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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
a role of a worker during work
instructions and
issuing an instruction, in response to selection of an item that is included in a manual displayed and is associated with maintenance
transmit information of the maintenance associated with the item for each role of the worker who performed the selection; and
displaying the maintenance based on the information transmitted in response to the instruction
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)**
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “display, storage, memory, processor, maintenance screen, image storing apparatus, non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being managing personal behavior. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, display, storage, memory, processor, maintenance screen, image storing apparatus, non-transitory computer readable storage medium. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f);
- (non-transitory computer readable medium; display; storage; memory; processor;)
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use-(image storing apparatus and maintenance screen)
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already
presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two; While claims 2 describes a remote operation server, client, image forming apparatus and maintenance screen; Claim 3 describes a maintenance screen and image forming apparatus; Claim 4 describes a a maintenance screen, image forming apparatus and virtual button; Claim 5 describes a virtual button; Claim 6 describes a server; maintenance screen and image forming apparatus and display; Claim 7 describes a maintenance screen; Claim 8 describes a maintenance screen and image forming apparatus; these additional elements do not remedy the deficiencies.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
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)(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, 3, 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ueda U.S. Patent No. 10,984,520.
As per Claims 1 and 9-10, Ueda teaches a display (see Col. 6 lines 40-45);
a storage holding a role of a worker during work (see Col. 6 lines 57-63, the Examiner is in interpreting the maintenance guidance to be performed, as the stored role of a worker during work);
at least one memory storing instructions (see Col. 6 lines 51-63); and
at least one processor that is in communication with the at least one memory and that, when executing the instructions, cooperates with the at least one memory to execute processing, the processing including (see fig. 4)
issuing an instruction, in response to selection of an item that is included in a manual displayed by the display and is associated with a maintenance screen of the image forming apparatus displayed by the image forming apparatus on a display of the image forming apparatus, to the image forming apparatus to transmit screen information of the maintenance screen associated with the item for each role of the worker who performed the selection (see Col. 7 lines 10-17 and Col. 8 lines 18-31, the Examiner is interpreting the inspection machine as an image forming apparatus); and
displaying the maintenance screen on the display based on the screen information transmitted by the image forming apparatus in response to the instruction (see Col.8 lines 18-24).
As per Claim 3, Ueda teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Ueda further teaches wherein the maintenance screen and the item are associated with each other by a command corresponding to each maintenance screen held by the image forming apparatus and a command instructed to the image forming apparatus by the instruction (see Col. lines 18-24 and Col. 7 lines 45-52).
As per Claim 6, Ueda teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Ueda further teaches wherein the processing further includes acquiring, from a server (see Col. 8 lines 21-24), the manual and information regarding an association between the item included in the manual and the maintenance screen (see Col. 8 lines 31-34), wherein the instruction instructs the image forming apparatus to transmit the maintenance screen associated with the information in response to a selection of the information from the manual that is displayed on the display and was acquired by the acquiring selection (see Col. 7 lines 10-17 and Col. 8 lines 18-31);.
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.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda U.S. Patent No. 10,984,520 in view of Hofrichter U.S. Patent No. 7,260,597
As per Claim 2, Ueda teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Ueda does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Hofrichter a remote operation client for a remote operation server of the image forming apparatus (see Col. 2 lines 48-56), wherein the remote operation client transmits an instruction to the image forming apparatus in response to an operation performed on the maintenance screen displayed on the display (see Col. 11 lines 4-21). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Ueda to include the teachings of Hofrichter to enable remote support, as taught by the cited portion of Hofrichter.
As per Claim 8, Ueda teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Ueda does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Hofrichter wherein the maintenance screen is a screen for a user to perform maintenance and inspection of the image forming apparatus (see Col. 11 lines 4-21). The motivation is the same as opined above.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda U.S. Patent No. 10,984,520 in view of Noh U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0317503 A1
As per Claim 4, Ueda teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Ueda teaches the limitation taught by wherein the maintenance screen and the item are associated with each other by a button corresponding to each maintenance screen held by the image forming apparatus, and a button that is associated with the item and is instructed to the image forming apparatus by the instruction (see Col. lines 59-67). Ueda does not explicitly teach the button as being virtual. Noh describes virtual buttons and their mappings (see para. 62). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Ueda to include the teachings of Noh to enable faster access to mapped functionality as suggested by the cited portion of Noh.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda U.S. Patent No. 10,984,520 in view of Official Notice.
As per Claim 7, Ueda teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Ueda does not explicitly teach wherein the displaying includes re-displaying the manual in response to an operation of closing the maintenance screen. Official Notice is taken that re-opening a document after closing was old and well known in the art of GUIs at the time the invention was filed. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Ueda to include the teachings of Official Notice to continue where on left off in a session that was closed in error.
Claim 5 is not rejected by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628