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 .
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 1-2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (US 20160142575 A1) in view of Greenewald et al. (US 20190349652 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yokoyama teaches an information processing apparatus (Fig. 1, MFP 100) comprising: a communicator that is wirelessly connected to another device for direct wireless communication with the other device (Fig. 2 and Par. 82, Wi-Fi (communicator), NFC compatible device/smart phone (another device)); a recognition device that recognizes presence of a user (Fig. 17, person is detected within area A1/A2 by human sensor (recognition device) and Par. 90); and a controller (Fig. 2-3) (when the person is detected by the human sensor enable NFC unit to operate Fig. 5 and Par. 55) and supply power to main controller unit (Par. 62), so as to enable wireless connection with the other device at the time when the presence of the user is recognized (Fig. 17 and Par. 82) and to disable the wireless connection with the other device at the time when the presence of the user is no longer recognized (Fig. 17, no person is detected within area A1 by human sensor or not used for predetermined time and Pars. 52, 68, NFC unit does not operate when in the power-saving mode (not conjunction effective mode i.e. disable the wireless connection)).
However, Yokoyama does not mention that (when the person is detected by the human sensor enable NFC unit to operate Fig. 5 and Par. 55) and supply power to main controller unit (Par. 62) as taught above as to “controls transmission output of a radio wave output from the communicator”.
Greenewald teaches such feature (Fig. 2 and Par. 65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught Greenewald into Yokoyama for activate the device for pairing.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Yokoyama teaches previous claim. The modified Yokoyama further teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 further comprising: a detector that detects the user, wherein the recognition device recognizes the presence of the user when the user is detected by the detector (Par. 90).
Regarding claim 12, method of claim 12 is performed by the apparatus of claim 1. They recite same scope of limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 1 (apparatus) for the method of claim 12.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (US 20160142575 A1) in view of Greenewald et al. (US 20190349652 A1) and in further view of Goets et al. (US 11182995 B1).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Yokoyama teaches previous claim.
However, the modified Yokoyama lacks on the teaching of the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 further comprising: a near-field communicator that makes near-field communication by a near-field communication method, wherein the recognition device recognizes the presence of the user when the other device is recognized by the near-field communicator.
Goets teaches the proximity sensor 166 receive a proximity signal (user associated with the proximity signal) transmitted by user device 104 and determine that user device 104 is within a predetermined region relative to external device 108, wherein proximity sensor is structured as any near-field communication device such as a radio-frequency identification (RFID) transceiver or a near-field communication (NFC) transmitter (Col. 16 Lines 25-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as Goets into Yokoyama for reducing power consumption.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
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 CINDY HUYEN TRANDAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1914. The examiner can normally be reached 8am -4:30pm.
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, Wesley L. Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/Cindy Trandai/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
2/20/2026
Prosecution Insights