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
A. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amended claims 1-6 recite "[a]n information processing apparatus comprising: a controller configured to: determine …, cause …, and restrict…”. The Examiner interprets a controller configured to: determine …, cause …, and restrict… as a means-plus-function limitation. Amended claims 1-6 are single means claims, i.e., where a means recitation does not appear in combination with another recited element of means. A single means claim is subject to an enablement rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714-715, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (A single means claim which covered every conceivable means for achieving the stated purpose was held nonenabling for the scope of the claim because the specification disclosed at most only those means known to the inventor.). When claims depend on a recited property, a fact situation comparable to Hyatt is possible, where the claim covers every conceivable structure (means) for achieving the stated property (result) while the specification discloses at most only those known to the inventor. See MPEP 2164.08(a).
To overcome this rejection, claim 1 may be amended to recite "[a]n information processing apparatus comprising: a controller including a processor and a memory configured to: determine …, cause …, and restrict…”. This proposed amendment is supported by the specification in [0016].
B. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues the following: “Abu does not disclose, teach, or suggest, at least, ‘wherein the authentication information comprises a user name of the user, a mail address of the user, a user authentication number of the user, a face image of the user, a fingerprint image of the user, or a voiceprint of the user,’ as recited in amended claim 1.” (see Remarks, page 2, the penultimate paragraph)
The Examiner respectfully responds: Abu clearly teaches a controller configured to (see Machine Translation, page 8, [0013] and FIG. 1: “A controller (data processing apparatus) 102”):
determine whether job information is infected with a virus or not upon receiving the job information accompanied by authentication information capable of specifying a user,…wherein the authentication information comprises a user name of the user, a mail address of the user, a user authentication number of the user, a face image of the user, a fingerprint image of the user, or a voiceprint of the user (see Machine Translation, page 8, [0015] and FIG. 2: “Referring to FIG. 2, a data transmission / reception unit 201 receives print job data, code data of a control program, or a script from the network 110. A virus detection unit 202 checks whether or not there is a virus in the received data.” And see Machine Translation, page 9, [0019]: “FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating a reception process according to the first embodiment. First, in step S301, it is checked whether or not the data-transceiving unit 201 has received the datum via the network 110, and when the datum has been received, the process proceeds to step S302, and the virus detection unit 202 checks the datum received by the data-transceiving unit 201. If a virus is detected, the flow advances from step S303 to step S304 to notify the control unit 205 of the detection result. Here, the control unit 205 acquires information on the transmission source of the received data from the data transmission / reception unit 201. For example, the host names, IP addresses, and MAC addresses of the transmission source terminals are acquired, and further, in the case of print job information, information capable of specifying the information processing apparatus and information such as the job name and owner name are acquired.” The Examiner interprets “owner name” “in the case of print job information” as authentication information capable of specifying a user,…wherein the authentication information comprises a user name of the user).
C. Newly Added Claim 8
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues the following: “Applicant respectfully submits that newly added claim 8, depending from and further limiting patentable independent claim 1, is, a fortiori, also patentably novel and distinguishable over Abu, alone, or in combination with other cited references, such as Talbert and Official Notice, for at least the reasons presented above with regard to amended independent claim 1, and also for additional limitations recited in the dependent claim.” (see Remarks, page 3, the last paragraph).
The Examiner respectfully responds: Abu clearly teaches the additional limitations recited in dependent claim 8. Specifically, Abu discloses wherein the controller (see Machine Translation, page 8, [0013] and FIG. 1: “A controller (data processing apparatus) 102”. And see Machine Translation, page 8, [0016] and FIG. 2: “Reference numeral 205 denotes a control unit which includes a CPU,ROM,RAM,HDD (hard disk drive), peripheral circuits, and the like, and a CPU controls the entire controller 102 in accordance with a control program and control date stored in a ROM, flash ROM, and HDD.”) is further configured to:
store the authentication information of a specific user in the storage (see Machine Translation, page 9, [0019] and Fig. 3: “If a virus is detected, the flow advances from step S303 to step S304 to notify the control unit 205 of the detection result. Here, the control unit 205 acquires information on the transmission source of the received data from the data transmission / reception unit 201. For example, the host names, IP addresses, and MAC addresses of the transmission source terminals are acquired, and further, in the case of print job information, information capable of specifying the information processing apparatus and information such as the job name and owner name are acquired.” And see Machine Translation, page 9, [0020] and Fig. 3: “Next, in step S305, the acquired information is stored in the storage unit 207 together with the time at which the information was received, the controller name, and the like.” And see Machine Translation, page 10, [0025] and Fig. 2: “the user or the information processing apparatus that is once infected with the virus and transmits the virus-attached information to the controller and is stored in the storage unit 207 to be subjected to the filtering process does not allow the controller to receive the print job until the administrator cancels the setting.” The Examiner interprets storing the acquired “owner name” “in the case of print job information” in the storage unit 207 as store the authentication information of a specific user in the storage.), and
restrict access, by a user of a personal computer, to the information processing device via the personal computer (see Machine Translation, page 10, [0023]: “since the information related to the transmission source of the virus infection data is acquired, the filtering is performed using the information. For example, control is performed so as to reject reception of data from a transmission source whose host name, IP address, MAC address, or the like matches.” And see Machine Translation, page 10, [0025] and Fig. 2: “Further, by transmitting the above-described notification to the administrator of the printer or the controller thereof in some way, the administrator who has received the notification can warn the virus sender that the printer is infected with the virus and take measures. When it is confirmed that the countermeasure has been taken, the setting of the filtering is canceled. In other words, the user or the information processing apparatus that is once infected with the virus and transmits the virus-attached information to the controller and is stored in the storage unit 207 to be subjected to the filtering process does not allow the controller to receive the print job until the administrator cancels the setting.” The Examiner interprets “the user … that is once infected with the virus and transmits the virus-attached information to the controller and is stored in the storage unit 207 to be subjected to the filtering process does not allow the controller to receive the print job” as restrict access, by a user of a personal computer, to the information processing device via the personal computer) when:
the job information is received via the personal computer (see Machine Translation, page 10, [0023]: “since the information related to the transmission source of the virus infection data is acquired, the filtering is performed using the information. For example, control is performed so as to reject reception of data from a transmission source whose host name, IP address, MAC address, or the like matches. A database for filtering is constructed based on these pieces of information stored in the storage unit 207, and is stored in a ROM (not shown) or the like of the data transmission / reception unit 201. A data transmission / reception part 201 acquires information necessary for filtering processing such as an IP address added to the received data, retrieves whether or not the corresponding information exists in the database, and when the matched information exists, determines that there is a possibility that the received data is infected with a virus, and performs deletion.”), and
the authentication information of the user of the personal computer included in the job information matches the authentication information of the specific user stored in the storage (see Machine Translation, page 10, [0025] and Fig. 2: “In other words, the user or the information processing apparatus that is once infected with the virus and transmits the virus-attached information to the controller and is stored in the storage unit 207 to be subjected to the filtering process does not allow the controller to receive the print job until the administrator cancels the setting.” And see Machine Translation, page 10, [0023]: “since the information related to the transmission source of the virus infection data is acquired, the filtering is performed using the information. For example, control is performed so as to reject reception of data from a transmission source whose host name, IP address, MAC address, or the like matches. A database for filtering is constructed based on these pieces of information stored in the storage unit 207, and is stored in a ROM (not shown) or the like of the data transmission / reception unit 201. A data transmission / reception part 201 acquires information necessary for filtering processing such as an IP address added to the received data, retrieves whether or not the corresponding information exists in the database, and when the matched information exists, determines that there is a possibility that the received data is infected with a virus, and performs deletion.” Also see Machine Translation, page 9, [0019] and Fig. 3: “If a virus is detected, the flow advances from step S303 to step S304 to notify the control unit 205 of the detection result. Here, the control unit 205 acquires information on the transmission source of the received data from the data transmission / reception unit 201. For example, the host names, IP addresses, and MAC addresses of the transmission source terminals are acquired, and further, in the case of print job information, information capable of specifying the information processing apparatus and information such as the job name and owner name are acquired.” The Examiner interprets “the user … that is once infected with the virus and transmits the virus-attached information to the controller and is stored in the storage unit 207 to be subjected to the filtering process does not allow the controller to receive the print job” taught in [0025], wherein filtering is based on the transmission source information (the owner name) included in the job information matching the transmission source information of virus infection data (the owner name) stored in the storage unit 207 as taught in [0023] and [0019], as the authentication information of the user of the personal computer included in the job information matches the authentication information of the specific user stored in the storage).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Abu (JP 2004259060 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Abu teaches An information processing apparatus (see Machine Translation, page 8, [0013] and FIG. 1: the printer 103) comprising: a controller configured to (see Machine Translation, page 8, [0013] and FIG. 1: “A controller (data processing apparatus) 102”. And see Machine Translation, page 8, [0013] and FIG. 1: “A controller (data processing apparatus) 102 receives print job data from the computer 101, converts the print job data into drawing data that can be understood by a printer (to be described later), and outputs the drawing data to the printer. Reference numeral 103 denotes a printer as an image forming apparatus, which forms an image on a sheet by an image forming method such as an inkjet method or electrophotographic method in accordance with drawing data output from the controller 102….Although the controller 102 and the printer 103 are illustrated as separate housings, they may exist in the same housing. In this case, the printer can be considered to have a built-in controller function.”):
determine whether job information is infected with a virus or not upon receiving the job information accompanied by authentication information capable of specifying a user (see Machine Translation, page 8, [0015] and FIG. 2: “Referring to FIG. 2, a data transmission / reception unit 201 receives print job data, code data of a control program, or a script from the network 110. A virus detection unit 202 checks whether or not there is a virus in the received data.” And see Machine Translation, page 9, [0019]: “FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating a reception process according to the first embodiment. First, in step S301, it is checked whether or not the data-transceiving unit 201 has received the datum via the network 110, and when the datum has been received, the process proceeds to step S302, and the virus detection unit 202 checks the datum received by the data-transceiving unit 201. If a virus is detected, the flow advances from step S303 to step S304 to notify the control unit 205 of the detection result. Here, the control unit 205 acquires information on the transmission source of the received data from the data transmission / reception unit 201. For example, the host names, IP addresses, and MAC addresses of the transmission source terminals are acquired, and further, in the case of print job information, information capable of specifying the information processing apparatus and information such as the job name and owner name are acquired.” The Examiner interprets “owner name” “in the case of print job information” as authentication information capable of specifying a user),
cause use restriction information capable of specifying a restriction of use by the user in association with the authentication information to be stored in a storage when the job information is determined to be infected with the virus (see Machine Translation, page 9, [0019] and Figs. 2, 3: “FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating a reception process according to the first embodiment. First, in step S301, it is checked whether or not the data-transceiving unit 201 has received the datum via the network 110, and when the datum has been received, the process proceeds to step S302, and the virus detection unit 202 checks the datum received by the data-transceiving unit 201. If a virus is detected, the flow advances from step S303 to step S304 to notify the control unit 205 of the detection result. Here, the control unit 205 acquires information on the transmission source of the received data from the data transmission / reception unit 201. For example, the host names, IP addresses, and MAC addresses of the transmission source terminals are acquired, and further, in the case of print job information, information capable of specifying the information processing apparatus and information such as the job name and owner name are acquired.” And see Machine Translation, page 9, [0020] and Figs. 2, 3: “Next, in step S305, the acquired information is stored in the storage unit 207 together with the time at which the information was received, the controller name, and the like.” And see Machine Translation, page 10, [0023]: “in the case of a malicious sender, there is a high possibility that a file, data, or the like with a virus is sent many times until a person infected with the virus takes measures, and thus it is necessary to perform blocking against repeated attacks. Specifically, as described above, since the information related to the transmission source of the virus infection data is acquired, the filtering is performed using the information. For example, control is performed so as to reject reception of data from a transmission source whose host name, IP address, MAC address, or the like matches. A database for filtering is constructed based on these pieces of information stored in the storage unit 207, and is stored in a ROM (not shown) or the like of the data transmission / reception unit 201. A data transmission / reception part 201 acquires information necessary for filtering processing such as an IP address added to the received data, retrieves whether or not the corresponding information exists in the database, and when the matched information exists, determines that there is a possibility that the received data is infected with a virus, and performs deletion.”), and
restrict use of the information processing apparatus by the user specified by the authentication information associated with the use restriction information when the use restriction information is stored in the storage (see Machine Translation, page 10, [0023]: “in the case of a malicious sender, there is a high possibility that a file, data, or the like with a virus is sent many times until a person infected with the virus takes measures, and thus it is necessary to perform blocking against repeated attacks. Specifically, as described above, since the information related to the transmission source of the virus infection data is acquired, the filtering is performed using the information. For example, control is performed so as to reject reception of data from a transmission source whose host name, IP address, MAC address, or the like matches. A database for filtering is constructed based on these pieces of information stored in the storage unit 207, and is stored in a ROM (not shown) or the like of the data transmission / reception unit 201. A data transmission / reception part 201 acquires information necessary for filtering processing such as an IP address added to the received data, retrieves whether or not the corresponding information exists in the database, and when the matched information exists, determines that there is a possibility that the received data is infected with a virus, and performs deletion.”),
wherein the authentication information comprises a user name of the user, a mail address of the user, a user authentication number of the user, a face image of the user, a fingerprint image of the user, or a voiceprint of the user (see Machine Translation, page 9, [0019]: “If a virus is detected, the flow advances from step S303 to step S304 to notify the control unit 205 of the detection result. Here, the control unit 205 acquires information on the transmission source of the received data from the data transmission / reception unit 201. For example, the host names, IP addresses, and MAC addresses of the transmission source terminals are acquired, and further, in the case of print job information, information capable of specifying the information processing apparatus and information such as the job name and owner name are acquired.” The Examiner interprets “owner name” “in the case of print job information” as authentication information capable of specifying a user,…wherein the authentication information comprises a user name of the user).
Regarding claim 3, Abu further teaches wherein when restriction release information capable of specifying a release of the restriction on the use of the information processing apparatus by the user is received, the controller is further configured to release the restriction on the use of the information processing apparatus by the user by invalidating the use restriction information in the storage (see Machine Translation, page 10, [0025]: “by transmitting the above-described notification to the administrator of the printer or the controller thereof in some way, the administrator who has received the notification can warn the virus sender that the printer is infected with the virus and take measures. When it is confirmed that the countermeasure has been taken, the setting of the filtering is canceled. In other words, the user or the information processing apparatus that is once infected with the virus and transmits the virus-attached information to the controller and is stored in the storage unit 207 to be subjected to the filtering process does not allow the controller to receive the print job until the administrator cancels the setting.”).
Regarding claim 4, Abu further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to receive the restriction release information from a management server that manages the information processing apparatus based on a predetermined operation performed on an operation acceptor of the management server (see Machine Translation, page 10, [0026]: “the administrator of the printer or the controller thereof performs the filter function release processing via an operation unit (not shown) of the controller or by using a management application or the like of the information processing apparatus via the network. To be more specific, by clearing the filter information for identifying the information processing apparatus of the user to which the antivirus is applied to release the reception restriction, the reception restriction of the information transmitted from the information processing apparatus is stopped. Thereby, the controller can receive the print job from the information processing apparatus again.”).
Regarding claim 8, Abu further teaches wherein the controller (see Machine Translation, page 8, [0013] and FIG. 1: “A controller (data processing apparatus) 102”. And see Machine Translation, page 8, [0016] and FIG. 2: “Reference numeral 205 denotes a control unit which includes a CPU,ROM,RAM,HDD (hard disk drive), peripheral circuits, and the like, and a CPU controls the entire controller 102 in accordance with a control program and control date stored in a ROM, flash ROM, and HDD.”) is further configured to:
store the authentication information of a specific user in the storage (see Machine Translation, page 9, [0019] and Fig. 3: “If a virus is detected, the flow advances from step S303 to step S304 to notify the control unit 205 of the detection result. Here, the control unit 205 acquires information on the transmission source of the received data from the data transmission / reception unit 201. For example, the host names, IP addresses, and MAC addresses of the transmission source terminals are acquired, and further, in the case of print job information, information capable of specifying the information processing apparatus and information such as the job name and owner name are acquired.” And see Machine Translation, page 9, [0020] and Fig. 3: “Next, in step S305, the acquired information is stored in the storage unit 207 together with the time at which the information was received, the controller name, and the like.” And see Machine Translation, page 10, [0025] and Fig. 2: “the user or the information processing apparatus that is once infected with the virus and transmits the virus-attached information to the controller and is stored in the storage unit 207 to be subjected to the filtering process does not allow the controller to receive the print job until the administrator cancels the setting.” The Examiner interprets storing the acquired “owner name” “in the case of print job information” in the storage unit 207 as store the authentication information of a specific user in the storage.), and
restrict access, by a user of a personal computer, to the information processing device via the personal computer (see Machine Translation, page 10, [0023]: “since the information related to the transmission source of the virus infection data is acquired, the filtering is performed using the information. For example, control is performed so as to reject reception of data from a transmission source whose host name, IP address, MAC address, or the like matches.” And see Machine Translation, page 10, [0025] and Fig. 2: “Further, by transmitting the above-described notification to the administrator of the printer or the controller thereof in some way, the administrator who has received the notification can warn the virus sender that the printer is infected with the virus and take measures. When it is confirmed that the countermeasure has been taken, the setting of the filtering is canceled. In other words, the user or the information processing apparatus that is once infected with the virus and transmits the virus-attached information to the controller and is stored in the storage unit 207 to be subjected to the filtering process does not allow the controller to receive the print job until the administrator cancels the setting.” The Examiner interprets “the user … that is once infected with the virus and transmits the virus-attached information to the controller and is stored in the storage unit 207 to be subjected to the filtering process does not allow the controller to receive the print job” as restrict access, by a user of a personal computer, to the information processing device via the personal computer) when:
the job information is received via the personal computer (see Machine Translation, page 10, [0023]: “since the information related to the transmission source of the virus infection data is acquired, the filtering is performed using the information. For example, control is performed so as to reject reception of data from a transmission source whose host name, IP address, MAC address, or the like matches. A database for filtering is constructed based on these pieces of information stored in the storage unit 207, and is stored in a ROM (not shown) or the like of the data transmission / reception unit 201. A data transmission / reception part 201 acquires information necessary for filtering processing such as an IP address added to the received data, retrieves whether or not the corresponding information exists in the database, and when the matched information exists, determines that there is a possibility that the received data is infected with a virus, and performs deletion.”), and
the authentication information of the user of the personal computer included in the job information matches the authentication information of the specific user stored in the storage (see Machine Translation, page 10, [0025] and Fig. 2: “In other words, the user or the information processing apparatus that is once infected with the virus and transmits the virus-attached information to the controller and is stored in the storage unit 207 to be subjected to the filtering process does not allow the controller to receive the print job until the administrator cancels the setting.” And see Machine Translation, page 10, [0023]: “since the information related to the transmission source of the virus infection data is acquired, the filtering is performed using the information. For example, control is performed so as to reject reception of data from a transmission source whose host name, IP address, MAC address, or the like matches. A database for filtering is constructed based on these pieces of information stored in the storage unit 207, and is stored in a ROM (not shown) or the like of the data transmission / reception unit 201. A data transmission / reception part 201 acquires information necessary for filtering processing such as an IP address added to the received data, retrieves whether or not the corresponding information exists in the database, and when the matched information exists, determines that there is a possibility that the received data is infected with a virus, and performs deletion.” Also see Machine Translation, page 9, [0019] and Fig. 3: “If a virus is detected, the flow advances from step S303 to step S304 to notify the control unit 205 of the detection result. Here, the control unit 205 acquires information on the transmission source of the received data from the data transmission / reception unit 201. For example, the host names, IP addresses, and MAC addresses of the transmission source terminals are acquired, and further, in the case of print job information, information capable of specifying the information processing apparatus and information such as the job name and owner name are acquired.” The Examiner interprets “the user … that is once infected with the virus and transmits the virus-attached information to the controller and is stored in the storage unit 207 to be subjected to the filtering process does not allow the controller to receive the print job” taught in [0025], wherein filtering is based on the transmission source information (the owner name) included in the job information matching the transmission source information of virus infection data (the owner name) stored in the storage unit 207 as taught in [0023] and [0019], as the authentication information of the user of the personal computer included in the job information matches the authentication information of the specific user stored in the storage).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abu (JP 2004259060 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Talbert (US 2006/0101276).
Regarding claim 2, Abu further teaches wherein the information processing apparatus is a multifunction peripheral that exerts a plurality of functions corresponding to a plurality of apparatuses (see Machine Translation, page 7, [0011]: “a computer virus check method of an image forming apparatus (a copying machine, a printer, a facsimile apparatus, or the like) connected to a network is performed”).
Abu fails to teach wherein the controller individually restricts the use of the information processing apparatus by the user for each of the plurality of functions by individually storing the use restriction information in the storage for each of the plurality of functions.
In the same field of endeavor, Talbert discloses wherein the controller is configured to individually restrict the use of the information processing apparatus by the user (see Abstract: “A security access method for a multifunctional device, that includes receiving login information from a user, contacting a directory, receiving personal security level information about the user from the database, and generating a customized user interface for the user based upon the user's security level.”) for each of the plurality of functions by individually storing the use restriction information in the storage for each of the plurality of functions (see [0027]” “A document would be conveyed to a device such as the multifunction device 18. The document would contain a label that included security information about the document. In embodiments, a security label classifies the content of the document into categories, such as "Public," "Confidential," "Top Secret," etc. A user interface would then be generated that did not include features such as fax or email that should not be used with the document. In place of displaying all the pages, a more efficient workflow could be provided by displaying a custom set of web pages that are comprised of only those services that may be used with the document. The device determines which features may be used by, for example, checking the security label information kept internally or remotely and creating a user interface tailored for that document. In embodiments, the primary basis for creating the interface would be the document's security level. MAC policies restricting access to particular features could be enforced simply by not displaying unauthorized features to the user.” And see [0009]: “By modification of the customer's LDAP schema to include "Allowed Services on Xerox Multifunction Devices" as part of each user record, the storing, backup, and maintenance of user attributes is pushed into the IT environment.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve Abu by letting the controller be configured to individually restrict the use of the information processing apparatus by the user for each of the plurality of functions by individually storing the use restriction information in the storage for each of the plurality of functions, as taught by Talbert. It would have been obvious because Talbert teaches that doing so achieves the following benefit: “By modification of the customer's LDAP schema to include "Allowed Services on Xerox Multifunction Devices" as part of each user record, the storing, backup, and maintenance of user attributes is pushed into the IT environment. DIRECTORY SERVICES are a centralized repository for user information, and it is only logical to use this existing function in order to meet the DAC [Discretionary Access Control] policies established. This requires much less engineering and development effort, (i.e. cost) for Xerox, and provides seamless integration into a customer's existing environment” (see Talbert [0009]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abu (JP 2004259060 A) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 5, Abu fails to teach the information processing apparatus further comprising an operation acceptor that is operatable by the user, wherein the controller is further configured to release the restriction on the use of the information processing apparatus when a predetermined operation is performed on the operation acceptor.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is a well-known technique to let the information processing apparatus further comprise an operation acceptor that is operatable by the user, wherein the controller is further configured to release the restriction on the use of the information processing apparatus when a predetermined operation is performed on the operation acceptor.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve Abu by letting the information processing apparatus further comprise an operation acceptor that is operatable by the user, wherein the controller is further configured to release the restriction on the use of the information processing apparatus when a predetermined operation is performed on the operation acceptor, as taught by Official Notice. It would have been obvious because doing so predictably achieves the commonly understood benefit of enabling the user to operate the information processing apparatus so that the restriction on the use of the information processing apparatus by the user is released.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abu (JP 2004259060 A) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 6, Abu fails to teach wherein the controller is further configured to receive the restriction release information from a communication terminal capable of communicating with the information processing apparatus based on a predetermined operation performed on an operation acceptor of the communication terminal.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is a well-known technique to let the controller be further configured to receive the restriction release information from a communication terminal capable of communicating with the information processing apparatus based on a predetermined operation performed on an operation acceptor of the communication terminal.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve Abu by letting the controller be further configured to receive the restriction release information from a communication terminal capable of communicating with the information processing apparatus based on a predetermined operation performed on an operation acceptor of the communication terminal, as taught by Official Notice. It would have been obvious because doing so predictably achieves the commonly understood benefit of enabling the user to operate a communication terminal so that the restriction on the use of the information processing apparatus by the user is released.
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 ZHIMEI ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7990. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm Monday-Friday.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at 571-272-3739. 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.
/ZHIMEI ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 2495