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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are pending in this application [10/2/2025].
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 have been amended [10/2/2025].
Claim 18 has been cancelled [10/2/2025].
Claim 21 has been newly added [10/2/2025].
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/29/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 19, and 20 and added claim 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, based on newly applied references Ito (US-2023/0079332) and Kawashima (US-2006/0048004).
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.
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishibashi (JP-2018-073143A) in view of Kandregula (US-2014/0155022) and further in view of Arinobu et al. (US-2014/0359630) and further in view of Ito (US-2023/0079332).
As to Claim 1, Ishibashi teaches ‘An information processing apparatus comprising: a processor configured to: control a printing application to issue a capture instruction to an operating system at each of a plurality of predetermined timings, wherein the printing application operates on the operating system in the information processing apparatus [Fig 5 (S450-S480), par 0013-0017, 0028-0030, 0032, 0034, 0054-0056 – when an error (i.e. predetermined timing) occurs during execution of a print application for iOS operating system, determine that a screenshot obtaining condition is satisfied and set a trigger generation flag to on]; upon receiving the capture instruction at each of the plurality of predetermined timings, control the operating system to copy an image of the printing application displayed on a display device, wherein the copy image corresponding to each of the plurality of predetermined timings represents a type of operation performed by a user on the printing application [Fig 5 (S450-S480), par 0015, 0017, 0022, 0028-0030, 0032, 0034, 0054-0056 – obtaining a screenshot image as a copy image obtained by copying the display image SC1 included in the setting screen D21 including various settings of the print application]; acquire and store the copy image corresponding to each of the plurality of predetermined timings in a storage device in association [par 0032, 0034-0035 – calling an API for obtaining a screenshot image when error information has been received and storing the acquired screen shot image in the print application storage area]’.
Ishibashi does not disclose expressly ‘store the copy image corresponding to each of the plurality of predetermined timings in a storage device in association with a file name indicating the corresponding predetermined timing that triggers the acquisition; acquire a first copy image, from the copy images corresponding to the plurality of predetermined timings, when the user performs a predetermined operation on an application different from the printing application on the operating system, the predetermined operation being a predetermined user's operation that causes a change in a display screen image of the display device; and acquire a second copy image, from the copy images corresponding to the plurality of predetermined timings, immediately before the change in a case where the display screen image of the display device changes by the user performing the predetermined operation’.
Kandregula teaches ‘store the copy image corresponding to each of the plurality of predetermined timings in a storage device in association with a file name indicating the corresponding predetermined timing that triggers the acquisition [Kandregula: Fig 8, par 0056-0057 – data stores a filename and timestamps of the screenshot captured].’.
Ishibashi and Kandregula are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely information processing devices. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include periodically/a-periodically screenshots of data displayed with a filename and timestamps, as taught by Kandregula. The motivation for doing so would have been to monitor usage of a device while storing screenshot logs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate Kandregula with Ishibashi to obtain the invention.
Ishibashi in view of Kandregula does not disclose expressly ‘acquire a first copy image, from the copy images corresponding to the plurality of predetermined timings, when the user performs a predetermined operation on an application different from the printing application on the operating system, the predetermined operation being a predetermined user's operation that causes a change in a display screen image of the display device; and acquire a second copy image, from the copy images corresponding to the plurality of predetermined timings, immediately before the change in a case where the display screen image of the display device changes by the user performing the predetermined operation’.
Arinobu teaches ‘acquire and store the copy image corresponding to each of the plurality of predetermined timings in a storage device in association with a file name indicating the corresponding predetermined timing that triggers the acquisition; acquire a first copy image, from the copy images corresponding to the plurality of predetermined timings, when the user performs a predetermined operation on an application different from the printing application on the operating system, the predetermined operation being a predetermined user's operation that causes a change in a display screen image of the display device [Fig 10, par 0041-0046, 0067-0083 – the control unit executes an operation every time an operation is input to the operation unit by capturing operation screen when an operation is input and operated, the operation screen image acquisition unit in the control unit acquires the operation screen image at a timing when the control unit does not execute processing for forming an output image to write into storage unit, such as an access log indicating a history of change]’.
Ishibashi in view of Kandregula are analogous art with Arinobu because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely information processing devices. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to managing logs, as taught by Arinobu. The motivation for doing so would have been to cause the administrator to intuitively recognize what operation performed on the MFP results in information leak when managing job logs and a history of operation inputs for particular jobs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate Arinobu with Ishibashi in view of Kandregula to obtain the invention.
Ishibashi in view of Kandregula and Arinobu does not disclose expressly ‘acquire a second copy image, from the copy images corresponding to the plurality of predetermined timings, immediately before the change in a case where the display screen image of the display device changes by the user performing the predetermined operation’.
Ito in the proposed combination teaches ‘acquire a second copy image, from the copy images corresponding to the plurality of predetermined timings, immediately before the change in a case where the display screen image of the display device changes by the user performing the predetermined operation [par 0030, 0035-0040 – the generating section determines that the screen displayed on the monitor is significantly changing (changes from the first screen to the second screen) due to page switching or topic change during the remote conference, and generates a snapshot document of the latest screen which is the screen (the first screen) immediately before the change; as a result, the user can easily review the remote conference by accessing the snapshot document of the screen (the first screen) generated by the generating section]’.
Ishibashi in view of Kandregula and Arinobu are analogous art with Ito because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely information processing devices. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to capturing images, as taught by Ito. The motivation for doing so would have been to an administrator switching pages (i.e. predetermined operation) taking a screenshot of a page prior to the page switch that will be screen captured. Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate Ito with Ishibashi in view of Kandregula and Arinobu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Further, in regards to claim 20, the information processing apparatus of claim 1 performs the information processing method of claim 20.
Further, in regards to claim 19, the information processing method of claim 20 is fully embodied in the non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program of claim 19.
As to Claim 2, Kandregula in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: store the copy image corresponding to each of the plurality of predetermined timings in the storage device in association with acquisition date and time [Fig 8, par 0015, 0024, 0033, 0054-0056 – on-device meter periodically takes screenshots of monitored data of an application in the foreground which are streamed/uploaded continuously and/or substantially continuously to the collection site including a timestamp when the screenshot was acquired]’.
Ishibashi and Kandregula are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely information processing devices. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include periodically/a-periodically screenshots of data displayed with timestamps, as taught by Kandregula. The motivation for doing so would have been to monitor usage of a device while storing screenshot logs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate Kandregula with Ishibashi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
As to Claim 3, Kandregula in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: receive designation of a first mode or a second mode from the user, and in a case where the designation of the second mode is received, a period of the plurality of predetermined timings is shortened as compared with a case where the designation of the first mode is received [par 0034-0035, 0069 – list of applications of interest may be periodically (i.e., second mode based on automatic periodic basis) and/or a-periodically updated (i.e., first mode based on notification or threshold) based on user’s current application in the foreground (e.g., second mode’s periodic screenshots]’.
Ishibashi and Kandregula are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely information processing devices. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include periodically/a-periodically screenshots of data displayed with timestamps, as taught by Kandregula. The motivation for doing so would have been to monitor usage of a device while storing screenshot logs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate Kandregula with Ishibashi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
As to Claim 4, Ishibashi teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: acquire a third copy image, from the copy images corresponding to the plurality of predetermined timings, at a timing when the user performs the predetermined operation on the printing application operating in the information processing apparatus, and store the third copy image in the storage device in association with information indicating the predetermined operation performed by the user [par 0005, 0013-0017, 0028-0030, 0032, 0034, 0054-0056 – when an error occurs during execution of a print application that a user has inputted to execute, obtaining a screenshot of the setting screen D21 including various settings of the print application and storing the screenshot]’.
As to Claim 5, Ishibashi in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the printing application is an application that controls a printing apparatus based on a print job [Fig 1 (110), par 0014 – the print application is an application for causing the multifunction peripheral to execute printing], and the processor is configured to: in a case where the predetermined operation is the predetermined user's operation related to setting or processing of the print job, store the third copy image in the storage device in association with identification information on the print job related to the predetermined user's operation that triggers the acquisition [par 0005, 0013-0017, 0028-0030, 0032, 0034, 0054-0056 – when an error occurs during execution of a print application that a user has inputted for executing, obtaining a screenshot of the setting screen D21 including various settings of the print application and storing the screenshot]’.
As to Claims 6 and 7, Kandregula in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: store the third copy image in the storage device in association with date and time when the user performs the predetermined operation that triggers the acquisition [Fig 8, par 0054, 0056-0058 – data table identifies an application in use and timestamps when the screenshot was captured]’.
Ishibashi and Kandregula are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely information processing devices. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include periodically/a-periodically screenshots of data displayed with timestamps, as taught by Kandregula. The motivation for doing so would have been to monitor usage of a device while storing screenshot logs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate Kandregula with Ishibashi to obtain the invention as specified in claims 6 and 7.
As to Claim 8, Ishibashi teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: acquire a fourth copy image, from the copy images corresponding to the plurality of predetermined timings, at a timing when a predetermined event of the printing application operating in the information processing apparatus or a predetermined event of an apparatus controlled by the printing application occurs, and store the fourth copy image in the storage device in association with information indicating the predetermined event that has occurred [par 0013-0017, 0028-0030, 0032, 0034, 0054-0056 – when an error occurs during execution of a print application, obtaining a screenshot of the setting screen D21 including various settings of the print application and storing the screenshot]’.
As to Claim 9, Ishibashi teaches ‘wherein the printing application is an application that controls a printing apparatus based on a print job [Fig 1 (110), par 0014 – the print application is an application for causing the multifunction peripheral to execute printing], and the processor is configured to: in a case where the predetermined event is an event related to processing of the print job, store the fourth copy image in the storage device in association with identification information on the print job related to an event that triggers the acquisition [par 0013-0017, 0028-0030, 0032, 0034, 0054-0056 – when an error occurs during execution of a print application, obtaining a screenshot of the setting screen D21 including various settings of the print application and storing the screenshot]’.
As to Claims 10 and 11, Kandregula in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: store the fourth copy image in the storage device in association with date and time when the predetermined event that triggers the acquisition occurs [Fig 8, par 0054, 0056-0058 – data table identifies an application in use and timestamps when the screenshot was captured]’.
Ishibashi and Kandregula are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely information processing devices. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include periodically/a-periodically screenshots of data displayed with timestamps, as taught by Kandregula. The motivation for doing so would have been to monitor usage of a device while storing screenshot logs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate Kandregula with Ishibashi to obtain the invention as specified in claims 10 and 11.
As to Claim 12, Ishibashi in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where any copy image among the copy images corresponding to the plurality of predetermined timings contains confidential information, perform a concealment process on an area where the confidential information of any copy image appears, and update any copy image [par 0019, 0044-0045, 0059 – performing a mosaic processing on screenshot prohibition area (i.e. personal information) in the acquired screenshot image]’.
As to Claims 13-17, Ishibashi in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where any copy image among the copy images corresponding to the plurality of predetermined timings contains confidential information, perform a concealment process on an area where the confidential information of the copy image containing the confidential information appears, and update the copy image [par 0019, 0044-0045, 0059 – performing a mosaic processing on screenshot prohibition area (i.e. personal information) in the acquired screenshot image]’.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishibashi (JP-2018-073143A) in view of Kandregula (US-2014/0155022), Arinobu et al. (US-2014/0359630), Ito (US-2023/0079332) and further in view of Kawashima (US-2006/0048004).
As to Claim 21, Ishibashi in view of Kandregula, Arinobu and Ito teaches all of the claimed elements as recited in independent claim 1. Ishibashi in view of Kandregula, Arinobu and Ito does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the file name of the copy image corresponding to each of the plurality of predetermined timings comprises an acquisition date and time, and wherein the processor acquires the first copy image and the second copy image according to an acquisition date and time comprised in a file name of each of the first copy image and the second copy image’.
Kawashima teaches ‘wherein the file name of the copy image corresponding to each of the plurality of predetermined timings comprises an acquisition date and time, and wherein the processor acquires the first copy image and the second copy image according to an acquisition date and time comprised in a file name of each of the first copy image and the second copy image [Figs 29, 31-32 , par 0059, 0081-0082, 0129-0134 – acquiring log files of snapshots and/or screenshots including log file name snapshots including corresponding acquisition dates and times in their file names]’.
Ishibashi in view of Kandregula, Arinobu and Ito are analogous art with Kawashima because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely information processing devices. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to logging captured images, as taught by Kawashima. The motivation for doing so would have been to improving the operation ease and enable collection of logs that are effective in specifying a cause of a fault. Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate Kawashima with Ishibashi in view of Kandregula, Arinobu and Ito to obtain the invention as specified in claim 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Publication No. 2023/0079332
b. US Publication No. 2006/0048004
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
c. US Publication No. 2007/0226438
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MIYA J CATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 830-530.
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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/MIYA J CATO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681