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
In view of the amendment to the specification and the cancelation of claims 20 and 25, the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment canceling claims 20 and 25, the objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment canceling claims 20 and 25, the 35 USC 112(a) rejection is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claims 16, 21 and 26, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 16-26 is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. The applicant argues on page 11 of remarks that “Takenaka does not teach or suggest, among other features, storing (second) information corresponding to a combination of plurality of print setting, the combination of plurality of print setting values, and third information regarding a user of the combination of print setting values, and transmitting this information to a second information processing apparatus.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Takenaka discloses where upon a login action, the control unit of Takenaka provides the user information for registering, deleting and updating functions that are stored according to the uniquely identified user (p0045). Setting information is provided to the user according to the customized settings by the user as well as the common settings that are available to all users (p0046-0048). Takenaka explicitly discloses an administrator mode (p0052). In this logged in mode, the administrator can change setting values of common setting information as well as personal setting information (p0052). Takenaka further explicitly discloses where a general user, when logged in, can only change the personal setting values of the user himself (p0052). The Examiner notes that Morita is only discussed regarding its failing to remedy the argued deficiencies of Takenaka.
However, applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-19, 21-24 and 26-36 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 or unless explicitly discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-19, 21-24 and 26-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to organizing human interactions without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) how to generally apply the concept of updating, storing and sharing information (e.g., print settings) in a computer environment. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely tools to perform an existing update process with no actual use or realization of such update. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application. Further, as per the Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018), a factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The MPEP discloses storing and retrieving information from memory and transmitting data over a network as is well-understood, routine, conventional (2106.05(d)(II)(i) transmitting data over a network and 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) storing and retrieving information in memory). Therefore, the claim limitation does not include elements that amount to significantly more.
To distinguish ineligible claims that merely recite a judicial exception from eligible claims that require an implementation of judicial exception, the Supreme Court uses a two-step framework: Step One (Step 2A), determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts; and Step Two (Step 2B), if so, ask “what else is there in the claims?” to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent eligible application.
Under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the first step / Prong One of Step One (Step 2A) to determine patent eligibility requires the determination of whether the claims at issue are directed to an enumerated patent ineligible concept.
Prong (1) requires the determination of (a) the specific limitations in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea and (b) determining whether the identified limitations falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated.
The enumerated patent ineligible concepts comprising:
(a) Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles / practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules / instructions) and
(c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Prong (2) asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981.
The second step (Step 2B) is to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
Claim 16 is directed to an image forming apparatus:
A - one or more memories; and a controller containing instructions and configured to execute the instructions to:
B - transmit, to a first information processing apparatus, first information corresponding to a screen regarding registering a combination of plurality of print setting values and second information corresponding to the combination of plurality of print setting values, wherein the screen is a setting screen regarding an Internet Printing Protocol;
C - store, in the one or more memories, based on the second information and the combination of plurality of print setting values registered via the screen, the second information, the combination of plurality of print setting values, and third information regarding a user of the combination of print setting values, wherein the second information, the third information and the combination of print setting values are stored in association with each other and
D - transmit, to a second information processing apparatus, the second information, the third information and the combination of plurality of print setting values, wherein the second information, the third information and the combination of plurality of print setting values are stored in the one or more memories.
Step A recites generic computer components. Steps B and D recite well-understood, routine, conventional activity of data transmission (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). Step C is merely a nominal recitation of utilizing generic storage components of step A. Further, an individual can tell another individual available options (step B), write down options according to chosen metrics (step C), and then relay that information to a further individual if requested to do so (step D).
Step 1 – yes, the claim is directed to a statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1 – yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of organizing human interactions grouping.
Step 2A Prong 2 – no, there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – no, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept more than the recited judicial exceptions. The limitations merely describe how to generally apply the concept of storing and sharing print setting information in a computer environment.
Claim 17 is directed to the apparatus of claim 16:
that recites: wherein the information is information for displaying a web page corresponding the screen.
The limitation of claim 17 describes a generic computer environment for step B.
Step 1 – yes, the claim is directed to a statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1 – yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – no, there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – no, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept more than the recited judicial exceptions. The limitations merely describe how to generally apply the concept of showing print setting information in a computer environment.
Claim 18 is directed to the apparatus of claim 16:
that recites: wherein the combination of plurality of print setting values the second information, and the third information are transmitted complying with the Internet Printing Protocol.
The limitation of claim 18 describes a network environment for step D.
Step 1 – yes, the claim is directed to a statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1 – yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – no, there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – no, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept more than the recited judicial exceptions. The limitations merely describe how to generally apply the concept of a transmission format.
Claim 19 is directed to the apparatus of claim 16:
that recites: wherein the controller is further configured to: receive a predetermined request from the second information processing apparatus, wherein the information is transmitted as a response to the predetermined request.
The limitation of claim 19 describes a generic computer activity environment for steps A and D.
Step 1 – yes, the claim is directed to a statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1 – yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of organizing human interactions grouping.
Step 2A Prong 2 – no, there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – no, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept more than the recited judicial exceptions.
Claim 21 is directed to a method:
E - transmitting, to a first information processing apparatus, first information corresponding to a screen regarding registering a combination of plurality of print setting values and second information corresponding to the combination of plurality of print setting values, wherein the screen is a setting screen regarding an Internet Printing Protocol;
F - storing, in one or more memories, based on the second information and the combination of plurality of print setting values registered via the screen, the second information, the combination of plurality of print setting values, and third information regarding a user of the combination of print setting values, wherein the second information, the third information and the combination of print setting values are stored in association with each other and
G - transmitting, to a second information processing apparatus, the second information, the third information and the combination of plurality of print setting values, wherein the second information, the third information and the combination of plurality of print setting values are stored in the one or more memories.
Steps E and G recite well-understood, routine, conventional activity of data transmission (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). Step F is merely a nominal recitation of utilizing generic computer storage components.
Step 1 – yes, the claim is directed to a statutory category of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1 – yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer components does not take the claim limitation out of organizing human interactions grouping.
Step 2A Prong 2 – no, there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – no, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept more than the recited judicial exceptions. The limitations merely describe how to generally apply the concept of storing and sharing print setting information in a computer environment.
Claim 22 is directed to the method of claim 21:
that recites: wherein the information is information for displaying a web page corresponding the screen.
The limitation of claim 22 describes a generic computer environment for step E.
Step 1 – yes, the claim is directed to a statutory category of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1 – yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – no, there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – no, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept more than the recited judicial exceptions. The limitations merely describe how to generally apply the concept of showing print setting information in a computer environment.
Claim 23 is directed to the apparatus of claim 21:
that recites: wherein the combination of plurality of print setting values the second information, and the third information are transmitted complying with the Internet Printing Protocol.
The limitation of claim 18 describes a network environment for step G.
Step 1 – yes, the claim is directed to a statutory category of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1 – yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – no, there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – no, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept more than the recited judicial exceptions. The limitations merely describe how to generally apply the concept of a transmission format.
Claim 24 is directed to the apparatus of claim 21:
that recites: wherein the control method further comprising: receiving a predetermined request from the second information processing apparatus, wherein the information is transmitted as a response to the predetermined request.
The limitation of claim 24 describes a generic computer activity environment for step G.
Step 1 – yes, the claim is directed to a statutory category of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1 – yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – no, there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – no, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept more than the recited judicial exceptions.
Claim 26 recites limitations likewise as claim 21 above and is therefore similarly rejected as claim 21.
Claim 27 is directed to the apparatus of claim 16:
that recites: wherein the controller is configured to execute the instructions to store a plurality of pieces of the second information in association with the third information.
The limitation of claim 27 describes a generic computer activity for step C.
Step 1 – yes, the claim is directed to a statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1 – yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of organizing human interactions grouping.
Step 2A Prong 2 – no, there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – no, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept more than the recited judicial exceptions.
Claim 28 is directed to the apparatus of claim 16:
that recites: wherein the combination of plurality of print setting values and the second information transmitted to the second information processing apparatus are information on a common preset usable by any user.
The limitation of claim 28 describes an intended use for step D.
Step 1 – yes, the claim is directed to a statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1 – yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of organizing human interactions grouping.
Step 2A Prong 2 – no, there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. There is no realization of any usage of the information.
Step 2B – no, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept more than the recited judicial exceptions.
Claim 29 is directed to the apparatus of claim 16:
that recites: wherein the combination of plurality of print setting values and the second information transmitted to the second information processing apparatus are information on a preset usable by a user of the second information processing apparatus.
The limitation of claim 29 describes an intended use for step D.
Step 1 – yes, the claim is directed to a statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1 – yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – no, there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. There is no realization of any usage of the information.
Step 2B – no, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept more than the recited judicial exceptions.
Claim 30 is directed to the apparatus of claim 16:
that recites: wherein the first information processing apparatus is an information processing apparatus used by a user having an administrative authority of the image forming apparatus, and the second information processing apparatus is an information processing apparatus having transmitted a predetermined request to the information forming apparatus.
The limitation of claim 30 describes the computer environment of steps B and D.
Step 1 – yes, the claim is directed to a statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1 – yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – no, there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – no, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept more than the recited judicial exceptions.
Claim 31 is directed to the apparatus of claim 16:
that recites: wherein the second information is information indicating a preset name, and the third information is an identifier that identifies the user of the combination of print setting values.
The limitation of claim 31 describes the data of step C.
Step 1 – yes, the claim is directed to a statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1 – yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – no, there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – no, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept more than the recited judicial exceptions.
Claims 32-36 recite limitations likewise as claims 27-31 above and is therefore similarly rejected as claims 27-31.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 16-19, 21-24, 26-30 and 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno et al., (US Pub No. 20070282995) in view of Morita (US PgPub No. 20180004457).
Claim 16: Mizuno discloses an image forming apparatus comprising:
one or more memories; and a controller containing instructions and configured to execute the instructions to: transmit, to a first information processing apparatus, first information corresponding to a screen regarding registering a combination of plurality of print setting values and second information corresponding to the combination of plurality of print setting values, wherein the screen is a setting screen regarding an Internet Printing Protocol [system administrator utility (AU) 100 runs on a server PC (not shown), and sets and manages the system … the AU 100 can perform settings of function restriction information on a user information server (AD) 101 … AD 101 stores and manages user information 110 such as a user ID [e.g., second information] and password to identify a user … the device management table 106 also stores and manages a layer attribute corresponding to each device group [e.g., another second information] … AD 101 stores and manages function [e.g., print setting values] restriction information (to be referred to as "ACL" hereinafter) 107 representing which functions are available for each user or device in the system … An administrator's computer (not shown) connected to the network 201 can operate the server PC 202 via the network 201, p0039-0040, p0043 & p0054];
store, in the one or more memories, based on the second information and the combination of plurality of print setting values registered via the screen, the second information, the combination of plurality of print setting values, and third information regarding a user of the combination of print setting values, wherein the second information, the third information and the combination of print setting values are stored in association with each other [AD 101 stores and manages user information 110 such as a user ID and password [e.g., third information] to identify a user … device management table 106 stores and manages management information on each device or each group of devices in the system … AD 101 stores and manages function [e.g., print setting values] restriction information (to be referred to as "ACL" hereinafter) 107 representing which functions are available for each user or device in the system … the AU 100 and SA 102 run on the server PC 202, whereas the AD 101 runs on the directory server 203, p0040, p0043 & p0048] and
transmit, to a second information processing apparatus, the second information, the third information and the combination of plurality of print setting values, wherein the second information, the third information and the combination of plurality of print setting values are stored in the one or more memories [the MFP 104 requests the SA 102 to issue an ACT describing function restriction information of the MFP 104 … when receiving an ACT issuing request from an external apparatus, the SA 102 requests function restriction information of the MFP 104 in the ACL 107 stored in the AD 101, based on the identifier contained in the ACT request in step S405. The AD 101 causes its authentication unit to perform authentication in accordance with the request containing the identifier of the ACT issuing side from the SA 102, p0057-0058].
Mizuno does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the screen is a setting screen regarding an Internet Printing Protocol.
Morita discloses in a related system from the same field of endeavor [Abstract] an image forming apparatus to transmit, to a first information processing apparatus, information corresponding to a screen regarding registering a plurality of print setting values and an identifier corresponding to the plurality of print setting values, wherein the screen is a setting screen regarding an Internet Printing Protocol [When a terminal searches for an apparatus in a printing system (T11 in FIG. 18), a MFP sends the terminal a destination URI (Uniform Resource Identifier) in IPP (Internet Printing Protocol) and information of a part of the abilities, in response to the search instructions (T12). In response to the terminal sending a request for the abilities to the MFP (T21), the MFP sends information of the abilities with the IPP Attributes to the terminal (T22), p0037].
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have included in Mizuno the support for utilizing an Internet Printing Protocol as disclosed by Morita because it designed for distributed printing utilizing well-known Internet tools and technologies.
Claim 17: Mizuno in view of Morita discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the information is information for displaying a web page corresponding the screen [user interface of the server PC 202 can be a Web interface using HTTP/HTML or the like, in addition to devices such as the KB 309 and CRT 310 physically connected to the server. An administrator's computer (not shown) connected to the network 201 can operate the server PC 202 via the network 201, p0054 & p0103].
Claim 18: Mizuno in view of Morita discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the combination of plurality of print setting values the second information, and the third information are transmitted complying with the Internet Printing Protocol [AD 101 stores and manages user information 110 such as a user ID [e.g., second information] and password [e.g., third information] to identify a user. A device management table 106 stores and manages management information on each device or each group of devices in the system. As management information, the device management table 106 also stores and manages a layer attribute corresponding to each device group. The AD 101 stores and manages function restriction information (to be referred to as "ACL" hereinafter) 107 representing which functions are available for each user or device in the system … SA 102 extracts the identifier which is contained in the issuing request of the ACT 105 from the MFP 104 and specifies an image processing device, and requests function restriction information based on the extracted identifier of the AD 101. More specifically, when receiving an ACT issuing request from an external apparatus, the SA 102 requests function restriction information of the MFP 104 in the ACL 107 stored in the AD 101, based on the identifier contained in the ACT request in step S405. The AD 101 causes its authentication unit to perform authentication in accordance with the request containing the identifier of the ACT issuing side from the SA 102. If the AD 101 confirms that the ACT issuing side has already been registered and is authentic, it acquires function restriction information based on the identifier from a management unit. In step S406, the AD 101 transmits the function restriction information of the MFP 104 to the SA 102, p0040 & p0058].
Claim 19: Mizuno in view of Morita discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the controller is further configured to: receive a predetermined request from the second information processing apparatus, wherein the information is transmitted as a response to the predetermined request [when receiving an ACT issuing request from an external apparatus, the SA 102 requests function restriction information of the MFP 104 in the ACL 107 stored in the AD 101, based on the identifier contained in the ACT request in step S405. The AD 101 causes its authentication unit to perform authentication in accordance with the request containing the identifier of the ACT issuing side from the SA 102. If the AD 101 confirms that the ACT issuing side has already been registered and is authentic, it acquires function restriction information based on the identifier from a management unit. In step S406, the AD 101 transmits the function restriction information of the MFP 104 to the SA 102, p0058].
Claims 21-24: the methods herein have been executed or performed by the apparatuses of claims 16-19 and are therefore likewise rejected.
Claim 26: the medium storing instructions herein have been executed or performed by the apparatus of claim 16 and is therefore likewise rejected.
Claim 27: Mizuno in view of Morita discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the controller is configured to execute the instructions to store a plurality of pieces of the second information in association with the third information [AD 101 stores and manages user information 110 such as a user ID and password to identify a user … AD 101 stores and manages function restriction information (to be referred to as "ACL" hereinafter) 107 representing which functions are available for each user or device [interpreted to represent a plurality of information] in the system as shown in at least Figures 5A & 5B, p0040 & p0074-0075].
Claim 28: Mizuno in view of Morita discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the combination of plurality of print setting values and the second information transmitted to the second information processing apparatus are information on a common preset usable by any user [e.g., guest as shown in Figure 5A, p0074-0076].
Claim 29: Mizuno in view of Morita discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the combination of plurality of print setting values and the second information transmitted to the second information processing apparatus are information on a preset usable by a user of the second information processing apparatus [the MFP 104 requests the SA 102 to issue an ACT describing function restriction information of the MFP 104 … when receiving an ACT issuing request from an external apparatus, the SA 102 requests function restriction information of the MFP 104 in the ACL 107 stored in the AD 101, based on the identifier contained in the ACT request in step S405. The AD 101 causes its authentication unit to perform authentication in accordance with the request containing the identifier of the ACT issuing side from the SA 102, p0057-0058, p0070 & p0074-0080].
Claim 30: Mizuno in view of Morita discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the first information processing apparatus is an information processing apparatus used by a user having an administrative authority of the image forming apparatus [system administrator utility (AU) 100 runs on a server PC (not shown), and sets and manages the system. In particular, the AU 100 can perform settings of function restriction information on a user information server (AD) 101 … An administrator's computer (not shown) connected to the network 201 can operate the server PC 202 via the network 201 … the system administrator of a network device or the like can efficiently set not only function restriction of each user but also function restriction of each device group or the like at once, p0039, p0054 & p0123], and the second information processing apparatus is an information processing apparatus having transmitted a predetermined request to the information forming apparatus [Processes based on steps S403 to S409 may be executed when detecting input of, e.g., an indication to copy via the operation unit of the image processing device regardless of whether the user logs in to the MFP 104 … If the external apparatus requests the SA 102 to issue an ACT, the SA 102 requests function restriction information contained in the ACL 107 stored in the AD 101 in correspondence with the user who is to issue a job, based on an identifier contained in the ACT issuing request in step S411. The AD 101 causes its authentication unit to perform authentication in accordance with the request containing the identifier of the ACT issuing side from the SA 102. If the AD 101 confirms that the ACT issuing side has already been registered and is authentic, it acquires function restriction information based on the identifier from the management unit. In step S412, the AD 101 transmits the function restriction information of the user to the SA 102, p0057 & p0070].
Claims 32-35: the methods herein have been executed or performed by the apparatuses of claims 27-30 and are therefore likewise rejected.
Claim(s) 31 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno et al., (US Pub No. 20070282995) in view of Morita (US PgPub No. 20180004457) and in further view of Yamada (US Pub No. 20120260350).
Claim 31: Mizuno discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the second information is information indicating a preset name, and the third information is an identifier that identifies the user of the combination of print setting values [AD 101 stores and manages user information 110 such as a user ID [e.g., second (third) information] and password [e.g., third (second) information] to identify a user … the device management table 106 also stores and manages a layer attribute corresponding to each device group [e.g., another second (third) information] … AD 101 stores and manages function [e.g., print setting values] restriction information (to be referred to as "ACL" hereinafter) 107 representing which functions are available for each user or device in the system, p0039-0040].
Mizuno nor Morita appear to disclose a preset name as the second information.
Yamada discloses in a related system from the same field of endeavor [Abstract] where stored preset information can include a preset name [e.g., A user management unit 203 manages users who use the MFP 101 and provides an authentication window for authenticating the users. FIG. 6 shows an example of user information managed by the user management unit 203. Referring to FIG. 6, the user management unit 203 manages pieces of information such as user IDs for uniquely identifying users, display names, roles to which the users belong, and mail addresses, p0043 & p0047].
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have included in Mizuno in view of Morita the support to provide a preset name associated with an identifier that identifies the user as disclosed by Yamada because it allows managers to assign permissions in an easier manner as well as allowing the user to quickly access a common function by only needing guest level access.
Claim 36: the method herein have been executed or performed by the apparatus of claim 31 and is therefore likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bermundo, US Patent 10205846, discloses where common or pre-defined set of printing preferences particular to a project, department, or activity with different users having pre-defined teams created by managers or administrators can have a shared set of printing preferences that will take effect as higher priority than control panel defaults. Wherever the members of the team access a document and attempt to print, the assigned printing preferences for the team will take effect and be reflected on their print jobs.
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 BARBARA D REINIER whose telephone number is (571)270-5082. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu 10am - 6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 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.
/BARBARA D REINIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682