DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 are presented for consideration.
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) 1, and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doui [ US Patent Application No 2014/0372514 ], in view of Saitoh et al. [ US Patent Application No 2004/0051899 ].
As per claim 1, Doui discloses the invention as claimed including an information processing device comprising: a processor configured to:
function as a virtual device that is provided one-to-one with a physical device and that mediates transmission and reception of information between an application and the physical device [ i.e. the cloud server manages registration information related to the cloud print service, user who is authorized to gain access to the network having the MFP registers the MFP into the cloud server ] [ 10, Figure 1; and paragraphs 0014, 0035, 0037, and 0076 ].
Duoi does not specifically disclose
in a case where transmission and reception of information is set to unapproved in the virtual device, prohibit transmission and reception of information to and from another application other than a connection-approved application whose connection with the virtual device is approved in advance, the connection-approved application and the another application each being applications of a digital system distinct from the physical device.
Saito discloses
in a case where transmission and reception of information is set to unapproved in the virtual device, prohibit transmission and reception of information to and from another application other than a connection-approved application whose connection with the virtual device is approved in advance [ i.e. presetting condition information for restrict document (permitted or restricted for each one of plurality communication methods ] [ Figures 3, and 6; and paragraphs 0053, 0056, and 0065-0070 ], the connection-approved application and the another application each being applications of a digital system distinct from the physical device [ i.e. automatic printing of a document received in a communication when the contents of transmission identification information transmitted by the sender are checked on the basis of the established prescribed condition information and is determined that the document received in the communication is subject to permission for automatic printing ] [ paragraphs 0015, 0018, 0063, and 074 ].
It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Doui and Saitoh because the teaching of Saitoh would enable to prevent output of unwanted received documents by controlling whether or not received documents are printed out automatically according to desired conditions [ Saitoh, paragraph 0013 ].
As per claim 3, Saitoh discloses wherein the processor is configured to approve the prohibited transmission and reception of information in a case where confirmation information transmitted from the physical device and confirmation information transmitted from a user of the physical device via the connection-approved application match [ i.e. in the case of documents which satisfy previously established condition (parties approved by the user) ] [ paragraphs 0075, and 0088 ].
As per claim 4, Doui discloses wherein the processor is configured to approve the prohibited transmission and reception of information in a case where code information generated in advance by the physical device is received as the confirmation information and code information matching the received code information is received from the connection-approved application [ i.e. authentication information ] [ Figure 4; and paragraphs 0045, and 0058 ].
As per claim 5, Doui discloses wherein the processor is configured to prohibit transmission and reception of information regarding a user [ i.e. user restriction ] [ Abstract; and paragraphs 0014, 0049, and 0096 ].
As per claim 6, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 1, furthermore, Doui discloses an information processing terminal in which the application has been installed [ paragraphs 0012, and 0080 ].
As per claim 7, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 1.
As per claim 8, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doui [ US Patent Application No 2014/0372514 ], in view of Saitoh et al. [ US Patent Application No 2004/0051899 ], and further in view of Okada [ US Patent Application No 2023/0384998 ].
11. As per claim 2, Doui in view of Saitoh does not specifically disclose wherein the processor is configured to approve the prohibited transmission and reception of information on receipt of, from the connection-approved application, confirmation information indicating that it has been confirmed that the physical device is installed in a predetermined location. Okada discloses wherein the processor is configured to approve the prohibited transmission and reception of information on receipt of, from the connection-approved application, confirmation information indicating that it has been confirmed that the physical device is installed in a predetermined location [ i.e. confirming the term of validity of installation location information ] [ paragraphs 0059, and 0066 ]. It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Doui, Saitoh and Okada because the teaching of Okada would enable to prevent execution of printing at a location where printing is originally desired to be inhibited, and therefore, it is possible to reduce the risk of information leakage [ Okada, paragraph 0050 ].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 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.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Qureshi et al. [ US Patent Application No 2014/0007222 ] discloses secure execution of enterprise applications on mobile devices
Kamath et al. [ US Patent Application No 2013/0107324 ] discloses print requests require approval to fulfillment by the printer
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6 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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 571-2727952. 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.
/DUSTIN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446