Patent Application 18623908 - CONSUMABLE AUTOMATIC DELIVERY SYSTEM THAT - Rejection

Patent Application 18623908 - CONSUMABLE AUTOMATIC DELIVERY SYSTEM THAT

Title: CONSUMABLE AUTOMATIC DELIVERY SYSTEM THAT ENABLES PROPER USE OF CONSUMABLE AUTOMATIC DELIVERY SERVICE, METHOD OF CONTROLLING SAME, AND STORAGE MEDIUM

Application Information

• Invention Title: CONSUMABLE AUTOMATIC DELIVERY SYSTEM THAT ENABLES PROPER USE OF CONSUMABLE AUTOMATIC DELIVERY SERVICE, METHOD OF CONTROLLING SAME, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
• Application Number: 18623908
• Submission Date: 2025-04-09T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2024-04-01T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2024-04-01T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 705
• National Sub-Class: 330000
• Examiner Employee Number: 90003
• Art Unit: 3628
• Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 4

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0100436🔗
• US 0253251🔗
• US 0127503🔗
• US 0198762🔗
• US 0240755🔗

Office Action Text

    DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 1 April 2024.  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 .
Claims 1-15 are original / previously presented.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.

Priority
This application 18/623,908 filed on 1 April 2024 claims priority from Japan application JP2023-060949 filed on 4 April 2023.

Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 1 April 2024 has been acknowledged by the Office.

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.

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: user interface unit in claims 1-13, delivery setting unit in claims 1-13, switching unit in claims 1-13.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. 
Claims 1-15:
Step 1:
Claims 1-13 recite a system; claim 14 recites a method; and claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.  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.
prong one.
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claims 1-15 recite an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 recites: executes automatic order processing for a consumable upon receipt of an order trigger from [an entity] that manages the device, in which a consumable ordered by executing the automatic order processing is delivered to a user, comprising: to change a setting of a region; to set automatic delivery of consumables to an activated state or a deactivated state; and to switch, in a case where the setting of the region is changed to a state in which automatic delivery of consumables has been set to the activated state by the delivery setting unit, the activated state to the deactivated state. Independent claim 14 recites: executes automatic order processing for a consumable upon receipt of an order trigger from [an entity] that manages the device, in which a consumable ordered by executing the automatic order processing is delivered to a user, the method comprising: changing a setting of a region; setting automatic delivery of consumables to an activated state or a deactivated state; and switching, in a case where the setting of the region is changed in a state in which automatic delivery of consumables has been set to the activated state by said setting, the activated state to the deactivated state. Independent claim 15 recites: executes automatic order processing for a consumable upon receipt of an order trigger from [an entity] that manages the device, in which a consumable ordered by executing the automatic order processing is delivered to a user, the method comprising: changing a setting of a region; setting automatic delivery of consumables to an activated state or a deactivated state; and switching, in a case where the setting of the region is changed in a state in which automatic delivery of consumables has been set to the activated state by said setting, the activated state to the deactivated state. The claim(s) as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities.
First, the limitations of executing automatic order processing for a consumable upon receipt of an order trigger from a resource server … manag[ing] the device, in which a consumable ordered by executing the automatic order processing is delivered to a user, the method comprising: changing a setting of a region; setting automatic delivery of consumables to an activated state or a deactivated state; and switching, in a case where the setting of the region is changed in a state in which automatic delivery of consumables has been set to the activated state by said setting, the activated state to the deactivated state are a method of organizing human activities.  For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions. For example, fundamental economic principles or practices includes executing automatic order processing for a consumable…, changing a setting…, setting automatic delivery of consumables…, switching to a deactivated state…; marketing or sales activities or behaviors includes executing automatic order processing for a consumable…, changing a setting…, setting automatic delivery of consumables…, switching to a deactivated state …; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes executing automatic order processing for a consumable…, managing the device…, delivering to a user…, changing a setting…, setting automatic delivery of consumables…, switching to a deactivated state…; and following rules or instructions includes executing automatic order processing for a consumable…, managing the device…, setting automatic delivery of consumables…, switching to a deactivated state. The presence of generic computer components such as a subscription management server, resource server, user interface unit, delivery setting unit, switching unit, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program, computer do 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. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, 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. 
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 1-15 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. subscription management server, resource server, user interface unit, delivery setting unit, switching unit, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program, computer) 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). 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 device that requires replacement of consumables in the limitations does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use (i.e. item with consumables), and as such does not provide integration into a practical application.  See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h). The device is not performing any functions, and is merely a subject of the judicial exception and certain methods of organizing human activities. Hence, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of receiving and its step of receipt of an order trigger from a resource server is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving / transmitting data for subsequent order processing), and amounts to mere data gathering and transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the subscription management server, resource server (generic computers) are being used as a tool in the receiving, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding receiving more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process.  Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the activity of delivering (e.g. in which a consumable ordered by executing the automatic order processing is delivered to a user) is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transporting / fulfilling an order), and also amounts to physically relocating an item which is an extra/post-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Also note that delivering is not a transformation that would represent a particular transformation that is significantly more, since changing the location of an item does not satisfy a particular transformation that is a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(c). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding delivering more than performing a manual process. Accordingly, 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 (subscription management server, resource server, user interface unit, delivery setting unit, switching unit, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program, computer); and adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities and elements. 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 subscription management server, resource server, user interface unit, delivery setting unit, switching unit, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program, computer to perform executing automatic order processing for a consumable…, managing the device…, delivering to a user…, changing a setting…, setting automatic delivery of consumables…, switching to a deactivated state… 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).
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 device that requires replacement of consumables does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. item with consumables). 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). Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification background ¶[0002-6] describing the element of ordering consumables to be delivered to a predetermined order destination 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. Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the receiving are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent order processing), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g).  The use of the computers (i.e. subscription management server, resource server) in these steps merely represents using generic / general purpose computers as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept.  See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these receiving steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing 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), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). 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 element of delivering (e.g. in which a consumable ordered by executing the automatic order processing is delivered to a user) is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transporting / fulfilling an order), and amounts to physically relocating an item which is an extra/post-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity / general linking use of the judicial exception to a 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(g), MPEP 2106.05(h). Also note that delivering is not a transformation that would represent a particular transformation that is significantly more, since changing the location of an item does not satisfy a particular transformation that is significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(c). Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification background ¶[0002], ¶[0006] describing the additional element of toner / consumable delivery at such a high level that indicates this 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, and using general computer components in extra-solution capacities such as data gathering. 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 send consumables for a device with respect to region), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers), 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 device that requests replacement of consumables itself. 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, 14, and 15, and further considering the addition of dependent claims 2-13. 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: First, the limitation wherein the resource server includes a trigger providing section that provides, in a case where it is determined based on received consumables information that a remaining amount of a consumable becomes less than a predetermined threshold value, a trigger for ordering this consumable to the subscription management server is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions), as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the resource server (includes a trigger providing section) and subscription management server are computer elements recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Second, the limitation wherein the device includes an event transmission section that transmits consumables information indicating a consumed state of a consumable to the resource server is an additional element that is claimed at a high level of detail and represents the extra-solution activity of transmitting data, which is not a practical application or significantly more. The device and resource server here represent using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit data) which is not a practical application or significantly more. The transmitting 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), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3: The limitation wherein the device further includes a notification section that notifies, in a case where the consumable automatic delivery is switched to the deactivated state by the switching unit, the deactivated state status to a user is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions), as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the device (further includes a notification section) and switching unit are computer elements recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4: The limitation wherein the device further includes a reconfiguration notifying section that displays, in a case where the consumable automatic delivery is switched to the deactivated state, a notification that the automatic delivery is to be set to the activated or the deactivated state by the delivery setting unit again is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions), as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the device (further includes a notification section) and delivery setting unit are computer elements recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5: First, the limitation of a connection management server that manages information on end points is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior), as described in the independent claim. The recitation of a connection management server is a computer element recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Second, the limitation wherein the device further includes an acquisition unit configured to transmit a request for acquiring the information on an end point to the connection management server to thereby acquire the end point is an additional element that is claimed at a high level of detail and represents the extra-solution activities of transmitting data and data gathering, which is not a practical application or significantly more. The connection management server represents using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit data) which is not a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the transmitting and acquiring steps here are 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), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6: First, the limitation of a display unit configured to display, in a case where it is determined based on contents… that a region set by changing the setting of the region by the user interface is not a target region supporting the consumable automatic delivery, a notification that the consumable automatic delivery has been canceled, to a user is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions), as described in the independent claim. The recitation of a display unit, and user interface are computer elements recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Second, the limitation a support table storing target regions supporting the consumable automatic delivery is an additional element that is claimed at a high level of detail and represents the extra-solution activities of electronic record keeping and data storage, which is not a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the storing steps here are 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 electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7: The limitation of a display unit configured to display, in a case where registration of the device in the resource server has failed, to a user a notification that a state of connection to the resource server is an unconnected state even in a state in which the consumable delivery is set to the activated state by the delivery setting unit is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions), as described in the independent claim. The recitation of a display unit, resource server, delivery setting unit are computer elements recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8: First, the limitation wherein the connection management server includes a connection destination determination unit configured to execute, upon receipt of a request for acquiring an end point…, processing according to validity of the end point is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions), as described in the independent claim. The recitation of a connection management server (includes a connection destination determination unit) is a computer element recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Second, the limitation of receipt of a request for acquiring an end point from the device is an additional element that is claimed at a high level of detail and represents the extra-solution activities of transmitting data and/or data gathering, which is not a practical application or significantly more. The device here represents using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data, to transmit data) which is not a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the receiving 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), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9: First, the limitation changing the setting of the region by the user interface unit is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions), as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the user interface is a computer element recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Second, the limitations of wherein the connection management server further includes an end point management table storing country names or region names and connection destination information, in a state associated with each other, and wherein in a case where a region set by changing the setting of the region… is included in the end point management table, the connection destination determination unit transmits connection destination information associated with the set region, to the device, as a response are additional elements that are claimed at a high level of detail and represent the extra-solution activities of storing data and transmitting data, which is not a practical application or significantly more. The connection management server, and connection destination determination unit represent using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit data) which is not a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the storing and transmitting steps 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), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10: First, the limitation changing the setting of the region by the user interface unit is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions), as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the user interface is a computer element recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Second, the limitations of wherein the connection management server further includes an end point management table storing country names or region names and connection destination information in a state associated with each other, and wherein in a case where a region set by changing the setting of the region by the user interface unit is not included in the end point management table, the connection destination determination unit transmits an error notification to the device are additional elements that are claimed at a high level of detail and represent the extra-solution activities of storing data and transmitting data, which is not a practical application or significantly more. The connection management server, and connection destination determination unit represent using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit data) which is not a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the storing and transmitting steps 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), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11: The limitation of wherein the connection management server or the resource server further includes a periodic state acquisition unit that periodically acquires a state of consumables of a device is an additional element claimed at a high level of detail and represent the extra-solution activities of storing data gathering and transmitting data, which is not a practical application or significantly more. The connection management server, and resource server represent using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit data) which is not a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the acquiring 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), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). 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 of wherein the device is a multifunction peripheral (MFP) is an additional element claimed at a high level of detail further limiting the judicial exception to a field of use (multifunction peripherals / printers), which is not a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification background ¶[0002], ¶[0006], ¶[0025] describing the additional element of image forming apparatuses and printers at such a high level that indicates this element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). 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 of wherein the consumables are consumables used for printing, including a toner cartridge and an ink cartridge is an additional element claimed at a high level of detail further limiting the judicial exception to a field of use (multifunction peripherals / printers), which is not a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification background ¶[0002], ¶[0006] describing the additional element of image forming apparatuses and printers requiring toner cartridges or ink as a consumable at such a high level that indicates this element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). 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, 14, 15, and the dependent claims 2-13 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 1-15 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2022/0100436 A1 to Suzuki in view of World Intellectual Property Organization publication 2022/046166 A1 to Kim in view of US patent publication 11,943,837 B2 to Morawietz.
Claim 1:
	Suzuki, as shown, teaches the following:
A consumable automatic delivery system including a device that requires replacement of consumables (Suzuki Fig 1, ¶[0116] details an image forming apparatus as an electrophotographic printer / inkjet printer that uses ink cartridges / tape cassettes / toner) and a subscription management server that executes automatic order processing for a consumable upon receipt of an order trigger from a resource server that manages the device (Suzuki Fig 1, ¶[0020], ¶[0059], ¶[0065-66], claim 3 details a server that communicates with the image forming apparatus, and a management apparatus that will ship the item (e.g. toner, ink) at the instruction of the server), in which a consumable ordered by executing the automatic order processing is delivered to a user (Suzuki ¶[0003], ¶[0032] details a user subscribes to an ink cartridge or toner to be attached to a registered printer periodically delivered to the users as a subscription cartridge), comprising:
With respect to the following:
a user interface unit configured to change a setting of a region;
Suzuki, as shown in Fig 1, ¶[0023-24], Fig 4, ¶[0075-76] details the printer device includes a LCD touch panel (user interface unit), and the ability to change settings but does not explicitly state changing a setting of a region.  However, Kim teaches this limitation with a user supplying registration information including a country or region in which the user uses the image forming apparatus regarding potential subscription service programs (Kim ¶[0029], ¶[0037]).
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 user interface unit configured to change a setting of a region as taught by Kim with the teachings of Suzuki, with the motivation “to provide a maintenance service and a service for increasing user convenience” and because “policies are different according to countries or regions using the image forming apparatus, the types of services that may be provided may be different for each country or region” (Kim ¶[0001], ¶[0018]).  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 user interface unit configured to change a setting of a region as taught by Kim in the system of Suzuki, 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).
Suzuki (in view of Kim) also teaches the following:
a delivery setting unit configured to set automatic delivery of consumables to an activated state or a deactivated state (Suzuki Fig 4, Abstract, ¶[0075-76] details changing the automatic delivery setting of consumables between normal mode (no automatic delivery) and contract mode (automatic delivery service contract)); and
With respect to the following:
a switching unit configured to switch, in a case where the setting of the region is changed by the user interface to a state in which automatic delivery of consumables has been set to the activated state by the delivery setting unit, the activated state to the deactivated state.
Suzuki, as shown in Fig 4, ¶[0075-76] details using the user interface to change (switch) the state in which automatic delivery of consumables has been set to the activated state by the delivery setting unit to the deactivated state, but does not explicitly state (1) switch, in case where the region is changed… the activated state to a deactivated state, and (2) the region is changed by the user interface.
Regarding (1) switch, in case where the region is changed… the activated state to a deactivated state, Morawietz teaches this limitation with managing a subscription based service, when changing from a region to another with a different subscription profile deactivate the user’s subscription profile (Morawietz Fig 2, col 5 ln 17-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include switching, in case where the region is changed… the activated state to a deactivated state as taught by Morawietz with the teachings of Suzuki in view of Kim, with the motivation of reducing a number steps such that the user “does not have to perform an active profile maintenance” (Morawietz col 2 ln 19-21) and because “policies are different according to countries or regions… the types of services that may be provided may be different for each country or region” (Kim ¶[0018]).  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 switching, in case where the region is changed… the activated state to a deactivated state as taught by Morawietz in the system of Suzuki in view of Kim, 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).
Regarding (2) the region is changed by the user interface, Kim teaches this limitation with a user interface unit for inputting data and the user specifying the country through registration information, and updated registration information can also be sent to the server to identify updated subscription service programs available (Kim Fig 3, Fig 11, ¶[0029], ¶[0048], ¶[0117]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the region is changed by the user interface as taught by Kim with the teachings of Suzuki (in view of Kim in view of Morawietz), with the motivation that “policies are different according to countries or regions using the image forming apparatus, the types of services that may be provided may be different for each country or region” (Kim ¶[0001], ¶[0018]) 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 the region is changed by the user interface as taught by Kim in the system of Suzuki (in view of Kim in view of Morawietz), 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 2:
	Suzuki in view of Kim in view of Morawietz, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1.  Suzuki also teaches the following:
wherein the device includes an event transmission section that transmits consumables information indicating a consumed state of a consumable to the resource server (Suzuki ¶[0055] details the device controller periodically transmits the remaining amount of the toner to the server), and
wherein the resource server includes a trigger providing section that provides, in a case where it is determined based on received consumables information that a remaining amount of a consumable becomes less than a predetermined threshold value, a trigger for ordering this consumable to the subscription management server (Suzuki Fig 5A, ¶[0059] details monitoring the remaining amount of toner and when toner is below a threshold it triggers the server to instruct shipping a toner cartridge).
Claim 12:
Suzuki in view of Kim in view of Morawietz, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1.  Suzuki also teaches the following:
wherein the device is a multifunction peripheral (MFP) (Suzuki ¶[0116] details an image forming apparatus as an electrophotographic printer / inkjet printer that uses ink cartridges / tape cassettes / toner).
Claim 13:
Suzuki in view of Kim in view of Morawietz, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1.  Suzuki also teaches the following:
wherein the consumables are consumables used for printing, including a toner cartridge and an ink cartridge (Suzuki ¶[0116] details an image forming apparatus as an electrophotographic printer / inkjet printer that uses ink cartridges / tape cassettes / toner).
Claim 14:
	Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 1.
Claim 15:
	Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 1.

Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2022/0100436 A1 to Suzuki in view of World Intellectual Property Organization publication 2022/046166 A1 to Kim in view of US patent publication 11,943,837 B2 to Morawietz, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2015/0127503 to Steif et al.
Claim 3:
	Suzuki in view of Kim in view of Morawietz, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1.  With respect to the following:
wherein the device further includes a notification section that notifies, in a case where the consumable automatic delivery is switched to the deactivated state by the switching unit, the deactivated state status to a user.
Suzuki, as shown in Abstract, Fig 4, Fig 5A, ¶[0075-76], ¶[0081] details the device includes a notification section, notifying the users and the server regarding that the consumable should be replaced, and a consumable automatic delivery selection (e.g. normal mode, contract mode); but does not explicitly state that it includes notifying when auto-delivery is switched to the deactivated state to the deactivated state status to the user.  However, Steif teaches this limitation notifying a user on the device user interface when a delivery service subscription (e.g. magazines) is canceled using the user interface, after the cancellation is confirmed with the subscription server (i.e. switched to a deactivated state) (Steif Fig 29, Fig 31, ¶[0114]).
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 device further includes a notification section that notifies, in a case where the consumable automatic delivery is switched to the deactivated state by the switching unit, the deactivated state status to a user as taught by Steif with the teachings of Suzuki in view of Kim in view of Morawietz, with the motivation of assisting users with “managing subscriptions with a billing server including an opt-in method” (Steif ¶[0010]). 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 device further includes a notification section that notifies, in a case where the consumable automatic delivery is switched to the deactivated state by the switching unit, the deactivated state status to a user as taught by Steif in the system of Suzuki in view of Kim in view of Morawietz, 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2022/0100436 A1 to Suzuki in view of World Intellectual Property Organization publication 2022/046166 A1 to Kim in view of US patent publication 11,943,837 B2 to Morawietz, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2014/0198762 A1 to Yang.
Claim 4:
	Suzuki in view of Kim in view of Morawietz, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1.  With respect to the following:
wherein the device further includes a reconfiguration notifying section that displays, in a case where the consumable automatic delivery is switched to the deactivated state, a notification that the automatic delivery is to be set to the activated or the deactivated state by the delivery setting unit again.
Suzuki, as shown in Abstract, Fig 4, Fig 5A, ¶[0075-76], ¶[0081] details the device includes a notification section, notifying the users and the server regarding that the consumable should be replaced, and a consumable automatic delivery selection between modes (e.g. normal mode, contract mode); but does not explicitly state that it includes a case when it is switched to the deactivated state, a notification is to be set to the activated or deactivated state by the delivery setting unit again.  However, Yang teaches this remaining limitation when an activated secondary cell (transmits radio signal as its service) is deactivated, a message is sent to the user equipment to instruct the user equipment to reactivate by reconfiguring the deactivated secondary cell (Yang ¶[0001], ¶[0022]).
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 device further includes a reconfiguration notifying section that displays, in a case where the delivery is switched to the deactivated state, a notification that the automatic delivery is to be set to the activated or the deactivated state by the delivery setting unit again as taught by Yang in the system of Suzuki in view of Kim in view of Morawietz, 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 5, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2022/0100436 A1 to Suzuki in view of World Intellectual Property Organization publication 2022/046166 A1 to Kim in view of US patent publication 11,943,837 B2 to Morawietz, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2019/0253251 A1 to Kobayashi.
Claim 5:
	Suzuki in view of Kim in view of Morawietz, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1.  Suzuki does not explicitly state, but Kobayashi teaches the following:
a connection management server that manages information on end points (Kobayashi Fig 1-3, ¶[0001], ¶[0025], ¶[0038], ¶[0049-51] details an authorization server that issues tokens and the token end point selection unit managing a URI common to all regions, and the authorization server includes a http server unit that is connected to each of the clients through the web browser), and 
wherein the device further includes an acquisition unit configured to transmit a request for acquiring the information on an end point to the connection management server to thereby acquire the end point (Kobayashi Abstract, Fig 1, ¶[0030], ¶[0050], ¶[0069] details clients (printers) send a request from the web browser to the authorization server http server unit to request a token, and routes to the appropriate region authorization end point).
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 connection management server that manages information on end points; and wherein the device further includes an acquisition unit configured to transmit a request for acquiring the information on an end point to the connection management server to thereby acquire the end point as taught by Kobayashi with the teachings of Suzuki in view of Kim in view of Morawietz, with the motivation of regional management since “information [is] not always collectively managed by one authorization server” (Kobayashi ¶[0021]). 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 the region is changed by the user interface as taught by Kobayashi in the system of Suzuki in view of Kim in view of Morawietz, 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:
Suzuki in view of Kim in view of Morawietz in view of Kobayashi, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 5.  Kobayashi also teaches the following:
wherein the connection management server includes a connection destination determination unit configured to execute, upon receipt of a request for acquiring an end point from the device, processing according to validity of the end point (Kobayashi ¶[0049-51], ¶[0069], ¶[0095] details selecting an authorization end point based on the determined region of the device, and the authorization server end point issues the token in response, i.e. processing according to validity).
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 connection management server includes a connection destination determination unit configured to execute, upon receipt of a request for acquiring an end point from the device, processing according to validity of the end point as taught by Kobayashi with the teachings of Suzuki in view of Kim in view of Morawietz, with the motivation of regional management since “information [is] not always collectively managed by one authorization server” (Kobayashi ¶[0021]). 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 connection management server includes a connection destination determination unit configured to execute, upon receipt of a request for acquiring an end point from the device, processing according to validity of the end point as taught by Kobayashi in the system of Suzuki in view of Kim in view of Morawietz, 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:
Suzuki in view of Kim in view of Morawietz in view of Kobayashi, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 5.  Suzuki also teaches the following:
wherein the connection management server or the resource server further includes a periodic state acquisition unit that periodically acquires a state of consumables of a device (Suzuki ¶[0055], ¶[0068] details the device controller periodically transmits the remaining amount of the toner to the server, and the information is stored in memory at the server).

Novelty / Non-Obviousness
Dependent claims 6-7, and 9-10 are not rejected under 35 USC 102 or 35 USC 103.  The Examiner knows of no art which teaches or suggests: “a display unit configured to display, in a case where it is determined based on contents stored in the support table that a region set by changing the setting of the region by the user interface is not a target region supporting the consumable automatic delivery, a notification that the consumable automatic delivery has been canceled, to a user” as recited in claim 6; “a display unit configured to display, in a case where registration of the device in the resource server has failed, to a user a notification that a state of connection to the resource server is an unconnected state even in a state in which the consumable delivery is set to the activated state by the delivery setting unit” as recited in claim 7; “wherein in a case where a region set by changing the setting of the region by the user interface unit is included in the end point management table, the connection destination determination unit transmits connection destination information associated with the set region, to the device, as a response” as recited in claim 9; and “wherein in a case where a region set by changing the setting of the region by the user interface unit is not included in the end point management table, the connection destination determination unit transmits an error notification to the device” as recited in claim 10.
The prior art of Suzuki (US 2022/0100436 A1) details subscription services for printers, and liquid crystal display on a printer / MFP and touch panel interface, where a user sets the printer to either normal mode (no subscription services) or contract mode (enabled subscription services) (Suzuki ¶[0024], ¶[0054]).  
The prior art of Kim (WO 2022/046166 A1) details subscription services for printer / MFP device consumables, with tables for subscription services storing services available (e.g. paper service, automatic toner supply) based on either country codes or global availability and model number; and users registering for subscription service programs specifying registration information including the device identification and the country or region the user uses the image forming apparatus (Kim Fig 9, ¶[0028-30], ¶[0037], ¶[0092]).
The prior art of Morawietz (US 11,943,837 B2) details device subscription services, and changing regions of a device subject to a subscription service and deactivating a subscription upon a change in region (Morawietz Fig 2, col 5 ln 17-30).
The prior art of Kobayashi (US 2019/0253251 A1) details end point management for printer devices and authorization tokens, routing end points based on region and a geographic database based on the IP address of the authorization request source; and the authorization confirmation screen will return an error if the client ID and the redirect URI (end point) does not match an authorization server in another region on an end point redirect after a signature is verified (Kobayashi ¶[0049-51], ¶[0069], ¶[0087]).
	The prior art of Pizot (US 2014/0240755 A1) details subscription services for printers, including the registration of printing devices, and that a change of regions is a critical event regarding subscription services that the printing device may be subscribed to (Pizot ¶[0022]).
Thus, the art on record fails to collectively teach these features.

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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached on (571) 272-4602. 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                                                                                                                                                                                                        
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628