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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/23/23 follows the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nathani et al. (US 2017/0039007).
Regarding claim 1, Nathani teaches a computer-implemented method (abstract and ¶ 0011), comprising:
receiving, by a print server, a request to print a first document, wherein the request is received from a user account associated with a user (receive print data; ¶ 0159, Fig. 14 1430) and the first document includes confidential information (highly secured data; ¶ 0086);
adding the first document in a print queue for a printer (store in print queue; ¶¶ 0159-0160, Fig. 14 1435);
identifying a location of the user (location sensor detected; ¶ 0161, Fig. 15 1510);
determining, in response to the identifying the location of the user, the user is within the predetermined distance of the printer (distance less than threshold; ¶ 0162, Fig. 15 1515);
allowing, in response to the determining, the printer to print the first document (permission to print; ¶ 0167, Fig. 15 1545); and
printing the first document (send print job to printer; ¶ 0174, Fig. 15 1575).
Regarding claim 2, Nathani teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the identifying the location of the user comprises: connecting, by a personal area network (PAN), the printer with a mobile computing device associated with the user, wherein the identifying the location is based on the connecting (Bluetooth connection; ¶ 0161 and ¶ 0128).
Regarding claim 3, Nathani teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the PAN determines a distance of the mobile computing device from the printer (determine distance between client device 705 and location sensor; ¶ 0162).
Regarding claim 4, Nathani teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the identifying the location of the user is based on an input from one or more Internet of Things (IoT) devices (computing device 201 and printer; ¶ 0044, ¶ 0048, ¶ 0053, ¶ 0153, Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 10, Nathani teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining the print request includes confidential information, wherein the determining is based on an input submitted with the print request (secure application print request; ¶ 0086 and ¶ 0088).
Regarding claim 11, Nathani teaches computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining the print request includes confidential information, wherein the determining is based on analyzing the print request with a learning model to identify the confidential information (¶ 0088).
Claims 12-20 recite similar limitations as claims 1-4 and 11 thus, arguments similar to that presented above are equally applicable to claims 12-20.
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, 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) 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nathani as applied to claims 1, 12, and 17 above, and further in view of Vedaraj et al. (US 11347450).
Regarding claim 5, Nathani teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising: initiating, by the printer, the print request (generate print job; ¶ 0160, Fig. 14); but Nathani does not explicitly teach identifying a second location of the mobile computing device at a later time; determining, based on the second distance, the mobile computing device is outside the predetermined distance; and stopping, in response to the determining the mobile computing device is outside the predetermined distance, the print request.
However, Vedaraj teaches identifying a second location of the mobile computing device at a later time (continuously detects presence of user; col 10 line 63 to col 11 line 15); determining, based on the second distance, the mobile computing device is outside the predetermined distance (user not present; col 11 lines 22-25); and stopping, in response to the determining the mobile computing device is outside the predetermined distance, the print request (pause printing; col 11 lines 26-40).
Nathani and Vedaraj are in the same field of endeavor of a system and method providing secure printing. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system and method of Nathani as shown above as taught by Vedaraj. The combination improves the method and system by improving security by keeping documents secured while printing (col 1; Verdaraj).
Regarding claim 8, Nathani in view of Vedaraj teach the computer-implemented method of claim 5, but Nathani does not explicitly teach further comprising: sending, in response to the stopping, a notification to the remote computing device, wherein the indication notifies the user of the stopping.
However, Vedaraj teaches further comprising: sending, in response to the stopping, a notification to the remote computing device, wherein the indication notifies the user of the stopping (col 16 lines 12-29, Fig. 5B).
The motivation applied in claim 5 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 9, Nathani in view of Vedaraj teach the computer-implemented method of claim 8, but Nathani does not explicitly teach further comprising: identifying a third location of the mobile computing device; determining, in response to the identifying the third location, the third location is within the predetermined distance; and resuming the printing.
However, Vedaraj teaches further comprising: identifying a third location of the mobile computing device; determining, in response to the identifying the third location, the third location is within the predetermined distance; and resuming the printing (resume printing; col 11 line 62 to col 12 lines 17).
The motivation applied in claim 5 is incorporated herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT YIP whose telephone number is (571)270-5244. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 PM PST.
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 M. 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.
/KENT YIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681