DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Amendments and response received 12/31/2025 have been entered. Claims 1 and 3-7 are currently pending in this application. Claims 1 and 3-7 have been amended and claim 2 canceled. Amendments and response are addressed hereinbelow.
Specification
In light of the amendment to the title of the invention, the examiner hereby withdraws the previous grounds of objection as the amended title is more indicative of the invention as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
In light of the amendment to the claimed subject matter, the examiner hereby withdraws the previous grounds of rejection. The addition of the approval and refusal of the change request and the addition of the change being implemented in the image forming apparatus to thereby switch a mode of operation in the apparatus transforms the ineligible concept into a practical inventive concept which may achieve specific, functional outcome.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazumi Shibata et al (JP 2017054402 A) in view of Tatsunori Sasaki (JP 2006289682 A).
Regarding claim 1, Shibata et al discloses a processing apparatus (¶ [17] service center/information processing apparatus) comprising:
a processor (¶ [17] processing apparatus comprises a processor to implement the processing) configured to:
receive, from a first user, a change request for a change to a mode in an image forming apparatus (¶ [17] operator changes settings to be transmitted to MFP); and
display the change request on an operation screen of the image forming apparatus (¶ [28]),
receive any of an approval and a refusal of the change request from the operation screen, from a second user distinct from the first user (¶ [28-29] approval/refusal from user distinct from the first; ¶ [35]);
in response to the approval of the change request, perform the change in the image forming apparatus (¶ [35]).
Shibata et al fails to explicitly disclose the change is for a change to a quiet mode for an image forming apparatus operating in a normal mode to which a printing instruction has been issued, wherein after the change to the quiet mode, the user is less affected by noise form the image forming apparatus.
Sasaki, in the same field of endeavor of mode switching operation settings of an MFP (Abstract), teaches the change is for a change to a quiet mode for an image forming apparatus operating in a normal mode (¶ [17]) to which a printing instruction has been issued (¶ [17] suggesting a printing instruction has been issued as the switch may occur “even in the middle of image output”), wherein after the change to the quiet mode, the user is less affected by noise from the image forming apparatus (¶ [17] and ¶ [37]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the processing apparatus as discloses by Shibata comprising a processor configured to receive a change request for a change to a mode in an image forming apparatus to utilize the teachings of Sasaki which teaches the change is for a change to a quiet mode for an image forming apparatus operating in a normal mode to which a printing instruction has been issued, wherein after the change to the quiet mode, the user is less affected by noise from the image forming apparatus to consider the surrounding environment when using an output device that emits a relatively loud operating sound and provide a desired noise level in accordance with the environment.
Regarding claim 3, Shibata et al discloses the processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the processor is configured to:
in response to the refusal of the change request, notify the first user who has made the change request of the refusal (¶ [48]).
Regarding claim 5, Shibata discloses the processing apparatus according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4), wherein the processor is configured to:
in response to the change to the quiet mode (see rejection of claim 1), notify the second user who has executed issuance of the printing instruction that the change to the quiet mode has been performed (¶ [74]).
Regarding claim 6, Shibata discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process (¶ [77-78]) for processing, the process comprising:
receiving, from a first user, a change request for a change to a quiet mode in an image forming apparatus that is operating in a normal mode and to which a printing instruction has been issued (see rejection of claim 1);
displaying the change request for the change to the quiet mode on an operation screen of the image forming apparatus (see rejection of claim 1);
receiving any of an approval and a refusal of the change request from the operation screen, from a second user distinct from the first user (see rejection of claim 1); and
in response to the approval of the change request, performing the change to the quiet mode in the image forming apparatus (see rejection of claim 1),
wherein after the change to the quiet mode, the first user is less affected by noise form the image forming apparatus (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Shibata discloses a processing method (see rejection of claim 1) comprising:
receiving, from a first user, a change request for a change to a quiet mode in an image forming apparatus that is operating in a normal mode and to which a printing instruction has been issued (see rejection of claim 1);
displaying the change request for the change to the quiet mode on an operation screen of the image forming apparatus (see rejection of claim 1);
receiving any of an approval and a refusal of the change request from the operation screen, from a second user distinct from the first user (see rejection of claim 1); and
in response to the approval of the change request, performing the change to the quiet mode in the image forming apparatus (see rejection of claim 1),
wherein after the change to the quiet mode, the first user is less affected by noise form the image forming apparatus (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al in view of Sasaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yuki Kanazawa (US 20170201486 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Shibata et al discloses the processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Shibata et al fails to explicitly disclose the processor is configured to with elapse of a predetermined time without an approval and a refusal of the change request since the change request is displayed on the operation screen, perform the change to the quiet mode in the image forming apparatus.
Kanazawa, in the same field of endeavor of changing settings of a computing device with administrator approval (¶ [23]; ¶ [43]), teaches with elapse of a predetermined time without an approval and a refusal of the change request since the change request is displayed on the operation screen, perform the change to the quiet mode in the image forming apparatus (¶ [62]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the processing apparatus as discloses by Shibata comprising a processor configured to receive a change request for a change to a mode in an image forming apparatus to utilize the teachings of Kanazawa which teaches with elapse of a predetermined time without an approval and a refusal of the change request since the change request is displayed on the operation screen, perform the change to the quiet mode in the image forming apparatus to avoid unnecessary downtime in processing when attempting to attain a desired result in setting changes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks: Neither of the prior art references disclose or suggest “wherein after the change to the quiet mode, the first user is less affected by noise from the image forming apparatus”. Sasaki merely discloses that an image forming apparatus can operate in a quiet mode. There is no disclosure of a second user operating the quiet mode.
Examiner’s response: The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertions. As noted in the newly applied rejection above, the prior art references disclose first and second users, wherein the approval and/or refusal of the mode switch is performed by a separate entity than a first entity. Upon switching of the mode to a “silent mode”, the user experiences less noise than he or she would receive in the normal operating mode. The examiner contends that the prior art reads on the amended subject matter as set forth in the rejections above.
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 JAMARES Q WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571) 270-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4:30pm.
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.
/JAMARES Q WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
February 23, 2026