DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office Action is in response to application 19/332374 filed on 09/18/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Priority
Examiner has noted that the Applicant has claimed priority from the foreign application JP 2024-166601 filed on 09/25/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/18/2025 and 03/13/2026 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and were considered by the Examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-8 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium and Claims 9-14 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Claims 15-20 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, the claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
Independent Claim 1, Claim 9, and Claim 15 recite the limitations of:
… display a predetermined screen …
wherein in a case where the image processing device has not registered for any of a plurality of shipping services for shipping a consumable article used in the image processing device, the predetermined screen is displayed in a first mode [for] use any of the plurality of shipping services by a user …, and
in a case where the image processing device has registered for a specific shipping service among the plurality of shipping services, the predetermined screen is displayed in a second mode that permits use of the specific shipping service by the user and restricts use of other shipping services other than the specific shipping service among the plurality of shipping services
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
The limitations stated above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial interactions). Specifically, business relations in light of Applicant’s specification background “There may be a plurality of shipping services. It is sufficient for a user to be able to use one service among the plurality of shipping services. The disclosure herein provides a technology for prompting a user to use a specific service among a plurality of shipping services”. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims recite the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, a control device, a processor of the control device and a controller at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The independent claims also recite a terminal device and an image processing device communicable with the terminal device which are merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. Requiring that the abstract idea of commercial interaction or business relations be performed using a terminal device and image processing device as a user (through their terminal device) can use a shipping service to ship a consumable article for use in the image processing device. Thus, the limitations simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments and further, describe how the abstract idea of commercial interactions/business relations could be used for ordering consumables for image processing devices. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding the additional element of wherein the predetermined screen is in a first mode capable of receiving operation, para. 37 of Applicant’s specification describes the screen (of the display unit) prompts the user to use the subscription service or the automatic order service with an icon for proceeding to a process to subscribe to each service. Thus, the limitation is specifying that the abstract idea was to be implemented by a display unit screen. This narrowing limitation is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment – the field of user interfaces.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, whether individually or viewed in an ordered combination, because mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and field of use does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 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 with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, a control device, a processor of the control device and a controller amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Again, the terminal device and the image processing device communicable with the terminal device are requiring that the abstract idea of commercial interaction or business relations be performed using a terminal device and image processing device as a user (through their terminal device) can use a shipping service to ship a consumable article for use in the image processing device. Thus, the limitations simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments and further, describe how the abstract idea of commercial interactions/business relations could be used for ordering consumables for image processing devices.
Regarding the additional element of wherein the predetermined screen is in a first mode capable of receiving operation, para. 23 and 37 of Applicant’s specification describes the screen (of the display unit) prompts the user to use the subscription service or the automatic order service with an icon for proceeding to a process to subscribe to each service and further, the screen allows the user to input information. Thus, the limitation is specifying that the abstract idea was to be implemented by a screen of the display unit. This narrowing limitation is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment – the field of user interfaces.
None of the steps/functions of Claims 1, 9, and 15 when evaluated individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements are merely used to perform the limitations directed to organizing human activity, mere instructions to apply the judicial exception, and field of use, thus, the analysis does not change when considered as an ordered combination.
The additional elements of Claim 1, 9, and 15 amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and field of use. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and field of use which cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the claim. Accordingly, Claims 1, 9, and 15 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2, 10, and 16 recite “wherein the predetermined screen … for receiving an instruction from the user” which further narrows the abstract idea of commercial interactions/business relations.
The claims recite the additional element of an object screen displaying an object (for receiving an instruction from the user). As previously analyzed with para. 23 and 37 above, the limitation is specifying that the abstract idea was to be implemented by the screen of a display unit which displays prompts and icons to a user and further receives information input by the user. This narrowing limitation is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment – the field of user interfaces.
Dependent Claims 3, 11, and 17 recite “wherein in the first mode, … displays … the plurality of shipping services, and in the second mode, … displays a … specific shipping service … and does not display” [other shipping services other than the specific shipping service among the plurality of shipping services] (as described in the independent claim). The limitation further narrows the abstract idea of commercial interactions/business relations.
The claims recite the additional element of the object screen displays a plurality of objects and displays a specific object among the plurality of objects and does not display other objects other than the specific object among the plurality of objects. As previously analyzed with para. 23 and 37 above and with the addition of para. 66-67 and 70, the limitation is specifying that the abstract idea was to be implemented by the screen of a display unit which depending on whether the user’s been contracted, displays certain prompts/icons and further receives information input by the user. This narrowing limitation is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment – the field of user interfaces.
Dependent Claims 4, 12, and 18 recite “wherein in a case … in the second mode and the specific shipping service is a first shipping service, … displays the … first shipping service and [displays] an instruction to access a website for purchasing the consumable article, and in a case … in the second mode and the specific shipping service is a second shipping service different from the first shipping service, … displays the specific second shipping service and does not display the [instruction]” which further narrows the abstract idea of commercial interactions/business relations.
The claims recite the additional element of the object screen displays the specific object and an access object for receiving an instruction and the object screen displays the specific object and does not display the access object. As previously analyzed with para. 23 and 37 above and with the addition of para. 66-67 and 70, the limitation is specifying that the abstract idea was to be implemented by the screen of a display unit which depending on whether the user’s been contracted, displays certain prompts/icons and further receives information input by the user. This narrowing limitation is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment – the field of user interfaces.
Dependent Claims 5, 13, and 19 recite “… in the first mode, … displays … the plurality of shipping services in a first manner that is reactive to the instruction from the user, … in the second mode, … displays … the specific shipping service in the first manner and [displays other shipping services other than the specific shipping service among the plurality of shipping services] in a second manner that is unreactive to the instruction from the user” which further narrows the abstract idea of commercial interactions/business relations.
The claims recite the additional element of the object screen displays in a first manner a plurality of objects and the object screen displays in a first manner a specific object among the plurality of objects and displays in a second manner other objects other than the specific object among the plurality of objects. As previously analyzed with para. 23 and 37 above and with the addition of para. 66-67 and 70, the limitation is specifying that the abstract idea was to be implemented by the screen of a display unit which depending on whether the user’s been contracted, displays certain prompts/icons and further receives information input by the user. This narrowing limitation is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment – the field of user interfaces.
Dependent Claims 6, 14, and 20 recite “wherein in a case … in the second mode and the specific shipping service is a first shipping service, … displays both … the first shipping service and … an instruction to access a website for purchasing the consumable article in the first manner, and in a case … in the second mode and the specific shipping service is a second shipping service different from the first shipping service, … displays the specific … second shipping service in the first manner and [the instruction] in the second manner” which further narrows the abstract idea of commercial interactions/business relations.
The claims recite the additional element of the object screen displays both of the specific object and an access object for receiving an instruction and the object screen displays in the first manner a specific object among the plurality of objects and displays in a second manner other objects other than the specific object among the plurality of objects. As previously analyzed with para. 23 and 37 above and with the addition of para. 66-67 and 70, the limitation is specifying that the abstract idea was to be implemented by the screen of a display unit which depending on whether the user’s been contracted, displays certain prompts/icons and further receives information input by the user. This narrowing limitation is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment – the field of user interfaces.
Dependent Claim 7 recites “wherein in a case where the image processing device has registered for the specific shipping service and the image processing device is registered in association with specific account information used … to log in, the predetermined screen is displayed in the second mode, and in a case where the image processing device is registered in association with other account information that is not used … to log in, the predetermined screen is displayed in a third mode that restricts use of all the plurality of shipping services” which further narrows the abstract idea of commercial interactions/business relations. The terminal device is an additional element identified as field of use. See analysis of independent claims.
Dependent Claim 8 recites “wherein the image processing device comprises a print engine” which is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. Requiring that the abstract idea of commercial interaction or business relations be performed using a terminal device and image processing device comprising a print engine as a user (through their terminal device) can use a shipping service to ship a consumable article for use in the print engine. Thus, the limitations simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments and further, describe how the abstract idea of commercial interactions/business relations could be used for ordering consumables for print engines.
Thus, taken alone and when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1-20 are ineligible.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 8, 9-11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya (US2020/0096900) in view of Kawai (US2008/0319877).
As per independent Claim 1, Claim 9, and Claim 15,
Moriya teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing computer-readable instructions for a control device, the computer-readable instructions, when executed by a processor of the control device, causing the control device to: / A system comprising: a controller configured to / A method of (para. 69)
cause a terminal device to display a predetermined screen related to an image processing device communicable with the terminal device, (figure 1 and para. 22 single or multi-function printer (SFP or MFP) is an image forming apparatus and a PC is an information processing apparatus; para. 45-46 where the user can access the site from the PC based on the URL; figure 9A and para. 47 where when the user accesses the site from the PC; see also figure 11-12 and para. 59 where the user can directly access the information site from the UI and para. 60-68)
wherein in a case where the image processing device has not registered for any of a plurality of shipping services for shipping a consumable article used in the image processing device, the predetermined screen is displayed in a first mode capable of receiving operation by a user of the terminal device, and (para. 30 registration for cartridge automatic order service and performs order processing for the cartridge; para. 22 where the target of the automatic order service is not limited to cartridges; para. 38-39 and figure 5 step 503-504 where is the SFP is not registered to the cartridge automatic order service, then in para. 43 an access URL is generated; para. 45-46 where the user can access the site from the PC based on the URL; figure 9B and para. 48 where the user has not subscribed and the screen displays a product list for the user to select and add to cart)
in a case where the image processing device has registered for a specific shipping service among the plurality of shipping services, the predetermined screen is displayed in a second mode that permits use of the specific shipping service by the user and restricts use of other shipping services other than the specific shipping service among the plurality of shipping services (para. 38-39 and figure 5 step 503-504 where is the SFP is registered to the cartridge automatic order service, then in para. 40-41 an access URL is generated; para. 45-46 where the user can access the site from the PC based on the URL; figure 9A and para. 47 where when the user accesses the site from the PC, the user may order a cartridge by specifying a desired cartridge and pressing the “OK” button; see also para. 55-58)
Moriya does not teach, but Kawai teaches:
receiving operation to use any of the plurality of shipping services (para. 60 and figure 1 image forming apparatus and terminal apparatus are connected via network; para. 88 and para. 120 received product data is displayed and the terminal apparatus waits until a user issues an order instruction; para. 121-128 where in para. 121 user selects a preferable toner cartridge and issues an order instruction; figure 10 and para. 140-145 where in para. 140-141 vendor D, vendor A, and vendor B are displayed and the user may click a model number to proceed to the order page)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Moriya invention with Kawai with the motivation of enabling users to select a preferred shipping service.
See para. 145 “product data of toner cartridges are obtained from the vendor servers 3, 4 and 5. And even if a vendor decides to change product data, the vendor can immediately reflect that change to the vendor server. Then the latest information obtained from the vendor server 3, 4 and 5 is displayed on the display 62, and a user can select a preferable toner cartridge based on the latest information, which could remove user inconveniences: a user reluctantly has to place an order based on old information, and thereby suffer from the gap in price, availability and etc.” and para. 16 “It is an objective of the present invention to provide a supply unit ordering system that enables users to select a preferable vendor providing supply units; obtain the latest information about supply units; and place an order for a supply unit based on the obtained latest information, when a supply unit is replaced with a new one or when another need arises.”
As per dependent Claim 2, Claim 10, and Claim 16,
Moriya/Kawai teaches the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, the system according to claim 9, and the method according to claim 15.
Moriya further teaches:
wherein the predetermined screen is an object screen displaying an object for receiving an instruction from the user (figure 9A-B and para. 47-48 where in para. 47, when the user accesses the site from the PC, the screen includes a model display area, order situation display area, and an order request reception area, and the user may order a cartridge by specifying a desired cartridge and pressing the “OK” button; see also figure 11 and para. 64 “Purchase of consumable product” button)
As per dependent Claim 3, Claim 11, and Claim 17,
Moriya/Kawai teaches the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 2, the system according to claim 10, and the method according to claim 16.
Moriya further teaches:
wherein in the first mode, the object screen displays a plurality of objects (figure 9B and para. 48 where the user has not subscribed and the screen displays a product list for the user where the user can enter quantities of various items and select different “Put into cart” buttons)
in the second mode, the object screen displays a specific object corresponding to the specific shipping service among the plurality of objects and does not display other objects other than the specific object among the plurality of objects (figure 9A and para. 47 where when the user has subscribed to the automatic order service, the specific access destination URL displays a screen for specifically the “Cartridge automatic order service” where the user may order a cartridge by specifying a desired cartridge and pressing the “OK” button; para. 40-42 URL is generated)
Moriya does not teach, but Kawai teaches:
a plurality of objects corresponding to the plurality of shipping services, and (para. 121-128 where in para. 121 user selects a preferable toner cartridge and issues an order instruction; figure 10 and para. 140-145 where in para. 140-141 vendor D, vendor A, and vendor B are displayed and the user may click a model number to proceed to the order page)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Moriya invention with Kawai with the motivation of enabling users to select a preferred shipping service. See para. 145 and para. 16.
As per dependent Claim 8,
Moriya/Kawai teaches the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1.
Moriya further teaches:
wherein the image processing device comprises a print engine (figure 1 and para. 22 single or multi-function printer (SFP or MFP) is an image forming apparatus; para. 38 printer ID of the SFP and the SFP is registered as the target printer of the cartridge automatic order service; see also para. 26 hardware of the SFP includes printing unit and control unit)
Claims 4, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya (US2020/0096900) in view of Kawai (US2008/0319877) as applied to claims 3, 11, and 17 above, further in view of Lincoln et al. (US Patent No. 10,282,718).
As per dependent Claim 4, Claim 12, and Claim 18,
Moriya/Kawai teaches the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 3, the system according to claim 11, and the method according to claim 17.
Moriya further teaches:
wherein in a case where the object screen is in the second mode and the specific shipping service is a first shipping service, the object screen displays the specific object corresponding to the first shipping service and an access object for receiving an instruction to access a website for purchasing the consumable article (para. 38-39 and figure 5 step 503-504 where is the SFP is registered to the cartridge automatic order service, then in para. 40-42 an access URL is generated; figure 9A and para. 47 where when the user has subscribed to the automatic order service, the specific access destination URL displays a screen for specifically the “Cartridge automatic order service” where the user may order a cartridge by specifying a desired cartridge and pressing the “OK” button; see also para. 55-58)
Examiner noting that Moriya teaches “in a case where the object screen is in the second mode”.
Moriya/Kawai does not teach, but Lincoln teaches:
and the specific shipping service is a second shipping service different from the first shipping service, the object screen displays the specific object corresponding to the second shipping service and does not display the access object (Col. 3 Lines 51-63 user interfaces that selectively provide an invoice payment option (“access object”) to approved customers such as business customers; Col. 10 Lines 26-60 and figure 2 where if the invoice payment option is activated, the item page includes a user-selectable submit order element that allows the user to instantly invoice the order (“first shipping service”); Col. 11 Line 54 to Col. 12 Line 20 where the item requires a restricted shipping option (“second shipping service”) instead of invoice payment option so the module disables the invoice payment option by excluding the option from the GUI or rendering the option unselectable in the GUI; figure 4 and Col. 16 Line 18-24 GUI for restricted shipping)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Moriya invention with Lincoln with the motivation of increasing efficiency and reducing customer frustration.
See Col. 2 Lines 21-54 “Additionally or alternatively, the technology can selectively determine in real-time, and in some cases prior to the checkout page (thus reducing the steps needed to complete the order), whether the invoice payment option should be made unavailable based on certain criteria to prevent customers associated with business accounts that do not meet the requirements for invoice payment options from using that option. This can save the customer time needed to ordering the items, can reduce customer frustration that can result from using the incorrect payment option, and also reduce the time and resources spent by account managers to rectify incorrectly selected payment options. The technology is also configurable to consider new and/or unique criteria that may apply to certain types of businesses to selectively determine if those businesses and/or the items (e.g., products) being ordered by them qualify for the invoice payment option.”
Claims 5, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya (US2020/0096900) in view of Kawai (US2008/0319877) as applied to claims 2, 10, and 16 above, further in view of Maitra et al. (US2023/0237555).
As per dependent Claim 5, Claim 13, and Claim 19,
Moriya/Kawai teaches the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 2, the system according to claim 10, and the method according to claim 16.
Moriya further teaches:
wherein when the object screen is in the first mode, the object screen displays a plurality of objects in a first manner that is reactive to the instruction from the user (figure 9B and para. 48 where the user has not subscribed and the screen displays a product list for the user where the user can enter quantities of various items and select different “Put into cart” buttons)
when the object screen is in the second mode, the object screen displays a specific object corresponding to the specific shipping service among the plurality of objects in the first manner (figure 9A and para. 47 where when the user has subscribed to the automatic order service, the specific access destination URL displays a screen for specifically the “Cartridge automatic order service” where the user may order a cartridge by specifying a desired cartridge and pressing the “OK” button; para. 40-42 URL is generated)
Moriya does not teach, but Kawai teaches:
a plurality of objects corresponding to the plurality of shipping services (para. 121-128 where in para. 121 user selects a preferable toner cartridge and issues an order instruction; figure 10 and para. 140-145 where in para. 140-141 vendor D, vendor A, and vendor B are displayed and the user may click a model number to proceed to the order page)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Moriya invention with Kawai with the motivation of enabling users to select a preferred shipping service. See para. 145 and para. 16.
Moriya/Kawai does not teach, but Maitra teaches:
and other objects other than the specific object among the plurality of objects in a second manner that is unreactive to the instruction from the user (para. 72 and figure 3E where a shopping cart window is displayed in the GUI and edited by the user and when a product is not available, “the default number in the quantity entry 346 can be zero and the text of product 344 can be modified to show that the product 344 is not available. For example, the text of product 344 g for vegetable oil in FIG. 3E is grayed out and the quantity entry 346 g is set to zero. In this instance, the quantity entry 346 g can also be locked to prevent the user from adjusting the quantity as the product 344 g is not available”; figure 4 and para. 74 (towards end of paragraph) where the retailer GUI includes multiple fulfillment options and can gray out/prevent user selection of options that aren’t available; see also para. 54-55)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Moriya invention with Maitra with the motivation of increasing efficiency. See para. 72 where “In this instance, the quantity entry 346 g can also be locked to prevent the user from adjusting the quantity as the product 344 g is not available” and para. 74 “The retailer GUI 400 can gray out and/or prevent user selection of the particular fulfillment option that is not available.”
Claims 6, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya (US2020/0096900) in view of Kawai (US2008/0319877) in view of Maitra et al. (US2023/0237555) as applied to claims 5, 13, and 19 above, further in view of Lincoln et al. (US Patent No. 10,282,718).
As per dependent Claim 6, Claim 14, and Claim 20,
Moriya/Kawai teaches the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 5, the system according to claim 13, and the method according to claim 19.
Moriya further teaches:
wherein in a case where the object screen is in the second mode and the specific shipping service is a first shipping service, the object screen displays both of the specific object corresponding to the first shipping service and an access object for receiving an instruction to access a website for purchasing the consumable article in the first manner, and (para. 38-39 and figure 5 step 503-504 where is the SFP is registered to the cartridge automatic order service, then in para. 40-42 an access URL is generated; figure 9A and para. 47 where when the user has subscribed to the automatic order service, the specific access destination URL displays a screen for specifically the “Cartridge automatic order service” where the user may order a cartridge by specifying a desired cartridge and pressing the “OK” button; see also para. 55-58)
Examiner noting that Moriya teaches “in a case where the object screen is in the second mode”.
Moriya/Kawai/Maitra does not teach, but Lincoln teaches:
and the specific shipping service is a second shipping service different from the first shipping service, the object screen displays the specific object corresponding to the second shipping service in the first manner and the access object in the second manner (Col. 3 Lines 51-63 user interfaces that selectively provide an invoice payment option (“access object”) to approved customers such as business customers; Col. 10 Lines 26-60 and figure 2 where if the invoice payment option is activated, the item page includes a user-selectable submit order element that allows the user to instantly invoice the order (“first shipping service”); Col. 11 Line 54 to Col. 12 Line 20 where the item requires a restricted shipping option (“second shipping service”) instead of invoice payment option so the module disables the invoice payment option by excluding the option from the GUI or rendering the option unselectable in the GUI; figure 4 and Col. 16 Line 18-24 GUI for restricted shipping)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Moriya invention with Lincoln with the motivation of increasing efficiency and reducing customer frustration.
See Col. 2 Lines 21-54 “Additionally or alternatively, the technology can selectively determine in real-time, and in some cases prior to the checkout page (thus reducing the steps needed to complete the order), whether the invoice payment option should be made unavailable based on certain criteria to prevent customers associated with business accounts that do not meet the requirements for invoice payment options from using that option. This can save the customer time needed to ordering the items, can reduce customer frustration that can result from using the incorrect payment option, and also reduce the time and resources spent by account managers to rectify incorrectly selected payment options. The technology is also configurable to consider new and/or unique criteria that may apply to certain types of businesses to selectively determine if those businesses and/or the items (e.g., products) being ordered by them qualify for the invoice payment option.”
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya (US2020/0096900) in view of Kawai (US2008/0319877) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Moriya (US2018/0272733).
As per dependent Claim 7,
Moriya/Kawai teaches the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1.
Moriya further teaches:
wherein in a case where the image processing device has registered for the specific shipping service and the image processing device is registered in association with specific account information, the predetermined screen is displayed in the second mode (para. 38-39 and figure 5 step 503-504 where is the SFP is registered to the cartridge automatic order service along with figure 6 service registration information; para. 40-41 an access URL is generated; para. 45-46 where the user can access the site from the PC based on the URL; figure 9A and para. 47 where when the user accesses the site from the PC, the user may order a cartridge by specifying a desired cartridge and pressing the “OK” button; see also para. 55-58)
Moriya/Kawai does not teach, but Moriya teaches:
specific account information used by the terminal device to log in (para. 50 where the reference describes the MFP performing the method, but the PC can perform the method instead and para. 51 where the user logs in from the PC; figure 3 and para. 26-28 where user information is stored for managing a user’s login and there are two types of authorities to manage the MFP, the administrator has more authority than the general user; para. 52 where if the consumable purchase button is selected, a purchase site is accessed to complete a purchase of the consumable; see also para. 44 and figure 9)
in a case where the image processing device is registered in association with other account information that is not used by the terminal device to log in, the predetermined screen is displayed in a third mode that restricts use of all the plurality of shipping services (figure 1 and para. 16 a plurality of PCs can be connected to the MFP; para. 50-52 where PC performs the method; figure 4 and overview of para. 29-36 where user logs in; para. 36 after the logon process, determine a button/icon to be displayed on a main screen; figure 8 and para. 39-43 where if the user is a general user “the CPU 111 determines to display the administrator notification button 707 and not to display the consumable purchase button 706” (“restricts user of all the plurality of shipping services”); see also para. 45 and figure 10)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Moriya invention with Moriya with the motivation of increasing security (by limiting purchase authority to certain users) and reducing erroneous orders.
See para. 15 “The present embodiment provides a mechanism for performing an appropriate process related to the purchase of consumables based on user authority so that orders that are not intentionally made by an administrator will not be made when a general user or a general group that does not have purchase authority for consumables presses a delivery purchase button”.
See also para. 48 “As described above, in the present embodiment, the MFP 101 displays different buttons corresponding to different processes regarding the purchase of consumables based on user authority. Therefore, the user is not able to perform any actions other than selection of a button corresponding to the process based on the user's authority. Thus, the MFP 101 can perform an appropriate process based on user authority regarding purchase of a consumable. In addition, time and effort of the user can be reduced, and an erroneous order of a consumable can be reduced.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim et al. (WO2022/046166)
Ward et al. (US2006/0173749)
Yamazaki (US2025/0301074)
Katayama (US2025/0245709)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lisa Ma whose telephone number is (571)272-2495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM.
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.
/L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
