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 claims 1-7 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
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UEDA (US 2015/0100682 A1) in view of Oshurkov et al. (US 2017/0149829 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, UEDA’682 shows a monitoring apparatus (paragraph [0018] log information providing apparatus 70 manage log information by collecting log information generated in response to printing executed, figure 1) comprising: a processor (Figure 2 CPU 81) configured to:
in a case where printing information of an image forming apparatus managed by an audit log server (paragraph [0018 ], figure 1 print server 20 and document management server 10) contains information indicating that a specified document, [ ], has been printed by the image forming apparatus (paragraph [0037] when printing is executed, log information generated by the print controller 21 is accumulated in the log information accumulating unit 24 of the print server 20), [ ].
UEDA’682 does not specifically show information indicating that a specified document, for which a notification function to a designated notification destination has been enabled by a document manager who created the document; cause the audit log server to notify the designated notification destination of contents of an audit log that records a fact that the specified document has been printed.
Oshurkov’829 shows information indicating that a specified document, for which a notification function to a designated notification destination has been enabled by a document manager who created the document (paragraphs [0025]-[0026] digital rights management system (DRM) with a notification rule is set for each document managed by the system, where the rule is based on a DRM protection policy associated with the document, so that users who have permission to perform a type of act on a document (e.g. read, print, copy, etc.) are allowed to receive event notifications when other users perform the same type of act on that document, figure 1 notification policy table 18, figure 8); cause the audit log server to notify the designated notification destination of contents of an audit log that records a fact that the specified document has been printed (paragraphs [0034]-[0036], [0043] and [0051] figures 5-6, The notification policy table 18 and the notification rule table 19 together define how and to whom the event notifications will be sent for each document, setting up notification for a document with a destination and a notification to that destination when is printed).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify UEDA’682 to include information indicating that a specified document, for which a notification function to a designated notification destination has been enabled by a document manager who created the document; cause the audit log server to notify the designated notification destination of contents of an audit log that records a fact that the specified document has been printed method taught by Oshurkov’829. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the system’s ability to be able to better enforce the access control with event notifications help able to be setup (paragraph [0006]).
With respect to Claim 2, the combination of UEDA’682 and Oshurkov’829 shows the monitoring apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to cause the audit log server to also notify the document manager of at least part of pages of the specified document (in Oshurkov’829: paragraph [0058] figure 13 display 1300 is an example of a notification for a print event. The notification includes a description 1301 of the document that was printed, e.g. the document ID or some other identifiers such as a file name; the user ID 1302 of the user who printed the document; a description of the number of copies that the document was printed; a description 1303 of the printer where document was printed, e.g. a printer name and/or its location).
With respect to Claim 3, the combination of UEDA’682 and Oshurkov’829 shows the monitoring apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to cause the audit log server to notify the document manager of a first page of the specified document (in Oshurkov’829: paragraph [0058] figure 13 display 1300 is an example of a notification for a print event. The notification includes a description 1301 of the document that was printed, e.g. the document ID or some other identifiers such as a file name; the user ID 1302 of the user who printed the document; a description of the number of copies that the document was printed; a description 1303 of the printer where document was printed, e.g. a printer name and/or its location).
With respect to Claim 4, the combination of UEDA’682 and Oshurkov’829 shows the monitoring apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to cause the audit log server to also notify the document manager of information about whether or not the specified document has been printed by an operation on an operation screen of the image forming apparatus (in Oshurkov’829: paragraph [0058] figure 13 display 1300 is an example of a notification for a print event. The notification includes a description 1303 of the printer where document was printed, e.g. a printer name and/or its location).
With respect to Claim 5, the combination of UEDA’682 and Oshurkov’829 shows the monitoring apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to, in a case where the specified document has been printed by an operation different from the operation on the operation screen, cause the audit log server to notify the document manager of the audit log in such a manner that the document manager is able to distinguish the notification from other notifications (in Oshurkov’829: paragraph [0058] figure 13 display 1300 is an example of a notification for a print event. The notification includes a description 1303 of the printer where document was printed, e.g. a printer name and/or its location).
With respect to Claims 6-7, rejection analogous to those presented for claim 1, are applicable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Davis et al. (US 8346582 B1): column 4 lines 34-47: The information category 26 may also include the owner's preferred mode of notification. For example, the owner may choose notification by e-mail, fax or printed document.
Oswald (US 2005/0094193 A1): Paragraph [0011] and figure 2 presenting a UI for receiving notification commands may include presenting: a graphical UI (GUI) tab to enable the notification feature; an address box for entry of an email address; and/or, a text box for entry of a text message. Further, the UI may present selection tabs for features such as staple, hole punch, document delivery time, and document delivery location.
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 IRIANA CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3246. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6.
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.
/IRIANA CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681