CTNF 19/048,810 CTNF 100219 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement 06-49-08 The information disclosure statement filed May 9, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The publication number listed for the disclosed U.S. Patent Application does not match the other information in the table. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner notes the disclosed reference has been considered as part of a search of the prior art. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “process” in the second line should be “processor” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7 is objected to because it recites “the basis of the feedback” which may raise issues of antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1, 2, 3 and 6 recite the limitation "the list". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although claim 1 recites “information about unhandled errors of the designated image processing device is listed”, this does not establish sufficient antecedent basis for “the list” as a distinct claim element. Claims 1 and 7 recite the limitations “the designated image processing device” and “the same image processing device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. There is no “designation” step or any variation thereof recited in claims 1 or 7, so it is unclear which image processing device “the designated” refers to. Likewise, it is unclear which image processing device “the same” refers to. Claim 4 recites the limitation “the aggregation of handling records of the maintenance”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although claim 4 recites “prevented from being included in aggregation”, this is a descriptor of how error information is handled, and is does not provide sufficient antecedent basis. Claims 2 – 6 are dependent on claim 1, and do not correct its deficiencies. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 2, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0099272) , hereinafter Takahashi . Regarding claim 1, Takahashi teaches an information provision system comprising: a memory storing instructions (Paragraphs 0040 and 0041) ; and a processor executing the instructions (Paragraphs 0040 and 0041) causing the information provision system to: manage error information indicating errors occurring in an image processing device collected from the image processing device (Paragraphs 0051 and 0052) ; provide a screen in which information about unhandled errors of the designated image processing device is listed (Figs. 15A – 15C) ; and receive feedback related to handling of maintenance performed on the image processing device (Paragraphs 0100 and 0156, an operator or service engineer can input information to indicate that a countermeasure for an error has been completed) , wherein the error information includes device information for identifying an image processing device (Fig. 15A 1702) , an error code corresponding to a failure of the image processing device (The error code column in Fig. 15A) , a date and time of occurrence of an error (The error occurrence date and time column in Fig. 15A) , and handling information indicating whether or not the handling of the maintenance has been performed (Fig. 15B, the standby state) , and wherein the processor updates handling information for an error handled by the maintenance for which the feedback has been received from an unhandled state to a handled state (Paragraphs 0100 and 0156, the standby flag is set to ON) and collectively updates handling information of error codes identical to an error code of the error from the unhandled state to the handled state with respect to the error information of the same image processing device (Paragraph 0154, when the same error occurs multiple times, a counter is updated; Paragraph 0152, this is done to determine whether the frequency requires a remote operation; Paragraph 0156, the standby flag is linked to said remote operation. That is, the standby flag for the remote operation is based on the collective occurrences of errors with the same error code) . Regarding claim 2, Takahashi 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 list (Fig. 9 shows that the error history of a device can include multiple occurrences of an error having the same error code) . Regarding claim 5, Takahashi teaches the information provision system according to claim 1, wherein the processor provides a screen 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 0100 and 0156, the operator can input repair actions on the remote operation screen depicted in Fig. 15C. The operator can also, or alternatively, input repair actions through the standby completion button on the error details screen in Fig. 15B) , an error code of an error for which handling has been performed (The error details screen Fig. 15B shows the error code of the error being handled; Fig. 15C can be accessed through Fig. 15B, linking it to the error code) , and device information indicating the image processing device on which the handling has been performed (Figs. 15B and 15C both show the device information) . Claim 7 recites similar language to claim 1, and is similarly rejected . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Creating Reports and Exporting Data in HP Web Jetadmin (NPL) , hereinafter Jetadmin . Takahashi teaches the information provision system according to claim 2. Takahashi does not explicitly teach the information provision system, wherein, when the information about the plurality of errors having the same error code is displayed together in the list, the processor displays a most recent occurrence date and time among a plurality of occurrence dates and times as occurrence dates and times of errors and displays the number of errors having the same code (Although Takahashi shows an interface displaying errors, it does not display further methods of navigating it) . Jetadmin teaches a screen wherein, when information about the plurality of errors having the same error code is displayed together in the list, the processor displays a most recent occurrence date and time among a plurality of occurrence dates and times as occurrence dates and times (Page 40, Fig. 30, the “Event Date” includes both the date and time) of errors (Bottom of page 38/top of page 39, the logs can be sorted by Event Code/Event Type, at the same time as they are sorted by Event Date, that is, the most recent event of each event type/date will be displayed at the top of each group) and displays the number of errors having the same error code (Page 39, although it is displayed only in Summary mode, which does not show the dates and times of the error, the report 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 history such as Takahashi’s could display the most recent occurrence of a type of error, as well as a total number of occurrences of that type. It would be obvious because grouping and counting similar items is a well-known method of organizing a list, which advantageously makes the list easier for a human operator to understand. Furthermore it is useful for tracking specific error types and error trends (Jetadmin page 37) . Although Jetadmin does not teach displaying both sets of information at once, Jetadmin teaches that each set of information may be desirable to the user depending on the scenario, as they are given the option between them in page 38. It would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that it would be simple to provide both sets of information in one report . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Abraham ( Retry or resolve errors , NPL) . Regarding claim 4, Takahashi teaches the information provision system according to claim 1, wherein the processor assigns a batch action flag to the collectively updated error information (Fig. 10, the standby flag is applied to the entire device, i.e. it is assigned to all the errors which have occurred on the machine) . Takahashi does not explicitly teach that the error information to which the batch action flag is assigned is prevented from being included in aggregation when the aggregation of handling records of the maintenance is performed (Although it is implied that the standby action flag will resolve all errors of the device once maintenance is performed, it is not explicitly stated) . Abraham teaches an error record handling system wherein the error information to which a batch action flag is assigned is prevented from being included in aggregation when the aggregation of handling records of the maintenance is performed ( Automatically resolve duplicate errors , when an error in a flow has been fixed, all errors with the same key are marked as Auto-resolved. The section’s second NOTE indicates that the error count will decrease in all places that display overall flow statistics. That is, in the aggregation of the error count, these auto-resolved errors are excluded; Additionally, because the errors have been marked as auto-resolved, there is no need to resolve them again, similarly to paragraph 0094 of the present application’s Specification) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the flag of Takahashi would prevent information from being included in aggregation when the aggregation of handling records of the maintenance is performed, as taught by Abraham. It would be obvious because it advantageously resolves duplicate errors (Abraham Automatically resolve duplicate errors ) . Abraham also teaches that this process is advantageous even if performed manually (Abraham Resolve option ) . One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that it would be inefficient for the same error to be processed multiple times if it has already been resolved . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Eto et al. (Japanese Patent Document JPH11119962A, cited by Takahashi) , hereinafter Eto . Regarding claim 6, Takahashi teaches the information provision system according to claim 1, wherein a result of an estimation process corresponding to error information selected in the list is provided (Fig. 15B, and paragraph 0135, an appropriate countermeasure method button 1708 will display an error countermeasure method) . Takahashi does not explicitly teach wherein the processor itself 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 (Although the system of Takahashi itself does not explicitly state that the appropriate countermeasure it displays with countermeasure button 1708 was estimated by the system, it refers to Eto as part of its prior art in paragraph 0006. Takahashi states that the trouble countermeasure button of Eto displays an appropriate countermeasure) . Eto teaches a provision system that executes 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 error information selected in the list is provided (Paragraphs 0006 and 0010, the troubleshooting method providing unit 3 provides a handling method via the 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. This indicates that the system can attempt to identify the faulty part causing the error, and extract the corresponding troubleshooting method to display to the user) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the countermeasure method displayed by Takahashi would be the result of an estimation process as taught by Eto. It would be obvious because Takahashi directly cites Eto as a technology it is improving. Takahashi’s improvements to the system of Eto are to allow for remote operation, and are not related to the information provided by the troubleshooter. It would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that because Takahashi was written with the presumption that the system of Eto is conventional (Takahashi paragraph 0006) , it would be useful to refer to Eto with respect to elements not explicitly described in Takahashi, including the method of determining the countermeasure . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Asai et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0069340) and Tsuchiya (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0073482) teach interfaces for displaying error information . 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 Application/Control Number: 19/048,810 Page 2 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/048,810 Page 3 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/048,810 Page 4 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/048,810 Page 5 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/048,810 Page 6 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/048,810 Page 7 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/048,810 Page 8 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/048,810 Page 10 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/048,810 Page 11 Art Unit: 2114
Prosecution Insights