DETAILED ACTION
Claims 13-16 have been added.
Claims 1-16 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on page 10 of the response in essence that: More specifically, and in contrast to Claim 1 of Applicant's invention, Takahashi does not teach or suggest, among other features, providing a first report screen displaying information indicating whether security countermeasures for predetermined targets of security protection have been taken respectively before selection of a use environment of the printing apparatus from among a plurality of use environments is received, and after the values associated with the selected use environment are set, providing a second report screen displaying information indicating whether the security countermeasures for the same predetermined targets of the security protection as the first report screen have been taken, respectively, wherein the information displayed on the second report screen indicating whether the security countermeasures for the same predetermined targets of the security protection as the first report screen have been taken is changed from the first report screen based on the selection of the use environment.
Takahashi discloses providing a first report screen (FIG. 6 shows the carte (ACT 19)) and a second report screen (ACT 19 After setting change is performed in ACT 26). The first report is provided before selection of a use environment is received because Takahashi discloses that the administrator can change the usage setting after the first report screen is displayed (paragraph 88, ACT 61)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “before selection of a use environment of the printing apparatus from among a plurality of use environments is received, provide a first report screen displaying information indicating whether security countermeasures for predetermined targets of security protection have been taken respectively”. The Applicant’s Specification generally describes providing a first report screen displaying information indicating whether security countermeasures for predetermined targets of security protection have been taken respectively. However, the Applicant’s Specification does not describe displaying the first screen before selection of a use environment of the printing apparatus from among a plurality of use environments is received. The flowcharts of FIGS. 8 and 10 appear to only display information of security countermeasures only after a use environment is received. Claims 8 and 9 contain similar limitations and are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Claims 1-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the same predetermined targets” on line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 8 and 9 contain similar limitations and are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi Publication 2011/0173700 (hereafter “Takahashi”).
Referring to claims 1, 8 and 9, Takahashi discloses a printing apparatus comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
a processor executing the instructions (paragraph 33, The processor 20 is, for example, a CPU. The processor 20 executes control programs stored in the ROM 22, the nonvolatile memory 23 or the HDD 26 so that various processing functions are realized) causing the printing apparatus to:
before selection of a use environment of the printing apparatus from among a plurality of use environments is received, provide a first report screen displaying information indicating whether security countermeasures for predetermined targets of security protection have been taken respectively (paragraph 57-58, FIG. 6 shows a display example of the carte relating to security settings. In the display example of the carte shown in FIG. 6, the processor 20 displays a table 51 showing the setting states of respective protections in the report as shown in FIG. 4, a graph 52 showing the security intensity of each protected asset, a graph 53 showing the security intensity of each security function, and a comment 54 relating to the present security settings);
receive the selection of a use environment of the printing apparatus (paragraph 88, If the administrator changes the setting content of the setting item relating to the security, the system control unit 10 of the digital multi-function peripheral 1 stores (updates) the changed setting content (ACT 61). The changed setting content can be usage);
set, in response to the selection of the use environment, values associated with the selected use environment in the printing apparatus (paragraph 78, In the example shown in FIG. 12, the standard security setting content is correlated with the usage such as "military use", "government office", "office where customer information is handled" or "general office" and is stored);
wherein the values include a value to take a security countermeasure for one of the predetermined targets of security protection (paragraph 47. After the report is created, the processor 20 urges selection (setting) of the protection methods to the respective threats to the respective protected assets presented in the report (ACT 15));
after the values associated with selected use environment are set, provide a second report screen displaying information indicating whether the security countermeasures for the same predetermined targets of the security protection as the first report screen have been taken, respectively (paragraph 54, If the carte is created, the processor 20 displays the carte on the display 14 of the operation panel 13 operated by the administrator or the display of the administrator terminal 4 (ACT 19)), and wherein the information displayed on the second report screen indicating whether the security countermeasures for the same predetermined targets of the security protection as the first report screen have been taken is changed from the first report screen based on the selection of the use environment (paragraph 106-107, For example, the processor 20 compares the present basic information, such as the present usage, function to be used and security intensity, with the security setting knowledge DB 32 after the update, and checks whether the present security settings (security protection, intensity of each protection method, etc.) is excessive or insufficient. The processor 20 determines, based on the determination result of ACT 72, whether there is a setting item for which the administrator is urged to change the setting (ACT 73). If the setting item for which the administrator is urged to change the setting is found (ACT 73, YES), the processor 20 performs notification to the administrator or function restriction of the digital multi-function peripheral in accordance with specified setting).
Referring to claim 2, Takahashi discloses wherein the information indicating whether the security countermeasures for the predetermined targets of security protection have been taken respectively is displayed based on whether values to take the security countermeasures for the predetermined targets of security protection are set in the printing apparatus (paragraph 57-58, FIG. 6 shows a display example of the carte relating to security settings. In the display example of the carte shown in FIG. 6, the processor 20 displays a table 51 showing the setting states of respective protections in the report as shown in FIG. 4, a graph 52 showing the security intensity of each protected asset, a graph 53 showing the security intensity of each security function, and a comment 54 relating to the present security settings).
Referring to claim 3, Takahashi discloses wherein the second report screen displays information indicating that a countermeasure can be taken corresponding to a target for which a value to take a security countermeasure is not set in the printing apparatus (paragraph 59, Besides, in the graph 52 showing the security intensity of each protected asset, the processor 20 shows the security intensity of each protected asset according to the present settings and the recommended value in contrast with each other)
Referring to claim 4, Takahashi discloses wherein the second report screen displays a check mark to indicate that a security countermeasure for protecting the target has been taken (paragraph 58, In the display example of the carte shown in FIG. 6, the processor 20 displays a table 51 showing the setting states of respective protections in the report as shown in FIG. 4).
Referring to claim 5, Takahashi discloses wherein the second report screen is provided on an operation panel of the printing apparatus (paragraph 54, If the carte is created, the processor 20 displays the carte on the display 14 of the operation panel 13 operated by the administrator or the display of the administrator terminal 4 (ACT 19)).
Referring to claim 6, Takahashi discloses wherein a first screen including a first display item for displaying the second report screen if further provided (paragraph 49, Besides, the selection screen shown in FIG. 5 displays a setting end key 42 to instruct the end of setting and a carte display key 43 to instruct the display of a carte based on the setting content).
Referring to claim 7, Takahashi discloses wherein a second screen including a second display item to display the second report screen according to detection of pressing of the second display item is further provided according to detection of pressing of the first display item in the first screen (paragraph 63, If the setting change key 56 is indicated in the state where the carte is displayed (ACT 26, YES), the processor 20 returns to ACT 16, and stores (updates) the setting information inputted by the administrator into the HDD 26. After the setting information is stored, the processor 20 can repeatedly execute the process subsequent to ACT 16), and
wherein the second screen displays information indicating the selected use environment (paragraph 57-58, FIG. 6 shows a display example of the carte relating to security settings. In the display example of the carte shown in FIG. 6, the processor 20 displays a table 51 showing the setting states of respective protections in the report as shown in FIG. 4, a graph 52 showing the security intensity of each protected asset, a graph 53 showing the security intensity of each security function, and a comment 54 relating to the present security settings).
Referring to claim 13, Takahashi discloses wherein the plurality of use environments includes at least one use environment from among a corporate intranet environment, an Internet direct connection environment, an Internet disabled environment, a home environment, a public space environment, and a highly confidential information management environment (paragraph 78, In the example shown in FIG. 12, the standard security setting content is correlated with the usage such as "military use", "government office", "office where customer information is handled" or "general office" and is stored).
Referring to claim 15, Takahashi discloses wherein percentages of setting items for which security countermeasures have been taken in predetermined items are displayed on the first report screen and the second report screen (paragraph 49, The selection screen shown in FIG. 5 displays recommended settings (recommended degrees)).
Referring to claim 16, Takahashi discloses wherein bar graphs indicating a number of setting items for which security countermeasures have been taken in predetermined items are displayed on the first report screen and the second report screen (paragraph 58, In the display example of the carte shown in FIG. 6, the processor 20 displays a table 51 showing the setting states of respective protections in the report as shown in FIG. 4, a graph 52 showing the security intensity of each protected asset, a graph 53 showing the security intensity of each security function, and a comment 54 relating to the present security settings), and wherein the bar graphs for which security countermeasures are insufficient are colored a warning color (paragraph 95, Besides, in the carte as shown in FIG. 6, the processor 20 may perform warning display of the inappropriate setting item. For example, in the carte as shown in FIG. 6, the processor 20 emphasizes and displays the inappropriate setting item and may display the warning)
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 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi Publication 2011/0173700 as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Haapanen US Publication 2021/0271436 (hereafter “Haapanen”).
Referring to claim 10, Takahashi discloses displaying the second report screen, but does not disclose expressly displaying a QR code on the report screen.
Haapanen discloses wherein the second report screen further displays a QR code including a link to a web content including a content to guide the selection of the use environment (paragraph 64-65, In step 504, the mobile device acquires printing device identification data that uniquely identifies the printing device 130. Examples of encoded printing device identification data include, without limitation, a barcode and a QR code [it is noted that “content to guide the selection of the use environment“ is a statement of intended use]).
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a QR code including a link to web content on a printer’s screen. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase convenience by allowing the user to view information on their personal device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Haapanen with Takahashi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Referring to claim 12, Takahashi discloses the first screen including a first display item (paragraph 49, Besides, the selection screen shown in FIG. 5 displays a setting end key 42 to instruct the end of setting and a carte display key 43 to instruct the display of a carte based on the setting content).
Takahashi does not disclose expressly wherein the first screen further includes an unread mark corresponding to the first display item.
Haapanen discloses wherein the first screen further includes an unread mark corresponding to the first display item in a case where the information indicating whether the security countermeasures for the predetermined targets of security protection have been taken respectively is different from the information specified when the first screen is displayed at a previous time (paragraph 77, In the example depicted in FIG. 6, a warning message “Warning! Configuration has changed” is displayed adjacent the last configuration information. This message indicates that the C1MS configuration of the printing device 130 has changed relative to the last configuration maintained by the configuration manager 150).
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a mark indicating a setting change. The motivation for doing so would have been to alert the user to setting changes so they can confirm that those changes are desired. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Haapanen with Takahashi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi Publication 2011/0173700 as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of well known prior art.
Referring to claim 11, Takahashi discloses wherein a first screen including a first display item for displaying a security countermeasure status is further provided (paragraph 52, If the administrator instructs the carte display (ACT 17, YES), the processor 20 diagnoses the state of the security settings based on the present setting content including the set protection, and creates a carte (list) as the diagnosis result (ACT 18)).
Takahashi does not disclose expressly wherein the first screen further includes a consumable use item.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known and obvious in the art to provide a consumable use item on a display screen (See MPEP 2144.03). The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user to view consumable usage data. Therefore, would have been obvious to combine well known prior art with Takahashi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Referring to claim 14, Takahashi discloses wherein the predetermined targets of security protection include ID, a device, network and data (paragraph 44, The report is a list showing threats to information (protected assets estimated from the basic information) handled by the digital multi-function peripheral 1 and security protection methods to those threats [Protected Assets include deleted user data, storage in MFP, Export (network) and customer data]).
Takahashi does not disclose expressly wherein the predetermined targets of security protection include application. Official Notice is taken that it is well known and obvious in the art to have applications as a target of security protection (See MPEP 2144.03). The motivation for doing so would have been to limit which users can install and use certain applications to prevent malicious activity. Therefore, would have been obvious to combine well known prior art with Takahashi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
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 PETER K HUNTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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.
/PETER K HUNTSINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights