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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-9 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.
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(s) 1, 3-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 2021/0211553) in view of Matsuba (US 2007/0195357) further in view of Akimoto (US 2011/0267649).
Regarding Claim 1, Kobayashi teaches a data file providing method (Paragraph 18) comprising:
an image input apparatus, uploading a data file generated by scanning process to a file relay apparatus on a network (Paragraph 26, wherein the MFP uploads the image data to the server);
the file relay apparatus, storing the uploaded data file in a temporary storage location (Paragraphs 83 and 110, wherein the data is stored in the server and deleted upon transmitting to the terminal, which makes it temporary);
by the image input apparatus, displaying information indicating a uniform resource locator (URL) of the temporary storage location (Paragraph 119, wherein the URL is displayed on the image forming apparatus); and
the file relay apparatus, transmitting the data file stored in the temporary storage location in response to a web access based on the URL (Paragraphs 120-125, wherein the URL is scanned from the terminal to obtain the image data to the terminal).
Kobayashi does not teach displaying, at the image input apparatus, a screen for prompting a user to select whether to permit transmission of the data file after uploading the data file;
receiving, at the image input apparatus, an operation for permitting transmission of the data file; and
wherein the transmitting includes enabling the transmission of the data file stored in the temporary storage location when receiving the operation for permitting.
Matsuba does teach receiving, at the image input apparatus, an operation for permitting transmission of the data file after uploading the data file (Paragraphs 68 and 69, wherein the user is authorized and a request to transmit the file occurs from the MFP); and
wherein the transmitting includes enabling the transmission of the data file stored in the temporary storage location when receiving the operation for permitting (Paragraphs 68-70, wherein the file is transmitted form the server when the request is received from the MFP. The file would be previously stored on the server, paragraphs 34 and 36).
Kobayashi and Matsuba are combinable because they both deal with utilizing servers to store image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kobayashi with the teachings of Matsuba for the purpose of reducing the burden on the file server (Matsuba: Paragraph 10).
Kobayashi in view of Matsuba displaying, at the image input apparatus, a screen for prompting a user to select whether to permit transmission of the data file after uploading the data file.
Akimoto displaying, at the image input apparatus, a screen for prompting a user to select whether to permit transmission of the data file (Paragraphs 54-58, wherein a user can designate if the file can be transmitted and to whom).
Matsuba contains a “base” process of receiving, at the image input apparatus, an operation for permitting transmission of the data file after uploading the data file which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” in that the operation for permitting transmission is received from a user through a user interface after uploading the data file.
Akimoto contains a known technique of displaying, at the image input apparatus, a screen for prompting a user to select whether to permit transmission of the data file that is applicable to the “base” process.
Akimoto’s known technique would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the “base” process of Matsuba and the results would have been predictable and resulted in providing a user interface to select enabling of transmission of the image file after it has been uploaded as the only two choices are displaying the selection screen before or after uploading of the file. Since Matsuba already discloses that the desired effect it to perform the permission determination after the file has been uploaded, then the combination would yield the display, and selection, would be performed after the file has been uploaded. This results in an improved process.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application.
Regarding Claim 3, Kobayashi further teaches by the file relay apparatus, deleting the data file from the temporary storage location after completing transmission of the data file (Paragraph 110, wherein the file is deleted after it is transmitted).
Regarding Claim 4, Kobayashi further teaches by the file relay apparatus, deleting the data file stored in the temporary storage location when a certain period of time elapses from a time when the data file is uploaded or a time when the information indicating the URL becomes displayable at the image input apparatus (Paragraph 107, wherein after a period of time the file can be deleted).
Regarding Claim 5, Kobayashi further teaches wherein the displaying includes displaying a two-dimensional code indicating the URL of the temporary storage location (Paragraph 132, wherein the URL is displayed as a QR code).
Regarding Claim 6, Kobayashi teaches an image input apparatus (Paragraph 18) comprising:
a display (Element 110); and
circuitry configured to:
access a server on a network in response to an operation for starting scanning operation (Paragraph 57, wherein upon scanning the file is uploaded);
transmit a data file generated by scanning process to the server (Paragraph 57, wherein upon scanning the file is uploaded); and
display information indicating a URL received from the server on the display (Paragraph 119, wherein the URL is displayed on the image forming apparatus).
Kobayashi does not teach display, on the display, a screen for prompting a user to select whether to permit transmission of the data file after transmitting the data file;
receive an operation for permitting transmission of the data file.
Matsuba does teach receive an operation for permitting transmission of the data file after transmitting the data file (Paragraphs 68-70, wherein the file is transmitted form the server when the request is received from the MFP. The file would be previously stored on the server, paragraphs 34 and 36).
Kobayashi and Matsuba are combinable because they both deal with utilizing servers to store image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kobayashi with the teachings of Matsuba for the purpose of reducing the burden on the file server (Matsuba: Paragraph 10).
Kobayashi in view of Matsuba display, on the display, a screen for prompting a user to select whether to permit transmission of the data file after transmitting the data file.
Akimoto displaying, at the image input apparatus, a screen for prompting a user to select whether to permit transmission of the data file (Paragraphs 54-58, wherein a user can designate if the file can be transmitted and to whom).
Matsuba contains a “base” process of receiving, at the image input apparatus, an operation for permitting transmission of the data file after uploading the data file which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” in that the operation for permitting transmission is received from a user through a user interface after uploading the data file.
Akimoto contains a known technique of displaying, at the image input apparatus, a screen for prompting a user to select whether to permit transmission of the data file that is applicable to the “base” process.
Akimoto’s known technique would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the “base” process of Matsuba and the results would have been predictable and resulted in providing a user interface to select enabling of transmission of the image file after it has been uploaded as the only two choices are displaying the selection screen before or after uploading of the file. Since Matsuba already discloses that the desired effect it to perform the permission determination after the file has been uploaded, then the combination would yield the display, and selection, would be performed after the file has been uploaded. This results in an improved process.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 10, Akimoto further teaches wherein the screen comprises a selection screen for receiving a selection of whether to permit transmission of the data file (Paragraphs 54-58 and Fig. 5, wherein there is a screen to make a selection to designate transmission permissions), and
the operation for permitting transmission of the data file is received on the selection screen (Paragraphs 54-58, wherein a user can designate if the file can be transmitted and to whom).
Matsuba contains a “base” process of receiving, at the image input apparatus, an operation for permitting transmission of the data file after uploading the data file which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” in that the operation for permitting transmission is received from a user through a user interface after uploading the data file.
Akimoto contains a known technique of displaying, at the image input apparatus, a screen for prompting a user to select whether to permit transmission of the data file that is applicable to the “base” process.
Akimoto’s known technique would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the “base” process of Matsuba and the results would have been predictable and resulted in providing a user interface to select enabling of transmission of the image file after it has been uploaded as the only two choices are displaying the selection screen before or after uploading of the file. Since Matsuba already discloses that the desired effect it to perform the permission determination after the file has been uploaded, then the combination would yield the display, and selection, would be performed after the file has been uploaded. This results in an improved process.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 2021/0211553) in view of Matsuba (US 2007/0195357) further in view of Akimoto (US 2011/0267649) further in view of Kuno (US 2017/0302807).
Regarding Claim 7, Kobayashi further teaches wherein, in response to a start of the scanning operation, the circuitry successively transmits data obtained by scanning to the server (Paragraph 57, wherein upon scanning the file is uploaded).
Kobayashi in view of Matsuba further in view of Akimoto does not teach wherein the circuitry is further configured to request the server to delete the transmitted data when an error occurs during the scanning operation.
Kuno does teach wherein the circuitry is further configured to request the server to delete the transmitted data when an error occurs during the scanning operation (Paragraph 59, wherein the image data is deleted when an error occurs).
Kobayashi and Kuno are combinable because they both deal with scanning to a server.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kobayashi in view of Matsuba further in view of Akimoto with the teachings of Kuno for the purpose of preventing jobs from piling up in the server (Kuno: Paragraph 59).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 2021/0211553) in view of Matsuba (US 2007/0195357) further in view of Akimoto (US 2011/0267649) further in view of Hoshino (US 2022/0070329).
Regarding Claim 8, Kobayashi in view of Matsuba further in view of Akimoto does not teach wherein the circuitry accesses the server based on access destination information registered in advance before the scanner image input apparatus is shipped from a factory.
Hoshino teaches wherein the circuitry accesses the server based on access destination information registered in advance before the scanner image input apparatus is shipped from a factory (Paragraph 43, wherein the server and the MFP are associated with each other by the factory).
Kobayashi and Hoshino are combinable because they both deal with a MFP communicating with a server.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kobayashi in view of Matsuba further in view of Akimoto with the teachings of Hoshino for the purpose of ensuring proper access to the devices and data (Hoshino: Paragraph 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS PACHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-3433. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4.
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, George Eng can be reached at 571-272-7495. 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.
/NICHOLAS PACHOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699