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 .
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 2019-022171), as cited in the IDS dated 1/31/24, reference will be made to the translation furnished by the applicant, in view of Yamada (US 2018/0107956).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 10, Tanaka discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing one or more computers to execute a process, an information processing method, and an information processing system, comprising:
one or more processors (CPU 12) configured to:
acquire a workflow directed to a user who uses an information processing apparatus and usage information in association with each other, the usage information indicating a communication line used in receiving the workflow by the information processing apparatus by using a plurality of independent communication lines including the communication line (see Fig. 1 and paras 27-32, determination means 14 determines if a user has access to a first network 60 and/or a second network 70 to cause image forming apparatus 10 to perform a job); and
in response to inconsistency between the usage information and permission information indicating a communication line of the communication lines that is permitted to be used by the user, report warning to the user without displaying, on a display, the workflow associated with the usage information (see paras 27, 30-31, 35-36, and 52, when a user does not have permission to use first network 60 or second network 70 a warning message is displayed).
Tanaka does not disclose expressly acquire a workflow directed to a user who uses an information processing apparatus, receiving the workflow by the information processing apparatus receiving workflows.
Yamada discloses acquire a workflow directed to a user who uses an information processing apparatus, receiving the workflow by the information processing apparatus receiving workflows (see Fig. 15B and paras 49, 119, and 194, a plurality of workflows are displayed to a user after logging in).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the displaying a list of a plurality of workflows available to a user, as described by Yamada, with the system of Tanaka.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to increase security and reduce the risk of information leakage (para 197 of Yamada).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yamada with Tanaka to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1, 9, and 10.
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka further discloses wherein the one or more processor are configured to: display a warning image as the warning to the user on the display (see paras 36-37, 52, 59, and 68-70, when a user does not have permission to use first network 60 or second network 70 a warning message is displayed).
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka further discloses wherein the warning image is an image indicating that there is a workflow not displayable on the display due to the inconsistency between the associated usage information and the permission information (see paras 68-70, the networks available to a user can be displayed in a different color than those that an unavailable or a user does not have permission to use).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Yamada further discloses wherein the one or more processor are configured to: in response to the plurality of workflows being received, display a workflow of the plurality of workflows that is associated with the usage information that matches the permission information, the workflow being displayed on the display on which the warning image is displayed (see Fig. 15B and 15C and paras 192-197, workflows are displayed to a user based on login information).
Regarding claim 6, Yamada further discloses wherein the one or more processor are configured to: in response to the inconsistency between the usage information and the permission information, report to an administrator that there is the workflow associated with the usage information (see paras 159-160 and 170, reports can be issued to an administrator regarding the workflows).
Regarding claim 7, Yamada further discloses wherein the one or more processor are configured to: report a cause of the inconsistency between the permission information and the usage information, as a report to the administrator (see paras 159-160 and 170, reports can be issued to an administrator regarding the workflows).
Regarding claim 8, Yamada further discloses wherein the one or more processor are configured to: in response to the user being assigned a right to correct the permission information, display a cause of the inconsistency between the permission information and the usage information on the display (see paras 30, 133, 136-137, 159-160, 170, and 195-197, an administrator can register and edit workflow information).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. To further show the state of the art please refer to the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R MILIA whose telephone number is (571) 272-7408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 571-270-3438. The fax 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.
/MARK R MILIA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights