DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The paragraph numbering is unclear because there are several instances of multiple paragraphs following a single paragraph number (for example, see paragraphs 0005 and 0008).
Appropriate correction is required. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any other errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a system in which processors are configured to identify a type of permission granted to a user and if contents of an operation fall within the scope of the permission, then the operation is accepted as enabled. The steps of identifying the permission and accepting the operation are claimed at a high level and only require mental processes. Identifying the permission could be performed by inspection, and accepting the operation does not require anything more than a mental acknowledgement. Mental processes and mathematical concepts are two of the groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Abstract ideas are judicial exceptions as per MPEP § 2106.04(I). See also Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank, International, et al, 573 U.S. 208, 110USPQ2d 1976 (2014).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite a clear use or further action with respect to the result of the acceptance or enabling of the operation. The enabled operation is not positively recited as being actually performed. There is nothing that would result in a particular transformation, as per MPEP § 2106.05(c), nor does the claim require the use of the abstract ideas in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture, as per MPEP § 2106.05(b). The recitation that processors are configured to perform the functions constitutes nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The terminal and image processing apparatus are not claimed as elements of the system, and therefore at most provide a general link to a particular technological environment as per MPEP § 2106.05(h). There are no additional elements that apply or use the abstract ideas in a meaningful way beyond merely linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not directed to a practical application of the abstract ideas.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for similar reasons as detailed above with respect to the question of a practical application of the judicial exceptions. Therefore, the claim as a whole, whether the steps are considered individually or as an ordered combination, is not directed to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Dependent Claims 2-17 only recite further details of various permissions relating to different types of users, which only provides additional detail of the abstract mental processes, or additional insignificant post-solution activity such as notifications or warnings which do not clearly provide a practical application of the abstract mental processes, as per MPEP § 2163.05(g). These are abstract for the same reasons as the independent claim and do not add significantly more to the abstract ideas recited in the independent claim.
Claims 18 is directed to a method corresponding to the functionality of the system of Claim 1, and incorporate similar abstract ideas of identifying a permission and accepting an operation, which fall into the grouping of mental processes as detailed above. Therefore, the method claim is also not directed to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Similarly, Claim 19 is directed to a software implementation of the method of Claim 18, and incorporates similar abstract ideas falling into the grouping of mental processes. The recitation of the computer-readable medium constitutes nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer, as per MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the software claim is also not directed to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Based upon consideration of all the relevant factors with respect to the claims as an ordered combination and as a whole, Claims 1-19 are determined to be directed to abstract ideas without a practical application and without significantly more, as detailed above. Therefore, based on the above analysis, the claimed inventions are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a terminal” and “an image processing apparatus” in lines 3-4. It is not clear whether these are intended to be elements of the claimed system. The claim further recites “contents of a remote operation by the terminal for the image processing apparatus” in lines 5-6. It is not clear what the prepositional phrase “for the image processing apparatus” is intended to modify; that is, it is not clear what is for the image processing apparatus. For purposes of interpreting the prior art, it has been assumed that the operation is to be performed on the image processing apparatus or similar. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 4 recites “a permission” in line 2. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the same permission as in Claim 1. Claim 4 further recites “terminals” in line 4; it is not clear whether these are elements of the claimed system.
Claim 6 recites “the first terminal” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 7 recites “the parent user” in line 5. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the new parent user or the initial parent user.
Claim 8 recites “the parent user” in line 4. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the new parent user or the initial parent user.
Claim 9 recites “the terminal of the non-parent user” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 11 recites “the permission set for each attribute” in line 3. There is not clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 13 recites “the remote operation from the terminal of the parent user will be rejected” in lines 2-3. The timing of when the operation is rejected is not clear relative to the other claimed functions.
Claim 15 recites “perform management” in line 4. It is not clear what is being managed.
Claim 16 recites “perform management” in line 2. It is not clear what is being managed.
Claim 17 recites “a higher priority” in line 4. It is not clear what this priority is higher than or whose priority this is higher than.
Claim 18 recites “contents of a remote operation by the terminal for the image processing apparatus” in lines 4-5. It is not clear what the prepositional phrase “for the image processing apparatus” is intended to modify; that is, it is not clear what is for the image processing apparatus. For purposes of interpreting the prior art, it has been assumed that the operation is to be performed on the image processing apparatus or similar. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 19 recites “a terminal” and “an image processing apparatus” in lines 3-4. It is not clear whether one or both of these elements corresponds to the claimed computer in line 1 or whether the medium is an element of either the terminal or image processing apparatus. The claim further recites “contents of a remote operation by the terminal for the image processing apparatus” in lines 5-6. It is not clear what the prepositional phrase “for the image processing apparatus” is intended to modify; that is, it is not clear what is for the image processing apparatus. For purposes of interpreting the prior art, it has been assumed that the operation is to be performed on the image processing apparatus or similar. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 recites “in a case where a user to whom the status of the parent user is to be transferred is not specified”. However, Claim 7, from which Claim 8 depends, recites that “a user to who a status of the parent user is to be transferred is specified”. Therefore, Claim 8 does not clearly include all of the limitations of Claim 7 upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Urakawa, US Patent Application Publication 2022/0124215.
In reference to Claim 1, Urakawa discloses an information processing system comprising: one or more processors configured to: when a terminal of a user is remotely connected to an image processing apparatus, identify a type of a permission granted in advance to the user (see paragraph 0046 and Figure 2, step S23, determining permission); and in a case where contents of a remote operation by the terminal for the image processing apparatus fall within a scope of the permission that the user has, accept the remote operation as an enabled operation (paragraph 0046, and Figure 2, steps S24 and S26; see also paragraph 0051 and Figure 3, steps S34 and S35, operation enabled).
In reference to Claim 2, Urakawa further discloses that the one or more processors are configured to manage contents of a remote operation for the image processing apparatus set in advance for individual types of permissions (see paragraph 0046, permissions for remote operation set in advance).
In reference to Claim 3, Urakawa further discloses that the one or more processors are configured to manage presence or absence of rejection set in advance for contents of individual remote operations for the image processing apparatus (see paragraph 0046 and steps S23-S26).
In reference to Claim 4, Urakawa further discloses that the one or more processors are configured to grant a permission to a non-parent user in accordance with an instruction from a parent user who satisfies a predetermined condition among a plurality of users of terminals that are remotely connected to the image processing apparatus (see paragraphs 0035-0039, Figures 5 and 2, steps S17-S19, permission not granted to user not currently using display of image processing apparatus; note that the present specification only defines a parent user as a user who satisfies a predetermined condition as per paragraph 0013).
In reference to Claim 5, Urakawa further discloses that the one or more processors are configured to further grant a permission to a user who is specified individually by the parent user, in accordance with the instruction from the parent user (see paragraphs 0035-0039 as noted above; and paragraph 0049 and Figure 10, permissions can be controlled by other users).
In reference to Claim 6, Urakawa further discloses that the one or more processors are configured to set a user of the first terminal that remotely connects to the image processing apparatus as the parent user and grant the permission to the non-parent user in accordance with the instruction from the parent user (see paragraphs 0035-0039 for determining whether permission is to be granted; see also paragraphs 0041-0043 describing the authentication process, and paragraph 0049 and Figure 10, permissions can be controlled by other users).
In reference to Claim 7, Urakawa further discloses that the one or more processors are configured to, in a case where a user to whom a status of the parent user is to be transferred is specified by the parent user before remote connection with the terminal of the parent user is terminated, set, as a new parent user after termination of the remote connection with the terminal of the parent user, the user who is specified as the user to whom the status of the parent user is to be transferred (see paragraph 0049 and Figure 10, permissions can be controlled or granted by other users).
In reference to Claim 8, Urakawa further discloses that the one or more processors are configured to, in a case where a user to whom the status of the parent user is to be transferred is not specified, set, as a new parent user, a user of the first terminal that remotely connects to the image processing apparatus after the terminal of the parent user with whom remote connection has been terminated (see paragraph 0049 and Figure 10, permissions can be controlled by other users).
In reference to Claim 9, Urakawa further discloses that the one or more processors are configured to: notify the parent user of information about the non-parent user; and receive, as the instruction from the parent user, an instruction for granting the permission to the non-parent user and an instruction for maintaining the remote connection with the terminal of the non-parent user (see paragraph 0049 and Figure 10, permissions can be controlled by other users, notifying to contact other user).
In reference to Claim 10, Urakawa further discloses that the one or more processors are configured to notify the parent user of, as the information about the non-parent user, information about a non-parent user who is granted the permission and information about a non-parent user who is not granted the permission (see paragraph 0049 and Figure 10, permissions can be controlled by other users, notify about users granted or not granted permission).
In reference to Claim 11, Urakawa further discloses that the one or more processors are configured to grant the permission to the non-parent user in accordance with an instruction for granting the non-parent user the permission set for each attribute of the non-parent user (see paragraph 0049 and Figure 10, permissions can be controlled by other users).
In reference to Claim 12, Urakawa further discloses that the attribute includes one or more of a department to which the non-parent user belongs, a job title of the non-parent user, and a type of the non-parent user Figure 10, administrator, for example).
In reference to Claim 13, Urakawa further discloses that the one or more processors are configured to, in a case where the remote operation from the terminal of the parent user will be rejected due to granting of the permission to the non-parent user in accordance with the instruction from the parent user, notify the parent user of a warning indicating that the remote operation from the terminal of the parent user will be rejected (see Figure 6, notifying remote operation cannot be completed).
In reference to Claim 14, Urakawa further discloses that the one or more processors are configured to notify the parent user of, as the warning, any one of a notification message for notifying that the remote operation from the terminal of the parent user will be rejected and a confirmation message for confirming whether or not rejection of the remote operation is to be allowed (see Figures 6 and 10, notifying whether operation is allowed).
In reference to Claim 15, Urakawa further discloses that the one or more processors are configured to manage, based on warning level, whether the notification message or the confirmation message is to be provided as the warning for the parent user or nothing is to be provided, and perform management by associating the warning level with contents of each remote operation (see Figure 11 and paragraphs 0054-0056, managing levels and permissions for different operations).
In reference to Claim 16, Urakawa further discloses that the one or more processors are configured to perform management by associating the warning level with each combination of contents of a plurality of remote operations (see Figure 11 and paragraphs 0054-0056, managing levels and permissions for different operations).
In reference to Claim 17, Urakawa further discloses that the one or more processors are configured to compare a permission granted to the non-parent user in accordance with the instruction from the parent user with a permission that the parent user has, and reset a user who has a permission with a higher priority as a new parent user (see Figures 8-10 and paragraphs 0046-0049).
Claim 18 is directed to a method corresponding to the functionality of the system of Claim 1, and is rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 19 is directed to a software implementation of the method of Claim 18, and is rejected by a similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights