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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 22 January 2026.
This office action is made Final.
Claims 1-7 and 9 are amended.
Claims 10-11 have been added.
Claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 1 and 9 are independent claims.
Specification
The amendment to the abstract filed on 1/22/26, has not been entered because it fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121 (b)(2)(ii). 37 CFR 1.121 (b)(2)(ii) states “A replacement section with markings to show all changes relative to the previous version of the section. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived.” The replacement abstract did not contain any markups indicating the added or deleted subject matter as required by 37 CFR 1.121 (b)(2)(ii) (see MPEP 714). Furthermore, the replacement abstract is not substantially rewritten and the amended abstract still bears resemblance to the previously filed version of the abstract; therefore, the markups as required by 37 CFR 1.121 (b)(2)(ii) are still required. In addition, the amended abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Therefore, the original abstract filed on 1/12/2024 is viewed as the current abstract. In regards to the original abstract, the abstract is objected for the following reasons: the abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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)(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 and 9 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Inoue (US20240069696, EFD 8/25/2022)
As per independent claim 1, Inoue discloses an image forming device (0024)comprising:
a display that displays a first setting screen and a second setting screen, (FIG 2, 3; 0030. Furthermore, 0020 of App. specification discloses setting screens as operation screens where operating screens are execution of a job such as printing, copying as described in 0027 of App. specification )
the first setting screen for receiving a setting related to an internal function of the image forming device (FIG 2: setting a current copy or scan function to operate/execute, a form of a setting screen)
the second setting screen for receiving a setting related to communication with an external service; (FIG 3A, 3B; 0039-0041, 0053, 0062)
and one or more controllers, (0026)
wherein, in a case of receiving, via the first setting screen, an instruction to execute an authentication processing an instruction to communicate with the external service via the first setting screen, the one or more controllers: switch a control mode of the image forming device from a first control mode, related to the internal function of the image forming device, to a second control mode, related to the communication with the external service, and cause a display screen displayed by the display to transition from the first setting screen to the second setting screen. (0037, 0039, 0046-0047, 0050, 0054; 0062-0063: user clicks on the tab 202 in an attempt to load the display of FIG 3A/3B. However, the home screen 301 (or 305)(shown in FIG 3A or 3B, respectively) may be locked to prevent the screen from being used by others such that a password is needed to unlock it because home screen has stored connection information with an external service. In order to get the display/home screen associated with tab 202 shown in FIG 3A or 3B, the user must first unlock the tab. FIG 5A shows the result of when the user first selects the tab 202 and the screen associated with tab 202 is locked. 0057 states that in the case where the external service contains confidential information on work that is not supposed to be browsed/used by other people, for example, the use by other people can be prevented by locking the tab. Thus, 0057 discloses once the tab is unlocked (by entering a password as shown in FIG 5b), the connection information with the external service is approved for use and the information associated with connection information is viewable (as shown in FIG 3B). Once the user authenticates themselves, the home screen, shown in FIG 3A or 3B, associated with 202 is unlocked and displayed properly allowing the communication with an external service, associated with FIG 3B, to occur. Thus, in summary, clicking on the tab 202 and after being authenticated loads the display of FIG 3A/3B showing the information associated with the external service. Thus, this would result in communications with the external services shown in 301 )
As per independent claim 9, Claim 9 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
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) 2-5 and 8 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in further view of Kumahashi (US20240244147, EFD 1/17/2023)
As per dependent claim 2, Inoue fails to specifically disclose perform the transition from the first setting screen to the second setting screen using a Web browser. However, Kumahashi discloses using a web browser to switch between screens (FIG 12; 0103, 0106)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Kumahashi since it would have provided the benefit of enabling a user to grasp how to access a web page even in a case where a warning is displayed when the user accesses the web page for configuring settings for an information processing apparatus from an application for configuring the settings for the information processing apparatus (0005)
As per dependent claim 3, Inoue discloses receive, as the instruction to communicate with the external service, a connection instruction based on a specific authentication method. (0052, 0054: logging in; typified by the account, the password, an access token, a cookie, and the like)
As per dependent claim 4, Inoue discloses the specific authentication method received by the one or more controllers includes an authentication method requiring a prior authorization (0054: logging in to the external service is completed and the user permits connection of the external service to the user's account from the MFP 100, the access token or the cookie necessary for connection is issued. One of a skilled artisan would have realized since the user is logging in to their account, then they have an account already set up and authorized to log in and connect to with the MFP)
As per dependent claim 5, Inoue discloses when the authentication method requiring the prior authorization is selected, the one or more controllers the perform authentication processing with respect to the external service after switching to the second control mode, related to the communication with the external service (0049, 0052,0054: authentication occurs after the display of FIG 3)
As per dependent claim 8, Inoue discloses wherein the one or more controllers control the image forming device in an integrated mode in which the first control mode and the second control mode are integrated. (0030: sharing at least one common touch mechanism (e.g. soft keys on screen) that can control a number of functions of the MFP such as shown in FIG 2 and 3 (selecting icons to perform a function, connecting with the cloud)
Claim(s) 6 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in further view of Kumahashi in further view of Kobayashi (US20210133307, 2021)
As per dependent claim 6, the cited art fails to specifically disclose when the authentication processing with respect to the external service is successful, the one or more controllers further cause the display screen to transition from the second setting screen to the first setting screen. However, Kobayashi discloses leaving a first (setting) screen to a second (setting) screen to perform a login process. Once the login process is finished with the second (setting) screen, then the first (setting) screen returns. (FIG 2; 0042-0045, 0061-0064)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Kobayashi since it would have provided the benefit of a configuration permits the user to sequentially use a plurality of functions or use the same function a plurality of times without requesting the user to perform the login operation again, thereby providing improved usability for the user. (0011)
Claim(s) 7 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in further view of Kumahashi in further view of Kobayashi in further view of Nishikawa (US20170372414, 2017)
As per dependent claim 7, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the one or more controllers further cause the display to display, after transitioning to the first setting screen, a delete button for receiving an instruction to delete authentication information acquired from the external service. However, Nishikawa et al discloses a setting screen on an MFP/apparatus that comprises a “cooperation cancel” button for each external service. Selecting the button removes the setting authentication cooperation from a particular external service. (0341)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Kobayashi since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of improved operational efficiency and cleaner data.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in further view of Seymour et al (US20190334737, 2019)
As per dependent claim 10, Claim 10 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose change a display of a registration button to a display of a connection button when a provider becomes selectable. However, Seymour et al discloses registering a first device with a second device (a form of a provider) by establishing a pairing with the second device. Once registered, the user would be able to connect to the device. Seymour et al discloses the user of the first device is presented with a “Pair” button when the first device is able to pair with the second device. Once the devices are paired, the “Pair” button is replaced by a “Connect” button on the first device since the second device successfully paired. This is a form a provider being selectable since the user of the first device is able to select to connect with the second device. (FIG 3; 0086-0087)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Kobayashi since pairing the device before being used to control the one or more functions of other devices may reduce or eliminate accidental or malicious remote activation of the other devices.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in further view of Ito (US20110222102, 2011)
As per dependent claim 11, Claim 11 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Inoue discloses the output of an access token (0054: As the logging in to the external service is completed and the user permits connection of the external service to the user's account from the MFP 100, the access token or the cookie necessary for connection is issued) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose that the external service outputs the token. However, Ito discloses the external service outputs the token (0092-0094: Once authentication is successful, the external service transmits authentication ticket data (form of an access token). This allows data to be obtained from the external service (0095))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Kobayashi since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of enhancing security by replacing password transmission, enabling session management, restricting access via scopes, and reducing the risk of unauthorized access if compromised
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, in regards to Applicant’s arguments to the abstract/specification objection, the Examiner respectfully states the amendment to the abstract was not entered because it fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121 (b)(2)(ii). 37 CFR 1.121 (b)(2)(ii) states “A replacement section with markings to show all changes relative to the previous version of the section. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived.” The replacement abstract did not contain any markups indicating the added or deleted subject matter as required by 37 CFR 1.121 (b)(2)(ii) (see MPEP 714). Furthermore, the replacement abstract is not substantially rewritten and the amended abstract still bears resemblance to the previously filed version of the abstract; therefore, the markups as required by 37 CFR 1.121 (b)(2)(ii) are still required. In addition, the amended abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it similarly repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Therefore, the original abstract filed on 1/12/24 is viewed as the current abstract.
In regards to the original abstract, the abstract remains objected for the following reasons: the abstract is objected for the following reasons: the abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
Therefore, the objection to the specification remains for this reason.
On pages 8-9, in regards to independent claims 1 and 9 rejected under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that Inoue does not teach the amended limitation “wherein, in a case of receiving, via the first setting screen, an instruction to execute an authentication processing as an instruction to communicate with the external service, the one or more controllers: switch a control mode of the image forming device from a first control mode, related to the internal function of the image forming device, to a second control mode, related to the communication with the external service, and cause a display screen displayed by the display to transition from the first setting screen to the second setting screen.” Applicant argues that pressing a tab (e.g., tab 202) on a standard home screen accept instructions for transitioning to the custom home screen, and the screen transition occurs solely based on the user's selection of the tab, and is NOT related to any authentication processing. Because Inoue does not disclose any authentication processing, Applicant argues that Inoue does not teach the argued subject matter. However, the Examiner disagrees.
Based on the arguments provided by the Applicant in respect to claimed features in the claim limitation, the Examiner respectfully submits that the Applicant states that the cited art, Inoue, does not teach the limitations by merely stating the cited art doesn’t teach the limitations; therefore, merely concludes that each of the reference do not teach the limitation without any explanation or reasoning how the figures do not teach the claimed matter. Applicant does not disclose how the claim language of the claim limitation is different from the teachings of each of the reference by describing the differences that involve any supporting evidence from the specification stating or describing the limitation, or how each of the cited art is specifically different from Applicant's invention. Thus, Applicant’s arguments fail to disclose how the cited art is silent or doesn't teach on the limitation since the Applicant does not fully describe the differences that involve any supporting evidence from Applicant 's specification stating or describing the limitations, or how the cited art is specifically different from the invention itself. Therefore, the Applicant did not explicitly state how Applicant's invention, other than stating each reference, alone, doesn't teach the limitations, is different to prove that the cited art’s functionality does not equivalently teach the limitation.
Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully states that the language “wherein, in a case of receiving, via the first setting screen, an instruction to execute an authentication processing as an instruction to communicate with the external service,” is broad. The language does explicitly define or state what is considered an “authentication processing is” and what an “an instruction to communicate with the external service”. In other words, the language does not clearly state what authentication processing is exactly for. Furthermore, the language is silent on what communicate with the external service is too.
Furthermore, the Examiner refers the Applicant to MPEP 904.01 (b) that states "All subject matter that is the equivalent of the subject matter as defined in the claim, even though specifically different from the definition in the claim, must be considered unless expressly excluded by the claimed subject matter." In other words, while the prior art cited may not explicitly use the same terminology as disclosed in the claim limitations, it doesn't mean the art doesn't teach it and can't be considered to reject Applicant’s claimed invention. Thus, examiner submits that what is taught by the references of the cited art is considered functionally equivalent to that which is claimed discussed below.
Thus, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of Applicant’s specification, of the language of the limitations, Inoue teaches the subject matter of wherein, in a case of receiving, via the first setting screen, an instruction to execute an authentication processing an instruction to communicate with the external service via the first setting screen, the one or more controllers: switch a control mode of the image forming device from a first control mode, related to the internal function of the image forming device, to a second control mode, related to the communication with the external service, and cause a display screen displayed by the display to transition from the first setting screen to the second setting screen. 0037, 0039, 0046-0047, 0050, 0054; 0062-0063 of Inoue discloses the user clicking on the tab 202 in an attempt to load the display of FIG 3A/3B. However, the home screen 301 (or 305)(shown in FIG 3A or 3B, respectively) may be locked to prevent the screen from being used by others such that a password is needed to unlock it because home screen has stored connection information with an external service. In order to get the display/home screen associated with tab 202 shown in FIG 3A or 3B, the user must first unlock the tab. FIG 5A shows the result of when the user first selects the tab 202 and the screen associated with tab 202 is locked. 0057 states that in the case where the external service contains confidential information on work that is not supposed to be browsed/used by other people, for example, the use by other people can be prevented by locking the tab. Thus, 0057 discloses once the tab is unlocked (by entering a password as shown in FIG 5b), the connection information with the external service is approved for use and the information associated with connection information is viewable (as shown in FIG 3B). Once the user authenticates themselves, the home screen, shown in FIG 3A or 3B, associated with 202 is unlocked and displayed properly allowing the communication with an external service, associated with FIG 3B, to occur. Thus, in summary, clicking on the tab 202 and after being authenticated loads the display of FIG 3A/3B showing the information associated with the external service. Thus, this would result in communications with the external services shown in 301 )
Thus, the cited art Inoue teaches the argued limitations of Claim 1.
All other arguments on page 10 that were not addressed by the Examiner, are referring to the dependent claims which are in reference or depend to the topics above, thus the rationale above can be used to respond to the similar arguments and/or Examiner's explanation used in the rejection of those claims as described 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.
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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. Please refer to MPEP 713.09 for scheduling interviews after the mailing of this office action.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights