DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nussbaum et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2011/0040964).
Regarding claim 1, Nussbaum et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2011/0040964) discloses:
An information processing system comprising: one or more processors configured to:
accept that a user registers print information serving as a print target (paragraphs [0059]-[0061], the user registers a secure data object with permissions including print permissions), an information processing terminal serving as a transfer destination of the print information (paragraphs [0047], [0059]-[0061], the data is delivered to a recipient user), and region information indicating an authorized region that permits the print information to be transmitted to the information processing terminal (paragraph [0068], the rules can include a geographical location of a computer allowed to access the data); and
in transferring the registered print information to the registered information processing terminal, transfer the print information to the registered information processing terminal only if the registered information processing terminal is present within the authorized region indicated by the registered region information (paragraphs [0060]-[0069], the rules regarding geographical location of the computer allowed to access the data object permit/deny the recipient’s access)
Regarding claim 8, Nussbaum et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to receive the registration of the authorized region on a per user basis (paragraphs [paragraphs [0060]-[0068], each user can register specific objects to have permissions, including geographical location)
Regarding claim 10, Nussbaum et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to receive the registration of the authorized region on a per group basis with each group including a plurality of users (paragraphs [0060], [0066], both the group of persons allowed to access the data object and the allowed region is registered)
Regarding claim 12, Nussbaum et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the authorized region is a region defined in three-dimensional directions (paragraph [0069], the region is a geographical location in the real world (3D))
Regarding claim 14, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. The computer readable medium is explicitly taught as evidenced by claims 25 and 26 of Nussbaum.
Regarding claim 15, the structural elements of system claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 15. Thus, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nussbaum et al. in view of Yang et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,805,956).
Regarding claim 2, Nussbaum et al. discloses the system according to the parent claim (claim 1).
Nussbaum et al. does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to delete the print information if the information processing terminal has moved out of the authorized region.
Yang et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 8,805,956) discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to delete the print information if the information processing terminal has moved out of the authorized region (Abstract, column 6, lines 34-41, column 7, lines 25-41, the data is deleted when it is moved outside the secure location)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Yang with the system of Nussbaum such that the system would have been configured to delete the print information if the information processing terminal has moved out of the authorized region as described in Yang. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of implementing “a data loss prevention technique…that automatically deletes sensitive information” (column 2, lines 24-27 of the Yang et al. reference).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nussbaum et al. and Yang et al. discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 2).
Yang et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to transfer again the print information to the information processing terminal if the information processing terminal moves into the authorized region after going out of the authorized region (column 4, lines 45-54, the user can download the data again if they are once again in the authorized region)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Yang with the system of Nussbaum such that the system would have been configured to d transfer again the print information to the information processing terminal if the information processing terminal moves into the authorized region after going out of the authorized region as described in Yang. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of implementing “a data loss prevention technique…that automatically deletes sensitive information” (column 2, lines 24-27 of the Yang et al. reference).
Regarding claim 6, Nussbaum et al. discloses the system according to the parent claim (claim 1).
Nussbaum et al. does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to perform restriction of the authorized region on the information processing terminal only if the print information is information indicating confidential information.
Yang et al. discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to perform restriction of the authorized region on the information processing terminal only if the print information is information indicating confidential information (column 3, lines 27, column 4, lines 45-54, the secure data is the data that is subject to the data policy)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Yang with the system of Nussbaum such that the system would have been configured to perform restriction of the authorized region on the information processing terminal only if the print information is information indicating confidential information as described in Yang. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of implementing “a data loss prevention technique…that automatically deletes sensitive information” (column 2, lines 24-27 of the Yang et al. reference).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Nussbaum et al. and Yang et al. discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 2).
Nussbaum et al. does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to perform restriction of the authorized region on the information processing terminal only if the print information is information indicating confidential information.
Yang et al. discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to perform restriction of the authorized region on the information processing terminal only if the print information is information indicating confidential information (column 3, lines 27, column 4, lines 45-54, the secure data is the data that is subject to the data policy)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Yang with the system of Nussbaum such that the system would have been configured to perform restriction of the authorized region on the information processing terminal only if the print information is information indicating confidential information as described in Yang. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of implementing “a data loss prevention technique…that automatically deletes sensitive information” (column 2, lines 24-27 of the Yang et al. reference).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Nussbaum et al. and Yang et al. discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 2).
Nussbaum et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to receive the registration of the authorized region on a per user basis (paragraphs [paragraphs [0060]-[0068], each user can register specific objects to have permissions, including geographical location)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Nussbaum et al. and Yang et al. discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 9).
Nussbaum et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to receive the registration of the authorized region on a per group basis with each group including a plurality of users (paragraphs [0060], [0066], both the group of persons allowed to access the data object and the allowed region is registered)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Nussbaum et al. and Yang et al. discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 2).
Nussbaum et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the authorized region is a region defined in three-dimensional directions (paragraph [0069], the region is a geographical location in the real world (3D))
Claim(s) 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nussbaum et al. in view of Yang et al. in further view of Iwasaki (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0021781).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nussbaum et al. and Yang et al. discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 2).
The combination of Nussbaum et al. and Yang et al. does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to notify the user of the deletion of the print information if the print information has been deleted.
Iwasaki et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0021781) discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to notify the user of the deletion of the print information if the print information has been deleted (paragraph [0072], the user is notified about deletion of data)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Iwasaki et al. with the combination of Nussbaum and Yang such that the system would have been configured to notify the user of the deletion of the print information if the print information has been deleted as described in Iwasaki et al. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “enabling a user to comprehend the status of a print request” (paragraph [0007] of the Iwasaki reference).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nussbaum et al., Yang et al., and Iwasaki et al. disclsoes the system of the parent claim (claim 3).
Yang et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to transfer again the print information to the information processing terminal if the information processing terminal moves into the authorized region after going out of the authorized region (column 4, lines 45-54, the user can download the data again if they are once again in the authorized region)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Yang with the system of Nussbaum such that the system would have been configured to d transfer again the print information to the information processing terminal if the information processing terminal moves into the authorized region after going out of the authorized region as described in Yang. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of implementing “a data loss prevention technique…that automatically deletes sensitive information” (column 2, lines 24-27 of the Yang et al. reference).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30-5 PM.
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, 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.
/JOHN R WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights