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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment was received on 7/20/26 and has been entered and made of record. Currently, claims 1-14 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts Nobutani et al. (US 2017/0269889) fails to disclose grant a person who has stayed within a specific region for a predetermined period of time or longer an authority to perform a specific operation on an information processing apparatus without the person being requested to perform an authentication operation, the specific region being set in advance. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as Nobutani discloses the above mentioned feature. Particularly, Nobutani discloses what is called “passive authenticating” (para 22). A recognition camera 30 performs user authentication without the need for a person to enter any login information or do anything at all. The recognition camera 30 detects individual recognition information of the user, such as facial features, and then compares the facial features to a database to determine a match and thus authenticate the person using the image forming apparatus (paras 40 and 44). The current claim language allows a person to use a device without the person being requested to perform an authentication operation. The system of Nobutani does not request a person to perform any authentication operation and the authentication process is performed automatically and passively. Therefore, Nobutani discloses grant a person who has stayed within a specific region for a predetermined period of time or longer an authority to perform a specific operation on an information processing apparatus without the person being requested to perform an authentication operation, the specific region being set in advance, as set forth in claims 1, 13, and 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nobutani et al. (US 2017/0269889).
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 14, Nobutani discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process, an information processing method, and an information processing system comprising:
a processor configured to:
acquire image information that is obtained by photographing a person (see paras 39-41, access camera 29 and recognition camera 30 obtain photographs of a person);
track a movement of the person using the acquired image information (see paras 37-41, plural sensors, person presence sensor 28, access camera 29, and recognition camera 30 track the movement of a person); and
grant a person who has stayed within a specific region for a predetermined period of time or longer an authority to perform a specific operation on an information processing apparatus without the person being requested to perform an authentication operation, the specific region being set in advance (see paras 22, 40, 44, 47, 55, and 58, recognition camera 30 performs user authentication without the need for a person to enter any login information or do anything at all, recognition camera 30 detects individual recognition information of the user, such as facial features, and then compares the facial features to a database to determine a match and thus authenticate the person using the image forming apparatus, the person must wait a certain holding time before the printing of a document is performed).
Regarding claim 4, Nobutani further discloses wherein the processor is configured to: if a person who has not stayed in the specific region for the predetermined period of time or longer performs the specific operation on the information processing apparatus, request the person who has not stayed in the specific region for the predetermined period of time or longer to perform an authentication operation (see paras 55-58, when a person is captured by recognition camera 30 but does not have a print job retained in the image processing system 10, a normal log-in process is executed); and
if the person who has stayed in the specific region for the predetermined period of time or longer performs the specific operation on the information processing apparatus, not request the person who has stayed in the specific region for the predetermined period of time or longer to perform the authentication operation (see paras 41 and 44, a person is authenticated by recognition camera 30 to use the image processing system 10, the person must wait a certain holding time before the printing of a document is performed, the print job is then printed without receiving execution instructions).
Regarding claims 7 and 10, Nobutani further discloses wherein the information processing apparatus is an image forming apparatus (see Fig. 1 and paras 28 and 41, image processing system 10 is a multifunction image forming apparatus).
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 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nobutani as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsui (US 2008/0181650).
Regarding claim 2, Nobutani does not disclose expressly wherein the authority to perform the specific operation is a first operation authority, and wherein if the person who has been granted the first operation authority is successfully authenticated in a predetermined authentication method, the person is further granted a second operation authority that includes an authority to perform an operation different from the specific operation.
Matsui discloses wherein the authority to perform the specific operation is a first operation authority, and wherein if the person who has been granted the first operation authority is successfully authenticated in a predetermined authentication method, the person is further granted a second operation authority that includes an authority to perform an operation different from the specific operation (see Fig. 3 and paras 27, 35, 38, 40, 55, and 79, management table 341 includes permission information indicating functions of the MFP 10 that the users are permitted to use, an employee number ID and password provide authentication).
Regarding claim 5, Nobutani does not disclose expressly wherein if the person having the authority to perform the specific operation on the information processing apparatus has performed a predetermined operation on the information processing apparatus or has took a predetermined action, at least part of the authority to perform the specific operation on the information processing apparatus is restricted.
Matsui discloses wherein if the person having the authority to perform the specific operation on the information processing apparatus has performed a predetermined operation on the information processing apparatus or has took a predetermined action, at least part of the authority to perform the specific operation on the information processing apparatus is restricted (see Fig. 3 and paras 27, 35, 38, 40, 55, and 79, management table 341 includes permission information indicating functions of the MFP 10 that the users are permitted to use or are restricted from using).
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 permission to use other functions of the image forming apparatus after authentication, as described by Matsui, with the system of Nobutani.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide one authentication method to allow a user to utilize the functions of an image forming apparatus thereby creating a more user-friendly experience and save time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Matsui with Nobutani to obtain the invention as specified in claims 2 and 5.
Regarding claim 3, Nobutani further discloses wherein the processor is configured to grant the person having the first operation authority the second operation authority if the person having the first operation authority is successfully authenticated in a second authentication method different from the first authentication method to enter the specific region (see para 58, when a person is captured by recognition camera 30 but does not have a print job retained in the image processing system 10, a normal log-in process is executed).
Regarding claim 6, Matsui further discloses (see wherein if the person having the authority to perform the specific operation on the information processing apparatus has performed the predetermined operation on the information processing apparatus or has took the predetermined action, the authority to perform the specific operation on the information processing apparatus is revoked (see Fig. 3 and paras 27, 35, 38, 40, 55, and 79, management table 341 includes permission information indicating functions of the MFP 10 that the users are permitted to use or are restricted from using).
Regarding claims 8, 9, 11, and 12, Nobutani further discloses wherein the information processing apparatus is an image forming apparatus (see Fig. 1 and paras 28 and 41, image processing system 10 is a multifunction image forming apparatus).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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