DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed 6/27/24 and 12/18/24 are acknowledged, the references therein relating to the general background of applicant’s invention with the exception of JP2017208035 by Arima et al. which has particular relevance as noted below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1) Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-11 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the machine translation of JP2017208035 by Arima et al.
2) Regarding claim 1, Arima teaches a device management system (figure 2; a management system) for managing a network device (paragraph 13; MFPs can be managed), the device management system comprising: a memory storing instructions (figure 7; paragraph 78; various memories); and a processor (paragraph 78; a CPU) executing the instructions causing the device management system to: provide data generated on the basis of maintenance information including operation information collected from the network device serving as a service target (paragraphs 19-21; various data is provided for simulation including work history information of a device [paragraphs 39, 48 and 89]); and provide a simulation result of simulating effect of introduction of a service for managing the network device, wherein, when a setting value of the service for use in simulation is designated, the simulation result based on the setting value is provided (paragraphs 19 and 27; simulation is run based upon “change items” [i.e. a provided setting value] and is displayed as disclosed in paragraph 83).
3) Regarding claim 2, Arima teaches the device management system according to claim 1, wherein the effect of the introduction of the service is provided, along with data indicating a demerit of the introduction of the service, in a dashboard style (NOTE: “dashboard style” has been interpreted as essentially having the scope of “data is displayed” as “dashboard style” is not recognized as a specific term of art) as the simulation result (paragraph 215; through the various simulation iterations of user selected change items a metric such as “maintenance quality” can show decline [i.e. a decline is quality is a “demerit”]).
4) Regarding claim 4, Arima teaches the device management system according to claim 2, wherein presence or absence of the effect of the introduction and a demerit is determined on the basis of an increment or decrement in each index value of the result of simulating the effect of the introduction of the service for each index value of the data generated on the basis of the maintenance information (paragraphs 92 and 93; input parameters can be incremented or decremented [paragraph 95] to achieve particular goals in the iterative simulation).
5) Regarding claim 5, Arima teaches the device management system according to claim 1, wherein switching between validity and invalidity of the simulation of the introduction of the service is possible (paragraphs 212-214; if each “CE” [i.e. a service person] is a specific service, then going from simulating 15 CEs to 10 CEs is switching the “validity” to invalid for 5 of the CEs).
6) Regarding claim 6, Arima teaches the device management system according to claim 5, wherein the device management system supports a plurality of services, and wherein the switching between the validity and invalidity of the simulation of the introduction of the service can be performed for each service (paragraphs 212-214; each CE can be invalidated by lessening the number of CEs).
7) Regarding claim 7, Arima teaches the device management system according to claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the device management system to provide a screen of simulation of a setting value indicating an index of each setting value of the service for use in the simulation (figures 4 and 5; paragraphs 83; simulation results with values can be displayed) and receives a change in the setting value of the screen of the simulation of the setting value (paragraphs 83 and 121; change items can be input).
8) Regarding claim 8, Arima teaches the device management system according to claim 1, wherein the network device is an image forming device, and wherein the service is a service related to maintenance of the network device (paragraph 13; maintenance of MFPs is disclosed).
9) Regarding claim 9, Arima teaches the device management system according to claim 8, wherein the maintenance information includes error information of the network device (paragraphs 36 and 43; device failure is tracked), a usage state of a consumable in the network device, the number of printed pages in the network device, and actual result information of maintenance action for the network device (paragraph 48; usage, page output numbers and treatment results are included in the history information), and wherein a simulation target includes at least one item of information about a utilization rate of the network device, a maintenance work count or time of a serviceman for the network device, and information related to inventory of consumables of the network device (paragraphs 50 and 207; at least a serviceman’s [i.e. a CE] time can be a simulation target [i.e. a “change item”]).
10) Claims 10, 11 and 13-18 are taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4-9 above, respectively.
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.
11) Claim(s) 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2017208035 by Arima et al. as applied to claims 2 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2007/0239572 by Harris et al.
12) Regarding claim 3, Arima does not specifically teach the device management system according to claim 2, wherein data for which the effect of the introduction of the service is obtained and data subjected to a demerit due to the introduction of the service are displayed in different colors.
Harris teaches the device management system according to claim 2, wherein data for which the effect of the introduction of the service is obtained and data subjected to a demerit due to the introduction of the service are displayed in different colors (paragraph 8; positive and negative outcomes for a simulation can be displayed in different colors).
Arima and Harris are combinable because they are both from the simulation results display field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Arima with Harris to add simulation result colors. The motivation for doing so would have been for accentuating simulation results (paragraph 8). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Arima with Harris to obtain the invention of claim 3.
13) Claim 12 is taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571)270-5254. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights