DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application and preliminary amendments filed on 25 February 2025. This communication is the first action on merits. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 20 has been amended.
Claim 19 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-18 and 21 are original / previously presented.
Claims 1-18, and 20-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
This application 19/106,232 filed on 25 February 2025 is a national stage entry of PCT/JP2023/042437, which claims priority from Japan application JP2022-190545 filed on 29 November 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 25 February 2025 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11:
Claim 11 includes the limitation “wherein the fee calculation unit calculates a work fee each time required each time when maintenance of the printing device is performed based on the derived maintenance information” in which the second instance of the words ‘each time’ may be erroneous inclusions (e.g. wherein the fee calculation unit calculates a work fee each time required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 9 and 18 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.
Claim 9:
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the calculated evaluation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this will be interpreted as ‘the evaluation of the user’.
Claim 18:
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the printing device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this will be interpreted as a printing device.
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) is/are: maintenance information deriving unit in claims 1-18, 20-21; evaluation unit in claims 1-18, 20-21; fee calculation unit in claims 1-18, 20; related information deriving unit in claims 12-13.
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 § 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 1-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-18, and 20-21:
Step 1:
Claims 1-17 and 21 recite a device; claim 18 recites a method; and claim 20 recites a system. Since the claims recite either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claim(s) 1-18, and 20-21 recite an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 recites: derives maintenance information related to an occurrence risk of a maintenance work of a printing device based on at least one of operation record information related to an operation record of the printing device, execution history information related to an execution history of a maintenance work of the printing device, ink information related to ink used in the printing device, media information related to a medium to be printed by the printing device, and installation environment information related to an installation environment of the printing device; derives an evaluation for a user of the printing device based on the maintenance information and at least one of a usage amount of a consumable used in the printing device and a purchase amount of the consumable; and calculates a maintenance contract fee for maintenance work of the printing device based on the derived evaluation of the user. Independent claim 18 recites: a maintenance information deriving step of deriving maintenance information related to an occurrence risk of a maintenance work of the printing device based on at least one of operation record information related to an operation record of the printing device, execution history information related to an execution history of a maintenance work of the printing device, ink information related to ink used in the printing device, media information related to a medium to be printed by the printing device, and installation environment information related to an installation environment of the printing device; an evaluation step of deriving evaluation of a user of the printing device based on the maintenance information and at least one of a usage amount of a consumable used in the printing device and a purchase amount of the consumable; and a fee calculation step of calculating a maintenance contract fee for maintenance work of the printing device based on the derived evaluation of the user. Independent claim 21 recites: derives maintenance information related to an occurrence risk of a maintenance work of the printing device based on at least one of operation record information related to an operation record of the printing device, execution history information related to an execution history of a maintenance work of the printing device, ink information related to ink used in the printing device, media information related to a medium to be printed by the printing device, and installation environment information related to an installation environment of the printing device; and derives an evaluation of a user of the printing device based on the maintenance information and at least one of a usage amount of a consumable used in the printing device and a purchase amount of the consumable.
The claim(s) as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities, and individual limitations also recite mental processes and mathematical concepts.
First, the limitations of deriving maintenance information related to an occurrence risk of a maintenance work of the printing device based on at least one of operation record information related to an operation record of the printing device, execution history information related to an execution history of a maintenance work of the printing device, ink information related to ink used in the printing device, media information related to a medium to be printed by the printing device, and installation environment information related to an installation environment of the printing device; deriving evaluation of a user of the printing device based on the maintenance information and at least one of a usage amount of a consumable used in the printing device and a purchase amount of the consumable; and calculating a maintenance contract fee for maintenance work of the printing device based on the derived evaluation of the user are certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, mitigating risk, agreements in the form of contracts, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions. For example, fundamental economic principles or practices includes calculating a maintenance contract fee for maintenance work…; mitigating risks includes deriving maintenance information related to an occurrence of risk of a maintenance work…, deriving evaluation of a user…, calculating a maintenance contract fee for maintenance work…; agreements in the form of contracts includes calculating a maintenance contract fee for maintenance work…; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes deriving maintenance information related to an occurrence of risk of a maintenance work…, deriving evaluation of a user…, calculating a maintenance contract fee for maintenance work…; and following rules or instructions includes deriving maintenance information related to an occurrence of risk of a maintenance work…, deriving evaluation of a user…, calculating a maintenance contract fee for maintenance work… . The presence of generic computer components such as a maintenance information deriving unit (i.e. CPU, see Applicant specification ¶[0017], ¶[0022]), evaluation unit (i.e. CPU, see Applicant specification ¶[0017], ¶[0022]), fee calculation unit (i.e. CPU, see Applicant specification ¶[0017],¶[0022]) does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. Method claim 18 does not specify who or what is performing any of the steps, and under broadest reasonable interpretation each of these steps could be performed by a person. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices, mitigating risk, agreements in the form of contracts, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Second, the limitations of deriving maintenance information related to an occurrence risk of a maintenance work of the printing device based on at least one of operation record information related to an operation record of the printing device, execution history information related to an execution history of a maintenance work of the printing device, ink information related to ink used in the printing device, media information related to a medium to be printed by the printing device, and installation environment information related to an installation environment of the printing device; deriving evaluation of a user of the printing device based on the maintenance information and at least one of a usage amount of a consumable used in the printing device and a purchase amount of the consumable; and calculating a maintenance contract fee for maintenance work of the printing device based on the derived evaluation of the user as drafted are processes that, under its/their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind (i.e. mental processes) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a maintenance information deriving unit (i.e. CPU, see Applicant specification ¶[0017], ¶[0022]), evaluation unit (i.e. CPU, see Applicant specification ¶[0017], ¶[0022]), fee calculation unit (i.e. CPU, see Applicant specification ¶[0017],¶[0022]), nothing in the claim elements preclude these steps from practically being performed in the mind, or in the mind with the assistance of pen / pencil and paper. For example, but for the generic / general purpose computer language, deriving maintenance information in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually evaluating operation record information / execution history information / ink information media information and judging an occurrence risk of maintenance work; deriving evaluation of a user in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually evaluating a user / maintenance information / usage; and calculating in the context of this claim represents a user manually evaluating the user and judging a maintenance contract fee. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Mental Processes’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Third, the calculating of a maintenance contract fee limitations recite a mathematical formula or calculation that is used to calculate a maintenance contract fee based on an input (e.g. derived evaluation of the user). The claim explicitly recites calculating. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept (mathematical calculation). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts (e.g. mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Mathematical Concepts’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, claims 1-18, and 20-21 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. a maintenance information deriving unit (i.e. CPU, see Applicant specification ¶[0017], ¶[0022]), evaluation unit (i.e. CPU, see Applicant specification ¶[0017], ¶[0022]), fee calculation unit (i.e. CPU, see Applicant specification ¶[0017],¶[0022]) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing manual process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Method claim 18 does not specify who or what is performing any of the steps, and using broadest reasonable interpretation each of these steps could be performed by a person. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of the printing device in the limitations does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use (i.e. printers), and as such does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h). Hence, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (e.g. maintenance information deriving unit, evaluation unit, fee calculation unit), applied to a field of use (e.g. printing devices). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a maintenance information deriving unit (i.e. CPU, see Applicant specification ¶[0017], ¶[0022]), evaluation unit (i.e. CPU, see Applicant specification ¶[0017], ¶[0022]), fee calculation unit (i.e. CPU, see Applicant specification ¶[0017],¶[0022]) to perform deriving maintenance information related to an occurrence of risk of a maintenance work…, deriving evaluation of a user…, calculating a maintenance contract fee for maintenance work… amounts to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic computers. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element regarding the printing device does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. printers). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(h). See the Applicant’s specification background ¶[0002-3] describing the additional element of printing devices, and that a manufacturer of a printing device has a maintenance contract with a user to perform maintenance and repair at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead the claims represent a generic implementation of certain methods of organizing human activities ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers, generally ‘applied’ to a field of use. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to calculate a fee for maintenance based on risk and usage), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers, printers), rather than solving a technology based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims do not improve the functioning of a printing device. The claims are more directed towards improving a business / economic / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually, both with respect to the independent claims 1, 18, 21, and further considering the addition of dependent claims 2-17 and 20. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016). Hence, the ordered combination of elements does not provide significantly more. With respect to the dependent claims:
Dependent claim 2: The limitation wherein the operation record information includes at least one of an energization time, a number of energization times, an operation time, a number of operations, a usage amount of the ink, a printing area on the medium printed by the printing device, a printing success rate, and an error occurrence history merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3: The limitation wherein the execution history information includes at least one of a cleaning execution history of the printing device, a station maintenance execution history of the printing device, a head maintenance execution history of the printing device, a wiper replacement history of the printing device, a number of times of periodic inspection of the printing device, a number of times of maintenance work other than malfunction repair and periodic inspection of the printing device, a number of times of replacement of a maintenance component of the printing device, a replacement interval of a maintenance component of the printing device, a usage record of a maintenance component of the printing device, a consumable used in the printing device, and a maintenance replacement used in the printing device merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4: The limitation wherein the ink information includes at least one of information related to a type of the ink, information related to whether the ink is genuine, and information related to a component of the ink merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5: The limitation wherein the media information includes at least one of information related to a type of the medium, information related to whether the medium is genuine, and information related to whether the medium is a recommended product merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6: The limitation wherein the installation environment information includes at least one of temperature, humidity, altitude, and cleanliness of an installation place where the printing device is installed, an inclination angle of a floor on which the printing device is installed, an irradiation amount of ultraviolet rays at the installation place, information related to illuminance and luminance at the installation place, information related to a material of the floor, and information related to a structure of a building at the installation place merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7: The limitation wherein the evaluation unit further derives the evaluation of the user based on the number of the printing devices owned is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (mitigating risks, managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions), and mental process (evaluation, judgment) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the evaluation unit is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8: The limitation wherein the evaluation unit further derives the evaluation of the user based on at least one of whether a maintenance history of the printing device is recorded, the number of printing successes and the number of error occurrences by the printing device, the usage amount of the genuine medium and the genuine ink with respect to the entire printing time of the printing device, whether maintenance of the printing device is implemented at a predetermined frequency, a replacement frequency of a maintenance component and a cost required for replacing the maintenance component with respect to the entire printing time of the printing device, and a usage state of the replaced maintenance component is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (mitigating risks, managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions), and mental process (evaluation, judgment) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the evaluation unit is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9: The limitation wherein the fee calculation unit calculates a grade of the user, which is a stepwise value, based on the calculated evaluation, and calculates the maintenance contract fee based on the calculated grade is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices, agreements in the form of contracts, managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions), mathematical concept (mathematical calculation), and mental process (evaluation, judgment) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the evaluation unit is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10: The limitation wherein the fee calculation unit further calculates the maintenance contract fee based on an installation place of the printing device is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices, agreements in the form of contracts, managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions), mathematical concept (mathematical calculation), and mental process (evaluation, judgment) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the fee calculation unit is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11: The limitation wherein the fee calculation unit calculates a work fee each time required each time when maintenance of the printing device is performed based on the derived maintenance information is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices, agreements in the form of contracts, managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions), mathematical concept (mathematical calculation), and mental process (evaluation, judgment) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the fee calculation unit is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12: The limitation a related information deriving unit that derives related information related to the printing device based on at least one of the derived maintenance information and the evaluation of the user is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions), and mental process (evaluation, judgment) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the related information deriving unit is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13: The limitation wherein the related information includes at least one of information related to an improvement point in use of the printing device, information related to soundness of the printing device, and information related to a maintenance time of the printing device merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14: The limitation wherein the maintenance information deriving unit further derives the maintenance information based on at least one of the number of times of maintenance work occurring within a predetermined period in the printing device, a cost of maintenance work of the printing device, and a cause of occurrence of maintenance work in the printing device is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions), and mental process (evaluation, judgment) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the maintenance information deriving unit is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15: The limitation wherein the maintenance information deriving unit further derives the maintenance information based on a type of the maintenance work and an occurrence interval of the maintenance work is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions), and mental process (evaluation, judgment) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the maintenance information deriving unit is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16: The limitation wherein the maintenance information deriving unit, the evaluation unit, and the fee calculation unit derive the maintenance information, derive the evaluation, and calculate the maintenance contract fee based on a predetermined learning model represents an additional element (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. machine learning)) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. See the Applicant’s specification background ¶[0041], ¶[0054], ¶[0077] describing the additional element using a predetermined learning model at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the technical particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea
Dependent claim 17: The limitation wherein the evaluation unit derives scoring information based on the derived maintenance information and an operation record of the printing device, and determines an evaluation for the user based on the scoring information is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions), and mental process (evaluation, judgment) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the evaluation unit is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 20: First, the limitation of a management device… manag[ing] the printing device; wherein the printing device management device as set forth in claim 1 is used as the management device is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the management device / printing device management device is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Second, the limitations of a printing device; a management device that is communicable with the printing device represent high level additional elements (extra-solution activity of transmitting data, generic computer / general computer components) that are not a practical application or significantly more. The communicating (communicable) step here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 1, 18, 21, and the dependent claims 1-17 and 20 and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1-18, 20-21 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 12-15, 17-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2014/0214490 A1 to Menon et al. in view of US patent application publication 2009/0210278 A1 to Kamisuwa et al.
Claim 1:
Menon, as shown, teaches the following:
A printing device management device (Menon ¶[0010], ¶[0039], claim 1 details a computer for planning managed print services) comprising:
With respect to the following:
a maintenance information deriving unit that derives maintenance information related to an occurrence risk of a maintenance work of a printing device based on at least one of operation record information related to an operation record of the printing device, execution history information related to an execution history of a maintenance work of the printing device, ink information related to ink used in the printing device, media information related to a medium to be printed by the printing device, and installation environment information related to an installation environment of the printing device;
Menon, as shown in ¶[0013], ¶[0022] details obtaining maintenance information related to maintenance work of a printing device including the cost of service calls and reliability of the equipment; and also obtains data points regarding the ink efficiency (i.e. ink information related to ink used in the printing device), number of pages / impressions, number of pages / impressions (i.e. information related to a medium to be printed by the printing device); suggesting but not explicitly stating that the maintenance information is related to an occurrence risk of a maintenance work of a printing device based on at least one of operation record information related to an operation record of the printing device, execution history information related to an execution history of a maintenance work of the printing device, ink information related to ink used in the printing device, media information related to a medium to be printed by the printing device, and installation environment information related to an installation environment of the printing device. However, Kamisuwa teaches this limitation estimating the failure-probability distribution of the consumables of a multi-function peripheral (MFP) on the basis of a history of actual use result information of the consumables (e.g. toner and paper, i.e. ink information related to ink used in the printing device, media information related to a medium to be printed by the printing device) and result information (e.g. life counter data and physical amounts related to degrees of deterioration of the consumables / life information, i.e. operation record information related to an operation of the printing device, ink information related to ink used in the printing device) and also calculates a failure ratio distribution for each of the consumables on the basis of maintenance history data in the past (i.e. execution history information related to an execution history of a maintenance work of the printing device); and further establishing a maintenance-schedule with visit / replacement intervals for a serviceperson to visit the user in order to replace the MFP consumables on the basis of the predetermined cost and risk and perform the maintenance work (Kamisuwa Fig 8, ¶[0008], ¶[0048], ¶[0058-60], ¶[0067], ¶[0100-101], claim 10 noting that both the failure-probability distribution of the consumable and the maintenance schedule are derived ‘maintenance information related to an occurrence of risk of a maintenance work’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a maintenance information deriving unit that derives maintenance information related to an occurrence risk of a maintenance work of a printing device based on at least one of operation record information related to an operation record of the printing device, execution history information related to an execution history of a maintenance work of the printing device, ink information related to ink used in the printing device, media information related to a medium to be printed by the printing device, and installation environment information related to an installation environment of the printing device as taught by Kamisuwa with the teachings of Menon, with the motivation to “reduce the risk of product failure” and avoid the problem that “after the component is broken… downtime is long and damages to the user caused by unavailability of the product increases” (Kamisuwa ¶[0004]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a maintenance information deriving unit that derives maintenance information related to an occurrence risk of a maintenance work of a printing device based on at least one of operation record information related to an operation record of the printing device, execution history information related to an execution history of a maintenance work of the printing device, ink information related to ink used in the printing device, media information related to a medium to be printed by the printing device, and installation environment information related to an installation environment of the printing device as taught by Kamisuwa in the system of Menon, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Menon (in view of Kamisuwa, applying the further details regarding maintenance information per Kamisuwa, as shown above) also teaches the following:
an evaluation unit that derives an evaluation for a user of the printing device based on the maintenance information and at least one of a usage amount of a consumable used in the printing device and a purchase amount of the consumable (Menon Fig 8, ¶[0022], ¶[0027], ¶[0033-34], ¶[0044] details creating a cost data slider graphic for the customer (i.e. evaluation for a user) for channel managed print services based on multiple data points / factors including the customer’s current cost of service, a number of printers subject to the contract and the type(s) of printers, an allotment of pages / impressions per printer per month that may be printed and cost per impression (e.g. cost per impression may be 2 cents for model A printer and 3 cents for model B printer, i.e. usage amount of a consumable), a maintenance service provision / type of maintenance / tier (i.e. maintenance information)); and
a fee calculation unit that calculates a maintenance contract fee for maintenance work of the printing device based on the derived evaluation of the user (Menon Fig 8, ¶[0013], ¶[0022], ¶[0034-35], ¶[0047], claim 1 details calculating the price for a managed print services contract that includes the cost to service printers (e.g. $50 per month and factored into the base cost calculation of the contract)).
Claim 2:
Menon in view of Kamisuwa, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Menon also teaches the following:
wherein the operation record information includes at least one of an energization time, a number of energization times, an operation time, a number of operations, a usage amount of the ink, a printing area on the medium printed by the printing device, a printing success rate, and an error occurrence history (Menon ¶[0034] details the calculation factors include the ink/toner supply usage; and in further support of obviousness see also/alternatively Kamisuwa ¶[0008], ¶[0059-60], ¶[0100], claim 1 which details transmitting state of use information of the printer, acquiring actual use result information of consumables including counter values of physical amounts related to degrees of deterioration (i.e. operation record information includes usage amount of the ink), calculating a failure ratio distribution for each of the consumables on the basis of maintenance history data in the past and performs failure prediction on the basis of the failure ratio distribution (i.e. operation record information includes error occurrence history), and life counter values for each of the consumables because a plurality of sheet trays are provided according to sheet sizes and a frequency of use is substantially different depending on a sheet tray (i.e. a printing area of the medium printed by the printing device) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature as taught by Kamisuwa in the system of Menon (in view of Kamisuwa), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable).
Claim 3:
Menon in view of Kamisuwa, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Menon also teaches the following:
wherein the execution history information includes at least one of a cleaning execution history of the printing device, a station maintenance execution history of the printing device, a head maintenance execution history of the printing device, a wiper replacement history of the printing device, a number of times of periodic inspection of the printing device, a number of times of maintenance work other than malfunction repair and periodic inspection of the printing device, a number of times of replacement of a maintenance component of the printing device, a replacement interval of a maintenance component of the printing device, a usage record of a maintenance component of the printing device, a consumable used in the printing device, and a maintenance replacement used in the printing device (Menon ¶[0034] details the calculation factors include the ink/toner supply usage (i.e. a consumable used in the printing device); and in further support of obviousness see also/alternatively Kamisuwa Fig 4a, ¶[0052], ¶[0058], ¶[0075-76], ¶[0090] details transmitting preventative maintenance and emergency maintenance history and storing the history in the maintenance history table (i.e. station maintenance execution history of the printing device, a number of times of maintenance work other than malfunction repair and periodic inspection of the printing device), the maintenance history includes the machine ID, consumable, and replacement date (i.e. a number of times of replacement of a maintenance component of the printing device, a maintenance replacement used in the printing device) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature as taught by Kamisuwa in the system of Menon (in view of Kamisuwa), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable).
Claim 4:
Menon in view of Kamisuwa, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Menon also teaches the following:
wherein the ink information includes at least one of information related to a type of the ink, information related to whether the ink is genuine, and information related to a component of the ink (Menon ¶[0013], ¶[0022] details information regarding the type of supplies, which include ink/toner).
Claim 7:
Menon in view of Kamisuwa, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Menon also teaches the following:
wherein the evaluation unit further derives the evaluation of the user based on the number of the printing devices owned (Menon Fig 8, ¶[0022] details constructing the customer’s channel managed print services contract slider based on the number of printers subject to the contract, e.g. 400).
Claim 9:
Menon in view of Kamisuwa, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Menon also teaches the following:
wherein the fee calculation unit calculates a grade of the user, which is a stepwise value, based on the calculated evaluation, and calculates the maintenance contract fee based on the calculated grade (Menon Fig 8, ¶[0046] details calculating managed print services contract values for the customer parameters highlighting areas between price points classified in stepwise colors (i.e. grades), which include red (e.g. first area to the left of the authorization level), and shades of green including light green (e.g. next area to the right of the authorization level closer to the authorization level), or darker green (e.g. last area to the right of the authorization level closer to the total customer current costs)).
Claim 12:
Menon in view of Kamisuwa, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Menon also teaches the following:
a related information deriving unit that derives related information related to the printing device based on at least one of the derived maintenance information and the evaluation of the user (Menon ¶[0013] details obtaining factors related to the printing device based on setting up a channel managed print service contract for the customer and their parameters (i.e. evaluation of the user), which include depreciation and reliability of the equipment; in further support of obviousness see also/alternatively Kamisuwa ¶[0067] details deriving a maintenance schedule based on the predetermined cost and risk (i.e. derived maintenance information) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature as taught by Kamisuwa in the system of Menon (in view of Kamisuwa), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable).
Claim 13:
Menon in view of Kamisuwa, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 12. Menon also teaches the following:
wherein the related information includes at least one of information related to an improvement point in use of the printing device, information related to soundness of the printing device, and information related to a maintenance time of the printing device (Menon ¶[0013] details obtaining a data point factors regarding depreciation and the reliability of the equipment, i.e. information related to the soundness of the printing device; and in further support of obviousness see also/alternatively Kamisuwa ¶[0067] details obtaining a visit interval specifying a time interval at which the serviceperson should visit the user to perform the maintenance work based on the failure ratio distribution of each of the consumables and the predetermined cost and risk (i.e. information related to a maintenance time) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature as taught by Kamisuwa in the system of Menon (in view of Kamisuwa), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable).
Claim 14:
Menon in view of Kamisuwa, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Menon also teaches the following:
wherein the maintenance information deriving unit further derives the maintenance information based on at least one of the number of times of maintenance work occurring within a predetermined period in the printing device, a cost of maintenance work of the printing device, and a cause of occurrence of maintenance work in the printing device (Menon ¶[0013], ¶[0034] details the cost of a service call for the printer(s), and the cost to service printers per month, i.e. a cost of maintenance work of the printing device, and a type of maintenance factored into the pricing proposal, i.e. cause of occurrence of maintenance work in the printing device).
Claim 15:
Menon in view of Kamisuwa, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following:
wherein the maintenance information deriving unit further derives the maintenance information based on a type of the maintenance work and an occurrence interval of the maintenance work.
Menon, as shown in ¶[0022], ¶[0035] details obtaining points of data that include a type of service and a type of maintenance, and determining the cost to service printers per month (e.g. $50 per month), suggesting but not explicitly stating deriving the maintenance information based on an occurrence interval of the maintenance work. However, Kamisuwa teaches this limitation, with both preventative maintenance and emergency maintenance work performed, storing the maintenance history of maintenance work performed when the work is finished, and using that to calculate a failure ratio distribution for the MFP consumables and calculate a next visit time (i.e. occurrence interval) and list of consumables to be replaced at the next visit for the MFP (Kamisuwa ¶[0052], ¶[0057-60]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the maintenance information deriving unit further derives the maintenance information based on a type of the maintenance work and an occurrence interval of the maintenance work as taught by Kamisuwa with the teachings of Menon (in view of Kamisuwa), with the motivation to “reduce the risk of product failure” and avoid the problem that “after the component is broken… downtime is long and damages to the user caused by unavailability of the product increases” (Kamisuwa ¶[0004]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the maintenance information deriving unit further derives the maintenance information based on a type of the maintenance work and an occurrence interval of the maintenance work as taught by Kamisuwa in the system of Menon (in view of Kamisuwa), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 17:
Menon in view of Kamisuwa, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Menon (in view of Kamisuwa, applying the further details regarding maintenance information per Kamisuwa, as shown above) also teaches the following:
wherein the evaluation unit derives scoring information based on the derived maintenance information and an operation record of the printing device, and determines an evaluation for the user based on the scoring information (Menon Fig 8, ¶[0022], ¶[0033] ¶[0044], ¶[0047] details deriving a savings percentage (i.e. scoring information) based on the proposed contract pricing, current customer cost, and parameters including maintenance data points (e.g. maintenance tier 2, maintenance type) and usage data points (e.g. allotment pages / impressions per printer per month)).
Claim 18:
Claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 1.
Claim 21:
Menon, as shown, teaches the following:
A printing device (Menon ¶[0013], ¶[0033-34] details a printer with managed print services) comprising:
With respect to the following:
a maintenance information deriving unit that derives maintenance information related to an occurrence risk of a maintenance work of a printing device based on at least one of operation record information related to an operation record of the printing device, execution history information related to an execution history of a maintenance work of the printing device, ink information related to ink used in the printing device, media information related to a medium to be printed by the printing device, and installation environment information related to an installation environment of the printing device;
Menon, as shown in ¶[0013], ¶[0022] details obtaining maintenance information related to maintenance work of a printing device including the cost of service calls and reliability of the equipment; and also obtains data points regarding the ink efficiency (i.e. ink information related to ink used in the printing device), number of pages / impressions, number of pages / impressions (i.e. information related to a medium to be printed by the printing device); suggesting but not explicitly stating that the maintenance information is related to an occurrence risk of a maintenance work of a printing device based on at least one of operation record information related to an operation record of the printing device, execution history information related to an execution history of a maintenance work of the printing device, ink information related to ink used in the printing device, media information related to a medium to be printed by the printing device, and installation environment information related to an installation environment of the printing device. However, Kamisuwa teaches this limitation estimating the failure-probability distribution of the consumables of a multi-function peripheral (MFP) on the basis of a history of actual use result information of the consumables (e.g. toner and paper, i.e. ink information related to ink used in the printing device, media information related to a medium to be printed by the printing device) and result information (e.g. life counter data and physical amounts related to degrees of deterioration of the consumables / life information, i.e. operation record information related to an operation of the printing device, ink information related to ink used in the printing device) and also calculates a failure ratio distribution for each of the consumables on the basis of maintenance history data in the past (i.e. execution history information related to an execution history of a maintenance work of the printing device); and further establishing a maintenance-schedule with visit / replacement intervals for a serviceperson to visit the user in order to replace the MFP consumables on the basis of the predetermined cost and risk and perform the maintenance work (Kamisuwa Fig 8, ¶[0008], ¶[0048], ¶[0058-60], ¶[0067], ¶[0100-101], claim 10 noting that both the failure-probability distribution of the consumable and the maintenance schedule are derived ‘maintenance information related to an occurrence of risk of a maintenance work’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a maintenance information deriving unit that derives maintenance information related to an occurrence risk of a maintenance work of a printing device based on at least one of operation record information related to an operation record of the printing device, execution history information related to an execution history of a maintenance work of the printing device, ink information related to ink used in the printing device, media information related to a medium to be printed by the printing device, and installation environment information related to an installation environment of the printing device as taught by Kamisuwa with the teachings of Menon, with the motivation to “reduce the risk of product failure” and avoid the problem that “after the component is broken… downtime is long and damages to the user caused by unavailability of the product increases” (Kamisuwa ¶[0004]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a maintenance information deriving unit that derives maintenance information related to an occurrence risk of a maintenance work of a printing device based on at least one of operation record information related to an operation record of the printing device, execution history information related to an execution history of a maintenance work of the printing device, ink information related to ink used in the printing device, media information related to a medium to be printed by the printing device, and installation environment information related to an installation environment of the printing device as taught by Kamisuwa in the system of Menon, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Menon (in view of Kamisuwa, applying the further details regarding maintenance information per Kamisuwa, as shown above) also teaches the following:
an evaluation unit that derives an evaluation for a user of the printing device based on the maintenance information and at least one of a usage amount of a consumable used in the printing device and a purchase amount of the consumable (Menon Fig 8, ¶[0022], ¶[0027], ¶[0033-34], ¶[0044] details creating a cost data slider bar for the customer (i.e. evaluation for a user) for channel managed print services based on multiple data points / factors including the customer’s current cost of service, a number of printers subject to the contract and the type(s) of printers, an allotment of pages / impressions per printer per month that may be printed and cost per impression (e.g. cost per impression may be 2 cents for model A printer and 3 cents for model B printer, i.e. usage amount of a consumable), a maintenance service provision / type of maintenance / tier (i.e. maintenance information)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2014/0214490 A1 to Menon et al. in view of US patent application publication 2009/0210278 A1 to Kamisuwa et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2008/0184235 A1 to Sawada et al.
Claim 5:
Menon in view of Kamisuwa, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following:
wherein the media information includes at least one of information related to a type of the medium, information related to whether the medium is genuine, and information related to whether the medium is a recommended product.
Menon, as shown in ¶[0022] details obtaining details regarding a type of supplies, but does not explicitly state that supplies refers to a type of the medium or information related to whether the medium is genuine. However, Sawada teaches this limitation obtaining printer information including the paper type (for example, recycled or genuine) (Sawada ¶[0116]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the media information includes at least one of information related to a type of the medium, information related to whether the medium is genuine, and information related to whether the medium is a recommended product as taught by Sawada with the teachings of Menon in view of Kamisuwa, with the motivation to “achieve smooth job processing and reduced cost” (Sawada ¶[0008]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the media information includes at least one of information related to a type of the medium, information related to whether the medium is genuine, and information related to whether the medium is a recommended product as taught by Sawada in the system of Menon in view of Kamisuwa, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2014/0214490 A1 to Menon et al. in view of US patent application publication 2009/0210278 A1 to Kamisuwa et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2021/0185181 A1 to Tomii.
Claim 5:
Menon in view of Kamisuwa, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following:
wherein the installation environment information includes at least one of temperature, humidity, altitude, and cleanliness of an installation place where the printing device is installed, an inclination angle of a floor on which the printing device is installed, an irradiation amount of ultraviolet rays at the installation place, information related to illuminance and luminance at the installation place, information related to a material of the floor, and information related to a structure of a building at the installation place.
Menon, as shown in ¶[0022], ¶[0033] details obtaining information which includes a type of maintenance and maintenance service provision, but does not explicitly state this information related to maintenance includes installation environment information includes at least one of temperature, humidity, altitude, and cleanliness of an installation place where the printing device is installed, an inclination angle of a floor on which the printing device is installed, an irradiation amount of ultraviolet rays at the installation place, information related to illuminance and luminance at the installation place, information related to a material of the floor, and information related to a structure of a building at the installation place. However, Tomii teaches this limitation, adjusting the printer ‘in plane density unevenness correction’ (i.e. an inclination angle of a floor on which the printing device is installed) and making adjustments to the printer as regular maintenance work based on changes of an environmental condition including temperature or humidity of a place in which the image forming apparatus is installed (i.e. environment information includes at least one of temperature, humidity) (Tomii Fig 16, ¶[0137]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the installation environment information includes at least one of temperature, humidity, altitude, and cleanliness of an installation place where the printing device is installed, an inclination angle of a floor on which the printing device is installed, an irradiation amount of ultraviolet rays at the installation place, information related to illuminance and luminance at the installation place, information related to a material of the floor, and information related to a structure of a building at the installation place as taught by Tomii with the teachings of Menon in view of Kamisuwa, with the motivation for “adjusting a quality of an image formed by an image forming apparatus” (Tomii ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the installation environment information includes at least one of temperature, humidity, altitude, and cleanliness of an installation place where the printing device is installed, an inclination angle of a floor on which the printing device is installed, an irradiation amount of ultraviolet rays at the installation place, information related to illuminance and luminance at the installation place, information related to a material of the floor, and information related to a structure of a building at the installation place as taught by Tomii in the system of Menon in view of Kamisuwa, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2014/0214490 A1 to Menon et al. in view of US patent application publication 2009/0210278 A1 to Kamisuwa et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2012/0257239 A1 to Tsongas et al.
Claim 8:
Menon in view of Kamisuwa, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following:
wherein the evaluation unit further derives the evaluation of the user based on at least one of whether a maintenance history of the printing device is recorded, the number of printing successes and the number of error occurrences by the printing device, the usage amount of the genuine medium and the genuine ink with respect to the entire printing time of the printing device, whether maintenance of the printing device is implemented at a predetermined frequency, a replacement frequency of a maintenance component and a cost required for replacing the maintenance component with respect to the entire printing time of the printing device, and a usage state of the replaced maintenance component.
Menon, as shown in Fig 8, ¶[0022], ¶[0027], ¶[0033-34], ¶[0044] details deriving an evaluation of the user’s channel managed print services with a cost data slider graphic based on multiple data points which include the ink/toner supply usage, maintenance service provision, and type of maintenance, and maintenance costs, but does not explicitly state wherein the evaluation unit further derives the evaluation of the user based on at least one of whether a maintenance history of the printing device is recorded, the number of printing successes and the number of error occurrences by the printing device, the usage amount of the genuine medium and the genuine ink with respect to the entire printing time of the printing device, whether maintenance of the printing device is implemented at a predetermined frequency, a replacement frequency of a maintenance component and a cost required for replacing the maintenance component with respect to the entire printing time of the printing device, and a usage state of the replaced maintenance component. However, Tsongas teaches this limitation, projecting future maintenance item costs for a currently used image production device based on retrieved values related to a frequency of maintenance incidents requiring a use of image production device service personal, and the costs incurred by exceeding contractual service level agreement frequency for device maintenance (i.e. whether maintenance of the printing device is implemented at a predetermined frequency) (Tsongas ¶[0008], ¶[0027], ¶[0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the evaluation unit further derives the evaluation of the user based on at least one of whether a maintenance history of the printing device is recorded, the number of printing successes and the number of error occurrences by the printing device, the usage amount of the genuine medium and the genuine ink with respect to the entire printing time of the printing device, whether maintenance of the printing device is implemented at a predetermined frequency, a replacement frequency of a maintenance component and a cost required for replacing the maintenance component with respect to the entire printing time of the printing device, and a usage state of the replaced maintenance component as taught by Tsongas with the teachings of Menon in view of Kamisuwa, with the motivation to identify devices that may have outlived their useful life since “for managed services, these devices result in increased maintenance costs, increased service level agreement (SLA) costs” (Tsongas ¶[0002]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the evaluation unit further derives the evaluation of the user based on at least one of whether a maintenance history of the printing device is recorded, the number of printing successes and the number of error occurrences by the printing device, the usage amount of the genuine medium and the genuine ink with respect to the entire printing time of the printing device, whether maintenance of the printing device is implemented at a predetermined frequency, a replacement frequency of a maintenance component and a cost required for replacing the maintenance component with respect to the entire printing time of the printing device, and a usage state of the replaced maintenance component as taught by Tsongas in the system of Menon in view of Kamisuwa, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2014/0214490 A1 to Menon et al. in view of US patent application publication 2009/0210278 A1 to Kamisuwa et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2022/0067671 A1 to Narikiyo
Claim 10:
Menon in view of Kamisuwa, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following:
wherein the fee calculation unit further calculates the maintenance contract fee based on an installation place of the printing device.
Menon, as shown in Fig 8, ¶[0034] details calculating a maintenance contract fee based on servicing the printers (equipment), but does not explicitly state that the fee is based on an installation place. However, Narikiyo teaches this remaining feature, obtaining the location of a facility in which equipment (e.g. an indoor air conditioner unit) is installed and its surrounding environment, expecting that based on a particular address where the use of the equipment may be high it can be expected that it will have an increased failure rate, using failure rate and the installation environment in the maintenance fee calculation (Narikiyo ¶[0016], ¶[0032]).
Menon and Narikiyo are analogous inventions in the field of equipment maintenance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the fee calculation unit further calculates the maintenance contract fee based on an installation place as taught by Narikiyo with the teachings of Menon and Kamisuwa, with the motivation “that calculates a suitable maintenance contract fee” (Narikiyo ¶[0005]).
Claim 16:
Menon in view of Kamisuwa, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following:
wherein the maintenance information deriving unit, the evaluation unit, and the fee calculation unit derive the maintenance information, derive the evaluation, and calculate the maintenance contract fee based on a predetermined learning model.
Menon, as shown in Fig 8, ¶[0013], ¶[0021-22], ¶[0034-35], ¶[0047], claim 1 details using a computer to calculate the price for a managed print services contract that includes the cost to service printers based on the derived maintenance type and maintenance provision and ink/toner usage information, but does not explicitly state to derive the maintenance information, derive the evaluation, and calculate the maintenance contract fee based on a predetermined learning model. However, Narikiyo teaches this feature, with a learning unit (i.e. learning model) that analyzes failure rate of equipment (e.g. indoor / outdoor unit) with its environmental information (i.e. maintenance information) and information about its operation history (i.e. derived evaluation, per Menon) to generate the calculation model that is used for calculating a maintenance fee (Narikiyo ¶[0016], ¶[0030], ¶[0037], ¶[0064], ¶[0071]), and this function is performed by one or more processors (Narikiyo ¶[0115]).
Menon and Narikiyo are analogous inventions in the field of equipment maintenance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the maintenance information deriving unit, the evaluation unit, and the fee calculation unit derive the maintenance information, derive the evaluation, and calculate the maintenance contract fee based on a predetermined learning model as taught by Narikiyo with the teachings of Menon and Kamisuwa, with the motivation “that calculates a suitable maintenance contract fee”, “a suitable maintenance contract fee that can be calculated in accordance with the failure rate” (Narikiyo ¶[0005-6]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the maintenance information deriving unit, the evaluation unit, and the fee calculation unit derive the maintenance information, derive the evaluation, and calculate the maintenance contract fee based on a predetermined learning model as taught by Narikiyo in the system of Menon and Kamisuwa, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2014/0214490 A1 to Menon et al. in view of US patent application publication 2009/0210278 A1 to Kamisuwa et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the All Tech Imaging Technologies homepage <https://www.alltechsd.com/service-pricing/> (<https://web.archive.org/web/20210801212127/https://www.alltechsd.com/service-pricing/> captured on 1 August 2021 using Wayback Machine) to All Tech Imaging Technologies (hereinafter All Tech).
Claim 11:
Menon in view of Kamisuwa, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following:
wherein the fee calculation unit calculates a work fee each time required each time when maintenance of the printing device is performed based on the derived maintenance information.
Menon, as shown in ¶[0013], ¶[0033-34], ¶[0039] details providing maintenance and service needs of the equipment through a contract or through transactional service, where pricing is based factors including the cost of service calls and the types of printers, and using a computer to calculate a cost to service printers; but does not explicitly state calculating a work fee each time required each time when maintenance of the printing device is performed based on the derived maintenance information. However, All Tech teaches this limitation, with calculated fixed / flat rates labor rates (i.e. work fee) based on particular printer model type both per visit (e.g. printers, desktop copiers, HP DesignJet plotters, shredders), and hourly labor rates calculated for particular model type that bill by the quarter hour (e.g. full size copiers, desktop copiers, wide format plotters) (All Tech Fixed / Flat Rate labor section, Hourly Labor Rates section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include calculating a work fee each time required each time when maintenance of the printing device is performed based on the derived maintenance information as taught by All Tech with the teachings of Menon in view of Kamisuwa, with the motivation to “increase the longevity of your current print fleet investment” and “focus on the quality of each repair” (All Tech All Tech Warranties section). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculating a work fee each time required each time when maintenance of the printing device is performed based on the derived maintenance information as taught by All Tech in the system of Menon in view of Kamisuwa, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2014/0214490 A1 to Menon et al. in view of US patent application publication 2009/0210278 A1 to Kamisuwa et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2021/0342211 A1 to Melo et al.
Claim 20:
Menon in view of Kamisuwa, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Menon also teaches the following:
A printing device management system comprising:
a printing device (Menon ¶[0013], ¶[0033-34] details a number of printers, printer model A, printer model B); and
With respect to the following:
a management device that is communicable with the printing device and manages the printing device,
Menon, as shown in Fig 1, ¶[0013], ¶[0027], ¶[0033-34] details a computer (management device) used to establish a channel managed print services contract for managing the printing devices (i.e. management device manages the printing device), but does not explicitly state that the management device is communicable with the printing device(s). However, Melo teaches this limitation, with a client device (printing device) monitored by an apparatus (management device) and in communication with the apparatus, and the apparatus receives service event data sent from client devices serviced by a provider (Melo ¶[0012-15]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a management device that is communicable with the printing device and manages the printing device as taught by Melo with the teachings of Menon in view of Kamisuwa, with the motivation to “allow preventative maintenance to be executed before a fault happens” because faults “may be costly for a party providing service as well as for the party of the impacted device” (Melo ¶[0007-8]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a management device that is communicable with the printing device and manages the printing device as taught by Melo in the system of Menon in view of Kamisuwa, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Menon in view of Kamisuwa (of Menon in view of Kamisuwa in view of Melo), as shown above, also teaches the following:
wherein the printing device management device as set forth in claim 1 is used as the management device (Menon Fig 8, ¶[0010], ¶[0013], ¶[0022], ¶[0027], ¶[0033-34], ¶[0039], ¶[0044], ¶[0047], claim 1; and Kamisuwa Fig 8, ¶[0008], ¶[0048], ¶[0058-60], ¶[0067], ¶[0100-101], claim 10 detail the printing device management device of claim 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
BRIAN TALLMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/BRIAN A TALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628