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 .
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 limitation(s) is/are: data processing unit, first data module, second data module, analysis module, output module, usage processing module, in claims 1-11.
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.
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.
In the public specification paragraph [0024] the data processing unit and all modules are hardware-based with instruction executable by processors.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato (US 2014/0320891A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Kato’891 shows a data processing unit (device manager 100 in figure 1) comprising:
a first data module to access printer use data from a first data repository, wherein the printer use data is representative of a usage of an available printer (paragraph [0022] retrieve unit 110 receive device information from each of the devices A-I via the network. The device information may include usage data of respective devices A-I), a second data module to access printer parameters from a second data repository (paragraphs [0022]-[0023] retrieve unit 110 receive device information from each of the devices A-I via the network. The device information may include device-properties data of the respective devices A-I, such as device name, location, installation date, and expiration date of the device, paragraph [0029] storing in the database 120 print count over a period of time and calculate rate),
wherein the printer parameters are representative of a printing property of a plurality of candidate printers (paragraph [0050] devices located within a certain distance of each other may be grouped together as a set and considered as a whole. For example, the devices A and B are both located at site X and considered as a set, thus, parts of the device information (e.g., the current print count, predetermined target print count, current usage rate, anticipated print count) of the devices A and B are combined),
an analysis module to process the printer use data and the printer parameters to match one of the candidate printers to the printer use data (Figure 2 S204-S207, paragraph [0027] finding a candidate printer ), and
an output module to output an identifier of the candidate printer matched to the printer data (Figure 2 S208, paragraph [0027] displaying a candidate).
With respect to Claim 4, Kato’891 shows the data processing unit of claim 1, wherein the candidate printers include a type of printer of the available printer (paragraph [0050] devices located within a certain distance of each other may be grouped together as a set and considered as a whole. For example, the devices A and B are both located at site X and considered as a set, thus, parts of the device information (e.g., the current print count, predetermined target print count, current usage rate, anticipated print count) of the devices A and B are combined).
With respect to Claim 5, Kato’891 shows the data processing unit of claim 1, wherein the analysis module matches the one of the candidate printers to the printer use data based on a similarity metric (figure 2 and paragraphs [0025]-[0027] shows the comparison unit comparing desired information so that a candidate device can be selected based on a desired metric of amount of usage).
With respect to Claim 6, Kato’891 shows a system (figure 1) comprising
a data storage (database 120 in figure 1),
a printer connected to the data storage to store printer use data in the data storage (figure 1 printers A-I),
wherein the printer use data is representative of a usage of the printer (paragraph [0022] retrieve unit 110 receive device information from each of the devices A-I via the network. The device information may include usage data of respective devices A-I), and
a data processing unit connected to the data storage (device manager 100 in figure 1) to:
compare the printer use data with printer parameters characterizing the printing property of each of a plurality of candidate printers (paragraphs [0025]-[0027], figure 1 comparison unit 140 comparing desired information so that a candidate device can be selected based on a desired metric of amount of usage), and
select one of the candidate printers having printer parameters matching the printer use data based on a similarity metric (figure 2 and paragraphs [0025]-[0027] shows the comparison unit comparing desired information so that a candidate device can be selected based on a desired metric of amount of usage); and
output the selected candidate printer (figure 2 S208).
With respect to Claim 12, Kato’891 shows a method comprising:
loading printer use data characterizing the operation of an available printer (paragraph [0022] retrieve unit 110 receive device information from each of the devices A-I via the network. The device information may include usage data of respective devices A-I),
comparing the printer use data with printer parameters characterizing the printing property of each of a plurality of candidate printers (paragraphs [0025]-[0027], figure 1 comparison unit 140 comparing desired information so that a candidate device can be selected based on a desired metric of amount of usage), and
selecting one of the candidate printers having printer parameters matching the printer use data according to a similarity metric (figure 2 and paragraphs [0025]-[0027] shows the comparison unit comparing desired information so that a candidate device can be selected based on a desired metric of amount of usage); and
associating the selected candidate printer to the available printer (figure 2 S208).
With respect to Claim 13, Kato’891 shows the method of claim 12, comprising: loading printer use data characterizing the operation of each available printer of a group of available printers, comparing the printer use data with the printer parameters, and selecting one of the candidate printers having printer parameters matching the printer use data according to the similarity metric; and associating the selected candidate printer to the group of available printers (figure 1, site X, Y and Z and paragraphs [0050] and [0053] the devices located within a certain distance of each other may be grouped together as a set and considered as a whole. For example, the devices A and B are both located at site X and considered as a set, thus, parts of the device information (e.g., the current print count, predetermined target print count, current usage rate, anticipated print count) of the devices A and B are combined.).
With respect to Claim 14, Kato’891 shows the method of claim 13, comprising: loading printer use data characterizing the operation of each group of printers of a plurality of groups of available printers, comparing the printer use data of at least one of the groups of available printers with the printer parameters, and selecting, for each of the at least one of the groups of available printers, one of the candidate printers having printer parameters matching the respective printer use data according to the similarity metric; and associating, to each of the at least one groups of available printers, the respective one of the candidate printers (figure 2 and paragraphs [0027]-[0028], [0050]-[0053] ).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 2014/0320891 A1) and deBeus (US 2020/0310526 A1).
With respect to Claim 2, Kato’891 does not specifically show wherein the printer use data comprises at least one of: print fluid use data representative of a usage of print fluid by the available printer, print medium use data representative of a usage of print medium by the available printer, and operation time data representative of an operation time of the available printer.
deBeus’526 shows the data processing unit of claim 1, wherein the printer use data comprises at least one of: print fluid use data representative of a usage of print fluid by the available printer, print medium use data representative of a usage of print medium by the available printer, and operation time data representative of an operation time of the available printer (paragraph [0038] gathered data may comprise raw or processed data related to the usage of device resources (e.g., consumables, such as remaining toner and paper levels), timing information (e.g., printing times and operation frequencies relative to other printers in a network), personal/device identification information (e.g., device IP addresses), and status information (e.g., online/offline status)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify Kato’891 to include wherein the printer use data comprises at least one of: print fluid use data representative of a usage of print fluid by the available printer, print medium use data representative of a usage of print medium by the available printer, and operation time data representative of an operation time of the available printer method taught by deBeus’526. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the system’s ability to be able to improve detection accuracy of data and resource sensing (paragraph [0039]).
With respect to Claim 3, Kato’891 shows printer parameters comprise at least one of: [ ] parameters representative of a usability [of print fluid] by the candidate printers, [ ] (paragraph [0027] displaying usage of candidate to switch with).
Kato’891 does not specifically wherein the printer parameters comprise at least one of: print fluid parameters representative of a usability of print fluid by the candidate printers, print medium parameters representative of a usability of print medium by the candidate printers, and operation time parameters representative of a usability of the candidate printers.
deBeus’526 shows the data processing unit of claim 1, wherein the printer parameters comprise at least one of: print fluid parameters representative of a usability of print fluid by the candidate printers, print medium parameters representative of a usability of print medium by the candidate printers, and operation time parameters representative of a usability of the candidate printers (paragraph [0038] gathered data may comprise raw or processed data related to the usage of device resources (e.g., consumables, such as remaining toner and paper levels), timing information (e.g., printing times and operation frequencies relative to other printers in a network), personal/device identification information (e.g., device IP addresses), and status information (e.g., online/offline status)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify Kato’891 to include the data processing unit of claim 1, wherein the printer parameters comprise at least one of: print fluid parameters representative of a usability of print fluid by the candidate printers, print medium parameters representative of a usability of print medium by the candidate printers, and operation time parameters representative of a usability of the candidate printers method taught by deBeus’526. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the system’s ability to be able to improve detection accuracy of data and resource sensing (paragraph [0039]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Osano (US 2020/0320434 A1) : [0029] print history is information for evaluating the degree to which the printer 2 is used, and examples of the print history include the number of printed sheets up to now, the usage time of m, and the average of ink density (average of the amount of ink used for printing up to now).
Tashiro (US 2021/0303244 A1): paragraphs [0063]-[0068, [0092] and figures 7a, 10, 18 and 19a.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRIANA CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3246. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/IRIANA CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights