DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to applicant’s argument that none of the references teach “register a plurality of virtual image processing devices corresponding to the image processing device for the generated different device identification information, respectively, with respect to a server for an image processing service running on a network, the server being connected over the network to the image processing device to be used in the image processing service; and poll each of the plurality of virtual image processing devices, wherein the virtual image processing devices to be polled is narrowed down according to a predetermined condition,” the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The first part of the argument is based on the assertation that Morimoto is teaching away from the claimed language in that the server controls the registeration and the like with respect to the virtual devices. However, it is noted that the server is performing all operations of the claims as described. No where in the claims does it mention that these operations must be performed on a terminal device independent from a server. The intention of Morimoto is for the server is to allow for a plurality of virtual devices to interact with a plurality of external terminals or services, which is consistent with the claims.
The second part of the argument is based on the assertation that Kimber and Morimoto cannot be combined together do to different devices controlling aspects of the claims. Morimoto is directed towards a server performing the limitations of the claims and Kimber is directed towards a terminal performing the limitations of the claims. It is alleged that these two references therefore cannot be combined together. However, the examiner notes that what is relied upon from Kimber is the teachings of one printer having multiple virtual printer devices. The virtual printer devices are stored on the server of Morimoto. The combination of the Kimber with Morimoto would allow for Morimoto to realize multiple virtual devices for one printer. Therefore, the combination of Morimoto with Kimber is valid.
The final part of the argument is based on the teachigns of Kim. Kim is used to show that multiple devices can have there status checked based on a condition, narrowing down of the statuses, paragraph 331. This would be a form of polling. Polling is used to check the status and determine if a device is ready to receive data. Kim discloses that the devise on the movement path are checked to determine if there status is available to send the job to, paragraphs 330-333.
Therefore, the cited references do teach “register a plurality of virtual image processing devices corresponding to the image processing device for the generated different device identification information, respectively, with respect to a server for an image processing service running on a network, the server being connected over the network to the image processing device to be used in the image processing service; and poll each of the plurality of virtual image processing devices, wherein the virtual image processing devices to be polled is narrowed down according to a predetermined condition.”
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 10-13, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto (US 2022/0308802) in view of Kimber (US 5,903,716) further in view of Kim (US 2017/0208181).
Regarding Claim 1, Morimoto teaches an image processing device (Element 120) comprising:
a processor (Element 221, wherein there is a CPU) configured to:
generate, for each request, different device identification information according to the request (Paragraph 49, wherein the server registers the printer and determines the unique information including address information); and
register a virtual image processing device indicating the virtual image processing device for each of the generated device identification information with respect to a server for an image processing service running on a network, the server being connected over the network to the image processing device to be used in the image processing service (Paragraph 49, wherein the server registers the printer and determines the unique information including address information. The server is connected to the network and communicates across the network, paragraph 39).
Morimoto does not teach a plurality of virtual image processing devices corresponding to the image processing device for the generated different device identification information, respectively; and
poll each of the plurality of virtual image processing devices, wherein the virtual image processing devices to be polled is narrowed down according to a predetermined condition.
Kimber does teach a plurality of virtual image processing devices corresponding to the image processing device for the generated different device identification information, respectively (Column 4, lines 31-56, wherein the physical printer can have a plurality of virtual printers with unique addresses. The printer server can be a separate device as described in Morimoto. Kimber is used to show that the printers can have multiple virtual associations. This information would be stored on the server of Morimoto).
Morimoto and Kimber are combinable because they both deal with virtual printers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Morimoto with the teachings of Kimber for the purpose of easily utilizing different configurations of the same printer (Kimber: Column 1, lines 41-63).
Morimoto in view of Kimber does not teach poll each of the plurality of virtual image processing devices, wherein the virtual image processing devices to be polled is narrowed down according to a predetermined condition.
Kim does teach poll each of the plurality of virtual image processing devices, wherein the virtual image processing devices to be polled is narrowed down according to a predetermined condition (Paragraphs 330-333, wherein based on certain conditions, the appropriate printer is polled to check for status. The printers can checked along the path to determine the status, poll, of the printers).
Morimoto and Kim are combinable because they both deal with processing virtual printers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Morimoto in view of Kimber with the teachings of Kim for the purpose of helping the user select an optimal device (Kim: Paragraph 333).
Regarding Claim 4, Morimoto further teaches wherein the condition is a condition specifying the virtual image processing device corresponding to a user who is logged in to the virtual image processing device itself (Paragraph 84, wherein a printer can be used if a user is registered and authenticated for that printer).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim further teaches wherein the condition is a condition specifying the virtual image processing device narrowed down according to a frequency of use of the virtual image processing device itself (Paragraph 331, wherein frequency is one of the checks).
Morimoto and Kim are combinable because they both deal with processing virtual printers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Morimoto in view of Kimber with the teachings of Kim for the purpose of helping the user select an optimal device (Kim: Paragraph 333).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim further teaches wherein the condition is a condition specifying the virtual image processing device corresponding to a user who is present in an area where the image processing device is installed (Paragraph 331, wherein location information is one of the checks).
Morimoto and Kim are combinable because they both deal with processing virtual printers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Morimoto in view of Kimber with the teachings of Kim for the purpose of helping the user select an optimal device (Kim: Paragraph 333).
Regarding Claim 7, Morimoto further teaches wherein the processor is configured to use user management information, in which users who are able to use each of the plurality of virtual image processing devices registered in the server are registered, to narrow down the virtual image processing device that is usable by each user (Paragraph 84, wherein a printer can be used if a user is registered and authenticated for that printer).
Regarding Claim 10, Morimoto further teaches wherein the processor is configured to use user management information, in which users who are able to use each of the plurality of virtual image processing devices registered in the server are registered, to narrow down the virtual image processing device that is usable by each user (Paragraph 84, wherein a printer can be used if a user is registered and authenticated for that printer).
Regarding Claim 11, Morimoto further teaches wherein the processor is configured to use user management information, in which users who are able to use each of the plurality of virtual image processing devices registered in the server are registered, to narrow down the virtual image processing device that is usable by each user (Paragraph 84, wherein a printer can be used if a user is registered and authenticated for that printer).
Regarding Claim 12, Morimoto further teaches wherein the processor is configured to use user management information, in which users who are able to use each of the plurality of virtual image processing devices registered in the server are registered, to narrow down the virtual image processing device that is usable by each user (Paragraph 84, wherein a printer can be used if a user is registered and authenticated for that printer).
Regarding Claim 13, Morimoto further teaches wherein:
in the user management information, authentication information is registered for each virtual image processing device (Paragraph 84, wherein the printer is associated with user information), and
the processor is configured to allow the use of the virtual image processing device if authentication using the corresponding authentication information is successful (Paragraph 84, wherein a printer can be used if a user is registered and authenticated for that printer).
Regarding Claim 16, Morimoto further teaches wherein:
in the user management information, authentication information is registered for each virtual image processing device (Paragraph 84, wherein the printer is associated with user information), and
the processor is configured to allow the use of the virtual image processing device if authentication using the corresponding authentication information is successful (Paragraph 84, wherein a printer can be used if a user is registered and authenticated for that printer).
Regarding Claim 17, Morimoto further teaches wherein, in the user management information, authentication information is registered for each virtual image processing device and also for each user (Paragraph 84, wherein the printer is associated with user information).
Regarding Claim 18, Morimoto further teaches wherein in a case of registering the virtual image processing device, the processor is configured to register a user requesting registration of the virtual image processing device in the user management information as a user who is able to use the virtual image processing device (Paragraph 84, wherein a printer can be used if a user is registered and authenticated for that printer).
Regarding Claim 19, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 20, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS PACHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-3433. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4.
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, George Eng can be reached at 571-272-7495. 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.
/NICHOLAS PACHOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights