CTNF 18/787,280 CTNF 66841 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 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-AIA 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: the "physical quantity detection unit" and "abnormality detection unit" in claims 1-13; the "transmission unit" in claims 1-8 and 11-13, the "loaded-amount detection unit" in claim 6; and the "conveyance unit" in claim 8. 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. The "physical quantity detection unit" is being interpreted to cover the sound collector 70 described in the specification (par. 45) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The "abnormality detection unit" is being interpreted to cover the conveyance sensor 31 described in the specification (par. 39) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The "transmission unit" is being interpreted to cover the CPU 150 described in the specification (par. 52, 87) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The " loaded-amount detection unit" is being interpreted to cover the loaded-amount detection sensor 30 described in the specification (par. 39) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The "conveyance unit" is being interpreted to cover various conveyance rollers 6 and 42 described in the specification (par. 40-41 and 110-111) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. 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-AIA 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. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-36 AIA Claim s 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-7 and 10-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,487 B2 in view of well-known prior art (MPEP 2144.03) and Eguchi et al (US 20190302671 A1) . The claim correspond as follows: Application Claims Patent Claims 1, 10, 12, and 13 2 1, 10, 12, 13 3, 11, 14 4 5 6 7 1, 10, 12, 13 2 1, 10, 12, 13 1, 10, 12, 13 14 The application claims are broader than the patent claims except for introducing a server in place of the management apparatus (in claims 1-8 and 11-13) and a display for displaying information in response to a notification about a cause of the abnormal condition (result of the abnormality determination) or trouble shooting information. However, it is notoriously old and well-known in the prior art to use a server as a management apparatus including in the context of the invention (e.g., to provide notification of status and other information of an image forming apparatus in communication with the server). While also well-known, Eguchi et al provide an example of a display for displaying information to provide the notification about a cause of the abnormal condition or trouble shooting information (see at least par. 59, 79-82, and Fig. 7). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the patented claims in view of well-known prior art and Eguchi et al to arrive at the differences in the application claims in order to provide or enable the improved convenience and efficiency of management or notification functions using a remote server and display of abnormality diagnostic information of operators of the image forming apparatus or support personnel either locally or remotely. 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 (i.e., a descriptive title that distinguishes the invention and is not a generic or general description). The new title should take into account any amendments to the claims to best indicate the claimed invention. The title must be as short and specific as possible (see 37 CFR 1.72(a)). Applicant should distill a description of the claimed invention into as few words as possible to capture the essence of the claimed invention. Rather than reciting statutory categories (apparatus, method, product) and some generic descriptor (e.g., information processing), a title that is specific, but characterizes the essence or key aspect(s) of the claimed invention, should be submitted. Cited Art The prior art and other references made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Haapanen (US 9807254 B2) discloses detection of an impact to an output apparatus and communication with a management server to assess the impact. Such impact may be caused by a sudden force applied to one or more points on the apparatus housing or another part of the apparatus accessible from outside the apparatus housing. An impact detector outputs to an apparatus controller an impact report including impact time and impact data corresponding to the detected impact event. The management server collects one or more impact reports and analyzes them to determine problems corresponding to impact events and, if needed, causes corrective or remedial action to be performed. Middleton et al (US 9850084 B2) disclose detection on sheet media jams along a media transport path by one or more vibration sensors that capture mechanical movements of components along the path that interact with the sheet media for driving or guiding the sheet media along the transport path. The detected vibrations during the advancing of the sheets are analyzed for distinguishing between detected vibrations associated with normal handling of the sheets and detected vibrations associated with abnormal handling of the sheets. An error condition can be signaled to a control system in response to distinguishing the detected vibrations associated with the abnormal handling of the sheets. Miyamori et al (US 10911607 B2) disclose a diagnostic apparatus that includes a first acquiring unit that acquires sound information, a second acquiring unit that acquires operation information indicating a component in operation among a plurality of components of an analysis target apparatus, and a display unit that, when the acquired sound information is reproduced, displays operating states of the plurality of components at the time point when the reproduced sound is acquired, using the operation information. Hara et al (US 11360420 B2 and US 12124201 B2) disclose a diagnostic unit that determines the source of the abnormal sound in the image forming apparatus and notifies a user of information pertaining to the source of the abnormal sound by displaying the information on a screen of the operation/display unit or transmitting the information to another apparatus. Miyazaki et al (US 12200173 B2) disclose an image processing device and an image processing method capable of efficiently specifying an abnormal sound in case of the occurrence of malfunction that is an important element to clarify the cause of the malfunction. The image processing device includes acquisition means, playing means, changing means, and determination means. The acquisition means acquires a plurality of kinds of sound data indicating sounds different from each other. The playing means plays one kind of sound data from the sound data. The changing means changes the one sound data to another kind of sound data. The determination means determines one kind of sound data from the sound data. FIG. 8 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example of a malfunction report screen. FIG. 9 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example of an abnormal sound search screen. Hara et al (US 12625451 B2) disclose a sound diagnostic system includes an image forming apparatus and an information processing apparatus. The image forming apparatus includes operating portions, a sound collector for collecting a sonic wave, an acquiring portion, in each of a plurality of time sections when the sonic wave is collected by the sound collector, for acquiring a data including sonic wave level and an operating state of the operating portions. The information processing apparatus includes a generator for generating a threshold by adding a predetermined value to a first sonic wave level based on the sonic wave in a first period. The information processing apparatus determines a cause of an abnormal sound by comparing a second sonic wave level based on the sonic wave in a second period after the first period and the threshold. The predetermined value is set so as to be smaller as the first sonic wave level is larger. Kawai (US 20160112602 A1) disclose an abnormal noise operation control device includes an abnormal noise storage device to store an abnormal noise at the time of a fault of an apparatus in advance, an operation noise acquisition device to acquire an operation noise of the apparatus, an audible sound determination device to determine whether or not the operation noise acquired is audible sound, discomfort noise determination device to determine whether or not the audible sound is a discomfort noise, a fault determination device to determine whether or not the operation noise is abnormal by comparing the operation noise with the abnormal noise, an abnormal noise cause determination device to identify a part causing the operation noise determined as at least one of the discomfort noise and the abnormal noise, and an abnormal noise countermeasures device to restrict operations that use the part and allow operations that do not use the part. Seki et al (US 20190187601 A1) disclose an abnormality determination apparatus includes: an audio data acquisitor that acquires audio data of an apparatus to be judged for determining presence or absence of abnormality; an abnormal sound detector that detects an abnormal sound based on the audio data acquired by the audio data acquisitor; and a hardware processor that determines whether the abnormal sound is such a sound that an operation of the apparatus to be judged should be restricted based on a subsequent secular change of the abnormal sound when the abnormal sound is detected by the abnormal sound detector, and restricts the operation of the apparatus to be judged when the hardware processor determines that the abnormal sound is such a sound that the operation of the apparatus to be judged should be restricted. Suzuki et al (US 20210241058 A1 / US 11514283 B2) disclose detecting sound waves that are generated when the user physically operates a variable mechanism of the image forming apparatus. A processor executes computations required to control the functions of the image forming apparatus. When a variation in a state of a variable mechanism of the image forming apparatus has been detected, the processor generates statistical information regarding sound waves obtained, which can be used as a measure for evaluating the intensity of a force applied to a variable mechanism at the time of a user operation and evaluating the appropriateness of a user operation. When the force applied to the variable mechanism at the time of user operation is evaluated to be too strong, it is possible to prompt the user to operate the variable mechanism with a smaller force in subsequent operations by issuing a warning to the user and reduce the risks of abnormalities in the image forming apparatus. Tsunoda et al (US 20240118652 A1) disclose analyzing whether there is an abnormal sound based on the operation history. For example, first analysis determines an abnormal sound threshold (notification threshold T) based on input information and then analysis determines whether a sound level (abnormal sound level N) obtained from the operation history is greater than or equal to the abnormal sound threshold. A notification is transmitted based on a result of the analysis. If the analysis result suggests occurrence of an abnormal sound in the image forming apparatus, the CPU issues a notification to the client apparatus and the monitoring tool. The notification may include text, such as “an abnormal sound may be occurring in the fixing area”. The notification may include text, such as “the fixer needs to be replaced”. The notification may include text, such as “the pressing roller needs maintenance”. The notification is a notification about a maintenance of the image forming apparatus. These notifications may be called maintenance notifications. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott Rogers whose telephone number is 571-272-7467. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am to 7 pm flex. 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 on 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 the Patent Center. Unpublished application information in the Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in the Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about the 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. /Scott A Rogers/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683 26 May 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/787,280 Page 2 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/787,280 Page 3 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/787,280 Page 4 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/787,280 Page 5 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/787,280 Page 6 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/787,280 Page 7 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/787,280 Page 8 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/787,280 Page 9 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/787,280 Page 10 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/787,280 Page 11 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/787,280 Page 12 Art Unit: 2683
Prosecution Insights