DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “ the printer material from the delivery unit is provided to at least one of the printer and around the printer” is claimed. It is unclear what this means, such as if the printer around the printer are one of the same, or if they are different printers. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) limitations that fall under the grouping of abstract idea of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, e.g. Concepts Relating To Managing Human Behavior (Step 2A, Prong One) and “Mental Processes”, e.g. concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (step 2A). Specifically, the claim recites various steps of human activity that can be performed in the mind or with pen and paper, such as managing document retrieval and notifying parties when an unauthorized user retrieves printed material.
Under step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any specific computing implementation, does not require any particular algorithm, model or hardware configuration, and lacks technical improvement to printing or control apparatuses. Furthermore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements (e.g. processor, memory, computer storage medium, etc.), which are generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer
Under step 2B, the claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). The claims do not include an inventive concept that is sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Claims 2-9 merely add conventional notification or tracking operations (e.g. sending alerts, using a facility tracking system), which are also routine computer functions and do not transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Harpur et al (US 20170358157).
Regarding claim 1, Harpur discloses a control apparatus (Fig. 1 monitoring environment 100) comprising:
a processor (Fig. 4 processor 404) configured to:
receive a print instruction from a user terminal (¶15 a user of client computer system 110 may wish to print a document by interfacing with client computer system 110 to initiate a print task; ¶27 Printing device 140 receives a print task including print task data (step 202));
execute a print control that causes a printer to print without involving an operation of giving a print instruction performed by a user on the printer (¶15 a user of client computer system 110 may wish to print a document by interfacing with client computer system 110 to initiate a print task; e.g. this is initiated on the client computer and not on the printer itself), and causes printed material produced by the printing to be delivered into a delivery unit (¶27 Printing device 140 completes the received print task after a unique EM signature is generated, based on the received print task data, and all of the requested material associated with the print task is printed, including the EM signature embedded onto a portion of the printed material of the print task (step 206); printers inherently have trays or bins to collect printed material) from which the printed material is retrievable without user authentication (¶26 if authentication component 152 determines that no print task owner of the recently completed print task entered the common printing area, and the printed materials for the completed print task were removed from the common printing area; this teaches anyone can remove printed material without authorization); and
perform a resolution process if an unauthorized state occurs in which a non-instructing user who is different from an instructing user who gave the print instruction retrieves the printed material from the delivery unit, the resolution process promoting resolution of the unauthorized state (¶26 Subsequently, if authentication component 152 determines that no print task owner of the recently completed print task entered the common printing area, and the printed materials for the completed print task were removed from the common printing area, based on an RSSI received by EM detector 152, then authentication component 154 can signal monitoring computer system 150 to notify a print task owner of the print task that the respective printed material have been removed by an individual that is not a print task owner).
Regarding claim 2, Harpur discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to perform, as the resolution process, a notification process of notifying equipment external to the printer that the unauthorized state has occurred (¶26 Subsequently, if authentication component 152 determines that no print task owner of the recently completed print task entered the common printing area, and the printed materials for the completed print task were removed from the common printing area, based on an RSSI received by EM detector 152, then authentication component 154 can signal monitoring computer system 150 to notify a print task owner of the print task that the respective printed material have been removed by an individual that is not a print task owner).
Regarding claim 3, Harpur discloses the control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to perform, as the notification process, a process of notifying a user terminal associated with the non-instructing user that the unauthorized state has occurred (¶26 Subsequently, if authentication component 152 determines that no print task owner of the recently completed print task entered the common printing area, and the printed materials for the completed print task were removed from the common printing area, based on an RSSI received by EM detector 152, then authentication component 154 can signal monitoring computer system 150 to notify a print task owner of the print task that the respective printed material have been removed by an individual that is not a print task owner).
Regarding claim 8, Harpur discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
a detection apparatus that detects a user retrieving the printed material from the delivery unit is provided to at least one of the printer and around the printer (¶28 In one embodiment, if authorization component 154 determines that the collection is not authorized, then authorization component 154 may signal printing device 140 to deny access to the printed material via a secure enclosure); and
the processor is configured to detect, if retrieval of the printed material from the delivery unit is detected by the detection unit provided to the delivery unit, whether the user retrieving the printed material from the delivery unit is the non-instructing user on a basis of detection information acquired from the detection apparatus (¶28 If, authorization component 154 determines that collection of printed material is not authorized (‘no’ branch, decision 308), then EM detector 152 determines whether the printed material has been removed from the common printing area, based on an RSSI between the embedded EM signature and EM detector 152 (decision 312); If, EM detector 152 determines that the printed material has been removed from the common printing area (‘yes’ branch, decision 314), then monitoring computer system 150 notifies the print task owner of the unauthorized collection.).
Regarding claim 9, Harpur discloses the control apparatus according to claim 8, wherein:
the printer is installed in a facility (¶9 An organization can include a number of departments, such as finance, research and development, and human resource departments; a common printing area shared by multiple departments);
the facility is provided with a tracking system that tracks a user moving inside the facility after being authenticated when entering the facility, the tracking system including the detection apparatus (¶28 Monitoring computer system 150 receives information for a user associated with computer system 130 entering a common printing area from badge reader 170 (step 302). Monitoring computer system 150 receives an image of the user's face once the user is granted access (i.e., enters) to the common printing area (step 304). In another embodiment, monitoring computer system 150 receives other unique identification information for the user once the user is granted access to the common printing area) ; and
the processor is configured to detect, if retrieval of the printed material from the delivery unit is detected by the detection unit, whether the user retrieving the printed material from the delivery unit is the non-instructing user on a basis of user tracking information detection information acquired from the tracking system (¶28 Authorization component 154 determines, based on the received information and data, whether collection of the printed material for the completed print task is authorized (decision 308); If, authorization component 154 determines that collection of printed material is not authorized (‘no’ branch, decision 308), then EM detector 152 determines whether the printed material has been removed from the common printing area, based on an RSSI between the embedded EM signature and EM detector 152 (decision 312). In one embodiment, if authorization component 154 determines that the collection is not authorized, then authorization component 154 may signal printing device 140 to deny access to the printed material via a secure enclosure; If, EM detector 152 determines that the printed material has been removed from the common printing area (‘yes’ branch, decision 314), then monitoring computer system 150 notifies the print task owner of the unauthorized collection.).
Regarding claim(s) 10 (drawn to a method):
The rejection/proposed combination of Harpur, explained in the rejection of apparatus claim(s) 1, anticipates/renders obvious the steps of the method of claim(s) 10 because these steps occur in the operation of the proposed combination as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claim(s) 1 is/are equally applicable to claim(s) 10. See further Harpur ¶38.
Regarding claim(s) 11 (drawn to a CRM):
The rejection/proposed combination of Harpur, explained in the rejection of apparatus claim(s) 1, anticipates/renders obvious the steps of the computer readable medium of claim(s) 11 because these steps occur in the operation of the proposed combination as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claim(s) 1 is/are equally applicable to claim(s) 11.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harpur as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukumoto (US 20080301192).
Regarding claim 4, Harpur discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the printer is installed in a facility (¶9 a common printing area shared by multiple departments), but fails to teach where Fukumoto teaches the processor is configured to perform, as the resolution process, a prohibition process that prohibits the non-instructing user from leaving the facility (¶15 & ¶76 if it is determined that the user is unauthorized, the determination section 112 determines that the user's exit is prohibited).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have implemented the teaching of the processor is configured to perform, as the resolution process, a prohibition process that prohibits the non-instructing user from leaving the facility from Fukumoto into the control apparatus as disclosed by Harpur. The motivation for doing this is to improve management of carrying image data outside.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harpur as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hosoda et al (US Patent 6914687 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Harpur discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach where Hosoda teaches wherein: a plurality of delivery units are provided (col 6 lines 10-17 output to bins 1 through 7 of a sheet discharge option device 108, and is shared and used by four users A, B, C and D, Further, the sheet discharge bins are referred to as bin 1, bin 2, . . . , bin 7 from the top); and the processor is configured to notify a user terminal associated with the instructing user with information about the delivery unit into which the printed material is to be delivered from among the plurality of delivery units (col 9 lines 35-45 FIG. 5 is a view schematically illustrating an example of a distribution address designation screen for designating the distribution of the page selected in the distribution page selecting area shown in FIG. 4. By pointing the distribution address designation button 2703 shown in FIG. 4, the distribution address designation screen is displayed on the display unit of the host computer 101 of FIG. 1 by the printer driver on the host computer 101 (101A through 101D) of FIG. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have implemented the teaching of wherein: a plurality of delivery units are provided; and the processor is configured to notify a user terminal associated with the instructing user with information about the delivery unit into which the printed material is to be delivered from among the plurality of delivery units from Hosoda into the control apparatus as disclosed by Harpur. The motivation for doing this is to improve sorting of documents to sheet discharge ports designated by name.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Harpur and Hosoda discloses the control apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to control the printer such that printed materials based on a plurality of print instructions associated with the same user or users in a preset group are delivered into a single delivery unit (Hosoda col 6 lines 10-17 output to bins 1 through 7 of a sheet discharge option device 108, and is shared and used by four users A, B, C and D, Further, the sheet discharge bins are referred to as bin 1, bin 2, . . . , bin 7 from the top; see Fig. 3 wherein the Bins are arranged by departments). The motivation to combine the references is discussed above in the rejection for claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Harpur and Hosoda discloses the control apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to notify, if an empty delivery unit does not exist among the plurality of delivery units, the user terminal associated with the instructing user with information indicating that an empty delivery unit does not exist (Hosoda col 25 lines 59-67 e.g. sheet discharge loaded amount detection sensor 271S through 278S detect the loaded amount of the recording sheets loaded on the first sheet discharge bin 251 through the eighth sheet discharge bin 258 (loaded amount zero (empty) to full stacking); col 36 lines 32-38 if it is determined that there is an abnormality (for example, an abnormality such as full stacking) in step S614, an error display corresponding to the contents of the abnormality is made on the panel unit 104 of the image recording apparatus 102 in step S616). The motivation to combine the references is discussed above in the rejection for claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN KY whose telephone number is (571)272-7648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5PM.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 571-272-8243. 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.
/KEVIN KY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671