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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-17, 21, and 25 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. Reasons for allowance will be provided in the event the application becomes in condition for allowance.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuchibhotla (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2009/0106605) in view of Hitaka et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0084175).
Regarding claim 1, Kuchibhotla et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2009/0106605) discloses:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
one or more processors; and one or more memories storing one or more computer programs, (paragraph [0038], generally)
wherein the one or more computer programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the information processing apparatus to function as:
an analysis unit configured to calculate, based on a value obtained from a device, an evaluation value indicating a degree of deterioration of the unit (paragraphs [0044]-[0047], the health check can be performed in response to the conditions of the system); and
a notification unit configured to notify a user or administrator of the device a maintenance message relating to maintenance of the unit in accordance with the evaluation value (paragraphs [0041], [0048], information on the conditions of the system is stored, both diagnostic data and other information related to proactive health checks);
an obtaining unit configured to obtain feedback of the user or administrator for notification timing of the maintenance message (paragraphs [0039]-[0048], [0063], rules can be set by the user for when an incident occurs and when an action of recommending an action to be execution is taken and the frequency of health checks)
a changing unit configured to change a range of evaluation values for determining that a maintenance message is to be notified to the user or administrator in accordance with the feedback (paragraphs [0039]-[0048], [0063], based on the result of the health check, the frequency of proactive health checks can be increased by the user)
Kuchibhotla et al. does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the evaluation value is related to a condition of a replacement unit of the device
Hitaka et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0084175) discloses:
an analysis unit configured to calculate, based on a value obtained from a device and relating to a condition of a replacement unit of the device, an evaluation value indicating a degree of deterioration of the replacement unit (paragraph [0076], when T exceeds a threshold value, the sheet feed roller needs to be replaced);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Kuchibhotla et al. with the system of Hitaka et al. such that the system would have been configured to have the evaluation value be related to a condition of a replacement unit of the device as described in Hitaka et al. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “improv[ing] image forming device diagnostic accuracy” (paragraph [0002] of the Hitaka et al. reference).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Kuchibhotla and Hitaka disclose the apparatus of the parent claim (claim 1).
Kuchibhotla does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the device has a conveying path for a sheet, the replacement unit includes a unit for conveying the sheet in a predetermined section of the conveying path, and the value relating to the condition of the unit that conveys the sheet is a time taken to convey the sheet in the predetermined section of the conveying path
Hitaka discloses:
wherein the device has a conveying path for a sheet, the replacement unit includes a unit for conveying the sheet in a predetermined section of the conveying path, and the value relating to the condition of the unit that conveys the sheet is a time taken to convey the sheet in the predetermined section of the conveying path (Figure 5, paragraph [0076]-[0077], the sheet is conveyed along the path; when T exceeds a threshold value, the sheet feed roller needs to be replaced);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Kuchibhotla et al. with the system of Hitaka et al. such that the system would have been configured with the device having a conveying path for a sheet, the replacement unit includes a unit for conveying the sheet in a predetermined section of the conveying path, and the value relating to the condition of the unit that conveys the sheet is a time taken to convey the sheet in the predetermined section of the conveying path as described in Hitaka et al. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “improv[ing] image forming device diagnostic accuracy” (paragraph [0002] of the Hitaka et al. reference).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Kuchibhotla and Hitaka disclose the apparatus of the parent claim (claim 22).
Kuchibhotla does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the predetermined section includes a position of the conveyance path in which the sheet is fed to the conveyance path.
Hitaka discloses:
wherein the predetermined section includes a position of the conveyance path in which the sheet is fed to the conveyance path (Figure 5, paragraph [0076]-[0077], the sheet is conveyed to the conveyance path; when T exceeds a threshold value, the sheet feed roller needs to be replaced);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Kuchibhotla et al. with the system of Hitaka et al. such that the system would have been configured wherein the predetermined section included a position of the conveyance path in which the sheet is fed to the conveyance path as described in Hitaka et al. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “improv[ing] image forming device diagnostic accuracy” (paragraph [0002] of the Hitaka et al. reference).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Kuchibhotla and Hitaka disclose the apparatus of the parent claim (claim 22).
Kuchibhotla does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the device is an image forming apparatus that forms an image on the sheet conveyed in the conveyance path.
Hitaka discloses:
wherein the device is an image forming apparatus that forms an image on the sheet conveyed in the conveyance path (Figure 5, paragraph [0076]-[0077], the sheet is conveyed to the conveyance path for image formation)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Kuchibhotla et al. with the system of Hitaka et al. such that the system would have been configured wherein the device was an image forming apparatus that formed an image on the sheet conveyed in the conveyance path as described in Hitaka et al. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “improv[ing] image forming device diagnostic accuracy” (paragraph [0002] of the Hitaka et al. reference).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuchibhotla in view of Hitaka, in further view of Song (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2016/0227033).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kuchibhotla and Hitaka disclose the apparatus of the parent claim (claim 1).
wherein the obtaining unit obtains the feedback by having the user or administrator select one option from a plurality of options presented to the user or administrator (paragraphs [0039]-[0048], [0063], rules can be set by the user for when an incident occurs and when an action of recommending an action to be execution is taken and the frequency of health checks; the user can use the user interface for selecting a time from amongst a variety of times)
Even assuming arguendo that Kuchibhotla does not explicitly disclose:
a plurality of options presented to the user
Song (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2016/0227033) discloses:
wherein the obtaining unit obtains the feedback by having the user or administrator select one option from a plurality of options presented to the user or administrator (Figures 11A, 11B, 12A-C, paragraphs [0121]-[0130], the user is shown graphically in the user interface a range of timeslots that can be selected between that control later notification);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Song with the system of Kuchibhotla such that the system was configured to present a plurality of options to the user as described in Song. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “based on the determined schedule…notify each of the electronic device…[of the] scheduled event” (paragraph [0121] of the Song reference) such that a user has increased control over when notifications occur.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kuchibhotla, Hitaka, and Song discloses the apparatus of the parent claim (claim 2).
The combination of Kuchibhotia and Hitaka does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the plurality of options include at least an option in which the notification timing of the maintenance message is made to be earlier than a current timing, an option in which the notification timing of the maintenance message is made to be later than the current timing, and an option in which the notification timing of the maintenance message is the same as the current timing.
Song discloses:
wherein the plurality of options include at least an option in which the notification timing of the maintenance message is made to be earlier than a current timing, an option in which the notification timing of the maintenance message is made to be later than the current timing, and an option in which the notification timing of the maintenance message is the same as the current timing (Figures 11A, 11B, 12A-C, paragraphs [0121]-[0130], the user is shown graphically in the user interface a range of timeslots that can be selected between that control later notification; through the interface, the user can slide the event forward or backwards in time, or leave it in the same location);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Song with the system of Kuchibhotla such that the system was configured to present a plurality of options, including moving it earlier or later or leaving it the same, to the user as described in Song. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “based on the determined schedule…notify each of the electronic device…[of the] scheduled event” (paragraph [0121] of the Song reference) such that a user has increased control over when notifications occur.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuchibhotla in view of Hitaka, in further view of Horade (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2018/0207967)
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kuchibhotla and Hitaka disclose the apparatus of the parent claim (claim 1).
The combination of Kuchibhotia and Hitaka does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the obtaining unit obtains the feedback of the user or administrator periodically or after the maintenance message is notified to the user or administrator
Horade (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2018/0207967) discloses:
wherein the obtaining unit obtains the feedback of the user or administrator periodically or after the maintenance message is notified to the user or administrator (paragraph [0134], the user confirms the information via operation in the displayed confirmation screen)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Horade with the combination of Kuchibhotia and Hitaka such that the obtaining unit obtained the feedback of the user or administrator periodically or after the maintenance message is notified to the user or administrator as described in Horade. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of making “the user…highly likely [to perform the maintenance]” (paragraph [0147] of the Horade reference) and thereby lead to greater operational continuity of the machine.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Kuchibhotla and Hitaka disclose the apparatus of the parent claim (claim 1).
The combination of Kuchibhotia and Hitaka does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the maintenance message is a message urging replacement of the replacement unit or a message announcing that the replacement of the replacement unit is near.
Horade discloses:
wherein the maintenance message is a message urging replacement of the replacement unit or a message announcing that the replacement of the replacement unit is near (paragraph [0145], the system notifies that refilling of the ink is necessary due to low ink).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Horade with the combination of Kuchibhotia and Hitaka such that the maintenance message was a message urging replacement of the replacement unit or a message announcing that the replacement of the replacement unit is near as described in Horade. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of making “the user…highly likely [to perform the maintenance]” (paragraph [0147] of the Horade reference) and thereby lead to greater operational continuity of the machine.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuchibhotla in view of Hitaka, in further view of Imazeki et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2011/0007337).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kuchibhotla and Hitaka disclose the apparatus of the parent claim (claim 1).
The combination of Kuchibhotla and Hitaka does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the analysis unit repeatedly obtains the value relating to the condition of the replacement unit from the device, and the evaluation value is a value based on a variance value of the value repeatedly obtained.
Imazeki (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2011/0007337) discloses:
wherein the analysis unit repeatedly obtains the value relating to the condition of the replacement unit from the device, and the evaluation value is a value based on a variance value of the value repeatedly obtained (see, for example, Abstract, paragraph [0091], the system continues to track sheet transfer time values and evaluates the variance in sheet transfer time)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Imazeki with the combination of Kuchibhotia and Hitaka such that the analysis unit repeatedly obtained the value relating to the condition of the replacement unit from the device, and the evaluation value was a value based on a variance value of the value repeatedly obtained as described in Imazeki. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “more specifically…predict[ing] failure of a fixing device provided in the image forming apparatus” (paragraph [0002] of the Imazeki reference).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30-5 PM.
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 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.
/JOHN R WALLACE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights