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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 claims “the information processing apparatus;”. This is the first iteration of the information processing apparatus in the claim. It is clear that this should be an information processing apparatus. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 states that the service manual is downloaded from “a server”. It is unclear if this is the first or second server. Based on the other claims, it appears this would correspond to the first server. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hironaka (US 2024/0176556) in view of Onishi (US 2012/0317480).
Regarding Claim 1, Hironaka teaches an information processing apparatus (Paragraph 2) that displays countermeasure methods of errors or maintenance items to a user (Paragraph 61, wherein the countermeasures are displayed), the apparatus comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (Paragraph 31, wherein there is memory); and
at least one processor (Element 101, wherein there is a CPU), that when executing the stored instructions causes the information processing to:
to acquire, countermeasure methods corresponding to an error or maintenance item that occurred on an image forming apparatus and a priority for each countermeasure method (Paragraphs 39, 58, 59, and 83, wherein the countermeasures are determined); and
display the countermeasure methods and priorities (Paragraphs 139 and 140 and Fig. 9A, wherein the countermeasures can be displayed with a priority metric).
Hironaka does not teach download, from a server, service manual information including countermeasure methods for each error or maintenance item associated with respective image forming apparatuses and a priority for each countermeasure method;
store the downloaded service manual information.
Onishi does teach download, from a server, service manual information including countermeasure methods for each error or maintenance item associated with respective image forming apparatuses and a priority for each countermeasure method (Paragraph 63, wherein the service manual is downloaded. The service manual is used to correct errors, countermeasures, paragraph 63-66);
store the downloaded service manual information (Paragraph 63, wherein the information is stored).
Hironaka and Onishi are combinable because they both deal with correcting problems in an image forming apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Hironaka with the teachings of Onishi for the purpose of ensuring proper information is displayed to a user (Onishi: Paragraph 11).
Regarding Claim 2, Hironaka further teaches wherein the priority includes statistical information for each part of an image forming apparatus that is a target of a corresponding countermeasure method and a rank for each countermeasure method (Paragraph 109, wherein the priority is ranked according to statistics).
Regarding Claim 4, Hironaka further teaches wherein the priority of each of the countermeasure methods is based on a ratio at which the countermeasure methods are adopted (Paragraph 139, wherein a ratio can be considered).
Regarding Claim 5, Onishi further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to, for a countermeasure method for a part of an image forming apparatus that is not a part that is a target of the countermeasure methods, does not display a priority of the countermeasure method (Paragraph 84, wherein the proper page is displayed corresponding to the countermeasure needed. This corresponds to only displaying what is needed, paragraphs 70-81).
Hironaka and Onishi are combinable because they both deal with correcting problems in an image forming apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Hironaka with the teachings of Onishi for the purpose of ensuring proper information is displayed to a user (Onishi: Paragraph 11).
Regarding Claim 6, Hironaka further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to display the countermeasure methods in an order corresponding to the priority of each of the countermeasure methods (Paragraph 149, wherein the countermeasure priority is taken into account when displaying the countermeasure).
Regarding Claim 7, Hironaka further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to display the countermeasure methods in an order corresponding to an estimated record value resulting from multiplying a coefficient corresponding to a rank of the countermeasure method with statistical information of a part of an image forming apparatus associated with the countermeasure method (Paragraphs 111-117, wherein the priority is calculated according to a formula as derived).
Regarding Claim 8, Onishi further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to download a designated portion in the service manual information, which is stored on the server (Paragraph 83, wherein the page is displayed that corresponds to the error).
Hironaka and Onishi are combinable because they both deal with correcting problems in an image forming apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Hironaka with the teachings of Onishi for the purpose of ensuring proper information is displayed to a user (Onishi: Paragraph 11).
Regarding Claim 9, Hironaka teaches a maintenance support system (Paragraph 2), comprising:
a first server (Element 200, wherein there can be a server); and
a second server (Paragraph 169, wherein there can be a separate device for the learning),
wherein the information processing apparatus comprises:
at least one memory storing instructions (Paragraph 31, wherein there is memory), and
at least one processor (Element 101, wherein there is a CPU), that when executing the stored instructions causes the information processing to:
acquire, countermeasure methods corresponding to an error or maintenance item that occurred on an image forming apparatus and a priority for each countermeasure method (Paragraphs 39, 58, 59, and 83, wherein the countermeasures are determined), and
display the countermeasure methods and priorities (Paragraphs 139 and 140 and Fig. 9A, wherein the countermeasures can be displayed with a priority metric),
wherein the second server is configured to collect and update statistical information for the countermeasure methods for each error or maintenance item (Paragraphs 63 and 64, wherein the information is learned, updated, for the countermeasures), and
wherein the priorities of the service manual information stored in the first server are updated based on the statistical information stored in the second server (Paragraphs 63-64, wherein the information is updated).
Hironaka does not teach the information processing apparatus (Element 160, wherein there is a separate terminal);
download, from a server, service manual information including countermeasure methods for each error or maintenance item associated with respective image forming apparatuses and a priority for each countermeasure method (Paragraph 63, wherein the service manual is downloaded. The service manual is used to correct errors, countermeasures, paragraph 63-66),
store the downloaded service manual information (Paragraph 63, wherein the information is stored),
wherein the first server is configured to store service manual information including countermeasure methods corresponding to an error or a maintenance item associated with respective image forming apparatuses and priorities corresponding to the countermeasure methods and to provide the service manual information to the information processing apparatus (Paragraph 63, wherein the service manual is downloaded. The service manual is used to correct errors, countermeasures, paragraph 63-66), and
wherein the information processing apparatus downloads and stores at least a portion of the service manual information from the first server (Paragraph 83, wherein the page is displayed that corresponds to the error).
Hironaka and Onishi are combinable because they both deal with correcting problems in an image forming apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Hironaka with the teachings of Onishi for the purpose of ensuring proper information is displayed to a user (Onishi: Paragraph 11).
Regarding Claim 10, Hironaka teaches a maintenance support method in a maintenance support system (Paragraph 2) comprising, a first server configured to store service manual information including countermeasure methods corresponding to each of errors or maintenance items for respective image forming apparatuses and priorities corresponding to the countermeasure methods (Paragraph 105, wherein the countermeasures and the priorities are given from a server), and a second server configured to collect and update statistical information for the countermeasure methods for each error or maintenance item (Paragraph 169, wherein there can be a separate device for the learning),
the maintenance support method comprising:
updating the priorities of the service manual information stored in the first server based on the statistical information stored in the second server (Paragraphs 63 and 64, wherein the information is learned, updated, for the countermeasures).
Hironaka does not teach an information processing apparatus,
a first server to provide the service manual information to the information processing apparatus,
downloading and storing at least a portion of the service manual information from the first server.
Onishi does teach an information processing apparatus (Element 160, wherein there is a separate terminal),
a first server to provide the service manual information to the information processing apparatus (Paragraph 63, wherein the service manual is downloaded. The service manual is used to correct errors, countermeasures, paragraph 63-66),
downloading and storing at least a portion of the service manual information from the first server (Paragraph 83, wherein the page is displayed that corresponds to the error).
Hironaka and Onishi are combinable because they both deal with correcting problems in an image forming apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Hironaka with the teachings of Onishi for the purpose of ensuring proper information is displayed to a user (Onishi: Paragraph 11).
Regarding Claim 11, Hironaka teaches acquiring, from at least a portion of the stored service manual information, countermeasure methods corresponding to an error or maintenance item that occurred on an image forming apparatus and a priority for each countermeasure method, and displaying the countermeasure methods and priorities (Paragraphs 139 and 140 and Fig. 9A, wherein the countermeasures can be displayed with a priority metric).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hironaka (US 2024/0176556) in view of Onishi (US 2012/0317480) further in view of official notice.
Regarding Claim 3, Hironaka in view of Onishi does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to, in a case where a countermeasure method is not included in the service manual information, not display the rank of the countermeasure method not included in the service manual information.
Official notice is taken that it would have been obvious to not display the rank of a new countermeasure. If there is no information to determine a rank, then a rank cannot be displayed. Therefore, there would not be a need to display a rank, as a priority cannot be determined.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Hironaka with the teachings of Onishi for the purpose of ensuring that a proper rank based on previous information is displayed when available.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional cited prior art of US20060028672(Abiko) relates to determining a priority order for countermeasures for an image forming apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS PACHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-3433. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4.
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, George Eng can be reached at 571-272-7495. 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.
/NICHOLAS PACHOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights