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 .
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 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.
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim limitations “a first receiving module”, “a first output module", “a second output module”, “a second receiving module” and “a generating module” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 9-16 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Paragraph [0195], [0197], “[0195] For example, the first receiving module, the first output module, the second output module, the second receiving module, the third output module and the generating module may be circuit units including devices such as FPGA (field programmable gate array), MCU (microcontroller unit), DSP (digital signal processor) and the like” and “In an optional implementation manner, the first receiving module, the first output module, the second output module, the second receiving module, the third output module and the generating module may be other modules different from the consumable chip and configured on the consumable”
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 of this title, 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 1-6, 8-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. EP2746859 hereinafter referred to as Lee and further in view of Spangler et al. US2022/0116776 hereinafter referred to as Spangler.
As per Claim 1, Lee teaches a data verification method, comprising:
receiving a verification request sent by an image-forming apparatus; (Lee, Paragraph [0034], “The authenticating may comprise a first authentication operation in which the main controller transmits a signal including first data and first integrity detection data to the CRUM chip”)
sending a first calculation factor to the image-forming apparatus based on the verification request; (Lee, Paragraph [0034], “CRUM chip generates second integrity detection data using second data and the first integrity detection data and transmits a signal including the second data and the second integrity detection data to the main controller” The calculation factor is contained in the data sent by the CRUM chip)
receiving first intermediate data generated based on the first calculation factor and sent by the image-forming apparatus; (Lee, Paragraph [0034], “which the main controller generates third integrity detection data using third data, the first integrity detection data and the second integrity detection data and transmits a signal including the third data and the third integrity detection data to the CRUM chip”)
generating target verification information based on the first intermediate data, (Lee, Paragraph [0034], “CRUM chip generates fourth integrity detection data using fourth data and the first to the third integrity detection data and transmits a signal including the fourth data and the fourth integrity detection data to the main controller”)
sending the original data and the target verification information to the image-forming apparatus based on the verification request, wherein at least partial data in the target verification information is configured to verify the original data. (Lee, Figure 20, S1640)
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein a data length of the target verification information is shorter than a data length of first verification information generated based on original data according to a preset first algorithm; and
Spangler teaches wherein a data length of the target verification information is shorter than a data length of first verification information generated based on original data according to a preset first algorithm; and (Spangler, Paragraph [0064], [0102], “Another option is to truncate the hash values so that each hash uses less space” and “For example, the authentication technique can be used for any computing device to communicate with another computing device, a peripheral device, or another hardware resource. As a few examples, a computing device may be a phone, laptop computer, desktop computer, tablet computer, a wearable device, and so on. As a few examples, a peripheral device may be a printer”)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Lee into Spangler because by truncating the data being sent by Spangler to authenticate/verify the consumable will reduce the size of the values and therefore reduce the memory used and improve efficiency.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the two references to obtain the invention in Claim 1.
As per Claim 2, Lee in view of Spangler teaches the method according to claim 1, further including: processing the first intermediate data based on a preset second algorithm to generate second intermediate data. (Lee, Figure 20, Paragraph [0203]-[0204])
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 3, Lee in view of Spangler teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein generating the target verification information based on the first intermediate data includes: based on the first intermediate data, selecting partial data in the first verification information; and generating the target verification information based on the selected partial data in the first verification information, wherein: at least a part of the selected partial data in the first verification information matches at least a part of valid bits in the first intermediate data. (Lee, Figure 20, Paragraph [0203]-[0204])
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 4, Lee in view of Spangler teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein generating the target verification information based on the first intermediate data includes: generating the target verification information based on the second intermediate data and the first verification information. (Lee, Figure 20, Paragraph [0203]-[0204])
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 5, Lee in view of Spangler teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein generating the target verification information based on the second intermediate data and the first verification information includes: based on the second intermediate data, selecting partial data in the first verification information; and generating the target verification information based on selected partial data in the first verification information. (Lee, Figure 20, Paragraph [0203]-[0204])
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 4 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 6, Lee in view of Spangler teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein: at least a part of the selected partial data in the first verification information matches at least a part of valid bits in the second intermediate data. (Lee, Figure 20, Paragraph [0203]-[0204], [0076])
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 5 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 8, Lee in view of Spangler teaches the method according to claim 1, after receiving the first intermediate data generated based on the first calculation factor and sent by the image-forming apparatus, further including: processing the first intermediate data and the first calculation factor according to a fourth algorithm to generate second calculation factor verification data; and sending the second calculation factor verification data to the image-forming apparatus, wherein the second calculation factor verification data is configured to determine whether a consumable is abnormal. (Lee, Figure 20, Paragraph [0203]-[0204], [0076], [0144])
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 9, Claim 9 claims an information processing apparatus, wherein the information processing apparatus is capable of communicating with an image-forming apparatus, the image forming apparatus being detachably installed with a consumable, comprising: a first receiving module, a first output module, a second output module, and a generating module (Lee, Figure 5, 20, Paragraph [0203]-[0204]) performing the data verification method as claimed in Claim 1. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 1.
As per Claim 10, Claim 10 claims the same limitation as Claim 2 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 2.
As per Claim 11, Claim 11 claims the same limitation as Claim 3 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 3.
As per Claim 12, Claim 12 claims the same limitation as Claim 4 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 4.
As per Claim 13, Claim 13 claims the same limitation as Claim 5 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 5.
As per Claim 14, Claim 14 claims the same limitation as Claim 6 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 6.
As per Claim 16, Claim 16 claims the same limitation as Claim 8 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 8.
As per Claim 17, Lee in view of Spangler teaches the consumable, comprising: a housing; a developer accommodating portion in the housing and configured for containing a developer; and the information processing apparatus according to claim 9. (Lee, Paragraph [0004], [0013])
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. EP2746859 hereinafter referred to as Lee and further in view of Spangler et al. US2022/0116776 hereinafter referred to as Spangler as applied to Claim 9 and further in view of Matsumura US2023/0195020.
As per Claim 18, Lee in view of Spangler teaches the consumable according to claim 17, further including:
Lee in view of Spangler does not explicitly teach a developer conveying unit for conveying the developer.
Matsumura teaches a developer conveying unit for conveying the developer. (Matsumura, Paragraph [0023], [0025])
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Matsumura into Lee in view of Spangler because by providing the verification method of Spangler into Matsumura will provide more functionality to a laser printer of Matsumura. Also Matsumura will provide more functionality to Spangler by replacing the generic printer with a laser printer to provide the printing means.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the three references to obtain the invention in Claim 18.
As per Claim 19, Lee in view of Spangler teaches the consumable according to claim 18, further including:
Lee in view of Spangler does not explicitly teach a photosensitive drum; and a charging roller for charging the photosensitive drum.
Matsumura teaches a photosensitive drum; and a charging roller for charging the photosensitive drum. (Matsumura, Paragraph [0023], [0025])
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Matsumura into Lee in view of Spangler because by providing the verification method of Spangler into Matsumura will provide more functionality to a laser printer of Matsumura. Also Matsumura will provide more functionality to Spangler by replacing the generic printer with a laser printer to provide the printing means.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the three references to obtain the invention in Claim 19.
As per Claim 20, Lee in view of Spangler teaches the consumable, comprising: an information processing apparatus according to claims 9.
Lee in view of Spangler does not explicitly teach a photosensitive drum; a charging roller for charging the photosensitive drum;
Matsumura teaches a photosensitive drum; (Matsumura, Paragraph [0020], [0023], [0025])
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Matsumura into Lee in view of Spangler because by providing the verification method of Spangler into Matsumura will provide more functionality to a laser printer of Matsumura. Also Matsumura will provide more functionality to Spangler by replacing the generic printer with a laser printer to provide the printing means.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the three references to obtain the invention in Claim 20
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING HON whose telephone number is (571)270-5245. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached on 571-270-3717. 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.
/MING Y HON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights