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
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on October 30, 2025.
Of prior existing claims 1-9 and 15-20: claims 1, 19 and 20 are independent claims; and claims 1-2, 4-6, 15 and 19-20 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-9 and 15-20 remain pending, and have been examined in this application. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments in the instant Amendment, filed on October 30, 2025, with respect to limitations listed below, have been fully considered and are persuasive as follows.
Applicant’s arguments: “in claim 1 as currently amended, it states that when a change in authority in a first image forming apparatus is applied to each of the other image forming apparatuses, a determination is made by the claimed subject as for whether the authority for all functions is set to any of the roles. If it is determined that the authority for all functions is not set to any of the roles in an image forming apparatus, the change in authority from the one (first) image forming apparatus is reflected in that apparatus. This feature is not disclosed in any of the prior references alone or in combination including Teeuwen, Kamiya. and Raleigh, especially in the feature highlighted in bold font above.”
The Examiner agrees with the Applicants, but the prior 103 rejections and Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new rejection below, replacing the prior Raleigh reference with the newly-found Tandon reference.
The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim be further amended; details in the specification be incorporated, to distinguish the claimed invention over prior art of record. Should the Applicant desire an interview to further clarify the claim interpretation/rejections, please contact the Examiner at (571) 272-2642 to schedule an interview.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 15-18: rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the image processing apparatuses” in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is respectfully noted that prior parts of claim 1 recite “the image forming apparatuses”.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 15-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as inheriting 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues of their parent claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 1-9, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teeuwen et al. (“Teeuwen”; US20010038462A1) in view of Kamiya (“Kamiya”; JPH11161441A) and Tandon (“Tandon”; US8429708B1).
Per claim 1: Teeuwen discloses an information processing apparatus (Teeuwen FIG. 16, printers 1A, 1B, 1C) comprising: a processor configured to:
receive a change of an authority in a first image forming apparatus among a plurality of image forming apparatuses in which an authority is set for each of roles assigned to a user (Teeuwen para. [0202], “The accounting and security database 33 of the UPS and those of the printers (27) are synchronized in order to assure that they contain the same information. Any changes in permissions and credits are entered by the system administrator in the database of the UPS and are then automatically distributed by the UPS to the corresponding databases in the printers”; Teeuwen para. [0094], “If the database does not contain the user's name for a received print file, then the accounting and security unit 27 makes a new entry in the database (5-15) for this user's name, with an automatic authorization. The mode in which the accounting and security unit 27 does this is hereinafter referred to as the "dynamic mode".”);
Teeuwen does not explicitly disclose an arrangement to: acquire authority information set to others of the plurality of image forming apparatuses besides the first image forming apparatus; in a case where the change of the authority in the first image forming apparatus is applied to each of the others of the image forming apparatuses, determine whether an authority of all functions is not set to any of the roles, and to an image forming apparatus of the others of the image processing apparatuses for which it is determined that the authority of all functions is not set to any of the roles, reflect the change of the authority in the first image forming apparatus.
However, in an analogous art, Kamiya (English translation) discloses an arrangement to:
acquire authority information set to others of the plurality of image forming apparatuses besides the first image forming apparatus (Kamiya page 11, fourth last para., “After starting up as a slave printer, the printer 203 waits for data reception and periodically makes a polling request”);
and
in a case where the change of the authority in the first image forming apparatus is applied to each of the others of the image forming apparatuses, (Kamiya page 11, second last para., “502; Yes), the printer 203 acquires the setting information (step S503), and changes the content of the setting information management table of the printer 203 (step S504).”),
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Teeuwen, as taught by Kamiya, with an arrangement to: acquire authority information set to others of the plurality of image forming apparatuses besides the first image forming apparatus; in a case where the change of the authority in the first image forming apparatus is applied to each of the others of the image forming apparatuses. . Motivation for modifying would have been to automatically detect a possibility of updating authorities, and to update to match the settings of a master printer, in order to increase a user-friendliness, versatility, attractiveness and broadened adoption of the Teeuwen /Kamiya combination within the market.
The Teeuwen/Kamiya combination does not teach or disclose an arrangement to determine whether an authority of all functions is not set to any of the roles, and to an image forming apparatus of the others of the image processing apparatuses for which it is determined that the authority of all functions is not set to any of the roles, reflect the change of the author4ity in the first image forming apparatus.
However, in an analogous art, Tandon teaches or discloses an arrangement to determine whether an authority of all functions is not set to any of the roles, and to an image forming apparatus of the others of the image processing apparatuses for which it is determined that the authority of all functions is not set to any of the roles, reflect the change of the authority in the first image forming apparatus (Tandon col. 8, lines 2-6, “The presence of excessive or unauthorized (by policy) entitlements in an information system significantly endanger the entirety of an organization's information and IT assets. Furthermore, their oblivious continued presence poses a greater risk”; Tandon claim 7, “determining excessive entitlements granted to the given user, wherein the determination of excessive entitlements involves comparing a set of intended access entitlements with the given user's cumulative access entitlement set”; Tandon col. 10, lines 56-63, “may further be noted that these permissions would typically not have been provisioned by a single administrator, but rather provisioned by numerous administrators, each of whom may belong to different groups, and may only be responsible for managing isolated subsets of resources. Thus, in all likelihood, no single administrator in the system would know about the entire set of permissions that exist for any one of thousands of users or security groups”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Teeuwen/Kamiya combination, as taught by Tandon, with an arrangement to determine whether an authority of all functions is not set to any of the roles, and to an image forming apparatus of the others of the image processing apparatuses for which it is determined that the authority of all functions is not set to any of the roles, reflect the change of the author4ity in the first image forming apparatus. Motivation for modifying would have been to avoid a risk which may be caused by the presence of excessive entitlements (Tandon col. 8, lines 2-6).
Per claim 2: The Teeuwen/Kamiya/Tandon combination disclosed the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Teeuwen further discloses an arrangement wherein the processor is configured to:
in a case where a predetermined condition of the authority of all functions is not set to any of the roles is not satisfied, not reflect the change of the authority in the rest of image forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses (Teeuwen para. [0094], “may be that the accounting and security unit 27 has been brought into a different mode, hereinafter referred to as the "static mode", by the apparatus manager, in which case the user's name is not added to the database”).
Per claim 3: The Teeuwen/Kamiya/Tandon combination disclosed the information processing apparatus according to claim 2. Teeuwen further discloses an arrangement wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where the predetermined condition is not satisfied, issue a notification indicating that the condition is not satisfied (Teeuwen para. [0221], “If it was found in step 22-40 that printing according to the job settings is not possible, a warning message is now shown in the message window 67 in the display image 60, saying that printing of the selected print job according to its predefined settings is not possible and why (22-52)”).
Per claim 4: The Teeuwen/Kamiya/Tandon combination disclosed the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Teeuwen further discloses an arrangement wherein the processor is configured to:
further receive a change of the role assigned to the user from a system administrator role into another system administrator role selected from the plurality of system administrator roles in the one image forming apparatus (Teeuwen para. [0202], “Also, when a print file of an as yet unknown user arrives at a printer, and the JobManager 12 of that printer extracts the user name and updates its accounting and security database 27, the said JobManager also informs the UPS, which updates its database 33 accordingly and informs the other printers”; [Change of role is changing from an “unauthorized user” (i.e., not listed in the database), to an “authorized user” (i.e., listed in the database]), and
reflect the change of the system administrator role into the another system administrator role in the one image forming apparatus to the rest of image forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses (Teeuwen para. [0202], “said JobManager also informs the UPS, which updates its database 33 accordingly and informs the other printers”).
Per claim 5: The Teeuwen/Kamiya/Tandon combination disclosed the information processing apparatus according to claim 2. Teeuwen further discloses an arrangement wherein the processor is configured to:
further receive a change of the role which is a system administrator role assigned to the user into another system administrator role selected from the plurality of system administrator roles in the one image forming apparatus (Teeuwen para. [0202], “Also, when a print file of an as yet unknown user arrives at a printer, and the JobManager 12 of that printer extracts the user name and updates its accounting and security database 27, the said JobManager also informs the UPS, which updates its database 33 accordingly and informs the other printers”; [Change of role is changing from an “unauthorized user” (i.e., not listed in the database), to an “authorized user” (i.e., listed in the database]), and
reflect the change of the system administrator role into the another system administrator role in the one image forming apparatus to the rest of image forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses (Teeuwen para. [0202], “said JobManager also informs the UPS, which updates its database 33 accordingly and informs the other printers”).
Per claim 6: The Teeuwen/Kamiya/Tandon combination disclosed the information processing apparatus according to claim 3. Teeuwen further discloses an arrangement wherein the processor is configured to:
further receive a change of the role which is a system administrator role assigned to the user into another system administrator role selected from the plurality of system administrator roles in the one image forming apparatus (Teeuwen para. [0202], “Also, when a print file of an as yet unknown user arrives at a printer, and the JobManager 12 of that printer extracts the user name and updates its accounting and security database 27, the said JobManager also informs the UPS, which updates its database 33 accordingly and informs the other printers”; [Change of role is changing from an “unauthorized user” (i.e., not listed in the database), to an “authorized user” (i.e., listed in the database]), and
reflect the change of the system administrator role into the another system administrator role in the one image forming apparatus to the rest of image forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses (Teeuwen para. [0202], “said JobManager also informs the UPS, which updates its database 33 accordingly and informs the other printers”).
Per claim 7: The Teeuwen/Kamiya/Tandon combination disclosed the information processing apparatus according to claim 4. Teeuwen further discloses an arrangement wherein the processor is configured to:
in a case where the change of the system administrator role in the one image forming apparatus is applied to the rest of image forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses, and there is no user assigned to the system administrator role in the other image forming apparatus, issue a notification indicating that the user does not exist (Teeuwen para. [0092], “Tf either the user code is incorrect or the user is not authorized, then the unit 27 refuses to release the apparatus for use and reports this on the display on the operator control panel (5-5).”’).
Per claim 8: The Teeuwen/Kamiya/Tandon combination disclosed the information processing apparatus according to claim 5. Teeuwen further discloses an arrangement wherein the processor is configured to:
in a case where the change of the system administrator role in the one image forming apparatus is applied to the rest of image forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses, and there is no user assigned to the system administrator role in the other image forming apparatus, issue a notification indicating that the user does not exist (Teeuwen para. [0092], “Tf either the user code is incorrect or the user is not authorized, then the unit 27 refuses to release the apparatus for use and reports this on the display on the operator control panel (5-5).”’).
Per claim 9: The Teeuwen/Kamiya/Tandon combination disclosed the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Teeuwen further discloses an arrangement wherein the processor is configured to:
in a case where the change of the system administrator role in the one image forming apparatus is applied to the rest of image forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses, and there is no user assigned to the system administrator role in the other image forming apparatus, issue a notification indicating that the user does not exist (Teeuwen para. [0092], “Tf either the user code is incorrect or the user is not authorized, then the unit 27 refuses to release the apparatus for use and reports this on the display on the operator control panel (5-5).”’).
Per claim 15: The Teeuwen/Kamiya/Tandon combination disclosed the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Teeuwen further discloses an arrangement wherein the processor is configured to:
in a case where the change of the authority does not satisfy the predetermined condition of an authority of all functions is not set to any of the roles in the one image forming apparatus, not perform the change of the authority for the one image forming apparatus (Teeuwen para. [0094], “may be that the accounting and security unit 27 has been brought into a different mode, hereinafter referred to as the "static mode", by the apparatus manager, in which case the user's name is not added to the database”).
Per claim 16: The Teeuwen/Kamiya/Tandon combination disclosed the information processing apparatus according to claim `1. However, Kamiya discloses an arrangement wherein the processor is configured to:
in a case where an authority for a system administrator role is not set in the rest of image forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses (Kamiya English translation page 7, eleventh paragraph, “When the printer 203 is connected to a network at the time of installation”; Kamiya English language page 6, seventh paragraph, “if a master printer having the setting information necessary for starting up the printer 103 is found”), acquire information indicating a function of each of the one image forming apparatus and the rest of image forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses, and in a case where the function of the rest of mage forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses corresponds to the function of the one image forming apparatus, reflect the authority set for each system administrator role in the one image forming apparatus to the rest of image forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses (Kamiya page 7, eleventh to thirteenth paragraph, “When the printer 203 is connected to a network at the time of installation, the CPU 301 of the printer 203 It detects whether another printer exists on the network. When the printer 204 or the printer 205 exists as in the network system shown in FIG. 4, whether the printer 204 has the initial setting information common to the printers connected to the network, It detects whether a printer exists. When a master printer exists in the printers connected to the network, common initial setting information is received via the LAN interface 307, and the CPU 301 also stores the initial setting information in the setting information management table (see FIG. 3) in the ROM 302”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Teeuwen/Kamiya/Tandon combination, as further taught by Kamiya, wherein the processor is configured to: wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where an authority for a system administrator role is not set in the rest of image forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses, acquire information indicating a function of each of the one image forming apparatus and the rest of image forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses, and in a case where the function of the rest of mage forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses corresponds to the function of the one image forming apparatus, reflect the authority set for each system administrator role in the one image forming apparatus to the rest of image forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses. Motivation for modifying would have been to automatically detect, obtain and set a newly-installed printer to match the settings of a master printer, in order to increase a user-friendliness, versatility, attractiveness and broadened adoption of the Teeuwen /Kamiya/Tandon combination within the market.
Per claim 17: The Teeuwen/Kamiya/Tandon combination disclosed the information processing apparatus according to claim 16. However, Kamiya further discloses an arrangement wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where the function of the one image forming apparatus includes the function of the rest of image forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses, and the authority set for each system administrator role in the one image forming apparatus is applied to the rest of image forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses determine whether or not the predetermined condition is satisfied (Kamiya page 7, last paragraph, “When a master printer exists in the printers connected to the network, common initial setting information is received via the LAN interface 307, and the CPU 301 also stores the initial setting information in the setting information management table (see FIG. 3) in the ROM 302”), determine whether or not a condition similar to the predetermined condition is satisfied (Kamiya page 4, sixth paragraph, “when the setting information in the master device has been changed, the receiving unit may change the setting information”), and
in a case where the predetermined condition is satisfied, reflect the system administrator role and the authority corresponding to the function of the rest of image forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses (Kamiya page 4, sixth paragraph, “when the setting information in the master device has been changed, the receiving unit may change the setting information”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Teeuwen/Kamiya/Tandon combination, as further taught by Kamiya, to an arrangement wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where the function of the one image forming apparatus includes the function of the rest of image forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses, and the authority set for each system administrator role in the one image forming apparatus is applied to the rest of image forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses, determine whether or not the predetermined condition is satisfied, and in a case where he predetermined condition is satisfied, reflect the system administrator role and the authority corresponding to the function of the rest of image forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses. Motivation for modifying would have been to “update setting information of an apparatus as an update source so that setting information is automatically reflected on all devices even when setting information is changed” (Kamiya page 3, third last paragraph), in order to increase a user-friendliness, intuitiveness, versatility, attractiveness and broadened adoption of the Teeuwen/Kamiya/Tandon combination within the market.
Per claim 19, such non-transitory computer readable medium claim recites limitations with similar scope to claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is also rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable, for the same reason set forth above for claim 1.
Per claim 20, such method claim recites limitations with similar scope to claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is also rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable, for the same reason set forth above for claim 1.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teeuwen et al. (“Teeuwen”; US20010038462A1) in view of Kamiya (“Kamiya”; JPH11161441A), Tandon (“Tandon”; US8429708B1) and Sugimoto et al. (“Sugimoto”; US20080204783).
Per claim 18: The Teeuwen/Kamiya/Tandon combination disclosed the information processing apparatus according to claim 16. The Teeuwen/Kamiya/Tandon combination does not disclose an arrangement wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where the function of the rest of image forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses does not correspond to the function of the one image forming apparatus, issue a notification indicating that the authority is not assigned for the system administrator role in the rest of image forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses.
However, in an analogous art, Sugimoto discloses an arrangement wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where the function of the rest of image forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses does not correspond to the function of the one image forming apparatus, issue a notification indicating that the authority is not assigned for the system administrator role in the rest of image forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses. (Sugimoto [0018], “FIG. 7 is a diagram showing a screen of the LCD when a rank of "SCAN" in "SCAN/MEDIA" is updated from "Normal" to "Best"”; Sugimoto [0081 ], “"For each mode” indicates that the setting values for the facsimile function, the copy function, the scanner function, and the media function are set individually”; [The alternative menu setting to “For each mode” (FIG. 7) results in a menu display (FIG. 7) which equates to a visual notification indicating that the authority is not assigned for the role in the other image forming apparatus, i.e., “Best” set for “Scan Media” is not assigned to any of the “Fax Transmission”, “Fax receipt” and “Copy” image forming apparatus.]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Teeuwen/Kamiya/Tandon combination, as taught by Sugimoto, wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where the function of the rest of image forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses does not correspond to the function of the one image forming apparatus, issue a notification indicating that the authority is not assigned for the system administrator role in the rest of image forming apparatuses of the plurality of image forming apparatuses. Motivation for modifying would have been to provide notification when a problem occurs with the arrangement, in order to increase a user- friendliness, versatility, attractiveness and broadened adoption of the Teeuwen/Sugimoto/Tandon/Sugimoto combination within the market.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 Paul J Skwierawski whose telephone number is (571)272-2642. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00am-3:30pm weekdays.
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 supervisory primary examiner (SPE) Luu Pham can be reached on (571) 270-5002. 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.
/Paul Skwierawski/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439