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 with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
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, 13-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (US 2020/0236239) in view of Kay (US 2018/0060601) further in view of Eun (US 2013/0321847) further in view of Neville (US 2017/0201647).
Regarding claim 1, Wada teaches an information processing apparatus (Element 2) comprising:
a processor (Element 25 and paragraph 65, wherein there is a processor) configured to:
acquire user information that is information for authenticating and identifying a user who has entered a facility (Paragraphs 27 and 57, wherein upon entry of the user into the building, the user information is obtained. This information is used for authentication);
in response to the user being authenticated, start tracking the user and detect a position of the user in the facility (Paragraphs 25-27 and 59 and Fig. 5, wherein the room, position, of the user is determined. For example, if they are in rooms E1-E5. The user information is used to authenticate the user to each area. The user can further be determined if they have exited an area. This is a form of tracking a position of the user).
Wada does not teach in response to the user being authenticated, start tracking the user and detect a position of the user in the facility by using an image captured by at least one image capturing device that is installed in the facility and images the user in the facility;
in response to the user detected to be present at a first apparatus that is installed in the facility and being identified by using the image, transmit the user information to the first apparatus;
receive operation information, which is information of an operation of the user performing on the first apparatus, from the first apparatus;
and charge the user according to the operation information.
Kay does teach in response to the user being authenticated, start tracking the user and detect a position of the user in the facility by using an image captured by at least one image capturing device that is installed in the facility and images the user in the facility (Paragraphs 61 and 67-72, wherein the user is authenticated and then the user is tracked throughout the building to determine the access needed and granted for each location the user is present in).
Wada and Kay are combinable because they both deal with security as it relates to access for building resources.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Wada with the teachings of Kay for the purpose of providing increased security of resources based on positioning data (Kay: Paragraph 4).
Wada in view of Kay does not teach in response to the user detected to be present at a first apparatus that is installed in the facility and being identified by using the image, transmit the user information to the first apparatus;
receive operation information, which is information of an operation of the user performing on the first apparatus, from the first apparatus;
and charge the user according to the operation information.
Eun does teach in response to the user detected to be present at a first apparatus that is installed in the facility and being identified by using the image, transmit the user information to the first apparatus (Paragraphs 23, 24, and 27-30, wherein the validity data, and user information, of the user is obtained when they are detected close to the MFP. This data can be obtained from a server. The validity data determines if the user has properly entered or exited the room with the image forming apparatus. The images from the camera are taught by Kay);
receive operation information, which is information of an operation of the user performing on the first apparatus, from the first apparatus (Paragraph 36 and 53, wherein the operations of the user is determined).
Wada and Eun are combinable because they both deal with interactions with printers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Wada in view of Kay with the teachings of Eun for the purpose of reducing waste of power for the MFP while maintaining security of the device (Eun: Paragraph 71).
Wada in view of Kay further in view of Eun does not teach charge the user according to the operation information.
Neville does teach charge the user according to the operation information (Paragraph 51, wherein a user is charged for utilizing a printing service).
Wada and Neville are combinable because they both deal with interactions with printers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Wada in view of Kay further in view of Eun with the teachings of Neville for the purpose of improving facilitating sharing of printers (Neville: Paragraphs 4 and 5).
Regarding Claim 13, Wada teaches an information processing system (Paragraph 2) comprising:
the information processing apparatus (Paragraph 2) according to claim 1.
Wada in view of Kay does not teach the first apparatus that transmits the operation information to the information processing apparatus,
wherein the first apparatus transmits the operation information to the information processing apparatus in a case in which the operation of the user ends.
Eun teaches the first apparatus that transmits the operation information to the information processing apparatus (Paragraphs 23, 24, and 27-30, wherein the validity data of the user is obtained when they are detected close to the MFP. This data can be obtained from a server),
wherein the first apparatus transmits the operation information to the information processing apparatus in a case in which the operation of the user ends (Paragraph 36 and 53, wherein the operations of the user is determined).
Wada and Eun are combinable because they both deal with interactions with printers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Wada in view of Kay with the teachings of Eun for the purpose of reducing waste of power for the MFP while maintaining security of the device (Eun: Paragraph 71).
Wada in view of Kay further in view of Eun does not teach charge the user according to the operation information.
Neville does teach charge the user according to the operation information (Paragraph 51, wherein a user is charged for utilizing a printing service).
Wada and Neville are combinable because they both deal with interactions with printers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Wada in view of Kay further in view of Eun with the teachings of Neville for the purpose of improving facilitating sharing of printers (Neville: Paragraphs 4 and 5).
Regarding Claim 14, Eun teaches wherein the first apparatus includes a sensor that detects the user who is present in a predetermined distance range from the first apparatus (Paragraph 22, wherein the motion sensor can be an optical sensor, which detected motion),
requests the user information from the information processing apparatus in a case in which the user is present in the range (Paragraphs 23, 24, and 27-30, wherein the validity data of the user is obtained when they are detected close to the MFP. This data can be obtained from a server).
Wada and Eun are combinable because they both deal with interactions with printers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Wada in view of Kay with the teachings of Eun for the purpose of reducing waste of power for the MFP while maintaining security of the device (Eun: Paragraph 71).
Wada in view of Kay further in view of Eun does not teach transmits the operation information to the information processing apparatus in a case in which the user moves away from the range.
Neville does teach transmits the operation information to the information processing apparatus in a case in which the user moves away from the range (Paragraph 47, wherein it can be detected if the user leaves the proximity).
Wada and Neville are combinable because they both deal with interactions with printers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Wada in view of Kay further in view of Eun with the teachings of Neville for the purpose of improving facilitating sharing of printers (Neville: Paragraphs 4 and 5).
Regarding Claim 15, Eun further teaches wherein, in a case in which the user information is received, the first apparatus identifies the user (Paragraphs 30, 31, and 34, wherein the user information is provided).
Wada and Eun are combinable because they both deal with interactions with printers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Wada in view of Kay with the teachings of Eun for the purpose of reducing waste of power for the MFP while maintaining security of the device (Eun: Paragraph 71).
Regarding Claim 17, Eun further teaches wherein, in a case in which the user information does not correspond to the user, the first apparatus presents a candidate for the user information corresponding to the user (Paragraph 38, wherein multiple users can be detected).
Wada and Eun are combinable because they both deal with interactions with printers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Wada in view of Kay with the teachings of Eun for the purpose of reducing waste of power for the MFP while maintaining security of the device (Eun: Paragraph 71).
Regarding Claim 18, Eun further teaches wherein the first apparatus presents user information related to a user who is present in the facility as the candidate (Paragraph 38, wherein multiple users can be detected within the area).
Wada and Eun are combinable because they both deal with interactions with printers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Wada in view of Kay with the teachings of Eun for the purpose of reducing waste of power for the MFP while maintaining security of the device (Eun: Paragraph 71).
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.
Claim(s) 3-12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (US 2020/0236239) in view of Kay (US 2018/0060601) further in view of Eun (US 2013/0321847) further in view of Neville (US 2017/0201647) further in view of Aoyama (US 2020/0327530).
Regarding claim 3, Neville further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
user moves away from the predetermined distance range (Paragraph 47, wherein it can be detected if the user leaves the proximity).
Wada and Neville are combinable because they both deal with interactions with printers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Wada in view of Kay further in view of Eun with the teachings of Neville for the purpose of improving facilitating sharing of printers (Neville: Paragraphs 4 and 5).
Wada in view of Kay further in view of Eun further in view of Neville does not teach request the operation information from the first apparatus to charge the user in a case in which the user in response to the user detected moving away from a predetermined distance range of the first apparatus.
Aoyama does teach request the operation information from the first apparatus to charge the user in a case in which the user in response to the user detected moving away from a predetermined distance range of the first apparatus (Paragraphs 36 and 50, wherein the user is charged for services rendered upon exiting a facility. The facility can be any place that offers a service, paragraph 22. This would mean printing service as well. The exiting the facility is similar to the proximity as taught by Neville).
Neville teaches charging a user for printing services.
Neville contains a “base” process of charging for printing service which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” in that the charge can be made upon exiting the facility.
Aoyama contains a known technique of charging for services rendered upon leaving a facility that is applicable to the “base” process.
Aoyama’s known technique of charging for services rendered upon exiting a facility would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the “base” process of Neville and the results would have been predictable and resulted in charging for printing services upon leaving the facility which results in an improved process.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding claim 4, Wada in view of Kay further in view of Eun further in view of Neville does not teach wherein the processor is configured to:
notify the user of the charge in a case in which the user leaves the facility.
Aoyama does teach wherein the processor is configured to:
notify the user of the charge in a case in which the user leaves the facility (Paragraphs 36 and 50, wherein the user is charged for services rendered upon exiting a facility. The facility can be any place that offers a service, paragraph 22. This would mean printing service as well).
Neville teaches charging a user for printing services.
Neville contains a “base” process of charging for printing service which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” in that the charge can be made upon exiting the facility.
Aoyama contains a known technique of charging for services rendered upon leaving a facility that is applicable to the “base” process.
Aoyama’s known technique of charging for services rendered upon exiting a facility would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the “base” process of Neville and the results would have been predictable and resulted in charging for printing services upon leaving the facility which results in an improved process.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding Claim 5, Wada in view of Kay further in view of Eun further in view of Neville does not teach wherein the processor is configured to:
notify the user of the charge in a case in which the user leaves the facility.
Aoyama does teach wherein the processor is configured to:
notify the user of the charge in a case in which the user leaves the facility (Paragraphs 36 and 50, wherein the user is charged for services rendered upon exiting a facility. The facility can be any place that offers a service, paragraph 22. This would mean printing service as well).
Neville teaches charging a user for printing services.
Neville contains a “base” process of charging for printing service which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” in that the charge can be made upon exiting the facility.
Aoyama contains a known technique of charging for services rendered upon leaving a facility that is applicable to the “base” process.
Aoyama’s known technique of charging for services rendered upon exiting a facility would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the “base” process of Neville and the results would have been predictable and resulted in charging for printing services upon leaving the facility which results in an improved process.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding Claim 6, Wada in view of Kay further in view of Eun further in view of Neville does not teach wherein the processor is configured to:
notify the user of the charge in a case in which the user leaves the facility.
Aoyama does teach wherein the processor is configured to:
notify the user of the charge in a case in which the user leaves the facility (Paragraphs 36 and 50, wherein the user is charged for services rendered upon exiting a facility. The facility can be any place that offers a service, paragraph 22. This would mean printing service as well).
Neville teaches charging a user for printing services.
Neville contains a “base” process of charging for printing service which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” in that the charge can be made upon exiting the facility.
Aoyama contains a known technique of charging for services rendered upon leaving a facility that is applicable to the “base” process.
Aoyama’s known technique of charging for services rendered upon exiting a facility would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the “base” process of Neville and the results would have been predictable and resulted in charging for printing services upon leaving the facility which results in an improved process.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding Claim 7, Aoyama further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
register a point of contact of the user in advance in association with the user information and transmit the charge to the point of contact (Paragraph 35, wherein the user registers themselves ahead of time).
Neville teaches charging a user for printing services.
Neville contains a “base” process of charging for printing service which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” in that the charge can be made upon exiting the facility.
Aoyama contains a known technique of charging for services rendered upon leaving a facility that is applicable to the “base” process.
Aoyama’s known technique of charging for services rendered upon exiting a facility would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the “base” process of Neville and the results would have been predictable and resulted in charging for printing services upon leaving the facility which results in an improved process.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding Claim 8, Aoyama further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
register a point of contact of the user in advance in association with the user information and transmit the charge to the point of contact (Paragraph 35, wherein the user registers themselves ahead of time).
Neville teaches charging a user for printing services.
Neville contains a “base” process of charging for printing service which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” in that the charge can be made upon exiting the facility.
Aoyama contains a known technique of charging for services rendered upon leaving a facility that is applicable to the “base” process.
Aoyama’s known technique of charging for services rendered upon exiting a facility would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the “base” process of Neville and the results would have been predictable and resulted in charging for printing services upon leaving the facility which results in an improved process.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding Claim 9, Aoyama further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
register a point of contact of the user in advance in association with the user information and transmit the charge to the point of contact (Paragraph 35, wherein the user registers themselves ahead of time).
Neville teaches charging a user for printing services.
Neville contains a “base” process of charging for printing service which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” in that the charge can be made upon exiting the facility.
Aoyama contains a known technique of charging for services rendered upon leaving a facility that is applicable to the “base” process.
Aoyama’s known technique of charging for services rendered upon exiting a facility would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the “base” process of Neville and the results would have been predictable and resulted in charging for printing services upon leaving the facility which results in an improved process.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding Claim 10, Wada in view of Kay further in view of Eun further in view of Neville does not teach wherein the user information includes a point of contact of the user registered in advance, and
the processor is configured to:
transmit user information of a candidate for the user to the first apparatus;
receive selected user information from the first apparatus; and
transmit information indicating that a user has been identified to the point of contact included in the selected user information in a case in which the user related to the selected user information is not present at the first apparatus.
Aoyama does teach wherein the user information includes a point of contact of the user registered in advance (Paragraph 35 and 36, wherein the user information is registered in advanced for payment information), and
the processor is configured to:
transmit user information of a candidate for the user to the first apparatus (Paragraph 35-37, wherein the user information including payment information is known by the terminal);
receive selected user information from the first apparatus (Paragraph 35-37, wherein the user information including payment information is known by the terminal); and
transmit information indicating that a user has been identified to the point of contact included in the selected user information in a case in which the user related to the selected user information is not present at the first apparatus (Paragraph 35-37, wherein the user information including payment information is known by the terminal in advanced).
Neville teaches charging a user for printing services.
Neville contains a “base” process of charging for printing service which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” in that the charge can be made upon exiting the facility.
Aoyama contains a known technique of charging for services rendered upon leaving a facility that is applicable to the “base” process.
Aoyama’s known technique of charging for services rendered upon exiting a facility would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the “base” process of Neville and the results would have been predictable and resulted in charging for printing services upon leaving the facility which results in an improved process.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding Claim 11, Wada in view of Kay further in view of Eun further in view of Neville does not teach wherein the user information includes a point of contact of the user registered in advance, and
the processor is configured to:
transmit user information of a candidate for the user to the first apparatus;
receive selected user information from the first apparatus; and
transmit information indicating that a user has been identified to the point of contact included in the selected user information in a case in which the user related to the selected user information is not present at the first apparatus.
Aoyama does teach wherein the user information includes a point of contact of the user registered in advance (Paragraph 35 and 36, wherein the user information is registered in advanced for payment information), and
the processor is configured to:
transmit user information of a candidate for the user to the first apparatus (Paragraph 35-37, wherein the user information including payment information is known by the terminal);
receive selected user information from the first apparatus (Paragraph 35-37, wherein the user information including payment information is known by the terminal); and
transmit information indicating that a user has been identified to the point of contact included in the selected user information in a case in which the user related to the selected user information is not present at the first apparatus (Paragraph 35-37, wherein the user information including payment information is known by the terminal in advanced).
Neville teaches charging a user for printing services.
Neville contains a “base” process of charging for printing service which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” in that the charge can be made upon exiting the facility.
Aoyama contains a known technique of charging for services rendered upon leaving a facility that is applicable to the “base” process.
Aoyama’s known technique of charging for services rendered upon exiting a facility would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the “base” process of Neville and the results would have been predictable and resulted in charging for printing services upon leaving the facility which results in an improved process.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding Claim 12, Wada in view of Kay further in view of Eun further in view of Neville does not teach wherein the user information includes a point of contact of the user registered in advance, and
the processor is configured to:
transmit user information of a candidate for the user to the first apparatus;
receive selected user information from the first apparatus; and
transmit information indicating that a user has been identified to the point of contact included in the selected user information in a case in which the user related to the selected user information is not present at the first apparatus.
Aoyama does teach wherein the user information includes a point of contact of the user registered in advance (Paragraph 35 and 36, wherein the user information is registered in advanced for payment information), and
the processor is configured to:
transmit user information of a candidate for the user to the first apparatus (Paragraph 35-37, wherein the user information including payment information is known by the terminal);
receive selected user information from the first apparatus (Paragraph 35-37, wherein the user information including payment information is known by the terminal); and
transmit information indicating that a user has been identified to the point of contact included in the selected user information in a case in which the user related to the selected user information is not present at the first apparatus (Paragraph 35-37, wherein the user information including payment information is known by the terminal in advanced).
Neville teaches charging a user for printing services.
Neville contains a “base” process of charging for printing service which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” in that the charge can be made upon exiting the facility.
Aoyama contains a known technique of charging for services rendered upon leaving a facility that is applicable to the “base” process.
Aoyama’s known technique of charging for services rendered upon exiting a facility would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the “base” process of Neville and the results would have been predictable and resulted in charging for printing services upon leaving the facility which results in an improved process.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding Claim 16, Wada in view of Kay further in view of Eun further in view of Neville does not teach wherein the user information includes a point of contact of the user registered in advance, and
in a case in which the user information corresponds to the user, the first apparatus notifies the point of contact that the user has been identified.
Aoyama does teach wherein the user information includes a point of contact of the user registered in advance (Paragraph 35, wherein the user registers themselves ahead of time), and
in a case in which the user information corresponds to the user, the first apparatus notifies the point of contact that the user has been identified (Paragraph 35, wherein the user registers themselves ahead of time, which can be provided to the terminal).
Neville teaches charging a user for printing services.
Neville contains a “base” process of charging for printing service which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” in that the charge can be made upon exiting the facility.
Aoyama contains a known technique of charging for services rendered upon leaving a facility that is applicable to the “base” process.
Aoyama’s known technique of charging for services rendered upon exiting a facility would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the “base” process of Neville and the results would have been predictable and resulted in charging for printing services upon leaving the facility which results in an improved process.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Conclusion
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