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 .
Claims 1 – 9 are pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/13/2024 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.
Applicant has provided an explanation of relevance of cited document(s) JP-2021-160203 on page 1 of the specification.
Yamada (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2021/0306516 A1) is the U.S version of JP-2021-160203.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitations are: Obtaining Unit, Determining Unit, Transmitting Unit, First Transmitting Unit, Obtaining Unit and Second Transmitting Unit in 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.
Obtaining unit is read by the Examiner as being a service management server in which is obtaining usage situation information, Specification on ¶0026.
Determining unit is also read by the Examiner as being the service management server in which determine if contract has been concluded, Specification on ¶0044 with ¶0055.
Transmitting Unit is read by the Examiner as being item 205 of Fig. 3, in which corresponds to a communication I/F, Specification on ¶0040.
First transmitting unit is read by the Examiner as being item 405 of Fig. 5, in which corresponds to a communication I/F (from communication terminal 400), Specification on ¶0043 - ¶0044.
Obtaining unit is read by the Examiner as being a communication terminal in which is obtaining contract information, Specification on ¶0060.
Second transmitting unit is also read by the Examiner as being the communication terminal, in which issue/send release instruction to an image forming apparatus, Specification on ¶0070 with ¶0085.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 - 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2022/0334510 A1, hereinafter ‘Sugiyama’) in view of Kojima (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2002/0050646 A1, hereinafter ‘Kojima’).
With respect to claim 1, Sugiyama teaches a management system (e.g., an image forming system, ¶0005) comprising: an image forming apparatus (e.g., an image forming apparatus, ¶0005); a server that manages information for providing a subscription service of the image forming apparatus (e.g., a server that manages payment for said image forming apparatus, ¶0006, Fig. 3); and a communication terminal (e.g., a registration terminal 5, Fig. 1) that communicates with the server via a network (e.g., capable of communicating with said server 4, Fig. 1) e.g., a controller 43, Fig. 1); and a memory (e.g., a memory 433, Fig. 1) coupled to the processor storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to function as:
an obtaining unit that obtains usage situation information of the image forming apparatus that has been transmitted from the communication terminal, and contract information regarding the subscription service of the image forming apparatus (e.g., acquires status/usage/management status of said image forming apparatus that been provided from said registration terminal and contract regarding payment of said image forming apparatus, ¶0052); a determining unit that determines whether or not the image forming apparatus is available for use based on the usage situation information of the image forming apparatus and the contract information (e.g., determining whether or not said image forming apparatus is still under contract based on the acquired status/usage/management status, ¶0068 - ¶0069, ¶0120 - ¶0121, Fig. 9A); and a transmitting unit that transmits a determination result obtained by the determining unit (e.g., transmits result upon determining, ¶0121), and the communication terminal (e.g., said registration terminal 5, ¶0042, Fig. 1) comprises at least one processor (e.g., a controller 53, Fig. 1); and a memory (e.g., a memory 533, Fig. 1) coupled to the processor storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to function as:
a first transmitting unit that transmits the usage situation information of the image forming apparatus and the contract information based on information obtained from the image forming apparatus (e.g., transmits usage information of said image forming apparatus and contract information based on the acquired information from said image forming apparatus, ¶0042, ¶0046, ¶0052 - ¶0053, ¶0095);
an obtaining unit that obtains the determination result transmitted from the server (e.g., obtains the result upon determining, ¶0052- ¶0054, ¶0121); and a second transmitting unit that, in a case that the determination result indicates that the image forming apparatus is available for use, transmits, to the image forming apparatus, an instruction for controlling the image forming apparatus to be available for use (e.g., transmits, in a case that the determination result is indicating that said image forming apparatus is under contract, a release instruction is provided so that said image forming apparatus can be used, ¶0080, ¶0121, Fig. 9A); but fails to teach that said communication terminal is directly communicating with said image forming apparatus that is not connected to the network.
However, in the same field of endeavor of managing contracts via server and communication between user device, server and printer, the mentioned claim limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Kojima. In particular, Kojima teaches a communication terminal (e.g., host terminal, ¶0014, Fig. 1) that communicates with a server via a network (e.g., capable of exchanging data (bi-directional) with a server 16 via network 12, ¶0047, Fig. 1) and directly communicates with the image forming apparatus that is not connected to the network (e.g., eventually can communicate with a printing apparatus 18 when a printing apparatus is offline or directly connected via USB, ¶0039 - ¶0040, ¶0074 - ¶0075).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the management system of Sugiyama as taught by Kojima since Kojima suggested within ¶0039 - ¶0040 and/or ¶0074 - ¶0075 that such modification would anticipate resources/usage/consumption in order to manage printing in offline time
With respect to claim 2, Sugiyama in view of Kojima teaches the management system according to claim 1, wherein the information obtained from the image forming apparatus is information transmitted from the image forming apparatus as a response to an obtaining request made to the image forming apparatus by the communication terminal in accordance with receiving an instruction to generate a job to be submitted into the image forming apparatus from a user (e.g., Information acquired from the image forming apparatus is information related to an operation mode change request and based on a print request, ¶0079 - ¶0084, Figs. 2 & 5).
With respect to claim 3, Sugiyama in view of Kojima teaches the management system according to claim 1, wherein the information obtained from the image forming apparatus is information transmitted from the image forming apparatus when the image forming apparatus receives a job generating instruction from a user (e.g., in response to a print request, usage or consumption information is also analyzed, ¶0079 - ¶0084).
With respect to claims 4 and 5, Sugiyama in view of Kojima teaches the management system according to claims 2 and 3, respectively, wherein the user is a contractor to the subscription service of the image forming apparatus (Fig. 3), and the communication terminal is a terminal used by the user (e.g., said registration terminal (or communication device) can be used by any user, ¶0004, ¶0042).
With respect to claim 6, Sugiyama in view of Kojima teaches the management system according to claim 1, wherein the communication terminal is connected to the image forming apparatus by a USB cable and communicates with the image forming apparatus via the USB cable (e.g. design choice: a host terminal 14 is connected to a printing apparatus 18 by a wired connection such as USB, ¶0039).
With respect to claim 8, this is a method claim corresponding to the system claim 1. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the system claim 1.
With respect to claim 9, Sugiyama notes that the invention may be realized through the execution by a CPU (Fig. 1 - CPU 291 / CPU 431) of instruction codes (e.g., program, ¶0031 or ¶0038) stored in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (e.g., stored in a memory 293 or memory 433, ¶0031 or ¶0038). The further limitations are met by the teachings as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama in view of Kojima and further in view of Mikami (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2021/0237494 A1).
With respect to calm 7, Sugiyama in view of Kojima teaches the management system according to claim 1, wherein the communication terminal wirelessly communicates with the image forming apparatus based on a wireless communication, but fails to teach that said wireless communication is specifically a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE).
However, in the same endeavor of communication between printers and user device, Mikami teaches a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) (e.g., a host apparatus can communicate with a printing apparatus 18 via Bluetooth, ¶0041 - ¶0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the management system of Sugiyama in view of Kojima as taught by Mikami since Mikami suggested within ¶0041 - ¶0044 that such modification of having a Bluetooth (BLE) would provides convenient, short-range wireless connectivity that eliminate physical cable while operating at a low power cost; thereby reducing cost.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mukai (U.S PG Publication No. 2022/0006920 A1)1
Wong (U.S PG Publication No. 2021/0368063 A1)2
1This reference teaches an apparatus, other than a server, that can directly communicate with an image forming apparatus when a short-range communication circuit is enabled; therefore, it’s not connected to a network.
2This reference teaches a system including a subscription management server; at least a user device and at least a printer; wherein determine, based on received data, a plan for the image rendering device 106-1. In an example, the engine(s) may comprise a subscription plan determination engine 216 which may determine the plan for the image rendering device 106-1 using the subscription plan data 218 residing in the data 208 of the server 102. The subscription plan data 218 may comprise a list of various available plans wherein each of the plan may provide for an amount of print material or a number of media or both for a subscription fee. In an example, the list of plans in the subscription plan data 218 may be stored and updated time-to-time by the service provider. The subscription plan determination engine 216 may compare the print material consumption of the image rendering device 106-1 with an amount of print material defined for each of the plans in the list of plans available in the subscription plan data 218 and may determine a plan based on the print material consumption of the image rendering device 106-1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN M GUILLERMETY whose telephone number is (571)270-3481. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Benny Q TIEU can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/JUAN M GUILLERMETY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights