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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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.
(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, and 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).
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 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.
The modification above further renders obvious:
(claim 3) The remaining amount prediction system according to claim 2, 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 (Miyazawa: Fig.4, col. 7 lines 60-67).
(claim 4) The remaining amount prediction system according to claim 3,
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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARLENE HEREDIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30-5:30.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/Arlene Heredia Ocasio/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights