DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to application 19/230,813 filed 6/6/2025. Claims 1-14 are pending. This action is non-final.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a consumable component consuming device, comprising: an input unit configured to receive user input; a display unit; a storage unit; and a controller configured to: cause the display unit to display an input screen that prompts a user to input a warranty period associated with a first warranty contract via the input unit; and store, in the storage unit, warranty period information corresponding to the warranty period of the first warranty contract based on input received via the input unit. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a machine.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations ... receive user input ... prompts a user to input a warranty period associated with a first warranty contract ... and store ... warranty period information corresponding to the warranty period of the first warranty contract based on input received ... as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the groupings of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements of claim 1, a consumable component consuming device, an input unit, a display unit, a storage unit, a controller, and an input screen are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the additional elements of claim 1 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims as a whole merely describe the abstract idea generally “applied” to a generic computer environment. The additional elements of claim 1 a consumable component consuming device (described as “a control device” in spec. para. [0164]), an input unit (described in spec. para. [0041]), a display unit (described in spec. para. [0041]), a storage unit (described in spec. para. [0050]), a controller (described in spec. para. [0042]), and an input screen (described in spec. para. [0065]), are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which this additional element is described indicates that the additional element is sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-14 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 2-14 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” a method of the aforementioned abstract idea. Although claim 2 recites the additional element a first contract guidance screen, claim 4 recites the additional element a second contract guidance screen, claim 6 recites the additional element a third contract guidance screen, claims 8-12 recite the additional element a user-replaceable component included in the control device, claims 8-11 and 13 recite the additional element a main body of the control device, claim 8 further recites the additional element a fourth contract guidance screen, claim 9 further recites the additional element a first warranty notification screen, claim 10 further recites the additional element a second warranty notification screen, claim 11 further recites the additional element a third warranty notification screen, claim 12 further recites the additional element a first service live notification screen, and claim 13 recites the additional element a second service life notification screen, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea in a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. Although claim 2 recites the additional element a first contract guidance screen (described in spec. para. [0060]), claim 4 recites the additional element a second contract guidance screen (described in spec. para. [0070]), claim 6 recites the additional element a third contract guidance screen (described in spec. para. [0072]), claims 8-12 recite the additional element a user-replaceable component included in the control device (described in spec. para. [0074]), claims 8-11 and 13 recite the additional element a main body of the control device (described in spec. para. [0090]), claim 8 further recites the additional element a fourth contract guidance screen (described in spec. para. [0081]), claim 9 further recites the additional element a first warranty notification screen (described in spec. para. [0084]), claim 10 further recites the additional element a second warranty notification screen (described in spec. para. [0086]), claim 11 further recites the additional element a third warranty notification screen (described in spec. para. [0088]), claim 12 further recites the additional element a first service life notification screen (described in spec. para. [0112]), and claim 13 recites the additional element a second service life notification screen (described in spec. para. [0126]), they are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which the additional elements are described indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Examiner’s Note: Claims 2-14 are considered novel over the prior art and are not rejected under 35 USC § 102 or 103.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umetani (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0134636) in view of Matoba (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0249884).
Regarding claim 1, Umetani discloses the following limitations:
A ... device, comprising: an input unit configured to receive user input; a display unit; [See [0130-0132]; (Fig. 9) Umetani teaches an appliance owner having a terminal 830 (i.e., A ... device) connected to a warranty expiration date determining device 100A and their appliance 110 via a network 120. Umetani further teaches that the terminal includes a display unit 831 (i.e., a display unit) and an input unit 832 (i.e., an input unit configured to receive user input). Umetani further teaches that examples of a terminal 830 include a mobile phone, a smart phone, a personal computer, and a display panel, all of which require
configured to: cause the display unit to display an input screen that prompts a user to input a warranty period associated with a first warranty contract via the input unit; [See [0130-0132]; (Fig. 9) Umetani teaches an appliance owner having a terminal 830 connected to a warranty expiration date determining device 100A and their appliance 110 via a network 120. Umetani further teaches that the terminal includes a display unit 831 and an input unit 832. Umetani [0037] further teaches a warranty expiration date determining device transmits a notification to the terminal of the owner of a first appliance. Umetani further teaches that the notification prompts the owner of the first appliance to input a first day of use usable by the warranty expiration date determining unit for determining the warranty start date and warranty expiration date of the warranty (i.e., cause the display unit to display an input screen that prompts a user to input a warranty period associated with a first warranty contract via the input unit).]
store ... warranty period information corresponding to the warranty period of the first warranty contract based on input received via the input unit. [See [0037] Umetani teaches a warranty expiration date determining device transmits a notification to the owner of a first appliance. Umetani further teaches that the notification prompts the owner of the first appliance to input a first day of use (i.e., input received via the input unit), which is used by the warranty expiration date determining unit for determining the warranty start date and warranty expiration date of the warranty (i.e., the warranty period of the first warranty contract based on input received via the input unit). [0107-0108] Umetani further teaches storing the determined warranty period and warranty expiration date in the appliance information of the information database 206 in association with the appliance ID of the appliance (i.e., store ... warranty period information corresponding to the warranty period of the first warranty contract based on input received via the input unit).]
Although Umetani teaches using a terminal to display information to a user and receive input from the user, Umetani does not explicitly teach that the terminal may be integrated into an appliance. Therefore, Umetani does not, however Matoba does, disclose the following limitations:
A consumable component consuming device, comprising ... a storage unit; and a controller ... [See [0024-0028]; (Fig. 1, elements 3, 30A, 310A) Matoba teaches a printer (i.e., A consumable component consuming device) comprising an input apparatus, a display, a controller (i.e., a controller), and storage (i.e., memory) (i.e., a storage unit).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the terminal of Umetani with the terminal of Matoba. By making this combination, a user would be able to more easily and conveniently enter warranty information regarding an appliance directly into the appliance itself. This would remove the need to have a separate terminal previously configured to interface with the appliance (in the case of Matoba, a printer) via a network. Furthermore, a user would be able to more conveniently input information directly into the appliance when they are already interfacing with the appliance.
Prior Art
The following prior art is relevant to the invention but was not used in prior art rejections:
Shono (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0134636) – Digital warranty management server and product management method.
Inaba (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0249665) – Control system for working machine.
Koganehira (CN 110920559 B) – Consumables consumption device and consumables consumption system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 CDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 3628