Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/597,978

IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 07, 2024
Examiner
CHEN, HUO LONG
Art Unit
2682
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Ricoh Company Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 53% of resolved cases
53%
Career Allow Rate
314 granted / 590 resolved
-8.8% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+30.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
627
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.3%
-28.7% vs TC avg
§103
64.3%
+24.3% vs TC avg
§102
12.5%
-27.5% vs TC avg
§112
8.1%
-31.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 590 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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 1, 5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano’125 (US 2016/0150125). With respect to claim 1, Yano’125 teaches an image forming apparatus (Fig.1, item 101), comprising circuitry configured to: perform an authentication process in response to a request from a first information terminal of a first administrator to log in to the image forming apparatus (Fig.7, step S701 and S702); receive designation of a device management operation from the first administrator through the first information terminal when the first administrator logs in based on the authentication process (Fig.7, step S705); transmit a request to log in to the image forming apparatus, to second information terminals of one or more second administrators different from the first administrator, in response to the designation of the device management operation (Fig.16, step S507); execute a process corresponding to the device management operation when at least one of the at least one second administrator permits the execution of the device management operation and no one of the at least one second administrator rejects the execution of the device management operation (Fig.16, SS1603 and S1604). Yano’125 does not teach receive the device management operation from the first administrator through the first information terminal when at least one second administrator logs in; transmit a request to permit execution of the device management operation to the second information terminal of the at least one second administrator who has logged in to the image forming apparatus, in response to the device management operation. As shown in Fig.16 in Yano’125, the image forming apparatus transmits the approval request to the administrator PC for approval in step S507 after the said image forming apparatus has received the accessing application page request from the client pc in step S501 and then the image forming apparatus transmits the approval to the client PC after the administrator has approved the approval request via the administrator PC (paragraphs 83, 84 and 88), therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize to have the administrator to login to the image forming apparatus via the administrator PC to approve the approval request from the client PC before the image forming apparatus transmitting the report approval request to the administrator PC according the approval request provided by the client PC (receive the device management operation from the first administrator through the first information terminal when at least one second administrator logs in; transmit a request to permit execution of the device management operation to the second information terminal of the at least one second administrator who has logged in to the image forming apparatus, in response to the device management operation.) because this will allow the administrator to receive and review the approval request more effectively. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yano’125 to recognize to have the administrator to login to the image forming apparatus via the administrator PC to approve the approval request from the client PC before the image forming apparatus transmitting the report approval request to the administrator PC according the approval request provided by the client PC (receive the device management operation from the first administrator through the first information terminal when at least one second administrator logs in; transmit a request to permit execution of the device management operation to the second information terminal of the at least one second administrator who has logged in to the image forming apparatus, in response to the device management operation.) because this will allow the administrator to receive and review the approval request more effectively. With respect to claim 5, which further limits claim 1, Yano’125 does not teach wherein the circuitry is configured to change a time from when the circuitry transmits the request to permit the execution of the device management operation to when the at least one second administrator responds to the request to permit through the second information terminal. As shown in Fig.16 in Yano’125, the image forming apparatus transmits the approval request to the administrator PC for approval in step S507 after the said image forming apparatus has received the accessing application page request from the client pc in step S501 and then the image forming apparatus transmits the approval to the client PC after the administrator has approved the approval request via the administrator PC (paragraphs 83, 84 and 88), therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to postpone the time letting the client pc (lower-level administrator) to use the MFP when the client pc (lower-level administrator) requests to login to the MFP and the administrator (higher-level administrator) is working on (responds to) the request to permit through the administrator PC because this will allow the MFP to provide its functions more effectively. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yano’125 to postpone the time letting the client pc (lower-level administrator) to use the MFP when the client pc (lower-level administrator) requests to login to the MFP and the administrator (higher-level administrator) is working on (responds to) the request to permit through the administrator PC because this will allow the MFP to provide its functions more effectively With respect to claim 8, it is a method claim and it is being analyzed and rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1. With respect to claim 9, Yano’125 teaches an information processing system (Fig.1) comprising: an image forming apparatus (Fig.1, item 101); a first information terminal (Fig.1, item 102) used by a first administrator [regarding to the user of the client pc (Fig.1, item 102)]; and second information terminals (Fig.1, item 102) used by one or more second administrators [regarding to the user of the administrator PC (Fig.1, item 103)] different from the first administrator, the image forming apparatus (Fig.1, item 101) including circuitry configured to: perform an authentication process in response to a request from the first information terminal of the first administrator to log in to the image forming apparatus (Fig.7, step S701 and S702); receive designation of a device management operation from the first administrator through the first information terminal when the first administrator logs in based on the authentication process (Fig.7, step S705); transmit a request to log in to the image forming apparatus, to the second information terminals of the one or more second administrators, in response to the designation of the device management operation (Fig.16, step S507); execute a process corresponding to the device management operation when at least one of the at least one second administrator permits the execution of the device management operation and no one of the at least one second administrator rejects the execution of the device management operation (Fig.16, SS1603 and S1604). Yano’125 does not teach receive the device management operation from the first administrator through the first information terminal when at least one second administrator logs in; transmit a request to permit execution of the device management operation to the second information terminal of the at least one second administrator who has logged in to the image forming apparatus, in response to the device management operation. As shown in Fig.16 in Yano’125, the image forming apparatus transmits the approval request to the administrator PC for approval in step S507 after the said image forming apparatus has received the accessing application page request from the client pc in step S501 and then the image forming apparatus transmits the approval to the client PC after the administrator has approved the approval request via the administrator PC (paragraphs 83, 84 and 88), therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize to recognize to have the administrator to login to the image forming apparatus via the administrator PC to approve the approval request from the client PC before the image forming apparatus transmitting the report approval request to the administrator PC according the approval request provided by the client PC (receive the device management operation from the first administrator through the first information terminal when at least one second administrator logs in; transmit a request to permit execution of the device management operation to the second information terminal of the at least one second administrator who has logged in to the image forming apparatus, in response to the device management operation.) because this will allow the administrator to receive and review the approval request more effectively. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yano’125 to recognize to have the administrator to login to the image forming apparatus via the administrator PC to approve the approval request from the client PC before the image forming apparatus transmitting the report approval request to the administrator PC according the approval request provided by the client PC (receive the device management operation from the first administrator through the first information terminal when at least one second administrator logs in; transmit a request to permit execution of the device management operation to the second information terminal of the at least one second administrator who has logged in to the image forming apparatus, in response to the device management operation.) because this will allow the administrator to receive and review the approval request more effectively. Claims 2, 3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano’125 (US 2016/0150125) and further in view of Shozaki’947 (US 2006/0099947). With respect to claim 2, which further limits claim 1, Yano’125 does not teach wherein the circuitry is configured to receive the device management operation in a restricted mode when no one of the one or more second administrators logs in to the image forming apparatus in response to the request to log in. Shozaki’947 teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to receive the device management operation in a restricted mode when no one of the one or more second administrators logs in to the image forming apparatus in response to the request to log in [the restricted functions of the MFP for a particular user is considered being restricted until the administrator logins to the MFP and then to approve the said restricted functions (Fig.3)]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yano’125 according to the teaching of Shozaki’947 to restrict functions of the MFP for a particular user until the administrator logins to the MFP and then to approve the said restrict because this will allow the functions of the MFP to be controlled more effectively. With respect to claim 3, which further limits claim 2, Yano’125 does not teach wherein the restricted mode includes at least one of a mode in which only browsing is allowed or a mode in which the first administrator is logged out after an elapse of a predetermined time. Shozaki’947 teaches wherein the restricted mode includes at least one of a mode in which only browsing is allowed or a mode in which the first administrator is logged out after an elapse of a predetermined time [the restricted functions of the MFP for a particular user is considered being restricted until the administrator logins to the MFP and then to approve the said restricted functions (Fig.3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that a particular user is only allow to browsing the restricted functions of the MFP without allowing to using them until the administrator logins to the MFP and then to approve the said restricted functions]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yano’125 according to the teaching of Shozaki’947 to restrict functions of the MFP for a particular user until the administrator logins to the MFP and then to approve the said restrict because this will allow the functions of the MFP to be controlled more effectively. With respect to claim 6, which further limits claim 1, Yano’125 does not teach wherein the circuitry is configured to receive the device management operation or cancellation of the device management operation from the first administrator through the first information terminal when the at least one second administrator logs in. Shozaki’947 teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to receive the device management operation or cancellation of the device management operation from the first administrator through the first information terminal when the at least one second administrator logs in [as shown in Fig.3, the administrator (one second administrator) logins to the MFP to approve the function which is being restricted to a user (a first administrator) after receiving the approval request from the said user.]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yano’125 according to the teaching of Shozaki’947 to restrict functions of the MFP for a particular user until the administrator logins to the MFP and then to approve the said restrict because this will allow the functions of the MFP to be controlled more effectively. With respect to claim 7, which further limits claim 1, Yano’125 does not teach wherein the device management operation includes: an operation to change the device management operation to another device management operation; and an operation to change the other device management operation to the device management operation. Shozaki’947 teaches wherein the device management operation includes: an operation to change the device management operation to another device management operation [as shown in Fig.3, the administrator (one second administrator) logins to the MFP to approve the function which is being restricted to a user (a first administrator) after receiving the approval request from the said user. Therefore, the administrator (one second administrator) is considered to swap the available functions for the user (a first administrator) according the request from the said user]; and an operation to change the other device management operation to the device management operation [as shown in Fig.3, the administrator (one second administrator) logins to the MFP to approve the function which is being restricted to a user (a first administrator) after receiving the approval request from the said user. Therefore, the administrator (one second administrator) is considered to swap the available functions for the user (a first administrator) according the request from the said user]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yano’125 according to the teaching of Shozaki’947 to restrict functions of the MFP for a particular user until the administrator logins to the MFP and then to approve the said restrict because this will allow the functions of the MFP to be controlled more effectively. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano’125 (US 2016/0150125) and further in view of Dandoko’413 (US 2017/0099413). With respect to claim 4, which further limits claim 1, Yano’125 does not teach wherein the circuitry is configured to change a time from when the circuitry transmits the request to log in to when the at least one second administrator performs a login operation through the second information terminal. Dandoko’413 teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to change a time from when the circuitry transmits the request to log in to when the at least one second administrator performs a login operation through the second information terminal [As shown in Fig.3. the general user and the administrator user are being assigned with different priority such that the administrator user is given higher priority over the general user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize to postpone the time letting the general user (lower-level administrator) to use the MFP when the general user requests to login to the MFP and the administrator (higher-level administrator) performs a login operation to the MFP because this will allow the MFP to provide its functions more effectively]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yano’125 according to the teaching of Dandoko’413 to postpone the time letting the general user (lower-level administrator) to use the MFP when the general user requests to login to the MFP and the administrator (higher-level administrator) performs a login operation to the MFP because this will allow the MFP to provide its functions more effectively. Contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUO LONG CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am - 5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tieu, Benny can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /HUO LONG CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 07, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603178
APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR SUPPORTING MEDICAL DECISIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597162
SYSTEM CALIBRATION USING REMOTE SENSOR DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592095
METHOD AND SYSTEM OF DETERMINING SHAPE OF A TABLE IN A DOCUMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586398
Detecting a Homoglyph in a String of Characters
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12567271
PICTURE RECOGNITION METHOD AND APPARATUS, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
53%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+30.3%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 590 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month