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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) and their disclosed structure in parenthesis is/are: a storage device (memory/HDD), an electronic device (image forming apparatus) introduced in claims 1 and claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 10,001,722 to Miyazawa.
Miyazawa teaches:
(claim 1) A remaining amount prediction system comprising:
a storage device that stores actual measurement value data (R1) indicating an amount of actually remaining consumable product used in an electronic device (col. 3 lines 4-23, col. 4 lines 3-7) ; and
a controller (20, Fig.2) that includes a processor (22) and functions as a remaining amount predictor that predicts an empty day when the amount of remaining consumable product will become equal to or less than a specific amount on the basis of the amount actually remaining consumable product by the processor executing a remaining amount prediction program (col. 6 lines 20-24),
wherein the remaining amount predictor switches a prediction method to be used to predict the empty day from a linear approximation using method using linear approximation (S60, Fig.2) to a machine learning model using method using a machine learning model (S50, Fig.2) in a process in which the amount of actually remaining consumable product decreases;
wherein the remaining amount predictor switches the prediction method from the linear approximation using method to the machine learning model using method in a case where the amount of actually remaining consumable product is equal to or less than a specific remaining amount, and maintains the linear approximation using method as the prediction method in a case where the amount of actually remaining consumable product exceeds the specific remaining amount (Fig.4, col. 7 lines 60-67),
wherein the amount of actually remaining consumable product is a value detected by a sensor that detects a remaining amount of the consumable product (col. 3 lines 18-23), and the remaining amount predictor sets the specific remaining amount to be equal to or greater than a reference value.
Miyazawa does not specifically disclose the specific remaining amount set to be equal to or greater than a lower limit of detection by the sensor. Examiner takes Official Notice that, when making a control method decision (i.e., setting a decision threshold) based on a sensor measurement, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to work above the limit of detection of the sensor as to operate a sufficient degree of confidence on the sensor output.
The same arguments above also render obvious:
(claim 4) The remaining amount prediction system according to claim 1,
wherein the storage device stores the actual measurement value data indicating values of amounts of toner remaining in an image forming apparatus as the electronic device actually measured every day (Miyazawa: col. 3 line 67), and the remaining amount predictor switches the prediction method in a case (Miyazawa: Fig.2, S40=YES) where the amount of remaining toner indicated by the latest actual measurement value out of the values actually measured every day is equal to or less than a specific remaining amount, and does not switch the prediction method in a case (Miyazawa: Fig.2, S40=NO) where the amount of remaining toner indicated by the latest actual measurement value exceeds the specific remaining amount (Miyazawa: Fig.4, col. 7 lines 60-67).
(claim 5) A computer-readable non-transitory recording medium that stores a remaining amount prediction program, wherein the remaining amount prediction program causes a computer including a processor and a storage device that stores actual measurement value data indicating an amount of actually remaining consumable product used in an electronic device to function as a remaining amount predictor that predicts an empty day when the amount of remaining consumable product will become equal to or less than a specific amount on the basis of the amount of actually remaining consumable product by the processor executing the remaining amount prediction program, the remaining amount predictor switches a prediction method to be used to predict the empty day from a linear approximation using method using linear approximation to a machine learning model using method using a machine learning model in a process in which the amount of actually remaining consumable product decreases (Figs.1-5, col. 3 lines 31-65); the remaining amount predictor switches the prediction method from the linear approximation using method to the machine learning model using method in a case where the amount of actually remaining consumable product is equal to or less than a specific remaining amount, and maintains the linear approximation using method as the prediction method in a case where the amount of actually remaining consumable product exceeds the specific remaining amount (Fig.4, col. 7 lines 60-67), and the amount of actually remaining consumable product is a value detected by a sensor that detects a remaining amount of the consumable product (col. 3 lines 18-23), and the remaining amount predictor sets the specific remaining amount to be equal to or greater than a lower limit of detection by the sensor.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,001,722 to Miyazawa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2025/0138464 to Nomura.
Regarding claim 2, Miyazawa teaches a remaining amount prediction system according to claim 1, wherein the remaining amount predictor switches the prediction method from the linear approximation using method to the machine learning model using method but does not explicitly suggest further switching the method based on the number of days from the current date to the empty day predicted using the linear approximation.
Nomura discloses switching a remaining amount prediction method (from line 906 to line 904 in Fig.9) in a case where the number of days from the current date to the empty day predicted using a linear approximation is equal to or less than a specific number of days (e.g. 10), and maintains the linear approximation using method as the prediction method in a case where the number of days until the empty day exceeds the specific number of days.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure a remaining amount prediction system according to claim 1 such that in a case where the number of days from the current date to the empty day predicted using the linear approximation is equal to or less than a specific number of days, and maintains the linear approximation using method as the prediction method in a case where the number of days until the empty day exceeds the specific number of days, for at least the purpose of completely consuming the consumable by the time a replacement is ordered.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 3309565 is relevant to a toner remaining amount detecting apparatus attached to an image forming apparatus.
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.
/Arlene Heredia Ocasio/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights