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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed July 17, 2026, with respect to rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed July 17, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claims have been amended to include limitations not taught by the relied upon reference. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of new art found in further search and consideration of the amended claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: A minor typographical error misspells “alert” as “alret”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brindley et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2007/0208698), hereinafter Brindley.
Regarding claim 1, Brindley teaches an information provision system (Paragraph 0017) comprising:
a memory storing instructions (Claim 18 is to “A computer-readable medium comprising instructions”); and
a processor executing the instructions causing the information provision system to (Fig. 2, paragraphs 0024 – 0027; Claim 18):
manage error information indicating errors (Paragraph 0002, when problems occur related to a system, a helpdesk agent may generate a ticket. This ticket / service request contains information about the error) occurring in an image processing device collected from the image processing device (Paragraphs 0002, 0003, and 0069, the problem may be with a printer), wherein the error information includes device information for identifying an image processing device (Paragraph 0068, the service request may include a subarea field indicating that the service request is directed to printing), an error code indicating a failure of the image processing device (Paragraphs 0067 – 0069, the service request area, subarea, type, and description fields indicating information on the problem), a data and time of occurrence of an error (Paragraph 0071, the OPEN DATETIME field indicating when the service request was opened), and handling information indicating whether or not handling of maintenance has been performed (Paragraph 0073, a STATUS/SUBSTATUS field that provides whether or not the service request has been addressed);
provide an error information list screen, wherein the error information list screen displays an alert list that is a list of information about unhandled errors of an image processing device designated by a user (Fig. 6 shows a list screen of open service requests. Figs. 7 and 8 show list screens of potential duplicate service requests for a selected service request designated by a help desk agent. Paragraph 0074 – Once the helpdesk agent has reviewed the details of the selected service request as displayed in the lower section 604 of the “MY HELP DESK SERVICE REQUESTS” page 600, he or she may select a “FIND DUPLICATES” button 636 in order to determine whether the system contains other pending service requests that are based on the same problem. The service request is designated by the help desk agent, who is a user of the service request management system, and the FIND DUPLICATES function lists information on other pending service requests, i.e. unhandled service requests); and
receive feedback related to handling of maintenance performed on the image processing device (Paragraph 0071, the helpdesk agent processes and addresses the service request; Paragraph 0073, a service request that has been fully addressed is assigned the status “closed”), wherein the processor performs batch update processing to update the handling information for a plurality of errors in the image processing apparatus for which the maintenance associated with the feedback has been performed from an unhandled state to a handled state (Paragraph 0077, the helpdesk agent can confirm that a group of duplicate service requests should be handled as a group), wherein the batch update processing includes, in addition to updating the handling information for an error corresponding to the feedback, automatically updating the handling information for another error (Paragraph 0077, In some embodiments, once the “OK” button is selected, the system may notify requesters of picked service requests that their service requests will be addressed as a group of service requests, i.e. the system will automatically update the service requests to be part of a group; Paragraph 0077 Each “picked” service request is then tagged as relating to the selected service request and addressed accordingly) associated with an error code of the error (Paragraph 0075, duplicate service requests may be automatically found by their association with the description of the selected error; Paragraph 0078, duplicate service requests may be automatically found by their matching fields), and
wherein the processor excludes, from the alert list, the information on the error for which the handling information has been updated to the handled state based on the batch update processing (Paragraph 0077, the duplicate requests are “addressed accordingly”. Paragraph 0075, the list of potential duplicates is for pending requests. Therefore addressing the duplicate requests means they are no longer pending, and no longer on the list of potential duplicates. Alternatively, Paragraph 0080 teaches that the duplicate requests are combined into a single trouble ticket. This would remove their original entries and exclude them from the alert list.).
Regarding claim 2, Brindley teaches the information provision system according to claim 1, wherein the processor displays information about a plurality of errors having the same error code together in the alert list (Fig. 8, the duplicates are grouped together by sub area. Fig. 6 shows a sort control UI element by the SR Type field, allowing tickets with the same error type to be grouped together).
Regarding claim 4, Brindley teaches the information provision system according to claim 1,
wherein the processor assigns a batch action flag to the collectively updated error information (Paragraph 0080, the potential duplicates that are to be treated as duplicates are selected with the “PICK” button and grouped together as duplicates), and
wherein the error information to which the batch action flag is assigned is excluded from an aggregation of records of maintenance performed on the image processing device (Paragraph 0080, the duplicate service requests may be consolidated in a single trouble ticket for the entire group. This would remove their original entries and exclude them from the logged list of service requests.).
Regarding claim 5, Brindley teaches the information provision system according to claim 1, wherein the processor provides a screen (Fig. 6, the help desk’s list of service requests) for inputting handling content of the maintenance performed on the image processing device as feedback and receives the feedback including the handling content input to the screen (Paragraph 0073, the agent provides values for the STATUS and SUBSTATUS fields to indicate that the request has been fully addressed; Fig. 6 and paragraph 0071, this information is on the screen for the agent to edit. That is, the agent submits feedback indicating the issue is resolved by changing the STATUS field), an error code for which handling has been performed (Fig. 6 shows the area, subarea, type and description fields can be modified by the agent), and device information indicating the image processing device on which the handling has been performed (Paragraph 0068, the SUBAREA field can indicate that the service request is directed to printing. Fig. 6 shows this subarea field. The requester name, description, and source fields may also indicate which device is at issue).
Regarding claim 7, Brindley teaches a control method of an information provision system (Paragraph 0017), the control method comprising:
managing error information indicating errors (Paragraph 0002, when problems occur related to a system, a helpdesk agent may generate a ticket. This ticket / service request contains information about the error) occurring in an image processing device collected from the image processing device (Paragraphs 0002, 0003, and 0069, the problem may be with a printer), wherein the error information includes device information for identifying an image processing device (Paragraph 0068, the service request may include a subarea field indicating that the service request is directed to printing), an error code indicating a failure of the image processing device (Paragraphs 0067 – 0069, the service request area, subarea, type, and description fields indicating information on the problem), a data and time of occurrence of an error (Paragraph 0071, the OPEN DATETIME field indicating when the service request was opened), and handling information indicating whether or not handling of maintenance has been performed (Paragraph 0073, a STATUS/SUBSTATUS field that provides whether or not the service request has been addressed);
providing an error information list screen, wherein the error information list screen displays an alert list that is a list of information about unhandled errors of an image processing device designated by a user (Fig. 6 shows a list screen of open service requests. Figs. 7 and 8 show list screens of potential duplicate service requests for a selected service request designated by a help desk agent. Paragraph 0074 – Once the helpdesk agent has reviewed the details of the selected service request as displayed in the lower section 604 of the “MY HELP DESK SERVICE REQUESTS” page 600, he or she may select a “FIND DUPLICATES” button 636 in order to determine whether the system contains other pending service requests that are based on the same problem. The service request is designated by the help desk agent, who is a user of the service request management system, and the FIND DUPLICATES function lists information on other pending service requests, i.e. unhandled service requests); and
receiving feedback related to handling of maintenance performed on the image processing device (Paragraph 0071, the helpdesk agent processes and addresses the service request; Paragraph 0073, a service request that has been fully addressed is assigned the status “closed”); and
updating the error information on the basis of the feedback, wherein in the updating, batch update processing is executed to update the handling information for a plurality of errors in the image processing apparatus for which the maintenance associated with the feedback has been performed from an unhandled state to a handled state (Paragraph 0077, the helpdesk agent can confirm that a group of duplicate service requests should be handled as a group), wherein the batch update processing includes, in addition to updating the handling information for an error corresponding to the feedback, automatically updating the handling information for another error (Paragraph 0077, In some embodiments, once the “OK” button is selected, the system may notify requesters of picked service requests that their service requests will be addressed as a group of service requests, i.e. the system will automatically update the service requests to be part of a group; Paragraph 0077 Each “picked” service request is then tagged as relating to the selected service request and addressed accordingly) associated with an error code of the error (Paragraph 0075, duplicate service requests may be automatically found by their association with the description of the selected error; Paragraph 0078, duplicate service requests may be automatically found by their matching fields), and
wherein the information on the error for which the handling information has been updated to the handled state based on the batch update processing is excluded from the alert list (Paragraph 0077, the duplicate requests are “addressed accordingly”. Paragraph 0075, the list of potential duplicates is for pending requests. Therefore addressing the duplicate requests means they are no longer pending, and no longer on the list of potential duplicates. Alternatively, Paragraph 0080 teaches that the duplicate requests are combined into a single trouble ticket. This would remove their original entries and exclude them from the alert list.).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brindley in view of Creating Reports and Exporting Data in HP Web Jetadmin (NPL, cited in previous action), hereinafter Jetadmin.
Regarding claim 3, Brindley teaches the information provision system according to claim 2, wherein, when the information about the plurality of errors having the same error code is displayed together in the alert list, the processor displays a most recent occurrence data and time among a plurality of occurrence dates and times as occurrence dates and times of errors (The potential duplicates in Fig. 8 are sorted by occurrence time, and paragraph 0078 indicates that the OPEN DATETIME field is used to identify potential duplicates; Fig. 6 does not show the Open Datetime field in the table 602, but all fields in the box 604 does. Paragraph 0071 indicates that the sections 602 and 604 share fields. An arrow is visible in the top left corner of table 602, indicating that the other fields are simply hidden from view. Each field has a sort control UI element next to it, indicating that the table 602 can sort the requests by date and time).
Brindley does not teach or suggest to display the number of errors having the same error code.
Jetadmin teaches to display the number of errors having the same error code (The Summary mode on page 39 can be set to display the subtotals per device of Device Errors, Paper Jam Errors, Information Events and Other Events).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that a screen displaying printer fault/service request history such as Brindley’s could display a total number of occurrences of a type of error. It would have been obvious because counting a number of items in a list is a well-known method of organizing a list which advantageously makes the list easier for a human operator to interpret. Furthermore it is useful for tracking specific error types and error trends (Jetadmin page 37).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brindley in view of Eto et al (Japanese Patent Document JPH11119962A, cited in previous Office action), hereinafter Eto.
Regarding claim 6, Brindley teaches the information provision system according to claim 1.
Brindley does not teach the information provision system wherein the processor further executes an instruction causing the information provision system to execute an estimation process related to identifying a faulty part causing an error in the image processing device and estimating an action to resolve the error, and
wherein a result of the estimation process corresponding to the information about the error selected in the alert list is provided (Although Brindley contains an estimation process based on the information to determine whether the same error is related to other service requests, the estimation process is not performed in order to estimate an action to resolve the error. Brindley is not directed to such a recommendation system).
Eto teaches an information provision system wherein the processor further executes an instruction causing the information provision system to execute an estimation process related to identifying a faulty part causing an error in the image processing device and estimating an action to resolve the error (Paragraphs 0006 and 0010, the troubleshooting method providing unit provides a handling method via internet or methods stored in memory; Paragraph 0036 and Fig. 4 message window 70, an error message is displayed that identifies the number of the faulty part, and prompts the user to press the troubleshooting button for more details on an action to resolve the error, indicating that the faulty part was determined), and
wherein a result of the estimation process corresponding to the information about the error selected in the alert list is provided (Paragraphs 0037/0038, the display window shows the troubleshooting method).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a solution recommendation system similar to that of Eto to the service ticket management system of Brindley. It would have been obvious because automatic solution retrieval beneficially allows for more efficient troubleshooting of technical issues (Eto paragraph 0004). There is a reasonable expectation for success because Brindley already teaches that the necessary information is provided (Paragraph 0069 teaches that the area, subarea, and description fields may be used to determined an appropriate recipient or measure to take for a service request) and that this information can be automatically analyzed (Paragraph 0076 teaches that a degree of similarity can be computed to estimate which requests are duplicates); it would be relatively simple to adapt the existing information and analysis to the purpose of estimating an appropriate resolution action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Okuhara et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2005/0246577) teaches a method for monitoring image processing devices and issues with them remotely. It is not relied upon as it does not expressly teach to resolve issues as a batch.
Fisher et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2004/0153693) teaches a method for automatically determining if an existing incident report is correlated with another report that already exists. It is not relied upon as it lacks relevant details regarding its interface.
Relevant to dependent claim 6, Ueno (US Patent Application Publication 2003/0088451) teaches a method for automatically recommending solutions in a service desk setting similar to Brindley. It is not relied upon as the previously cited Eto reference remains relevant to the claim.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN PAI SONG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0510. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:30 AM - 8:30 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, ASHISH THOMAS can be reached at (571) 272-0631. 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.
/B.P.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2114
/ASHISH THOMAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights