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 claim(s) 1-14 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.
It is noted that the objection to the title is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka (US 2020/0341702) in view of Atwood (US 2023/0267183) further in view of Gaddis (US 2020/0349541).
Regarding Claim 1, Kosaka teaches an image forming apparatus (Paragraph 1) comprising:
at least one memory device that stores a set of instructions (Paragraph 22, wherein the program is stored); and
at least one processor (Paragraph 22, wherein there is a CPU or the like) that executes the set of instructions to:
obtain a job ticket related to printing from an information terminal (Paragraph 66, wherein the job contains the print settings, therefore making up a job ticket), regarding electronic data for which an ownership is managed in a transaction of a blockchain network (Paragraph 58, wherein the blockchain is associated with the job and document data);
obtain the electronic data from a management server that manages the electronic data, using information that is included in the obtained job ticket (Paragraph 109 and 110, wherein the image data is obtained);
execute printing using the obtained electronic data and information related to print settings of the job ticket (Paragraph 65, wherein the document data is printed accordingly); and
generate, using the information related to the transaction, a transaction that contains history information related to the executed printing (Paragraph 114, wherein a history of the job is stored).
Kosaka does not teach obtain the electronic data related to a transaction for transferring or lending the ownership of the electronic data from the information terminal to the image forming apparatus; and
return, based on execution of the printing, the ownership of the electronic data from the image forming apparatus to the information terminal.
Atwood does teach obtain the electronic data related to a transaction for transferring or lending the ownership of the electronic data from the information terminal to the image forming apparatus (Paragraphs 29 and 31, wherein ownership information is associated with the NFT. The NFT can be printed as an image, paragraph 33).
Kosaka contains a “base” process of utilizing a blockchain to establish ownership of print data which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” in that the ownership of the print data can be transferred/
Atwood contains a “comparable” process of transferring ownership of image data to be printed that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention.
Atwood’s known “improvement” could have been applied in the same way to the “base” process of Kosaka and the results would have been predictable and resulted in transferring ownership of the print job. Furthermore, both Kosaka and Atwood use and disclose similar system functionality (processing image data through a blockchain) so that the combination is more easily implemented.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application.
Kosaka in view of Atwood does not teach return, based on execution of the printing, the ownership of the electronic data from the image forming apparatus to the information terminal.
Gaddis does teach return, based on execution of the printing, the ownership of the electronic data from the image forming apparatus to the information terminal (Paragraphs 112-114, wherein the digital asset that is temporarily allowed to another device will have the ownership revert back to the original device that had ownership. The asset can be transferred for printing purposes).
Kosaka and Gaddis are combinable because they both deal with printing in a blockchain.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kosaka in view of Atwood with the teachings of Gaddis for the purpose of ensuring unfettered access of a digital asset (Gaddis: Paragraph 120).
Regarding Claim 8, Kosaka further teaches wherein the transaction that contains history information related to the executed printing includes information indicating a return of the ownership of the electronic data (Paragraph 114, wherein a history of the job is stored).
Regarding Claim 10, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 14, Kosaka teaches an image forming system that includes an information terminal, an image forming apparatus, and a management server (Paragraph 2),
the information terminal comprising:
at least one first memory device that stores a set of instructions (Paragraph 40, wherein there is a storage part); and
at least one first processor (Paragraph 36) that executes the set of instructions to:
generate a job ticket related to printing of the electronic data and transmit the job ticket to the image forming apparatus based on authentication information obtained from the image forming apparatus (Paragraph 58, wherein the blockchain is associated with the job and document data),
the image forming apparatus comprising:
at least one second memory device that stores a set of instructions (Paragraph 22, wherein the program is stored); and
at least one second processor (Paragraph 22, wherein there is a CPU or the like) that executes the set of instructions to:
obtain the job ticket related to printing the electronic data from the information terminal (Paragraph 58, wherein the blockchain is associated with the job and document data);
obtain the electronic data from a management server that manages the electronic data, using information that is included in the obtained job ticket (Paragraph 109 and 110, wherein the image data is obtained) and is related to a transaction for transferring or lending the ownership of the electronic data from the information terminal to the image forming apparatus;
execute printing, using the obtained electronic data and information related to print settings of the job ticket (Paragraph 65, wherein the document data is printed accordingly); and
generate a transaction that contains history information related to the executed printing, using the information related to the transaction (Paragraph 114, wherein a history of the job is stored).
Kosaka does not teach issue a transaction for transferring or lending the ownership to an image forming apparatus, regarding electronic data for which an ownership is managed in a transaction of a blockchain network;
obtain the electronic data related to a transaction for transferring or lending the ownership of the electronic data from the information terminal to the image forming apparatus; and
return, based on execution of the printing, the ownership of the electronic data from the image forming apparatus to the information terminal.
Atwood does teach issue a transaction for transferring or lending the ownership to an image forming apparatus, regarding electronic data for which an ownership is managed in a transaction of a blockchain network (Paragraph 41, wherein there is a transaction record. In addition, paragraphs 29 and 31, wherein ownership information is associated with the NFT. The NFT can be printed as an image, paragraph 33); and
obtain the electronic data related to a transaction for transferring or lending the ownership of the electronic data from the information terminal to the image forming apparatus (Paragraphs 29 and 31, wherein ownership information is associated with the NFT. The NFT can be printed as an image, paragraph 33).
Kosaka contains a “base” process of utilizing a blockchain to establish ownership of print data which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” in that the ownership of the print data can be transferred/
Atwood contains a “comparable” process of transferring ownership of image data to be printed that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention.
Atwood’s known “improvement” could have been applied in the same way to the “base” process of Kosaka and the results would have been predictable and resulted in transferring ownership of the print job. Furthermore, both Kosaka and Atwood use and disclose similar system functionality (processing image data through a blockchain) so that the combination is more easily implemented.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application.
Kosaka in view of Atwood does not teach return, based on execution of the printing, the ownership of the electronic data from the image forming apparatus to the information terminal.
Gaddis does teach return, based on execution of the printing, the ownership of the electronic data from the image forming apparatus to the information terminal (Paragraphs 112-114, wherein the digital asset that is temporarily allowed to another device will have the ownership revert back to the original device that had ownership. The asset can be transferred for printing purposes).
Kosaka and Gaddis are combinable because they both deal with printing in a blockchain.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kosaka in view of Atwood with the teachings of Gaddis for the purpose of ensuring unfettered access of a digital asset (Gaddis: Paragraph 120).
Claim(s) 2- 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka (US 2020/0341702) in view of Atwood (US 2023/0267183) further in view of Gaddis (US 2020/0349541) further in view of Sato (US 2015/0178026).
Regarding Claim 2, Kosaka in view of Atwood further in view of Gaddis does not teach wherein the at least one processor executes instructions in the memory device to:
cause a display unit to display a code image that includes authentication information of the image forming apparatus; and
receive a job ticket that has been issued by making print settings on the information terminal where has read the code image displayed on the display unit.
Sato does teach wherein the at least one processor executes instructions in the memory device to:
cause a display unit to display a code image that includes authentication information of the image forming apparatus (Paragraphs 70 and 71, wherein the code can be displayed on the image forming apparatus to the user for authentication); and
receive a job ticket that has been issued by making print settings on the information terminal where has read the code image displayed on the display (Paragraph 78-80, wherein after authentication the print settings are performed on the terminal to the transmit the image data to the printer).
Kosaka and Sato are combinable because they both deal with transmitting image data for printing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Kosaka in view of Atwood further in view of Gaddis with the teachings of Sato for the purpose of improving the convenience of the user to print the image data (Sato: Paragraph 7).
Regarding Claim 3, Sato further teaches wherein
the code image is a two-dimensional code (Paragraph 70, wherein there is a bar-code), and
the code image includes as authentication information at least a wallet address of the image forming apparatus and a public key and URI information for executing printing using the image forming apparatus (Paragraphs 70 and 71, wherein the barcode includes information for authentication).
Kosaka and Sato are combinable because they both deal with transmitting image data for printing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Kosaka in view of Atwood further in view of Gaddis with the teachings of Sato for the purpose of improving the convenience of the user to print the image data (Sato: Paragraph 7).
Regarding Claim 4, Sato further teaches wherein when the code image is read by the information terminal, a setting screen for performing print settings is displayed on a display unit of the information terminal (Paragraph 78-80, wherein after authentication the print settings are performed on the terminal).
Kosaka and Sato are combinable because they both deal with transmitting image data for printing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Kosaka in view of Atwood further in view of Gaddis with the teachings of Sato for the purpose of improving the convenience of the user to print the image data (Sato: Paragraph 7).
Regarding Claim 5, Kosaka further teaches wherein the job ticket includes, in addition to the print settings, URI information indicating an obtainment source of the electronic data and a transaction ID obtained from the blockchain network by the information terminal issuing to the blockchain network the transaction for transferring or lending the ownership of the electronic data (Paragraphs 73, 91, and 100, wherein the information is associated with the metadata of the print data).
Regarding Claim 7, Kosaka further teaches wherein the at least one processor executes instructions in the memory device to:
obtain an authentication token from the blockchain network via the management server (Paragraphs 124 and 125, wherein the authentication data is given for use with the blockchain);
obtain the electronic data from the management server, according to the URI information indicating the obtainment source of the electronic data and included in the job ticket and using the obtained authentication token (Paragraphs 124 and 125, wherein the authentication data is given for use with the blockchain and associated with the job data).
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 NICHOLAS PACHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-3433. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4.
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, George Eng can be reached at 571-272-7495. 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.
/NICHOLAS PACHOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699