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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed 12/3/24, 9/2/25 and 9/10/26 are acknowledged, the references therein relating to the general background of applicant’s invention with the exception of U.S. patent application publication 2024/0020063 by Fukuhara which has particular relevance as noted below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The language “created based on the machine body information sent to the center server” appears to require additional punctuation as it appears applicant’s intended invention is that “maintenance information” (generated based off of “machine body” information) is transmitted to the server and not the machine body information itself. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
1) Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 10-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. patent application publication 2024/0020063 by Fukuhara.
2) Regarding claim 1, Fukuhara teaches an image forming device (figure 1, item 1; an MFP), comprising: a first communication interface configured to communicate with a printer device to be maintained; a second communication interface configured to communicate with a center server that manages maintenance information for the printer device (figure 1, items 4 and 6; paragraphs 22, 77 and 79; two distinct networks are disclosed with printer 1 interacting with each through wired or wireless communications [i.e. two interfaces]); and a processor configured to transmit, according to machine body information received from the printer device through the first communication interface, the maintenance information about the printer device created based on the machine body information sent to the center server through the second communication interface (figure 7; paragraphs 77-79; event data in printer 2 is sent to printer 1 and then based on “proxy processing” sends particular information to server 5).
3) Regarding claim 4, Fukuhara teaches the image forming device according to claim 1, further comprising: a display, wherein the processor displays a warning, which is based on the machine body information, on the display according to the machine body information received from the printer device (paragraph 48; event data can be displayed on printer 1).
4) Regarding claim 5, Fukuhara teaches the image forming device according to claim 1, wherein the maintenance information is based on a failure prediction in the printer device (figures 8 and 9; paragraph 82; event sent to printer 1 for proxy packet processing [figure 9] can be a prediction consumables will run out [i.e. a failure]).
5) Regarding claim 6, Fukuhara teaches the image forming device according to claim 1, wherein the first communication interface is configured to communicate with a plurality of printer devices to be maintained (figure 1; plurality of printers disclosed).
6) Claims 7 and 10-12 are taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claims 1 and 4-6, respectively above.
7) Claim 13 is taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, with the exception: the printer device includes a third communication interface configured to communicate with the image forming device, and a second processor configured to transmit the machine body information to the image forming device through the third communication interface (figure 2, items 201 and 203; processor and communication interface disclosed).
8) Regarding claim 14, Fukuhara teaches the information transmission system according to claim 13, comprising a plurality of printer devices, each printer device includes a third communication interface configured to communicate with the image forming device, and a second processor configured to transmit the machine body information to the image forming device through the third communication interface (figures 1 and 2; plurality of thermal printers disclosed each with capabilities of figure 2).
9) Claims 17-19 are taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claims 4-6, respectively above.
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.
10) Claim(s) 2, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2024/0020063 by Fukuhara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2020/0379693 by Nishizaki.
11) Regarding claim 2, Fukuhara does not specifically teach the image forming device according to claim 1, wherein the printer device is a label printer.
Nishizaki teaches the image forming device according to claim 1, wherein the printer device is a label printer (figure 1; paragraph 40; plurality of networked printers joined to intermediary device collection status information can be label printers).
Fukuhara and Nishizaki are combinable because they are both from the networked printer maintenance field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Fukuhara with Nishizaki to add label printers. The motivation for doing so would have been to “manage statuses” of a plurality of label printers (paragraph 4). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Fukuhara with Nishizaki to obtain the invention of claim 2.
12) Claims 8 and 15 are taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 2 above.
13) Claim(s) 3, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2024/0020063 by Fukuhara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2016/0036797 by Mano et al.
14) Regarding claim 3, Fukuhara does not specifically teach the image forming device according to claim 1, wherein the processor transmits, to the center server, data obtained by encrypting the maintenance information about the printer device in a manner allowing the center server to decrypt the maintenance information.
Mano teaches the image forming device according to claim 1, wherein the processor transmits, to the center server, data obtained by encrypting the maintenance information about the printer device in a manner allowing the center server to decrypt the maintenance information (paragraph 53; maintenance information can be encrypted and read only by the intended server [i.e. decrypted]).
Fukuhara and Mano are combinable because they are both from the networked printer maintenance field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Fukuhara with Mano to add encryption. The motivation for doing so would have been to “shut out” other devices from the transmitted data (paragraph 53). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Fukuhara with Mano to obtain the invention of claim 3.
15) Claims 9 and 16 are taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571)270-5254. 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.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights