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 .
In amendments dated 11/07/2025, applicant(s) amended claims 1, 7 and 8 by incorporating the claim limitations of claim 3 in re-arranged and separated conditions in which changed examiner’s interpretation; and cancelled claim 3. Claims 1, 2 and 4 – 8 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
In the remarks on page 7 the applicant notes that the title have been amended to overcome the prior objections. In view of the amendments to the title the prior objections regarding the title is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2 and 4 - 8 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1, 2, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruta in view of Takahashi (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2009/0073489 A1, hereinafter ‘Takahashi’).
With respect to claim 1, Haruta teaches an information processing apparatus (i.e., an information processing apparatus 10, abstract, ¶0118) comprising: a processor (i.e., a CPU 11, ¶0034, Fig. 1) configured to: acquire characteristic information related to a characteristic of each destination information together with an address table including a plurality of destination information from another apparatus (e.g., accepting fax number(s) of each destination information together with an address book including a plurality of destination information from another apparatus, ¶0033, ¶0105); and register, in a case where the number of cases of the destination information included in the acquired address table is larger than the number of cases of destination information that is registrable in an address table of the information processing apparatus, a part of the destination information included in the acquired address table in the address table of the information processing apparatus, by using the characteristic information (e.g., in a case where a number of destination information provided from the obtained address book is greater than the number of cases of destination information that is registrable in the address book of the information processing apparatus, register/set/enroll related information included in the obtained address book in the address book of the information processing apparatus, by using the accepted fax number(s), ¶0078 - ¶0083, Fig. 17B); but fails separately teach that said characteristic information includes information related to a destination type and use count of each destination information; and preferentially registering destination having a high priority set according to a combination of destination type and the use count.
However, the mentioned claimed limitations are well known in the art as evidenced by Takahashi. In particular, Takahashi teaches characteristic information that includes information related to a destination type and use count of each destination information (e.g., information that is associated to an address type and counter of each destination, ¶0039 - ¶0040, ¶0059, ¶0062, Figs. 3A/3B); and
preferentially registering destination having a high priority set according to a combination of destination type and the use count (e.g., allocating a priority order and counter to each address registered in an address book, where the allocated priority order and counter can be displayed in a sort preferential order, ¶0007, ¶0036, ¶0043, ¶0051 - ¶0052 and Figs. 8 & 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the information processing apparatus of Haruta as taught by Takahashi since Takahashi suggested within ¶0007, ¶0036, ¶0043, ¶0051 - ¶0052 and Figs. 8 & 15 that such modification would be convenient to sort addresses and counters in a manner way in order of use frequency thereof can enhance operability and convenience when a user searches for an address-book address, thereby preventing mis transmission.
With respect to claim 2, Haruta in view of Takahashi teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the characteristic information includes information related to a destination type of each destination information, and the processor is configured to: preferentially register destination information having a high priority set according to the destination type, in the address table of the information processing apparatus (e.g., this is well-known in the art that while using the address book and when the user input/enter fax number, the apparatus will retrieve/invoke the settings from fax information (as destination type) from last time or weight more the user used the information processing apparatus, ¶0093 - ¶0096, ¶0100 - ¶0102 & ¶0105).
With respect to claim 7, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. The use of a non-transitory computer readable medium executed by at least a computer (CPU) as described in claim 7 is explicitly taught by ¶0032 of Haruta.
With respect to claim 8, this is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the apparatus claim 1.
Claim 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruta in view of Takahashi and further in view of Watanabe (JP-2008-136252 A, machine translated document, hereinafter ‘Watanabe’).
With respect to claim 4, Haruta in view of Takahashi teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the processor is configured to: register, in a case where a registration number, of destination information to be registered in the address table of the information processing apparatus, which is the same as a registration number in the acquired address table, is unregistered in the address table of the information processing apparatus, the destination information in the registration number which is the same as the registration number in the address table from which the destination information is acquired.
However, the mentioned claimed limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Watanabe. In particular, Watanabe teaches wherein the processor is configured to: register, in a case where a registration number, of destination information to be registered in the address table of the information processing apparatus, which is the same as a registration number in the acquired address table, is unregistered in the address table of the information processing apparatus, the destination information in the registration number which is the same as the registration number in the address table from which the destination information is acquired (e.g., In case where registration number, of destination information to be registered in the address book, which is the same as a registration number, is not registered in the address book, register the destination information in the registration number which is the same as the registration number in the address book from with the destination information is obtained, Page 3 of 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the information processing apparatus of Haruta in view of Takahashi as taught by Watanabe since Watanabe suggested in Page 3 of 12 that such modification would add the current destination information in order to improve usability and convenience for the user to reuse the destination information in a future if the user want to send two or more recipients.
With respect to claim 5, Haruta in view of Takahashi and further in view of Watanabe teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein Watanabe teaches the processor is configured to: register, in a case where the registration number, of the destination information to be registered in the address table of the information processing apparatus, which is the same as the registration number in the acquired address table, is already registered in the address table of the information processing apparatus, the destination information in a registration number at a foremost head among unregistered registration numbers in the address table of the information processing apparatus (Watanabe: In case where registration number, of destination information to be registered in the address book, which is the same as a registration number, is already registered in the address book, set current record of the address book, Pages 3 - 5 of 12).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruta, Takahashi and Watanabe in view of Furuichi (JP-H07147626 A, machine translated document, hereinafter ‘Furuichi’).
With respect to claim 6, Haruta in view of Takahashi and further in view of Watanabe teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, but neither of them teaches wherein the processor is configured not to: register, in a case where the registration number, of the destination information to be registered in the address table of the information processing apparatus, which is the same as the registration number in the acquired address table, is already registered in the address table of the information processing apparatus, the destination information in the address table of the information processing apparatus.
However, the mentioned claimed limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Furuichi. In particular, Furuichi teaches wherein the processor is configured not to: register, in a case where the registration number, of the destination information to be registered in the address table of the information processing apparatus, which is the same as the registration number in the acquired address table, is already registered in the address table of the information processing apparatus, the destination information in the address table of the information processing apparatus (e.g., When a number is already registered, it is judged that registration is not possible and the user is notified that the facsimile number is already registered and cannot be registered, so the same sender is prevented from being registered with different passwords. The confidentiality of the received data from the sender can be secured. Further, since the user who is performing the registration operation is informed of the reason why the registration cannot be performed, the user can easily deal with it and the operability and convenience are improved, Page 3 and 7 of 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the information processing apparatus of Haruta in view of Takahashi and further in view of Watanabe as taught by Furuichi since Furuichi suggested in Pages 3 and 7 of 9 that such modification would inform the user who is performing registration operation that the registration cannot be performed in order to easily deal with it and the operability and convenience are improved.
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 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 JUAN M GUILLERMETY whose telephone number is (571)270-3481. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Benny Q TIEU can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/JUAN M GUILLERMETY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682