] Display unit 216 may display information about applicable error codes and a short description of the error associated with the operational issue or failure event. Displayed information may include identification of a printer setting or settings that contributed to an error. Further, display unit 216 may display an instruction on how to proceed (operate) to resolve the error. For example, if a network error occurred, then the following message may be provided on operations panel 208: Reboot the device. [or as claimed “procedural task data”]. [0064] Some errors have hardware-related causes. For example, if a failure occurred in finisher 211, such as a paper jam, display unit 216 may display information about the error and the location of the failure event, or the finisher. In the instance when the paper jam occurs in paper cassettes 212, display unit 216 displays the information about the jam error as located in one of the paper cassettes. [0065] Some errors may have software or firmware related causes. For example, incompatible printer settings may result in conflicting software instructions. Firmware errors may result in improper receipt of print job data by network communication interface 210, etc. Display unit 216 may display the software or firmware-related error, any applicable error codes, and provide recommendations to address the error, such as reboot the device.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kato to include the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Shrestha, with the limitation discussed above, as the cited prior arts are at least considered to be analogous arts if not also in the same field of endeavor relating to printing arts. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kato by the teachings of Shrestha, and to incorporate the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Shrestha, thereby “When errors occur during printing, an error report including the printer settings is provided to a network support resource to enable rapid detection of the cause of the error” (see Shrestha, i.e. abstract and etc.).
With regard to claim 2, the claim is drawn to the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the sensor output log data includes task log data that is gained by converting one or a plurality of raw sensor data collected from the one or plurality of sensors such that the task log data indicates each task performed on the image forming device (see Kato, fig. 9-10, para. 79-84 and etc., disclose that “[0080] The error log 811 in FIG. 10 represents the error log in the first row of the error log information table illustrated in FIG. 8. As shown, the error occurred at "14:30:30" and was recovered at "14:34:30". On the other hand, the job log 711 in FIG. 10 represents the job log in the first row of the job log information table illustrated in FIG. 7. As shown, the job started at "14:25:30" and ended at "14:40:30". [0081] If the error that occurred in the image forming apparatus is not considered, then the job processing time can be obtained using a following formula. processing time without considering an error=[job end time]-[job start time] .... [0084] The actual job processing time of the image forming apparatus excluding the time the processing of the job has been stopped due to the error is obtained by subtracting the time the processing of the job has been stopped due to the error from the job processing time obtained by the above formula.”; also in Shrestha, i.e. in para. 62 and etc., disclose that “[0062] To this end, printing device 104A may include one or more sensors 262 that collect data and information to provide to computing platform 201 or CPU 202. Each sensor 262 may be used to monitor certain operating conditions of printing device 104A. Sensors 262 may be used to indicate a location of a paper jam, failure of hardware or software components, broken parts, operating system problems, document miss-feed, toner level, as well as other operating conditions. Sensors 262 also may detect the number of pages printed or processed by printing device 104A, or the print volume of the printing device over a period of time or other criteria. When a sensor 262 detects an operational issue or failure event, it may send a signal to CPU 202. CPU 202 may generate an error alert associated with the problem. The error alert may include an error code. Computing platform 201 may transmit the error alert along with the error code and a saved printer settings interface in the form of an error report. The error report may be transmitted to network support resource computing device 150 directly or via server 130, which may store an indicator of the report in association with a user account…”).
With regard to claim 3, the claim is drawn to the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the receiving part is further configured to receive screen operation log data that indicates each operation performed on an input device of the image printing device according to guidance, including instructions on tasks for removing the paper jam, the guidance being output via an output device of the image forming device, and wherein the task analysis result is further obtained based on: the procedural task data associated with the paper jam occurrence information; and the screen operation log data (in Shrestha, i.e. 93 and etc., further disclose that “[0093] Error codes 702 may be sent to network support resource computing device 150 for a single printing device 1028 using data 1228. Referring to dates of occurrence 704, it may be seen that two errors occurred on Dec. 15, 2020, while other errors occurred on December 20, 27, and 28. It appears as though errors occur at a rate of 5 every two weeks. Network support resource computing device 150 may collect error information for any period of time. Alternatively, network support resource computing device 150 may retrieve the error logs within each printing device that includes such information to determine what errors occur in a printing device and how often…”. Finally, Shrestha, i.e. in para. 63-65 and etc., disclose that “[0063] Display unit 216 may display information about applicable error codes and a short description of the error associated with the operational issue or failure event. Displayed information may include identification of a printer setting or settings that contributed to an error. Further, display unit 216 may display an instruction on how to proceed (operate) to resolve the error. For example, if a network error occurred, then the following message may be provided on operations panel 208: Reboot the device. [0064] Some errors have hardware-related causes. For example, if a failure occurred in finisher 211, such as a paper jam, display unit 216 may display information about the error and the location of the failure event, or the finisher. In the instance when the paper jam occurs in paper cassettes 212, display unit 216 displays the information about the jam error as located in one of the paper cassettes. [0065] Some errors may have software or firmware related causes. For example, incompatible printer settings may result in conflicting software instructions. Firmware errors may result in improper receipt of print job data by network communication interface 210, etc. Display unit 216 may display the software or firmware-related error, any applicable error codes, and provide recommendations to address the error, such as reboot the device.”).
With regard to claim 4, the claim is drawn to the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the information processing device makes a plurality of image forming devices subject to analysis (see Kato, i.e. in fig. 1, printer 101, MFP 102 and etc., also in Shrestha, i.e. in fig. 1, para. 42, and etc., disclose the printing device 102A, 102B, 104A, 104B and etc.),
wherein the information processing device further comprises an analysis part configured to generate the task analysis result for the plurality of image forming devices by comparing the procedural task data associated with the paper jam occurrence information, against the sensor output log data, for each of the plurality of imaging devices (see Kato, i.e. in fig. 5, in para. 76-77 and etc., disclose that “[0076] In step S1503, the analytical processing unit 502 acquires a collected job log from the job log collecting unit 503. In step S1504, the analytical processing unit 502 performs calculation of the job processing time. Details of the calculation of the job processing time performed by the analytical processing unit 502 will be described below.”), and
wherein the task analysis result shows statistics of at least one of occurrence of procedural errors, or time that is required, per task or per predetermined number of tasks for removal of a predetermined paper jam in the plurality of image forming devices (see Kato, i.e. in fig. 5, para. 52 and etc., disclose that “[0052] A job log collecting unit 503 collects the job log information from the printer 101 and the multifunction peripheral 102 and stores the collected information in a job information area of the HD 211. An error log collecting unit 504 collects the error log information from the printer 101 and the multifunction peripheral 102 and stores the collected information in an error information area of the HD 211.”; further in Shrestha, i.e. in fig. 7, in para. 88-95 and etc., disclose that “[0088] Referring now to FIG. 7, there is shown, a block diagram illustrating an exemplary error report for a technical failure incident. With reference to FIGS. 1-7, a printing device such as any of printing devices 102A, 1028, 104A, 1048, 106, or 110, may generate an error report 700 in response to experiencing a technical failure during execution of a print job. The error report 700 may be transmitted to the network support resource computing device 150 and optionally server 130. Information contained in the error report 700 may be used to identify the cause of a technical failure. Similarly, the information used in the error report may be used to recreate the technical failure for purposes of identifying and resolving the issue. [0089] In the error report, the printing device may use an error code to indicate the type of error or technical failure that occurred during execution of a print job. An error code may be used instead of textual descriptions. Error codes may correspond to the same error across different printing devices. When an error is detected in a printing device, the associated error code along with additional information is provided to network support resource computing device 150….”).
With regard to claim 5, the claim is drawn to the information processing device according to claim 1,
wherein the information processing device makes a plurality of image forming devices subject to analysis (see Kato, i.e. in fig. 1; also in Shrestha, i.e. fig. 1 and etc.),
wherein the receiving part is further configured to receive job detail data that indicates details of a job being executed upon the occurrence of the paper jam in the image forming device (see Kato, i.e. in fig. 5, job log collecting unit 503, and error log collecting unit 504 and etc., para.52, “[0052] A job log collecting unit 503 collects the job log information from the printer 101 and the multifunction peripheral 102 and stores the collected information in a job information area of the HD 211. An error log collecting unit 504 collects the error log information from the printer 101 and the multifunction peripheral 102 and stores the collected information in an error information area of the HD 211…”),
wherein the information processing device further comprises an analysis part configured to analyze the job detail data and the paper jam occurrence information for each of the plurality of imaging devices and generate an aggregated result, and wherein the aggregated result shows statistics of occurrence of jams per item of job settings (see Kato, i.e.in fig. 5, analytical processing unit 502, and in para. 51, disclose “[0051] FIG. 5 illustrates an entire analytical server 500. An interface unit 501 communicates with the multifunction peripheral 102 using the NIC 208 illustrated in FIG. 2 via the network 105. An analytical processing unit 502 performs analysis of an operation state of the image forming apparatus such as the multifunction peripheral 102 based on job log information and error log information…”; also in Shrestha, i.e. i.e. fig. 7 and etc.).
With regard to claim 6, the claim is drawn to the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the paper jam occurrence information includes at least one of type or location of the paper jam, and time of the occurrence of the paper jam (see Shrestha, i.e. in fig. 7, date column 704, and in para. 62 and etc., disclose that “[0062] To this end, printing device 104A may include one or more sensors 262 that collect data and information to provide to computing platform 201 or CPU 202. Each sensor 262 may be used to monitor certain operating conditions of printing device 104A. Sensors 262 may be used to indicate a location of a paper jam, failure of hardware or software components, broken parts, operating system problems, document miss-feed, toner level, as well as other operating conditions. Sensors 262 also may detect the number of pages printed or processed by printing device 104A, or the print volume of the printing device over a period of time or other criteria. When a sensor 262 detects an operational issue or failure event, it may send a signal to CPU 202. CPU 202 may generate an error alert associated with the problem. The error alert may include an error code. Computing platform 201 may transmit the error alert along with the error code and a saved printer settings interface in the form of an error report. The error report may be transmitted to network support resource computing device 150 directly or via server 130, which may store an indicator of the report in association with a user account…”), and
wherein the sensor output log data includes information collected from at least one sensor selected from the group of sensors of the image forming device, consisting of: one or a plurality of cover open/close sensors; one or a plurality of tray open/close sensors; and one or a plurality of transport path paper detection sensors (see Shrestha, i.e. in fig. 2, para. 62 and etc., disclose that “[0062] To this end, printing device 104A may include one or more sensors 262 that collect data and information to provide to computing platform 201 or CPU 202. Each sensor 262 may be used to monitor certain operating conditions of printing device 104A. Sensors 262 may be used to indicate a location of a paper jam, failure of hardware or software components, broken parts, operating system problems, document miss-feed, toner level, as well as other operating conditions. Sensors 262 also may detect the number of pages printed or processed by printing device 104A, or the print volume of the printing device over a period of time or other criteria. When a sensor 262 detects an operational issue or failure event, it may send a signal to CPU 202. CPU 202 may generate an error alert associated with the problem. The error alert may include an error code. Computing platform 201 may transmit the error alert along with the error code and a saved printer settings interface in the form of an error report. The error report may be transmitted to network support resource computing device 150 directly or via server 130, which may store an indicator of the report in association with a user account…”).
With regard to claim 7, the claim is drawn to the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the information processing device is one of the image forming device or a server connected to the image forming device via a network (see Kato, i.e. in fig. 1,, the analytical server 104, printer 101, MFP 104 and etc.; also in Shrestha, i.e. in fig. 1, para. 42, and etc., disclose that “[0042] Each printing device 102A, 102B, 104A, 104B, 106, and 110 may be configured to perform one or more steps, actions, or functions disclosed herein. For example, printing device 102A may communicate with any of server 130, user computing device 140, and network support resource computing device 150 to transmit or receive data, or information, 122A via network 120, including error codes, print counter values, time stamps, error intervals, mean time between failures (MTBF), mean count between failures (MCBF), error frequency codes, time intervals, numbers of printed pages, numbers of errors, print volume, user account, and other related information. Each printing device may send and receive its own data packages, as shown in FIG. 1. Data may be routed within system 100 using a protocol, such as TCP/IP, in that each device includes its own unique network address. Thus, printing device 102B may transmit or receive data 122B, printing device 104A may transmit or receive data 124A, printing device 104B may transmit or receive data 124B, and printing device 106 may transmit or receive data 126, and so on…”).
With regard to claim 8, the claim is drawn to an analysis method that causes a computer system (Kato, i.e. in fig. 1, 2, para. 36, 39, and etc., disclose the analytical server 104, and “[0036] An analytical server 104 performs analysis of an operation state of the printer 101 and the multifunction peripheral 102. The analysis processing includes calculation processing of substantial job processing time using a job processing time and a job suspension time due to, for example, an error which are described below…”) to:
receive jam occurrence information about a paper jam that has occurred in an image forming device (Kato, i.e. in fig. 9, step S1502, in para. 75, and etc., disclose that “[0075] In step S1502, the error log collecting unit 504 of the analytical server 104 communicates with the printer 101 and the multifunction peripheral 102 via the interface unit 501, and collects the error log managed by the error log management unit 611. The acquired job log is stored in the job log collecting unit 503 in a form of a table similar to or in an expanded form of the job log information table illustrated in FIG. 7. Similarly, the acquired error log is stored in the error log collecting unit 504 in a form of a table similar to or in an expanded form of the error log information table illustrated in FIG. 8. If the log information is collected from a plurality of image forming apparatuses, an identifier of the image forming apparatuses can be added to a column of the table…”; in addition, in fig. 8, 10, para. 82, disclose the error log 811, comprises the discharge paper jam error);
receive sensor output log data associated with one or a plurality of sensors provided in the information forming device to detect paper jam removal tasks performed in response to occurrence of the paper jam (see Kato, i.e in fig. 9, para. 74-75 and etc., disclose that “[0074] When the analysis of the job processing time is started, in step S1501, the job log collecting unit 503 of the analytical server 104 communicates with the printer 101 and the multifunction peripheral 102 via the interface unit 501, and collects the job log managed by the job log management unit 608. [0075] In step S1502, the error log collecting unit 504 of the analytical server 104 communicates with the printer 101 and the multifunction peripheral 102 via the interface unit 501, and collects the error log managed by the error log management unit 611. The acquired job log is stored in the job log collecting unit 503 in a form of a table similar to or in an expanded form of the job log information table illustrated in FIG. 7. Similarly, the acquired error log is stored in the error log collecting unit 504 in a form of a table similar to or in an expanded form of the error log information table illustrated in FIG. 8. If the log information is collected from a plurality of image forming apparatuses, an identifier of the image forming apparatuses can be added to a column of the table…”);
read procedural task data, in which one or a plurality of procedural tasks for removing the paper jam are described (see Kato, i.e. in fig. 2, para. 40-42 an etc., disclose that “[0040] FIG. 2 illustrates an entire personal computer (PC) 200. The PC 200 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 201 configured to execute software stored in a read-only memory (ROM) 202 or other memories, for example, a hard disk (HD) 211 as a mass storage device. The CPU 201 controls each device connected to a system bus 204 in an overall manner. [0041] A random access memory (RAM) 203 functions as a main memory and a work area of the CPU 201. A keyboard controller (KBDC) 205 controls an instruction which is input from a keyboard (KBD) 209 of the PC. A display controller (DISPC) 206 controls display of a display module (DISPLAY) 210, which is, for example, a liquid crystal display. [0042] A disk controller (DKC) 207 controls the HD 211 as a mass storage device. A network interface card (NIC) 208 exchanges data bidirectionally with another node via the network 105.”; also see the teachings of Shrestha supplemented below); and
output a task analysis result obtained based on: the procedural task data associated with the paper jam occurrence information; and the sensor output log data (see Kato, i.e. in fig. 9, para. 77, and etc., disclose that “[0077] In step S1505, the job processing time calculated by the analytical processing unit 502 is output to an analysis result table…”; also see the teachings of Shrestha supplemented below).
The teachings of Kato do not explicitly disclose the teaching relating to aspect(s) of “procedural task data”.
However, Shrestha discloses an analogous invention relates to a system for error reporting in a printing device. More specifically, in Shrestha, i.e. in in fig. 7, para. 62-64, disclose that “[0062] To this end, printing device 104A may include one or more sensors 262 that collect data and information to provide to computing platform 201 or CPU 202. Each sensor 262 may be used to monitor certain operating conditions of printing device 104A. Sensors 262 may be used to indicate a location of a paper jam, failure of hardware or software components, broken parts, operating system problems, document miss-feed, toner level, as well as other operating conditions. Sensors 262 also may detect the number of pages printed or processed by printing device 104A, or the print volume of the printing device over a period of time or other criteria. When a sensor 262 detects an operational issue or failure event, it may send a signal to CPU 202. CPU 202 may generate an error alert associated with the problem. The error alert may include an error code. Computing platform 201 may transmit the error alert along with the error code and a saved printer settings interface in the form of an error report. The error report may be transmitted to network support resource computing device 150 directly or via server 130, which may store an indicator of the report in association with a user account. … [0064] Some errors have hardware-related causes. For example, if a failure occurred in finisher 211, such as a paper jam, display unit 216 may display information about the error and the location of the failure event, or the finisher. In the instance when the paper jam occurs in paper cassettes 212, display unit 216 displays the information about the jam error as located in one of the paper cassettes.”; in addition, in Shrestha, i.e. 93 and etc., further disclose that “[0093] Error codes 702 may be sent to network support resource computing device 150 for a single printing device 1028 using data 1228. Referring to dates of occurrence 704, it may be seen that two errors occurred on Dec. 15, 2020, while other errors occurred on December 20, 27, and 28. It appears as though errors occur at a rate of 5 every two weeks. Network support resource computing device 150 may collect error information for any period of time. Alternatively, network support resource computing device 150 may retrieve the error logs within each printing device that includes such information to determine what errors occur in a printing device and how often…”. Finally, Shrestha, i.e. in para. 63-65 and etc., disclose that “[0063] Display unit 216 may display information about applicable error codes and a short description of the error associated with the operational issue or failure event. Displayed information may include identification of a printer setting or settings that contributed to an error. Further, display unit 216 may display an instruction on how to proceed (operate) to resolve the error. For example, if a network error occurred, then the following message may be provided on operations panel 208: Reboot the device. [or as claimed “procedural task data”]. [0064] Some errors have hardware-related causes. For example, if a failure occurred in finisher 211, such as a paper jam, display unit 216 may display information about the error and the location of the failure event, or the finisher. In the instance when the paper jam occurs in paper cassettes 212, display unit 216 displays the information about the jam error as located in one of the paper cassettes. [0065] Some errors may have software or firmware related causes. For example, incompatible printer settings may result in conflicting software instructions. Firmware errors may result in improper receipt of print job data by network communication interface 210, etc. Display unit 216 may display the software or firmware-related error, any applicable error codes, and provide recommendations to address the error, such as reboot the device.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kato to include the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Shrestha, with the limitation discussed above, as the cited prior arts are at least considered to be analogous arts if not also in the same field of endeavor relating to printing arts. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kato by the teachings of Shrestha, and to incorporate the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Shrestha, thereby “When errors occur during printing, an error report including the printer settings is provided to a network support resource to enable rapid detection of the cause of the error” (see Shrestha, i.e. abstract and etc.).
With regard to claim 9, the claim is drawn to a computer-readable non-transitory recording medium storing therein a program that, when executed on a computer, causes the computer to perform the analysis method of claim 8 (see Kato, i.e. in para. 151 and etc., disclose that “[0151] Although not illustrated, information for managing a program group stored in a storage medium, for example, version information and author information are stored in the storage medium. Furthermore, information which depends on an OS on a program readout side, for example, an icon or the like for identifying a program, can be stored in the storage medium…”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fukuda (U.S. Pat/Pub No. 2006/0012823 A1) disclose an invention relates to an apparatus having functions of a hybrid apparatus of them as examples and also relates to a control method, a control program, a job managing apparatus, a job processing method, and a job managing program of such an apparatus.
The Art Unit (or Workgroup) location of your application in the USPTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Art Unit 2681.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacky X. Zheng whose telephone number is (571) 270-1122. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, alt. Friday Off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached on (571) 272-3438. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACKY X ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681